Earlier this week, it was reported that Web-hosting service provider Network Solutions suspended an anti-Koran film site, fitnathemovie.com, because it may be in violation of the service's "Acceptable Use Policy." This calls into question a hot-button issue for the Internet today: Should Web hosts have the right to censor their users?
The Network Solutions policy, available here, goes through a litany of content the site may deem "unacceptable," and -- for good measure -- throws in a clause about "otherwise objectionable material," basically covering anything from anti-Koran to anti-hairnets.
The movie, intended to be critical of Islam, is the brainchild of controversial Dutch politician Geert Wilders -- who can be seen in this YouTube video discussing his film. The film is said to contain images of the 9/11 attacks interspersed with Koran quotes, among other things.
In this instance, the take-down of the site was not a result of some angry dictator who kicked a hole through his country's Internet box. Rather, according to Susan Wade, spokeswoman for Network Solutions, the Web host received complaints coming from "a number of sources," but she wouldn't reveal from whom specifically or how many. "When we receive complaints, we look at them seriously," she says. "We don't go out and actively troll sites."
But by occasionally slapping black bars over some potentially objectionable content, what role are Web hosts trying to play? Moreover, what role should they play?
"If Web hosts start to censor content, then they're not a 'common carrier' legally and then, yes, they are responsible for the content on their systems," says Dave Taylor, consultant with Intuitive Systems. "If they allow everything to pass through, good or bad -- like the phone company -- then they have no liability for the content."
Whether or not Web hosts consider themselves "common carriers" or policed portals is what's ambiguous here. According to Wade, this was an "isolated incident" for Network Solutions, which only looks into content that receives complaints from third parties. She says Network Solutions repeatedly tried to contact Wilders to discuss the issue, but when he didn't respond his site was taken down.
But as per the Network Solutions policy, it's very likely that some content -- which strikes a sensitive chord with people -- will get taken down, while equally offensive content will stay up. To keep things fair and balanced, Web hosts would either have to turn a blind eye to everything, or go on a censoring rampage.
This issue in particular seems to raise concerns about the fear of speaking out about certain people, religions, and philosophies online. According to Reuters today, for example, the Netherlands government is deeply concerned about Muslim retaliation as the anti-Koran film hits the Web. (Wilders has since released his film on a different Web hosting provider.)
Asked if she thought the subject was especially sensitive because it was anti-Koran, Wade simply said, "Because of his intended use, and because of the dialogue going out around it in the world, we did take a step back and wanted to look at it."
The webhost provides a service--much like the publisher provides the author of a book. Does the publisher of a book have a right to deny an author? Of course! "Freedom of the press belongs to the owner of the press!"
Its not as if there were not other web hosts out there.
Follow the policies of the webhost if you wish to avail yourself of their "service". if you don't intend to follow the policies, find a host that will work with your way of thinking.
Interesting post. It's really interesting, i really don't know the answer to this question.On one hand, internet hosts just "serve" the space for people-and if they define what information has a right to be a content and what is not, it's like if the bus driver decides whom he wants to let in his bus, and whom he doesn't.
On the other hand,speaking metaphorically,if the person on the bus behaves disturbing for other passengers and the driver,the last one has a right to refuse to "serve".
and one more thing-who would define what is inapproriate information,and what is appropriate. This is so subjective!
In fact, what you describe is what usually happens and I personally have no issue with it. But as it stands now the host/provider is also caught in the middle. They try to maintain a given standard and if they are to tight they get accused of retricting freedom of expresion and if they are too open they get blasted the other way. There are no standards other than what they set themselves. Do we hold them liable for someone getting something nasty up there that they haven'y even seen yet? That doesn't seem right, especially in this age where people believe they have some right to not be offended.
The phone analogy breaks down a bit when we get to me placing a call to you or vice versa and them being offensive. That's more along the lines of spam! If we're talking about hosted content then unless they're redirected from elsewhere, the viewer has to proactively go to the content. So who do we have involved?
The content provder/author/blogger/etc.
The hosting ISP/service
The browsing person (or their parents should they be a minor)
In some way each is responsible and should be held accountable.
Part of the issue is of course that what might offend one person might be just considered a mild stretch in freedom of expresion for another person. Personally I feel that if you don't like it you shouldn't go back to a particular site, just as you don't go back to a given IRL business that you dislike and a lot less expensive overall. I have no sympathy for those sites that promote illegal content and it would be nice if ISPs could cooperate with law enforcement without being held liable in the civil suit but do you really expect lawyers to approve of something like that when Google has such deep pockets?
