Social Network Gab.com being threatened by GoDaddy: 24 hours to transfer or suspension

[domainguy50]

backstory: Gab is a social network alternative to twitter. their selling point is free speech (all speech is welcome, including what you believe might be hate speech.) which is basically is the first amendment. no unlawful material is allowed, but virtually any speech is. recently they purchased the "gab com" domain for $220k.

this site is very controversial as a result, with mainstream media outlets claiming it is popular with nazi and anti-semite messages. the site has 800,000 users and has experienced modest growth recently so it really isnt all bad hate speech. regardless, those disgusting messages on the site by some users are also lawful no matter how distasteful they are. as a result of these media attacks, (and the recent revelation that the synagogue shooter in pittsburgh yesterday had an active gab profile) gab is being unfairly targeted by smear campaigns online reporting the site as "a hate speech site" via email to gab's service providers.

gabs host (microsoft) revoked its contract with gab a few months ago

gabs payment providers (paypal and stripe) just revoked their services

just a few minutes ago, godaddy has said they will stop working with gab:
(i cant post the image or link idk why)
"BREAKING: Godaddy is threatening to suspend our domain (which is worth six figures) if we do not transfer to a new provider by tomorrow. This is madness."

the complexity of the situation is compounded by the fact that Gab is on a payment plan to fully own the domain since they recently purchased it. the broker/escrow agent control this which makes it even more difficult for the company to transfer to a new registrar by EOD tomorrow.

I understand that Godaddy is a private business and its clauses may allow it to do this, but this seems extreme overreaction. "24 hours to transfer or else" is a very menacing way of doing business.

-if you were in charge of gab what would you do? create your own payment processor, host, and DNS? they got deplatformed quickly... i guess they could try to get an offshore Hosting company or invest in native hosting.

-what is the most "free speech" friendly DNS provider there is?

-is it fair for internet infrastructure companies to de-platform a small upstart social network because of controversial speech? or should companies like DNS and hosting should be regulated and allow any customer as long as it is lawful content being hosted.

 

[Internet.Domains]

To me the extreme right is people or groups that are spouting hate speech while also bordering on the verge of criminality. This might include direct violence, inciting violence, threatening violence, etc.

Just being stupid and uninformed is not a crime.

I will say I have found many self-labeled "Patriots" are idiots though. Actual people who believe in the Constitution just do that without the need for a label.

I can't even count how many pro-Constitution patriots were against freedom of expression when it comes to Kaepernick kneeling during the national anthem. A true Patriot should be supporting those rights. Once again though, rights a private company is not legally required to provide.

Brad

Thanks for answering. You started the answer by saying "To me" it means.....My point is that the "extreme right" means different things to everybody due to the media narrative.

Before using the description, or word, there should be a consensus on its meaning. Otherwise there will be lots of points not understood properly in the conversation.

 

[bmugford]

Thanks for answering. You started the answer by saying "To me" it means.....My point is that the "extreme right" means different things to everybody due to the media narrative.

Before using the description, or word, there should be a consensus on its meaning. Otherwise there will be lots of points not understood properly in the conversation.

There is not even a consensus on if the world is a globe today.
I doubt you are going to find a consensus on anything.

Brad

 

[Internet.Domains]

There is not even a consensus on if the world is a globe today.
I doubt you are going to find a consensus on anything.

Brad

Between us there is a consensus that there is no consensus. That we can agree on.

As always, best to you Brad!

 

[Slanted]

Has Epik, not even once in their history, suspended or banned a customer for behavior that while it might be legal was morally reprehensible or legal but against their TOS?

Yes, often.

I will discuss 1 case, which occurred within the past year. Because the topic is quite heinous, I will give the conclusion in advance of the description: We deleted the domain without refund, even though it had been the basis of an active website. We acted right away without waiting for any outside adjudicator to tell us the content was illegal. The decision was made on moral grounds. And it was enforced by citing Epik's TOS.

It is worth noting that Epik was never able to see any of the alleged content because, by the time we received the complaint, the web host (a separate company) had already taken the website down. This might be interpreted as evidence of wrongdoing, since another company already acted to terminate the site. However, that other company might have very different criteria for banning content. So that could not be a determining factor in our decision. Theoretically, without the ability to view the content or verify the offense, Epik might have kept the domain alive on the principle "innocent until proven guilty".

We did not. The domain received no protection from Epik – not even temporarily. Instead, we took the irrevocable action to delete the domain. We had nothing beyond a complaint with descriptions of website content that we could not verify were correct. Indeed, we could not inspect any website at all. But those descriptions matched the domain name itself in a very explicit way. So there was little doubt, and Epik acted based on a preponderance of evidence.

