I was going to do the same to youtube - they are taking a lot of the stuff about islam/muslims off their site.

Funny this article came up because I was just looking into youtube and found a lot of my favorites are now gone. poof. So, I was looking for an email to contact them, and haven't found anything - I will call them.

Posted by: R_not at March 24, 2008 4:13 PM

I called network solutions today to complain about offensive language on the domain (HIZBOLLAH.ORG). They said it will be reviewed in 12-24 hours for violations of the TOS.

I would recommend that everyone else would do the same.

Posted by: Joey Bee at March 24, 2008 4:42 PM

Find out what companies or groups use Network Solutions. Then contact them, pressure them, to pressure Mr. Dunbar. Denial of money to Network Solutions can lead to renewal of service (as with Geert Wilders) and also denial of service (as with Hezbollah). Both are important.

Posted by: Hugh at March 24, 2008 4:51 PM

I sent a friendly message...

"how is it that you still support terrorist websites, (see the following for documentation) -- www.jihadwatch.org/archives/020427.php --
but an anti terror website
is too "dangerous?" You are at best cowardly fools, at worst you are working with civilization's enemies. -- I hope that was sufficiently "specific?" "

to their "general support" email contact address wich I found here.

...for what it's worth.

Posted by: yonason at March 24, 2008 5:27 PM

Your doing a good job guys. Keep on working on it! Greetings from Amsterdam.

trailer: http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=BzOLN8za0Tw

Posted by: Geert Vandage at March 24, 2008 5:40 PM

I explained that, unlike radical Muslims, law abiding citizens did not have the option of issuing threats or becoming violent, thus our only recourse is to become such a pain in the ass that companies such as Network Solutions find offending Muslims preferable to the time and resources wasted dealing with us.

This is a sentence that should prompt some reflection by Network Solutions executives who appear willing to impose censorship on those who would not threaten them.

Is being shut out of civil discourse now the price now of following civil law instead of practicing the tactics of intimidation?

Is this the civics lesson that Network Solutions really wants to teach?

Or are they, in their effort not to offend those who simultaneously cry oppression and threatens violence, actually promoting the tactics of hate Network Solutions claims to reject?

Network Solutions, if you believe in the system of law and behavior that has allowed you to prosper, you should not be in the business of demonstrating that intimidation and threats of violence pay.

The whole world is watching, and currently, you're not sending a message conducive to long term business success.

Posted by: RalphInfidel at March 24, 2008 6:01 PM

The following are the success stories as listed on their website:

http://about-networksolutions.com/customer-testimonials.php

Lakhvinder.com
GoBible.com
eSupplement.com
Unitron
Blueheadsets.com
(and more)

Perhaps we should interview them how they feel about having a webhost that seemingly breaks its own rules and opposes freedom of speach.

Posted by: snirpyor at March 24, 2008 6:27 PM

Network Solutions have a commercial ad on YouTube at

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=D9ibyKHjivU

There were some comments about their attitude to the fitna page but they have now disappeared.

More censorship!
We could keep putting comments up and see how far they are prepared to censor.

Also, this video is a commercial and could be reported to Youtube as spam

Posted by: zoltix at March 24, 2008 6:34 PM

I would like to keep my question for Network Solutions as simple as possible:

Why do you host Hisbollah - a designated terrorist organisation, but not a Dutch politician?

Posted by: Ken CleanAirSystem at March 24, 2008 6:50 PM

It appears this campaign may be bearing fruit. See the results of non-croyant's digging posted on the "No movie?" post:

"non-croyant, the site was certainly there yesterday. All Arabic, green banner, etc. Wonder if someone took it down?"

I don't think it has been taken down: http://82.137.205.243/

What that does is takes you to the Web server for that ip address. PLESK, whatever that is, gives you an error message because your browser didn't tell it that you were looking for "hizbollah.org." If you could spoof your browser to do that you could probably still get the live Web page.

I think that Network Solutions has changed the DNS records so that they no longer point to the servers in Syria.

In the case of Fitna Network Solutions was charged with registering the domain name AND with hosting the content. That latter element is why you see a message when you try to go to the site of the movie.

Network Solutions does not host the content on the Hizbollah Web site. They only control the way the domain name "hizbollah.org" behaves in the DNS.

Judging from the error messages that we get at the moment, "hizbollah.org," instead of directing to the ip address 82.137.205.243 like it was doing as late as this morning, now points to --- nothing.

There is no DNS record. It's precisely that record that Network Solutions has authority over.

