Re: [soac-mapo] when is a domain name "incitement" that can be prohibited?

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Evan,

As you rightly say, this is my POV. I understand the group has already 
submitted its recommendations and my line of discussion was just that, open 
discussion. It was not a call to reopen issues that have already been delt with 
by this group.

To continue the discussion however, and this can be done outside this list if 
that is more appropriate, I do find your statement, that what I find offensive 
should not be cause to ban something worldwide, interesting. You are, of 
course, absolutely right. My own standards should not have to apply worldwide. 
But your view of total freedom of expression is also unrealistic in my view. 
There are some standards which might be considered almost global. Public calls 
to kill someone probably fall within that. Although some may not be offended by 
that, most would find such calls abhorrent.

So it's all a question of values in the end. A public call to kill someone is, 
in my view, never acceptable. To you, my view would be tantamount to "impeding" 
and "banning" on a global scale. There is a huge gap between us here, that much 
is obvious...

But once again, my intent is not to restart conversations that this group has 
already had. I am speaking as an individual voicing his own opinion, nothing 
more.

Stéphane

Le 17 janv. 2011 à 19:01, Evan Leibovitch a écrit :

> 
> 
> 2011/1/17 Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
>  
> In any case, when threats of this kind are made against someone who is not a 
> member of government, even though it is not against the law, it may go 
> against our idea of morality. Public threats against anyone's life are 
> offensive to me, but that is a matter of personal ethics.
> 
> So I would not like a threatening gTLD to be allowed through ICANN's 
> application process unchecked. If that was a possibility, I would hope that 
> some kind of mechanism be in place to allow me to challenge that application.
> 
> Your POV is contrary to to consensus of the Rec6 group, which held that the 
> only usable and credible standards for "what justifies immorality" are 
> international laws and treaties.
> 
> Your personal opinion of what is offensive may be perfectly suitable to cause 
> you to not visit a site, disallow it to your children, or campaign against 
> its use. But it may not be used as a justification to impede -- let alone ban 
> -- on a global scale.
> 
> - Evan
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> Stéphane
> 
> 
> Le 15 janv. 2011 à 19:45, Robin Gross a écrit :
> 
>> Interesting real world development of relevance to the discussion on the 
>> legal standard of incitement / instigation to commit violence.
>> 
>> The words "kill x" alone is not incitement under US law that can be 
>> prohibited (unless x is Obama).
>> 
>> Robin
>> 
>> .........
>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/14/death-threat-domain-names_n_809174.html
>> 
>> Death Threat Domain Names: Registrar Says Killjulianassange.com Will Not Be 
>> Removed
>> 
>> The Huffington Post  Lila Shapiro Posted: 01/14/11 03:23 PM
>> 
>> BoingBoing has a quick post up today claiming that "Registering death 
>> threats as domain names is the hot new thing in psychopathic anti-Wikileaks 
>> action!"
>> 
>> According to vivantleakers.org -- a new site created to track 
>> "cyber-bullying domain names of wikileaks associates" -- multiple 
>> death-threat domain names have been registered going after Wikileaks 
>> director Julian Assange. Killjulianassange.com and julianassangemustdie.com 
>> are recently registered examples, although they have no content on them at 
>> this time.
>> 
>> Go Daddy, the site which registered both killjulianassange.com and 
>> julianassangemustdie.com said there is nothing that can be done about either 
>> site while they are contentless. Go Daddy registers a domain name every .8 
>> seconds -- any domain name can be registered and there is no human 
>> intervention.
>> 
>> "Unless and until there is content associated with killjulianassange.com 
>> there is no way for us to know what that means," said Christine Jones, Go 
>> Daddy's General Counsel. "There's no way to judge whether there's going to 
>> be something done with that domain name or if it is going to be violating 
>> any rule."
>> 
>> In the past week, Go Daddy has received numerous calls regarding the death 
>> threat domain names, but the company has no intention of taking action at 
>> this time. The one exception to this, Jones said, would be a domain name 
>> death threat for the President, "if the secret service contacted us, we 
>> would almost certainly take action on those domain names."
>> 
>> Assange is no stranger to death threats of the old fashioned kind either. In 
>> an online chat with the Guardian Assange wrote that anyone making threats 
>> against his life should be charged with incitement to murder: "The threats 
>> against our lives are a matter of public record, however, we are taking the 
>> appropriate precautions to the degree that we are able when dealing with a 
>> superpower."
>> 
>> Domain name attacks have become increasingly popular in a wide range of 
>> scenarios.
>> 
>> To prepare for an allegedly forthcoming WikiLeak which will supposedly 
>> reveal troves of highly sensitive information, Bank of America reportedly 
>> bought up scores of domain names that are critical of the bank and CEO Brian 
>> Moynihan.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> IP JUSTICE
>> Robin Gross, Executive Director
>> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
>> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
>> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> - Evan