The case was reported to Epik. Abuse allegations are normally escalated by Epik customer support staff for review. During the past year or 2, I have generally been the person who reviews abuse reports. Often the final determination is Rob's. I try to convert those individual judgment calls by Rob into internal policies so that, as much as possible, we can act more quickly in the future. But there are always new scenarios, and this was one of those. So I took this case to Rob, explained the nature of the abuse, the limited evidence, and the general issue of where to draw the line – in case similar (or superficially similar) abuse were reported in the future. Rob was so appalled by the heinous nature of this specific case that he told me to delete the domain right away, even before I could finish describing the broader issues. He made the right call.

I won't cite the domain in question, since even a former customer is entitled to privacy. No matter how abhorrent the content may have been, a domain registrar is trusted with private customer details. And a registrar should not "out" someone in public merely to satisfy curiosity or protect the registrar's own reputation. Other customers need to trust us not to expose their private details, and Epik takes this seriously. Registrars do reveal registrant name and contact details all the time based on valid requests. For example, any UDRP complaint will result in privacy being lifted. ICANN requires that. And, of course, Epik complies fully with law enforcement agencies.

This case involved a website advocating for the rape of women, suggesting that females (by their very nature) want or deserve to be raped or that men should rape them. As I recall, the site was a forum or blog where multiple people were sharing this dangerous, perverse belief.

Again, Epik deleted the domain immediately. It is not clear to me, even now, whether such a site is illegal. Rob and I were not concerned about its legality. Epik's TOS gave us leeway to delete the domain. And because it was objectionable on moral grounds, Rob ordered it to be deleted.

The grey area around this topic would be the following: Other websites that do, in fact, use the word "rape" do so in the sense of consensual fantasy, whereby the women or couples participate in or share fiction regarding something that really isn't rape at all – only consensual sex or private fantasies masquerading as something else. A domain registrar could, if it isn't careful, mistake (A) a website that depicts consensual acts or private fantasies that don't endorse actual rape for (B) a website that endorses actual rape. Some registrars would ban both. But content of type (A) is not illegal and not necessarily immoral.

This is why TOS give the company the ability to act, but not the obligation to take action in every case. The circumstances need to be evaluated. Sometimes the domain usage itself is borderline. Sometimes the evidence is inconclusive. Sometimes there are extenuating circumstances. Sometimes the customer corrects an action. The TOS enable a registrar to take action – disrupting DNS records, disabling access, repossessing domains, deleting domains, closing accounts. And there are broad situations outlined in Epik's TOS (which are awaiting an update, by the way) where the customer concedes that Epik has the right to act. But the decision to enforce does depend on the circumstances.

Epik's goal is to permit as much legal speech as possible, to protect registrar rights, and to abide by due process. Epik has done far more than other registrars in this regard. But in practice, a registrar sometimes cannot wait for a legal determination from law enforcement agencies. I have not received any reports of child pornography, for example. But nobody needs to wait for a subpoena to recognize that as wrong and to shut down any site that promotes it.

I chose this example because it is so heinous. Much more commonly, Epik takes action related to other categories of abuse: phishing, spam, malware distribution, credit card theft, etc. All registrars face those problems.

Gab.com, as an open forum where any topic could be discussed, is not in the same moral category as a website entirely dedicated (even in its brand name) to the rape of women. Even if some Gab members have posted inflammatory racist comments with violent overtones, Gab is a forum (not unlike NamePros). And forums have (or should have) their own rules regarding content moderation. Gab's management may be very lenient compared to NamePros. But if they permit clear endorsements of actual violence and take no action to curb that member behavior then I imagine Gab will eventually get into trouble.

The question was:

Has Epik, not even once in their history, suspended or banned a customer for behavior that while it might be legal was morally reprehensible or legal but against their TOS?

Yes, often.

 

[bmugford]

Yes, often.

Hi Joseph,

Thanks for that information. When I asked the question I suspected that would be the answer.

Now the slippery slope -

If Epik can take action on things they personally find unacceptable based on their TOS, why the "free speech" outrage when it came to GoDaddy suspending Gab.com based on their own subjective criteria and TOS.

If anything a suspension is far less severe of an action than an outright deletion.

It just seems very hypocritical to make this a free speech issue, then at the same time use your own TOS to get rid of stuff you find unacceptable. Everyone is going to have a different view on what is acceptable or not.

