How universal among domain hosting companies, is the position that Vision Internet has taken, saying that websites should be open to attack from any malicious complainant without the hoster having to look at both sides of the case?
and that includes when looking at taking over a site's domain hosting. The following, from Vision Internet, is a frontal attack on the right to defend yourself when speaking out on any subject. It shows how as many companies as take this position have manoeuvred the internet to lie under their corporate control and at their mercy. They want to allow any malicious complainer to have the power, on say-so, to have any website's content censored or cause it difficulty in getting rehosted. This agenda has been set in place stealthily. It can be used politically to suppress anything in any domain-hosted website.
I won't name the other company involved because their response to the threatened website's legal defence of its content, and its right to be made, is still awaited.
My answer to Vision Internet makes the case that its position is illegal. It should be used upon all companies who take the same position.
> At 16:10 30/09/2005, I wrote:
>
> >Can you host a site that an IT-savvy friend wrote
> for me in a way
> >that I can amend the content at any time using
> html? It also
> >includes an info@domain email link that's just
> directed to my normal email.
> >The site already exists: there is a problem with
> the present
> >domain-host responding too high-handedly to a
> complaint and issuing
> >a too-casual ultimatum that accepts the
> complainant's word on trust
> >instead of even asking to hear our side of it.
>
Vision Internet's answer:
> I'm sorry, but we wouldn't really be interested in
> hosting a site
> which is likely to receive complaints. Whatever
> problem you have with
> your existing host is likely to also be a problem
> with ANY UK based
> web hosting provider. Unfortunately in the UK, there
> was a legal case
> several years ago against a major ISP regarding
> content on a
> newsgroup. The ISP ignored the complaint with very
> costly
> consequences. This has set a precedent for all UK
> based hosting
> providers and the way they deal with complaints.
>
> I would suggest that you either try to resolve your
> issues with your
> current provider or alternatively, find hosting in a
> different
> country other than the UK where there may be
> different laws and
> procedures for dealing with such matters.
>
my answer:
Because you wrote the above without taking any account of whether a complaint against a site has any foundation, you have 100% zero case to prevent me calling you a bad company on the evidence of it. I don't mean on the site, I mean in points of social or professional contact. It will not be a defamation of you because it is factually supported. Unless automatically and not even discretionarily, the only position you ever take towards complaints against websites is to scrutinise 2-sidedly whether the complaint has any basis and not take a position against likelihoods of unfounded complaints, then you are a self-admitted party to helping any malicious fraudster (as the person causing my problem is) to censor any website they like at whim. That is unconstitutional because it does not uphold the right of any accused person - or website - to give a defence case. Where the website's subject is medical, as it is in this case, it means your position is a blank cheque for medical falsification and concealment.
I won't name the other company involved because their response to the threatened website's legal defence of its content, and its right to be made, is still awaited.
My answer to Vision Internet makes the case that its position is illegal. It should be used upon all companies who take the same position.
> At 16:10 30/09/2005, I wrote:
>
> >Can you host a site that an IT-savvy friend wrote
> for me in a way
> >that I can amend the content at any time using
> html? It also
> >includes an info@domain email link that's just
> directed to my normal email.
> >The site already exists: there is a problem with
> the present
> >domain-host responding too high-handedly to a
> complaint and issuing
> >a too-casual ultimatum that accepts the
> complainant's word on trust
> >instead of even asking to hear our side of it.
>
Vision Internet's answer:
> I'm sorry, but we wouldn't really be interested in
> hosting a site
> which is likely to receive complaints. Whatever
> problem you have with
> your existing host is likely to also be a problem
> with ANY UK based
> web hosting provider. Unfortunately in the UK, there
> was a legal case
> several years ago against a major ISP regarding
> content on a
> newsgroup. The ISP ignored the complaint with very
> costly
> consequences. This has set a precedent for all UK
> based hosting
> providers and the way they deal with complaints.
>
> I would suggest that you either try to resolve your
> issues with your
> current provider or alternatively, find hosting in a
> different
> country other than the UK where there may be
> different laws and
> procedures for dealing with such matters.
>
my answer:
Because you wrote the above without taking any account of whether a complaint against a site has any foundation, you have 100% zero case to prevent me calling you a bad company on the evidence of it. I don't mean on the site, I mean in points of social or professional contact. It will not be a defamation of you because it is factually supported. Unless automatically and not even discretionarily, the only position you ever take towards complaints against websites is to scrutinise 2-sidedly whether the complaint has any basis and not take a position against likelihoods of unfounded complaints, then you are a self-admitted party to helping any malicious fraudster (as the person causing my problem is) to censor any website they like at whim. That is unconstitutional because it does not uphold the right of any accused person - or website - to give a defence case. Where the website's subject is medical, as it is in this case, it means your position is a blank cheque for medical falsification and concealment.
Comments
Display the following 5 comments