Barring some weird technical failures in the DNS that I wouldn't understand, it seems to me that Network Solutions has decided to no longer provide domain name services for that domain name.

Posted by: non-croyant at March 24, 2008 5:20 PM
I've confirmed that the Hizbollah Web site is still live by running this command:

wget --header="Host: hizbollah.org" http://82.137.205.243

What that command does is requests a homepage located on a Web server being run at ip address 82.137.205.243, and telling that server that I am looking for hizbollah.org. When I run this command I get a Web page with hizbollah content returned to me.

So the site is still live, but the DNS isn't pointing to it. Pointing the DNS to the site is the role that Network Solutions plays in this particular arrangement.

What should we conclude?

Posted by: non-croyant at March 24, 2008 5:56 PM

Posted by: dry_heavz_4_alla at March 24, 2008 7:08 PM

Long post, but please read:

I've written to the NS Executive (via the webmaster, hope it gets there). It's long, but I hope makes a few points including this: if they are going to censor, it should cut both ways - remove all koran and hadith sites!!

And this criticism of their policy: "‘otherwise objectionable material of any kind or nature’. But this has got to be a joke hold-all clause, as anyone can find anything objectionable. Freedom of speech is the *whole point* of ensuring everyone can say what others find objectionable – otherwise we would not need freedom of speech."

To the Network Solutions Executive Officer Roy Dunbar

Dear Mr Dunbar

This site http://www.fitnathemovie.com/ has been barred by Network Solutions, pending investigation whether “the site's content is in violation of the Network Solutions Acceptable Use Policy”.

The statement also mentions “a number of complaints regarding this site”. You are now receiving a complaint from the other side: the side of freedom of speech.

I urge NS to get a backbone and stand against the censorship that islamists are trying to impose upon the whole world.

The movie (which nobody has seen yet, thanks to your censorship) is extremely unlikely to contain anything of the following nature:

Obscene (unless pointing out that Muhammad consummated his marriage to a 9-year-old is obscene.)
Defamatory, libelous (Geert Wilders is unlikely to defame any living person, and his statements about Muhammad will be based on islamic religious texts.)
Unlawful (indeed, the film might be unlawful in Saudi Arabia and Iran. Are theirs the laws you subscribe to? Sharia, including killing of apostates, gays and stoning of adulterers?)
Harassing, abusive (the film is unlikely to harass or abuse any person. General statements about the ideology of islam are no worse than general statements about other ideologies or religions).
Threatening,(Mr Wilders is unlikely to threaten anyone. Please note however that he receives constant death threats from islamists for his outspokenness, and that you are supporting the islamists by your censorship.)
Harmful (this term is vague. The principle of freedom of speech concedes that we may have to hear things we don’t like and may find psychologically ‘harmful’. Any physically violent reactions to the film would be no fault of Mr Wilders. Those reacting should debate the issues instead.)
Vulgar (Mr Wilders has never been vulgar to my knowledge).
Constitutes an illegal threat (as above, Mr Wilders is very unlikey to threaten anyone. If his film is an ‘illegal threat’ in theocratic regimes in Iran and Saudi Arabia, you are pandering to those regimes.)
Violates export control laws (very unlikely.)
Hate propaganda (you need a much, much clearer definition here. Anyone could call their opposition’s statements ‘hate propaganda’. Mr Wilders is not racist – he has often stated that critique of the islamic ideology has nothing to do with race. The film should show that islam is a threat to women and gays, jews and all ‘infidels’.)
Fraudulent material or fraudulent activity (very unlikely. Mr Wilders said he was using the islamic texts as a source for his film)
Invasive of privacy or publicity rights (very unlikely)
Profane (If by this you mean ‘blasphemous against allah’, then it might be considered profane to expose islam for what it is, though Wilders uses islamic texts. However, you only consider this film profane in these terms if you employ the standards of islamic theocrats.)
Indecent (As above: unless pointing out that Muhammad consummated his marriage to a 9-year-old is indecent. But this is mentioned in religious texts and thousands of islamic websites.)

The movie may well contain ‘otherwise objectionable material of any kind or nature’. But this has got to be a joke hold-all clause, as anyone can find anything objectionable. Freedom of speech is the *whole point* of ensuring everyone can say what others find objectionable – otherwise we would not need freedom of speech.

If you stand by this ridiculous censorship, I will start searching for ‘objectionable’ NS-hosted sites, and will urge my friends to do the same.