Also, Rob and Epik were actively promoting the .bible extension. That extension has a "code of conduct" that is directly against free speech. Why promote an extension that is clearly not open to free speech? That also, seems hypocritical.

Brad

 

[Slanted]

If Epik can take action on things they personally find unacceptable based on their TOS, why the "free speech" outrage when it came to GoDaddy suspending Gab.com based on their own subjective criteria and TOS.

Any given company should decide individually what to tolerate. Nobody is going to force a registrar to keep a domain that they want to evict, if that registrar can show that the domain usage violates its TOS.

But if all registrars simultaneously decide they will not accept a domain like Gab.com, then that has far-reaching consequences for free speech online. Especially if the registrar is responding to public pressure, after allowing the site to exist for a long time. Public pressure should not decide whether a domain can continue to be registered or not.

Every registrar needs TOS that place limits on domain usage. Otherwise, the registrar is tying its own hands and is unable to act in any cases at all. But the TOS are not obligations for the registrar to act identically in all cases, regardless of the amount of evidence at hand, regardless of the customer's past behavior or willingness to correct misbehavior, regardless of the extremity of the infraction, regardless of the real nature of the case.

For example, a registrar might add a phrase in its TOS that gives the registrar the right to suspend or delete or confiscate any domain that "promotes rape or murder". But individual cases differ. Some websites endorse actual rape. Other websites depict rape fantasies that are actually based in consent. So the TOS give the registrar the ability to act but don't require the registrar to act identically regardless of the circumstances. Likewise a terrorist website might endorse actual murder of jews or muslims. That would get banned. But there are also Hollywood movies and video games that (to me) have an unpleasant racist edge and show (I would say glorify) the death of muslims. I could argue that they also "promote murder" in a far less egregious sense. Websites with such content would probably not get banned.

What someone finds "personally acceptable" isn't the basis of whether action is taken against a domain at Epik. Rather, the assessment is whether actual abuse is taking place or being encouraged. And whether that can be corrected at a lower level. For example, if an inflammatory post that endorses actual murder appears in an online forum, then it should be dealt with by the forum moderators. And they should be given the opportunity to deal with it before the registrar suspends their domain. Likewise, when a domain is accused of spreading malware, it makes a difference whether Epik recognizes the customer as a domain investor who merely entrusted their inventory to a bad parking provider versus someone who is deliberately running a scam to infect people's computers.

It just seems very hypocritical to make this a free speech issue, then at the same time use your own TOS to get rid of stuff you find unacceptable.

Any abuse case must be evaluated. Someone has to decide whether the behavior is acceptable or unacceptable. In the case we're discussing, the reference point is an actual crime: rape. Someone must assess whether the nature of the website is so closely connected to that crime that the domain itself should be deleted. This isn't about what someone finds personally unacceptable. It's about determining whether the abuse is real and at the heart of what the customer is doing with the domain.

Rob and Epik were pushing the .bible extension. That extension has a TOS that is directly against free speech. They only want certain types of content (aka positive) on their extension. Why promote an extension that is clearly not open to free speech? That also, seems hypocritical.

Epik's position is that a registrar should not de-platform a website merely because of public pressure or disagreement with the ideas expressed on the website. That, in a nutshell, is the free-speech position.

.BIBLE is a privately owned TLD. The owners can determine how they'd like to see it used. If they wish to restrict the usage, then that's their decision – just as it would be if the owner of Some.Blog wanted to decide what should be said on their blog or in the comments section.

Epik doesn't force its clients to sign a pledge to support unlimited free speech on their own SLDs or TLDs. Rather, Epik tries to permit domain registration itself and not to impose unnecessary limits on which domains can be registered.

You can see the distinction.

Free speech in this sense has been Epik's goal. If there are imperfections in implementing that goal, then that doesn't imply hypocrisy. These issues are still being actively discussed in the industry and by society as a whole. Epik is on the dividing edge of a controversy because online free speech and registrant rights are hotly debated issues. We all – not just Epik – have to figure this out.

 

[carob]

Gab.com, as an open forum where any topic could be discussed, is not in the same moral category as a website entirely dedicated (even in its brand name) to the rape of women. Even if some Gab members have posted inflammatory racist comments with violent overtones, Gab is a forum (not unlike NamePros). And forums have (or should have) their own rules regarding content moderation. Gab's management may be very lenient compared to NamePros. But if they permit clear endorsements of actual violence and take no action to curb that member behavior then I imagine Gab will eventually get into trouble.

