[IP] Re: Nothing like prior constraint. No courts just NetSol!!! Internet company suspends politician's website over Qur'an film

[David Farber <dave@farber.net>]

I just can not resist making a comment. Is it to be the case that NSI and ICANN will establish what UNESCO trie to pull off many years ago -- namely give the right of countries and maybe NGOs to censor the news and information that flows through the internet by killing access to sites they deem IMPROPER. If so we are in serious trouble.


________________________________________
From: Steven M. Bellovin [smb@cs.columbia.edu]
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 7:34 AM
To: David Farber
Cc: steve@shinkuro.com
Subject: Re: [IP] Re:     Nothing like prior constraint. No courts just NetSol!!! Internet company suspends politician's website over Qur'an film

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 01:50:18 -0700
David Farber <dave@farber.net> wrote:

>
> ________________________________________
> From: Steve Crocker [steve@shinkuro.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 1:16 AM
> To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
> Cc: Steve Crocker; David Farber; ip
> Subject: Re: [IP] Re:    Nothing like prior constraint. No courts
> just NetSol!!! Internet company suspends politician's website over
> Qur'an film
>
> Speaking personally, not necessarily in any of my capacities inside
> ICANN, but, of course, with the benefit of having sat on the ICANN
> Board for the pas few years, my personal my personal opinion is that
> registries and registrars should publish their rules as a matter of
> good, clean business practice.  Of course, I would expect those
> published statements will include considerable leeway for judgment.

Network Solutions has published their policies.  If you try to visit
http://www.fitnathemovie.com, you'll see Network Solutions' notice plus
a link to http://www.networksolutions.com/legal/aup.jsp .  From a quick
scan, though, I don't see much that could be used in this case, except
perhaps content that "otherwise violates any applicable local, state,
national or international law or regulation".  But what is applicable?
Anti-hate speech laws in some countries?  Which countries?  Are they
applying US law?  Canadian?  Chinese?  Saudi? North Korean?  Perhaps
it's "using Network Solutions' services in a manner that interferes
with the use or enjoyment of the Network Solutions network or other
services by other customers or authorized users."

Of course, there's no recourse:  "If Network Solutions determines in
its sole discretion that your conduct violates the terms of this
Acceptable Use Policy, Network Solutions may suspend, restrict,
terminate, or take any other appropriate action with regard to your
services without any obligation to refund fees paid. Network Solutions
reserves the right to take such actions without notice to you."  But
I'd better hope that farber.net isn't registered with the, because the
AUP also bars "Holding of Network Solutions (including its affiliates)
or their employees or shareholders up to public scorn, ridicule, or
defamation."

Yes, the First Amendment (a) applies only to the US, and (b) only
constrains government action.  Personally, though, I also regard it is
a moral obligation on others.


                --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb

-------------------------------------------