news GoDaddy terminates hosting of Texas anti-abortion tip website

[branding]

AUSTIN, Sept 3 (Reuters) - Website hosting service GoDaddy Inc (GDDY.N) on Friday terminated services for the owner of an anti-abortion website that allows people to report suspected abortions in Texas.

"Last night we informed prolifewhistleblower.com they have violated GoDaddy's terms of service and have 24 hours to move to a different provider," the company said in a statement.

...

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/go...g-texas-anti-abortion-tip-website-2021-09-03/

Edit: the article doesn't mention it but it looks like they moved to Epik.

 

[bmugford]

Nothing here has anything to do with freedom of speech. Anyone who thinks that is the case needs to actually read the Constitution.

For the 3rd time now -

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

If has absolutely nothing to do with private companies enforcing their TOS.

Any responsible web host would have given their site the boot. They set up a vigilante like site, to share potential sensitive information, including private medical records. Not only is this not cool, there are multiple laws they are likely violating.

The violations of freedoms occurred on the side of the people creating a website to collect sensitive personal information and private medical records anonymously, not GoDaddy for shutting it down.

Abortion aside, this nonsense is not going to stand up in court. This is the exact reason why giving standing to a party that was not involved or injured makes no sense. It goes against centuries of legal precedent.

It is such an overreach that they have done themselves no favors.

Brad

 

[Lox]

Lyft, Uber will pay legal fees for drivers sued under new Texas abortion law.

Drivers who transport women in need of an abortion to a clinic could face civil lawsuits under the new Texas law.

read more - nbc news

 

[clasione]

I don't think GoDaddy should have gotten involved in a political position. Silencing people for whatever purpose it being normalized by all of these companies which cancel services. If there a crime being committed online, the service provided should report it to the proper authorities. Not get involved one one side or another.

 

[bmugford]

I don't think GoDaddy should have gotten involved in a political position. Silencing people for whatever purpose it being normalized by all of these companies which cancel services. If there a crime being committed online, the service provided should report it to the proper authorities. Not get involved one one side or another.

This is not a political issue. This is not a violation of freedoms.

It is a blatant TOS violation that GoDaddy clearly stated.

You can't have a website that is collecting private information and medical history, anonymously for some type of use against the parties. That shit is not going to fly with any responsible web host for legal and ethical issues.

How about a website that let people anonymously report unvaccinated people. Are you cool with that? There is not much difference.

No ethical host is going to allow these type of vigilante websites dealing in private information from 3rd parties.

Brad

 

[mr-x]

One could have almost bet on that.

Show attachment 198726

But shielding extremism and imbecile ideas is good business, it seems.

Free speech is good business.

 

[bmugford]

Free speech is good business.

So is shutting down a website that is blatantly violating a person's right to privacy.

This is a website that has no legal authority, which is trying to collect private medical information anonymously from 3rd parties.

Brad

 

[Rob Monster]

If you bother to look at the site, you will see it now redirects to the site of the 46 year old organization that is championing pro-life causes:

https://texasrighttolife.com/

The prior whistleblower site is completely offline.

The media, including forum threads like this one, fanned the awareness flames.

 

[mr-x]

This is not a political issue. This is not a violation of freedoms.

It is a blatant TOS violation that GoDaddy clearly stated.

You can't have a website that is collecting private information and medical history, anonymously for some type of use against the parties. That shit is not going to fly with any responsible web host for legal and ethical issues.

How about a website that let people anonymously report unvaccinated people. Are you cool with that? There is not much difference.

No ethical host is going to allow these type of vigilante websites dealing in private information from 3rd parties.

Brad

Good point but I thought they were collecting information on people providing transportation to another state where abortion is legal.

Poorly written law, stupid website though I agree with the idea; a baby ( fetus ) with a heartbeat is a individual with human rights and should be protected.

 

[mr-x]

So is shutting down a website that is blatantly violating a person's right to privacy.