As people have pointed out, a forum mostly contains UGC - user generated content - so generally the owner of the forum doesn't have the same legal responsibilities as a publisher, such as a magazine, at least initially - if content is published without first being approved by a moderator. But once objectionable content is published and reported to the site admin, or possibly hosts, then they are responsible. So if it does not comply with ToS or the law, they have to delete it or be fully responsible for it from then on.

So as you say if Gab's moderation does not take action, there will be problems. But moderators taking action presumes that the objectionable content is reported in the first place. And all kinds of reasons, some more and less credible, could delay admin response, leaving the content up for extended periods or even indefinitely, possibly with a tacit understanding. So if there repeatedly is content at Gab - several examples have been highlighted by NP members - that does not comply with Epik's ToS, the argument that that is a matter solely for Gab's moderation and ToS will become harder to sustain.

 

[JB Lions]

This case involved a website advocating for the rape of women, suggesting that females (by their very nature) want or deserve to be raped or that men should rape them. As I recall, the site was a forum or blog where multiple people were sharing this dangerous, perverse belief.

That sounds a little (more like a lot, that site was also a forum) like:

"13 year old women are sexual beings, not innocent little butterflies."

"Only incels are called pedos. Women are most fertile at 13-18 years of age."

"So rape them like never before. They want to be sex objects; treat them like it. What about the law? Think a bullet gives a f*ck about what sort of badge you carry?"

That incel crap, we had that discussion here as well - https://www.namepros.com/threads/in...nded-by-me-registry-over-hate-speech.1108366/

 

[bmugford]

But if all registrars simultaneously decide they will not accept a domain like Gab.com, then that has far-reaching consequences for free speech online. Especially if the registrar is responding to public pressure, after allowing the site to exist for a long time. Public pressure should not decide whether a domain can continue to be registered or not.

Well, public pressure does matter. That is just the reality.
Many business decisions are made solely based on that, right or wrong.

I do agree on that point bigger point though. If a registrar takes action based on their TOS that is fine, but if every registrar took the same action all of a sudden you have a domain that is allowed to be registered but no registrar is willing to allow it. ICANN should have some default protection in that case.

.BIBLE is a privately owned TLD. The owners can determine how they'd like to see it used. If they wish to restrict the usage, then that's their decision – just as it would be if the owner of Some.Blog wanted to decide what should be said on their blog or in the comments section.

No disagreement there. I have pointed out several times that private companies generally have the ability to decide who they do business with.

With that being said, if I was trying to be such a champion for "free speech" I would certainly not be actively promoting an extension with such a close minded view that is clearly anti free speech.

Brad

 

[carob]

But if all registrars simultaneously decide they will not accept a domain like Gab.com, then that has far-reaching consequences for free speech online.

To me hosting is the more important criterion - no hosting, no speech. Lose domain, get a new one - inconvenient and not nice, crippling if you lose your email addresses. But your content can just go to a new domain, subdomain, or IP address and stay live.

 

[Slanted]

@carob,

There are a lot of points where public pressure can be applied to de-platform a website. In a different NamePros thread I made a short list:

Supply chain:

• web host
• registrar
• TLD registry
• ICANN

Stakeholders:

• website owner
• board of directors (if any)
• moderators / staff
• forum members

Outsiders:

• law enforcement agencies
• non-members angry with member content
• payment processors (e.g. Paypal)

The question is: Which entity should police content written by forum members? Or which entity should determine whether the forum itself should cease to exist?

People who are angry with a forum will apply public pressure at any and all of these points. Intervention at any 1 of them can be sufficient to take down a website.

While activists might celebrate that as a victory, I see it as a risk to online free speech as a whole. Progressive activists aren't the only people who try to force content to be removed. In different places or at different times, progressive opinions are the targets.

In my view, speech / content ought to be as free as possible. And it should be moderated or regulated – as far as possible – by the stakeholders. When laws are broken, law enforcement gets involved. At least those laws derive from citizens deciding what speech / content should be permitted.

Citizens in a democracy could decide that a concept of free speech that permits a website like Gab.com is flawed. And they could change the laws to exclude sites that are offensive according to whatever criteria the law defines. Whether such laws are good or bad is for the citizens to debate.

But until then, content that is offensive to some or even to the majority will exist in the world. And in the 21st century, "the world" includes the web. It's beyond useless to say that free speech should be allowed to exist in private basements but excluded online. Either we want free speech or we don't. If offensive speech should be banned on a privately owned domain, then the same speech should be banned in private basements.