The original question was should they have the right to tell me what I can host in space that I am paying them for? What if my polical views differ from that of the hosting ISP and they cut my site because they don't like what I say but keep charging me for it because I have a contract? Isn't that charging for something they are no longer delivering on? I don't believe that any business should be required to do business with a particular person or company but if they decide later that this isn't what they wanted don't they still have a responsibility to live up to thier side of the contract? If you and I are standing on a public street and I say something you don't agree with but is my honest opinion do you have the right to call the cops? Sure, but it's highly unikely that they'll arrest me if what I said wasn't a threat directed at you and I made no threat physically. The internet is a very wide open public place, it stands to reason that each of us will find things there that make us uncomfortable even within the scope of legality. Those implanted tattoo celphones come to mind... The problem is the same we faced as society long ago. What constitues proper public behavior and what is considered actionable unless it takes place "behind closed doors" (like an account based service requireing a login to get at content). I would love to see it sinply hash itself out but there are too many lawyers involved for that to be likely.
I've got to bail at this point. I really enjoyed hearing your views and seeing the discussion. No offense was intended by anything I said and I hope we were able to kick the neurons into motion for each other and whomever else is reading.
Interesting discussion developing here, but let's distinguish between two different situations:
One, you have a discussion forum site, say at thediscussionforum.com (it's for sale, any buyers?), managed by TheDiscussionForum Inc. People may post offensive material, which then shows up to people who visit thediscussionforum.com. So TheDiscussionForum Inc. is, besides posting disclaimers to cover their behinds legally, very aware that their company name is going to be identified with the site content, so they are likely to monitor content and remove objectionable material.
Two, and this is the situation here, a web hosting provider is just providing hardware and connectivity for a 3rd party web site, say at myveryoffensivesite.com. Normally, visitors to this website have no notion of the existence or the involvment of the web hosting company, so this company is in no way liable or accountable for the content of the site. Only if myveryoffensivesite.com has illlegal content, the web hosting company could be requested to shut down the site and identify the individuals or company responsible for the content to law enforcement.
In this case Geert Wilders' came close to legal boundaries, but didn't cross them, which even was confirmed by muslim organizations in the Netherlands (see here for an article in dutch, or use this for a robotic translation). So if Network Solutions, as behind-the-screens web hosting provider for fitnathemovie.com, decides to take down the site, I think we can justly call them two-faced weasels.
Wouldn't that in some way be making the host directly liable? Ex. If sensitive content was deemed not critical enough for removal, but that information lead to some sort of greater damage, who's to blame? Any action taken on behalf of the host dictates ownership (or responsibility).
There's room between your two options for a third option which I feel is what all hosts would be striving for.
We are not responsible for material that is posted and we will try to react and remove postings that are brought to our attention as being offensive to a reasonable complainant.
With todays instantaneous ability to post we aren't going to have moderators watching every post, however if someone violates the policies and it is brought to our attention we will correct it.
Back to the phone, if you and I have a conversation over the phone and we tell dirty jokes to each other, the telco isn't going to do anything about it. But if I call you up unsolicited and harass you obscenely then you can bet IF you complain the telco is going to do something about it.
As Paul says. The point is that they are trying to maintain common carrier status while reserving the right you're arguing they should (and de facto do, the ability to do it being 9/10ths of the battle) be able to remove content that doesn't agree with their usage policies. They want to be able to remove content that they object to but at the same time not be accountable for same said content. In other words they want the authority but not the corollary responsibility. Sorry, one way or the other. There is indeed a strong case for them to have the authority to censor content and I'm not srguing either way right now. I'm saying that if they want the authority to do so then they should be held accountable for their actions and policies in so doing. I'm not saying they shouldn't have control, only that if they do they should be accountable and that is something none of them want to pick up because it's an unholy mess.
Pick one:
Keep control and be held accountable.
No control and limited liability.
They are trying to be immune from responsibility for their actions and that isn't OK. Network Solutions removed the content (picked #1) but is trying to hold off accoutability. It's a different issue if they said "Yes, we monitor content and remove what we find objectionable", that holds them accountable for tacitly agreeing with anything posted on their service and they sure don't want that!
You are simply missing the point here. Most of these Web Host operate on the legal cushion that they are not responsible for the contents published on their sites and free them from any liability these contents might course. So by having a flimsy user policy guidelines that allows the Web Host not to publish certain materials automatically negate that legal cushion. So we can might as well start to hold the Web Host accountable for any content publish on their sites, a status which they themselves will not dare to have!!!
But Network Solutions did not censor your private emails as in your phone company comparism. It stopped a PUBLIC posting of material that it felt did not meet it's company's policies.
Many grocery stores provide public bulletin boards at their entrances. Anything posted there has to fit the decorum that the owner of the board decides. Don't like it, don't post. Really don't like it, shop somewhere else.
The ThinkerNet does not reflect the views of TechWeb. The ThinkerNet is an informal means of communication to members and visitors of the Internet Evolution site. Individual authors are chosen by Internet Evolution to blog. Neither Internet Evolution nor TechWeb assume responsibility for comments, claims, or opinions made by authors and ThinkerNet bloggers. They are no substitute for your own research and should not be relied upon for trading or any other purpose.