This is a website that has no legal authority, which is trying to collect private medical information anonymously from 3rd parties.

Brad

IF that's what they were doing.

 

[bmugford]

If you bother to look at the site, you will see it now redirects to the site of the 46 year old organization that is championing pro-life causes:

https://texasrighttolife.com/

The prior whistleblower site is completely offline.

The media, including forum threads like this one, fanned the awareness flames.

Quit blaming the media. It was their irresponsible actions that lead to this.

What they were trying to do is not even debatable. They were trying to gather private information from 3rd parties.

There is an easily justifiable reason why GoDaddy gave them the boot. Any responsible host would have done the same.

If the website has changed now is irrelevant to the original set of facts which lead to their website being terminated for TOS violations.

Again, no responsible host is going to allow that original website to operate for legal and ethical reasons.

Brad

 

[clasione]

This is not a political issue. This is not a violation of freedoms. It is a blatant TOS violation that GoDaddy clearly stated.
Brad

I don't know... To me it seems like they are taking a 'position' on the issue. Almost anything can be a TOS violation these day, whistleblowers are everywhere now... Everything wants you to report your neighbor for everything these days depending on how you look at it and read between the lines. TOS's are getting the most ambiguously confusing I have ever seen. What is the websites purpose to try and enforce a state law? They're taking a position. I'm sure I could find a TOS violation on this site within an hour or so of looking for one if I were motived to do so. It's non-sense.

 

[mr-x]

What they were trying to do is not even debatable. They were trying to gather private information from 3rd parties.

There is an easily justifiable reason why GoDaddy gave them the boot. Any responsible host would have done the same.

If the website has changed now is irrelevant to the original set of facts which lead to their website being terminated for TOS violations.

Brad

So making a complaint about a company, including contact information for the owner is against godaddy's TOS?

Is making a complaint about a copyright violation and including the private email, address and phone number of the accused person a violation of their TOS?

As long as no medical information was given or accepted, there is not much difference.

 

[mr-x]

I don't know if the website in question was accepting "private medical information" or not if so, it might violate HIPPA regulations.

I'm inclined to disbelieve the media until proven otherwise.

 

[bmugford]

So making a complaint about a company, including contact information for the owner is against godaddy's TOS?

Is making a complaint about a copyright violation and including the private email, address and phone number of the accused person a violation of their TOS?

As long as no medical information was given or accepted, there is not much difference.

Those are some seriously false analogies.

Texas Right to Life has no legal authority. They are certainly not authorized to collect and store 3rd party medical records, either directly or indirectly.

Even if a report was like "An Uber driver drove XXXXX to an abortion clinic on 9/4". That is a private medical record. The entire concept would not work without medical records.

What are they going to show up in court and sue based on an anonymous tip? They would clearly need evidence, which would require using private medical information as proof in any lawsuit.

There is a reason why this entire law is shit. The state also has no authority to enforce the law, they basically just turned the people into vigilantes in a civil manner.

Outside the abortion part, the law is going to be found Unconstitutional as it gives standing to unrelated, uninjured 3rd parties. This is not compatible with the legal system.

This entire vigilante concept would open up the floodgates to be abused. Is a law really a law if there is no legal mechanism for legal authorities to enforce it?

Brad

 

[carob]

I'm inclined to disbelieve the media until proven otherwise.

Anyone can make up their mind for themself by viewing the original website: https://web.archive.org/web/20210822222811/https://prolifewhistleblower.com/anonymous-form/

 

[Lox]

Here we go again ... Media - when they see "Epik" ... they go nuts )

Insider article:

 

[branding]

Outside the abortion part, the law is going to be found Unconstitutional as it gives standing to unrelated, uninjured parties. This not not compatible with the legal system

I guess that's the bigger issue which needs to be solved imo. I'm just a foreigner looking in so not 100% up to speed with US laws but I imagine we'll be reading more in the press about this Texan law. From what I've read that law seems quite insane.