 

[bmugford]

The question is: Which entity should police content written by forum members? Or which entity should determine whether the forum itself should cease to exist?

The forum should be able to police content, within reason. Still "within reason" is debatable.
Just because there is a platform doesn't mean as the owner you can fully disclaim responsibility for what is on it, under all circumstances. You can't just hide behind a platform that is being used for heinous or illegal things.

Ask Silk Road how that worked out...

You can't just create a platform then ignore how it is being used. There are several examples of that from forums to auctions to marketplaces.

Either we want free speech or we don't. If offensive speech should be banned on a privately owned domain, then the same speech should be banned in private basements.

Nope. Nothing is that black and white. That is just a false dilemma.

There is debate about what is even considered "free speech".
There are already multiple legal limitations on what is allowed or not under free speech.

Also, I can ban any speech I want in my basement if it is my house.

Brad

 

[carob]

Interesting Twitter thread, thanks to @Tia Wood for posting link in another thread
https://twitter.com/MollyOShah/status/1064559963744419840


Has Rob Monster at times had an admin role on Gab? Look at this from that thread:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dsc4fL9W0AEfMg6.jpg

And this: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DsbA1FuXoAIkAzg.jpg says "I bet my own reputation on my decision to serve as Gab's registrar."

 

[Slanted]

Has Rob Monster at times had an admin role on Gab? Look at this from that thread:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dsc4fL9W0AEfMg6.jpg

You'd have to ask Rob or Gab about that. I have never paid any attention to Gab except insofar as people have (A) complained about Epik allowing the domain name Gab.com to exist or (B) shown me some horrible offensive Gab posts.

From my perspective, Gab is 1 domain out of hundreds of thousands of domains at Epik. It was mired in scandal before coming to Epik. We inherited that scandal because some registrar had to. The domain had been suspended by GoDaddy, and it was part of an Escrow.com financing plan that would therefore fall part. Clearly it would be transferred to some registrar. Verisign hadn't suspended the domain, after all.

Except for what people have shown me, I haven't read any of Rob's posts on Gab. I haven't even read anything in this NamePros thread. My first post in it was today, and I'm not planning to read the preceding 23 pages.

But I assume Rob became involved in Gab in a few ways: (1) introducing himself (and Epik); (2) talking about the broad issues of de-platforming, censorship, and free speech; (3) listening to suggestions about "alt tech" that could make the web more resilient to attacks of that kind; (4) mentioning tools that Epik began working on in those areas; and (5) talking about his personal opinions on politics, which is inevitable given the prevalence of those topics and Rob's openness about his own views (like christianity).

I know that Rob believed he could influence Gab to police itself better. Elsewhere, I have commented on Rob's genuine desire to soften the extreme racism of some Gab members. That's part and parcel of his christianity – a need to evangelize and preach to the "sinners". Nobody who finds Gab offensive can deny that it is full of sinners. And that's where a missionary would go. Rob isn't perfect. But we shouldn't conclude that he is like the worst racists inside Gab just because he breaks bread with them.

This point is very easy to misconstrue. But it's a big part of who Rob is. In saying this, I am not being naïve about the objectionable aspects of Gab. Nor do I agree with all Rob's views. I've written more in a different NamePros thread about such things. Actually, I think I'm going to focus on that other thread, since my comments here are isolated without the others I've already written. And commenting here could mislead people if they think I've read this thread. I haven't.

 

[xynames]

Wait

He thought it was hoax ?

http://archive.is/I6AtH

As for making a statement about what exactly happened in NZ on March 14, I wasn't there so I don't know.

Show attachment 113004

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/sns-bc-us--newtown-shootings-infowars-20190329-story.html

Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones blamed the various claims he’s made over the years, including that the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre was a hoax, on “psychosis,”

Jones described his conspiracy thinking as a kind of mental disorder.

Jones said during the deposition that he “almost had like a form of psychosis back in the past where I basically thought everything was staged."

 

[carob]

Providing a platform for speech online has financial costs and it looks like they are an issue for Gab since it:

...withdrew its request to sell stocks to finance the company. The March 22 filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission by Gab AI, Inc., Gab’s parent company, signals a major shift in the controversial company’s business strategy. Gab’s long-term business plan focused on raising hundreds of millions of dollars through public stock sales to build an alternative to Twitter and Facebook

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch...-sec-filing-amid-growing-financial-challenges

 

[Rob Monster]

Providing a platform for speech online has financial costs and it looks like they are an issue for Gab since it:


https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch...-sec-filing-amid-growing-financial-challenges

I am not in contact with Gab management since months but since there were more than $5 million in capital commitments, they likely have funding options now that they are processing payments again.