Ahh, the holiday season is upon us: People have begun bargain hunting, department stores are donning premature decorations, turkeys are being shot to death, and email inboxes everywhere are being graced with season-appropriate promotional materials so absurd, one might think they were actually written by the clinically insane.
Considering President Obama went and took the Nobel Peace Prize this year (attention hog, much?), Internet Evolution had to settle for a nomination for the second best prize in the world: a MIN Editorial & Design award. And we're happy to say that we won. Big time.
NEW YORK -- Web 2.0 Expo -- Here at the Javits Center in New York City, several industry innovators have come out to take the stage at the Web 2.0 Expo. But some are having a hard time keeping the audience's attention. The culprit? What else? Twitter.
The debate over whether Google is fairly aggregating newspaper content online has been going on for a while, with Rupert Murdoch and News Corp. leading the discourse. Typically it's followed a consistent pattern: Murdoch complains about Google stealing its content to no real benefit to his company, someone suggests hiding the content from Google, and things get quiet on the News Corp. side of the room.
While Google introduces its new Chrome OS (which I'm hearing will be widely available in one year? Did I mishear that?), IBM announced 10 new products today to help companies using IBM System z mainframe technology.
Smarter Collaboration: How to Thrive in a Challenging Business Environment Market conditions are changing faster than ever, and organizations need to improve their agility and adaptability in order to provide better service and improve processes. The ability to work with customers, business partners, and employees as effectively as possible - while at the same time holding down costs - is a key to success. READ THIS eBOOK
your weekly update of news, analysis, and
opinion from Internet Evolution - FREE! REGISTER HERE
Wanted! Site Moderators Internet Evolution is looking for a handful of readers to help moderate the message boards on our site – as well as engaging in high-IQ conversation with the industry mavens on our thinkerNet blogosphere. The job comes with various perks, bags of kudos, and GIANT bragging rights. Interested?
To save this item to your list of favorite Internet Evolution content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
In theory it’s now possible to build a monitoring network that can listen to every conversation on the Internet simultaneously. In practice, there aren’t enough people on the planet to make sense of the data. But that’s about to change.
The state of the art in network monitoring has advanced to the point that there are devices available that tap into Internet communications and listen in to the traffic via ultra-high-speed packet capture at full 10-Gbit/s line rate – which was inconceivable even a few years ago. What does this mean for Internet users?
Is there such a thing as complete anonymity on the Internet? It is something of a philosophical question, but the consensus among experts seems to be 'No.' However, there are degrees of anonymity, which might be more practical for most people – and more necessary than ever before.
The Google backlash continues. After seeing their Project 10^100 submissions disappear into the bowels of a Google server farm, a group of irate developers has started their own site to re-collect and vote on the ideas.
Bad news! By eliminating the world’s digital divide we’re likely to create a new divide: the information divide, where we end up creating a two-tier Internet where access to 'quality' content is controlled and charged for by mega-corporations, and the gulf between information haves and have-nots is entirely dependent on how much money they have. This is, of course, an almost exact inversion of the current situation on the Internet – where access is expensive and content is free.
In the final episode of this series about the death of Internet anonymity, Saunders describes how the Internet of the future will start to attain a level of intelligence that requires no human intervention. Scary.
Google's 'It Girl' talks about using personalized search to make sense of the mass of information on the Web – and how sometimes Google can appear to be semantically smarter than it really is.
What can users today do to protect their online privacy? The simplest and most obvious option is to not use the Internet – at all. However, once all digital information is consolidated over the Internet, trying to protect digital identity by simply unplugging from the Internet becomes impossible – a fact that has manifest implications for civil liberties, Saunders says.
By 2011 the number of Internet-connected sensors will exceed 1 trillion, making your chances of doing anything or going anywhere unnoticed pretty much zero. Saunders talks about how the 'sensortization' of the Internet is eliminating the traditional divide between online and offline populations.
Industry initiatives and government stimulus funds are giving enterprise software vendors a great opportunity to help build out and manage smart grid technologies.
The problem with telepresence is that it's not universally accepted, because video calling isn't. While we can all do video calling, we also apparently worry too much about how we look. If we want HD telepresence in our future, we have to dress down, mess up our hair, and dive into our online life.
The US loses about $20 billion a year on pirated software, movies, and music. But public policy can help stem the tide of digital theft. For example, France has recently passed a 'three strikes and you’re out' law, whereby if after two warning letters an individual continues to download pirated software then his Internet access will be cut off. US policy makers should consider adopting similar policies.
Financial management planning does not need to include Voodoo economics, but it does help to tap into the knowledge base of your team through some sort of real-time system. We explore your options.
When Reiter gets incensed over incompetent Verizon FiOS order-taking and support, he broadcasts it via Twitter. Did it do any good? How should your company offer Twitter support? Watch this for all the answers.
The successor to the BlackBerry Bold 9000 – the Bold 9700 – will be available soon in the US. Is it worth upgrading? Reiter's got one, and offers advice.
Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Email This
TWEET THIS
