Network Solutions pulls anti-Koran website

Network Solutions has pulled the plug on a promotional website for a film made by extreme-right wing Dutch politician Geert Wilders. Wilders film is expected to very critical of Islam - last year he called for the Koran, which he compares to Mein Kampf, to be banned. Network Solutions said it had taken action because it …

[Anonymous Coward]

I have an urge...

To create 4 separate sites on Network Solutions.

1. Critical of Christianity and the Bible

2. Critical of Islam and the Koran

3. Critical of Judaism and the Torah.

4. Critical of Scientology.

To use (essentially*) the same criticisms of each, and see which gets pulled first. Particularly with 1-3 seeing as they share the same root.

(* ie the entire concept of control of the masses via fear of the angry sky-fairy, "jam tomorrow" reward systems, scientific improbability etc)

Probably for the best that I can't be arsed spending the time and money to follow all my urges... I don't really fancy being sued by the Scientologists whilst avoiding Jihadis, Mossad & rabid evangelicals!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Trying to shut the stable door.

They have no chance, and I guess they know it. Geert Wilders has already said he's going to get it out sooner rather than later, and to me this means he's given it to all his friends in case he's stopped from doing it by fair means or foul. (Or at least this is the obvious move from his perspective.)

Once sufficient people have it privately, then friends of friends of friends will release it anyway. This is inevitable I think. It's bound to happen, and I'll probably watch it if it does, just like millions of people will. It's going to be car crash tv at it's worst/best

Either way, the dutch will be able to honestly say they tried to stop it, which should dull the diplomatic response, and this has had more publicity than the upcoming raiders of the lost ark sequel.

[Henry Cobb]

We are all violators

http://www.networksolutions.com/legal/aup.jsp

Transmission, distribution, uploading, posting or storage of any material in violation of any applicable law or regulation is prohibited. This includes, without limitation, material protected by copyright, trademark, trade secret or other intellectual property right used without proper authorization, and material that is obscene, defamatory, libelous, unlawful, harassing, abusive, threatening, harmful, vulgar, constitutes an illegal threat, violates export control laws, hate propaganda, fraudulent material or fraudulent activity, invasive of privacy or publicity rights, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable material of any kind or nature.

Isn't all content in violation of some law someplace?

Let's see if we can get them to yank cnn.com for being in violation of Chinese media laws.

-HJC

[Anonymous Coward]

What raiders of the lost ark sequel

Can we have that banned, you can just tell its going to be pants.....

on 2nd thoughts dont ban it, as then people may hear about it.

I think people should be able to criticise any religion, its their *opinion* of it, does not mean I then have to believe it, or that they are right about it, I have my own mind thanks very much, and as such, my opinion is all religions are fake and just early forms of controlling the masses, now we have TV and the news...

post anon as i dont want a mailbag full of 'non believer you will burn' spam.....

[Spleen]

Boo hoo

Man who wants people's mouths taped shut gets his taped shut. Cry me a river of blood.

This isn't a free speech issue. Network Solutions are entitled to turn away the business of anyone they choose.

[Solomon Grundy]

Legal Policy

From Henry above, "constitutes an illegal threat". Ha. What is a legal threat and how do I go about making them. Then I could be just like the US and go about threatening everyone when they had the toy I wanted to play with.

[Peter]

Damned if you do, damned if you don't

People should indeed be able to spread their opinion, but you have to draw the line somewhere (see: History).

One interesting aspect is that most of the attempts and calls to ban this movie are based on what people think is in the movie. As far as I know, noone has actually seen the movie yet. So, to call for a ban on something that hasn't been published yet is, to say the least, a little weird (see: pre-emptive strike theory).

But there is a difference between criticising and demonising (correct English?).

[Glyn]

@AC

"I have my own mind thanks very much" unlike religious people who have to be told what is right and wrong. Heard a bloke on the radio once said that people who didn't believe in God (that's the Christian non-Catholic brand of God) can not possibly understand the difference between right and wrong. And here's little ol' atheist me having never mugged an old lady, where as religious types regularly practice genocide. Who'da thunk?

Post non-anon as I find "you will burn in a hell which doesn't exist" emails amusing

Reply with "Is there a heaven/hell for budgies?" If humans have one, why not? Mine is smarter than most people and has never broken any commandments :P

[Brad]

Fear of the fear.

Another stupid knee jerk reaction. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, however it seems that more and more, one person's opinion is worth less than that of another. You will never appease these religious groups, as seen in the newspaper's in Europe publishing some cartoons or the Miss World event episode in Nigeria, each sparked riots and murder often affecting people that had nothing to do with the incident. Or a book about the 3 little pigs denied an award because it may have offended, political correctness gone mad.

People seem only too content to do anything to avoid offending these groups but in turn are only rewarding them for their violence.

My comment probably wont even be published due to "offensive content".

[Theresa Jayne Forster]

Interesting side note

I thought this was an interesting side note,

They pull an anti Muslim site,

so why are they still hosting www.antichristian.com ?

[golverd]

How to generate even more publicity......

Is to file a number of complaints, on some crappy movie you are about to release, to some US ISP who was dumb enough to provide you the webspace......

This is exactly how Hollowood would go about to hype a movie which really costed mega-money and no one wants to see it.

[Geoff Mackenzie]

Curious

that an extreme right winger would liken something to Mein Kampf and not mean it as a compliment...

By the way, while we're pulling anti-religious sites, shall we ban those that are an offence to science as well? And if I had my way I'd knock that extreme anti-Linux www.microsoft.com site offline.

(By the way, did I just mis-spell offence or am I just reading so much American English these days I'm starting to think British English looks wrong?)

[Anonymous Coward]

Free speech at its finest

This reminds me very much of the good (not really) old soviet times when we were told to condemn Rambo movies due to the Afghanistan or whatever, although nobody had seen the movies. It's amazing how the world has turned around. Taking down a website in a supposedly democratic country because a movie nobody had seen may offend a theocracy on the other side of the world - how backwards is that? It's like Americans boycotting '84 Olympics because Russians may get offended by it... Bring back Cold War, at least it made sense.

[Beachhutman]

oh come ON!

They pull anything that might upset Muslims, because worldwide Islam have shown graphically how very angry and violent they can get if accused of being angry and violent.They don't pull the anti-christian site for the same reasons. Get real, and welcome your new rulers from Makkah.