Also, in light of the breakout success of Dissenter.com, they may be looking at other ways to capitalize and brand, viewing Gab as a feature but not the company. After all, Dissenter is a mainstream idea.

 

[stewmath]

just transfer then, godaddy is a bunch of crap anyway

 

[Rob Monster]

just transfer then, godaddy is a bunch of crap anyway

You might be late to this thread. Gab.com was booted by Godaddy as part of a coordinated multi-vendor de-platforming operation. Epik had the temerity to allow them back online and in the process annoyed some folks, while simply enabling lawful free speech. Hope that helps.

 

[DomainBlade]

At the end of the day, GoDaddy is a private company so they can do what they want.

 

[Rob Monster]

At the end of the day, GoDaddy is a private company so they can do what they want.

Small technicality, they are a public company, but you are right that they are not a government agency so they can do whatever management and Board wants them to do, within the bounds of the law.

Personally, I believe Godaddy made a large error by demonstrating to the world that they are not governed by constitutional principles, can be easily swayed by a vocal mob and are prepared to deplatform clients that are lawfully engaged.

 

[DomainBlade]

Small technicality, they are a public company, but you are right that they are not a government agency so they can do whatever management and Board wants them to do, within the bounds of the law.

Personally, I believe Godaddy made a large error by demonstrating to the world that they are not governed by constitutional principles, can be easily swayed by a vocal mob and are prepared to deplatform clients that are lawfully engaged.

I’m in the UK so we use both terms generally to describe companies which aren’t government agencies. I understand what you mean, however.

GoDaddy is a *public* company, so at the end of the day, they can choose to do whatever they want honestly. Whether they made an error or not is regardless, because it’s their platform. I understand your point though.

 

[offthehandle]

“Alex Jones’ lawyer: If you want the Infowars host silenced, you’re scarier than he is”

https://www.courant.com/opinion/op-...0190405-howpjy3tq5eqhcvttscjbcawhq-story.html

“The cases should be dismissed. Alex Jones hasn’t defamed anyone; he has engaged in extreme speech, a form of speech we’ve cherished since the days of the penny press.

The truth of the matter is Jones has a right to his opinions, no matter how outlandish. That he discomfited the suffering is truly unfortunate. But our newfound instinct to make symbols of survivors in our roiling political debates about such things as gun control transforms them into public figures in the contested terrain of political speech. Declaring these folks to be off-limits is a misuse of pathos. Victims used to mourn in private.

Folks should spend a lot less time taking shots at Alex Jones and more time wondering what makes Jones possible. It’s the same sort of question Trump haters ought to ask. Millions of voters and listeners flock to these men not because they are crazy but because they offer alternatives to mainstream narratives that fail to resonate with folks who have little to gain from tuning into CNN, MSNBC or reading the pages of The New York Times.

Before I chose to represent Alex Jones, I ignored him. His views were too extreme for me. He wasn’t a figure I hated; he just didn’t matter. He was the town crier warning the end is neigh.

Now I defend him from you — you, who want him silenced — because you scare me more than he does.

There is no mob quite so terrifying as a self-righteous mob. Suppressing speech because it offends a majority of folks gives the power to censor speech. We’re close to banning speech simply because it is hateful. Even Mark Zuckerberg now wants new legislation to limit speech. We’ve gone from wanting information to be free to fearing the heterodox.

What motivates hate is fear. Alex Jones and his listeners are afraid of what this country is becoming. You are afraid of Alex Jones and his outlandish conspiracy theories. You’re more alike than you think.

Fight your differences out in the marketplace of ideas. But let’s not fall down the bottomless pit of censorship. Alex Jones is not psychotic, and neither, I suspect, are you, although some days I’m not so sure about either of you.

Norm Pattis is an attorney based in New Haven.”

“

 

[Rob Monster]

“Alex Jones’ lawyer: If you want the Infowars host silenced, you’re scarier than he is”

https://www.courant.com/opinion/op-...0190405-howpjy3tq5eqhcvttscjbcawhq-story.html

“The cases should be dismissed. Alex Jones hasn’t defamed anyone; he has engaged in extreme speech, a form of speech we’ve cherished since the days of the penny press.

In case not aware, Epik.com is the Infowars registrar as well.

It is actually a Forever registration.

I have never met or spoken to AJ but have dealt with his head of IT.

 

[Bernard Wright]

@offthehandle that nails it right on the head. Thank you for that post.