Mar 28, 2008 : NetSol Explains Anti-Koran Site Ban

📅 March 28, 2008 - Web hosting provider Network Solutions (networksolutions.com 👉 Total Reviews: 35
🙌 Average Rating: 1.6 / 10
👍 Good Reviews: 3
👎 Bad Reviews: 32
👈 Official Responses: 0) says it was just following standard protocol earlier this week by taking down the website promoting a Dutch politician's film that is said to criticize the Koran.


"There has been a lot of dialogue going on about censorship and free speech," writes Susan Wade, Network Solutions spokesperson Susan Wade in an email interview with the WHIR. "We are by no means taking any action to limit freedom of speech or to preemptively censor content. Our company also does not proactively police the content of our customers' sites. If a complaint is received, however, we do conduct a review to determine whether the site violates our company's Acceptable Use Policy." Wade mentioned this practice of receiving complaints and reviewing and taking down websites several times in the interview, emphasizing that when a website it hosts contains questionable content, Network Solutions "takes the necessary actions" and temporarily blocks and reviews the content, no ifs, ands, or buts.

On Monday, Network Solutions was under fire for blocking access to a website belonging to Geert Wilders, a Dutch politician known for his confrontational views on Islam and his anti-immigration platform. The website promoted Wilders' film "Fitna" that depicted the Koran as spreading "facist" messages and "urging its followers to commit violent acts."

After receiving an undetermined number of what we assume were serious complaints, since the nature of the complaints was never determined, Network Solutions blocked public access to the website, posting a note saying that it was investigating the content of the website.

"In light of the complaints we had received and public comments this hosting customer had made, we were asking the customer to let us review the content to determine if it was within our acceptable use policy," writes Wade. "If it was, he could use our services to publish his content. If it did violate the policy, he was free to publish it elsewhere."

Wade says Network Solutions repeatedly reached out to the customer, but he did not respond.

The WHIR has also tried to get in touch with Wilders and the team behind Fitna, but Wilders was unavailable to comment on the matter.

Later in the week, the Czech Republic's small National Party offered to release the film on the Internet using one of its servers if it was banned from being released in the Netherlands.

According to reports on the The Register, the 15-minute movie was released on Thursday and is now hosted by UK-based hosting provider LiveLeak (liveleak.com). The Web host is known to allow "controversial and uncensored clips of war, conflict and death," on its servers, reports The Register.

Dutch authorities say there hasn't been much uproar since the movie launched and Dutch government officials say the movie is less controversial than they expected. However, in light of this information, Wade says the company is glad it went ahead with blocking the content and Network Solutions stands by its decision.

"Network Solutions does not censor nor are we violating freedom of speech," says Wade. "If our customer wants to publish his content he can do so using a number avenues outside of Network Solutions at anytime."

Besides the political controversy behind the movie and the potential violence it was anticipated to stir, Christopher Wolf, chairman of the International Network Against Cyber-Hate writes in the International Herald Tribune that "Network Solutions [was] well within its rights not to host content that may set off riots around the world and cause emotional turmoil."

Wolf also writes that despite arguments for freedom of speech, people generally have a lot of problems permitting certain things to exist on the Internet, like child pornography, hateful or threatening sites, or copyrighted media like music and movies illegally being posted and downloaded.

"Freedom of speech does not mean that Internet companies have to publish anything others want them to display," writes Wolf. "Indeed, it would likely be a violation of that freedom to require such publication."