 

[bmugford]

Anyone can make up their mind for themself by viewing the original website: https://web.archive.org/web/20210822222811/https://prolifewhistleblower.com/anonymous-form/

Show attachment 198810

Yep. It is obvious what they were trying to do.

Look at that form. You can even add attachments like images. To pretend like these cases would not involve private medical information stretches credulity.

No amount of revisionist history is going to change that.

The were booted from GoDaddy for a clear reason.

Brad

 

[bmugford]

I guess that's the bigger issue which needs to be solved imo. I'm just a foreigner looking in so not 100% up to speed with US laws but I imagine we'll be reading more in the press about this Texan law. From what I've read that law seems quite insane.

It is insane. They basically passed a law that is clearly Unconstitutional on the abortion part, but they didn't include any mechanism for the state to enforce it to get around that.

They then deputized citizens, in a vigilante like manner, to file civil lawsuits. It gave standing to anyone... You don't have to be involved in any way, or be injured. This is a foreign concept to the US legal system and is not going to fly.

A law is not valid if it can't be enforced by legal authorities.

Brad

 

[mr-x]

Anyone can make up their mind for themself by viewing the original website: https://web.archive.org/web/20210822222811/https://prolifewhistleblower.com/anonymous-form/

Show attachment 198810

Thanks.

 

[mr-x]

It is insane. They basically passed a law that is clearly Unconstitutional on the abortion part, but they didn't include any mechanism for the state to enforce it to get around that.

They then deputized citizens, in a vigilante like manner, to file civil lawsuits. It gave standing to anyone... You don't have to be involved in any way, or be injured. This is a foreign concept to the US legal system and is not going to fly.

A law is not valid if it can't be enforced by legal authorities.

Brad

Pretty loose interpretation. Obv to me they are looking for DR's violating the law. Still as stupid idea, better to refer people to law enforcement.

Austin being run by democrats, I doubt it would do much good.

 

[bmugford]

Pretty loose interpretation. Obv to me they are looking for DR's violating the law. Still as stupid idea, better to refer people to law enforcement.

I agree. Crimes should be referred to law enforcement.

Again, that is why this law is shit. There is no mechanism for legal authorities to enforce it.
Instead, it gives standing to unrelated 3rd parties to sue civilly.

Access to abortion, especially in cases of rape and incest is very popular. The Texas legislature knows this and instead of an outright Unconstitutional ban, decided to shadow ban it by trying to intimidate providers with frivolous lawsuits from unrelated 3rd parties.

If you really want to go down this path, this concept is so abusable when it comes to passing other "laws".

Brad

 

[bmugford]

Anyone can make up their mind for themself by viewing the original website: https://web.archive.org/web/20210822222811/https://prolifewhistleblower.com/anonymous-form/

Show attachment 198810

@Rob Monster

If Texas Right to Life was unwilling to change their website, would you still be willing to host their website with the original contact form?

Would that type of website be compatible with your TOS?

Brad

 

[branding]

Anyone can make up their mind for themself by viewing the original website: https://web.archive.org/web/20210822222811/https://prolifewhistleblower.com/anonymous-form/

Show attachment 198810

And while you're at it, donate some cash to archive.org if you can spare it . Not affiliated but appreciate the value they bring when researching domains.

 

[mr-x]

I agree. Crimes should be referred to law enforcement.

Again, that is why this law is shit. There is no mechanism for legal authorities to enforce it.
Instead, it gives standing to unrelated 3rd parties to sue civilly.

Access to abortion, especially in cases of rape and incest is very popular. The Texas legislature knows this and instead of an outright Unconstitutional ban, decided to shadow ban it by trying to intimidate providers with frivolous lawsuits from unrelated 3rd parties.

If you really want to go down this path, this concept is so abusable when it comes to passing other "laws".

Brad

Not the place to debate abortion so I end with a simple question, do your parents sins make you worth less ?