For example, ‘obscene’ ‘indecent’ ‘unlawful’ ‘abusive’ ‘threatening’ ‘harmful’, ‘hate propaganda’, ‘otherwise objectionable’ material are all contained in the islamic hadiths and koran. Just a few examples are: Aisha’s marriage consummation with Muhammad at age 9 (the low marriage age in Iran is based on this), Muhammad urging his followers to murder infidels and dominate the world (jihad by islamists is based on this), text calling jews ‘pigs and monkeys’, permission for men to beat their wives (domestic abuse accordingly still ignored in many islamic states).

If you have any websites hosting the hadiths and the koran, they are displaying all this information and if you won’t stand for freedom of speech, I will challenge you to remove all ‘objectionable’ sites containing this information.

Yours sincerely,

Posted by: Lili at March 24, 2008 7:16 PM

Your doing a good job guys. Keep on working on it! Greetings from Amsterdam.

trailer: http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=BzOLN8za0Tw

Posted by: Geert Vandage at March 24, 2008 5:40 PM

I just watched this youtube. It seems that there IS "Fitna, The Movie."

Watch it, people.

Posted by: darcy at March 24, 2008 7:27 PM

I called them as well. I lodged formal complaints in their company, and requested cooperate executives to call me back.

I also called State Department to report their site.

Posted by: Freedom Rings at March 24, 2008 8:20 PM

Your doing a good job guys. Keep on working on it! Greetings from Amsterdam.

trailer: http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=BzOLN8za0Tw

Posted by: Geert Vandage at March 24, 2008 5:40 PM

I just watched this youtube. It seems that there IS "Fitna, The Movie."

Watch it, people.

****

Man! Translation would be good! Anybody speak Dutch???

Posted by: DeeMack at March 24, 2008 8:52 PM

I watched it, don't know Dutch but I could catch a word or two along with the images. It seem fair and balance all in all. Probably toned down compared with what is said on these threads. But we all know they hate us already. So, what's new.

Does anyone know how to copy the flash video on to your own hard drive? If you can, I think making multiple copies by the thousands would keep the film and trailer alive even if others tried to shut down sites or removed it from the various YouTube like site. For one take out, ten pop-up within minutes.

Posted by: Im.mad.as.HELL! at March 25, 2008 1:43 AM

My thanks to Robert for re-posting my blog, and to his readers for their willingness to spend time contacting Network Solutions.

As they were undoubtedly aware of the controversial nature of Fitna, yet they waited until the last moment to shut the website down, one can only conclude that they were trying to reap the benefit's of Fitna's exposure, while seeking to insulate themselves against any unwelcome attention from the Muslim community.

They were trying to have their cake and eat it too, and it is imperative that companies who operate this way be made to understand that there IS a cost for this sort of business practice.

Keep up the good work, folks.

Kafir Alalazoo

Posted by: Kafir_Alalazoo at March 25, 2008 2:42 AM

Does anyone know how to copy the flash video on to your own hard drive? If you can, I think making multiple copies by the thousands would keep the film and trailer alive even if others tried to shut down sites or removed it from the various YouTube like site. For one take out, ten pop-up within minutes.

Posted by: Im.mad.as.HELL!

you can do this here... http://download.ilikeyoutube.com/

Posted by: livefree at March 25, 2008 3:27 AM

livefree -
The Download Helper Firefox extension is just one of several that will allow you to download flv files to your hard drive.

Posted by: Kafir_Alalazoo at March 25, 2008 5:10 AM

I don't know if I would have had it in me, to actually call up and complain, in an articulate manner.

So, kudos to the caller. Well done.

Posted by: Rogster at March 25, 2008 10:46 AM

Do they have the movie in English? Also, the one on YouTube is only 4.5 minutes long. I thought the original was supposed to be 15?

Posted by: PRCalDude at March 25, 2008 4:25 PM

Well Network Solutions just got exposed as a censor on Glenn beck. "Pre-censorship" was the term used. Yet they were able to host a Hizbollah site. PC run amok.

Posted by: Sounder at March 25, 2008 7:31 PM

I complained about this to Network Solutions about 3 years back, with regard to them being the registar of Hizbollah.org, although I threatened to take my business elsewhere, I received the same response pretty much as the author of this article did.

Network Solutions is the registar of Hizbollah.org, not the host, I repeat, not the host, there is a big difference, if you write them and screw that part up, you will be written off as not knowing what you are talking about.

Posted by: BurgerBoy at March 26, 2008 2:12 PM