There are over 4,000 hate sites on the Internet and some of them are causing quite a stir.  The latest controversy began when Steven Weinstock, a New York real estate investor did a search on Google for the word “Jew”.  The first search result was the hate site called Jew Watch with articles focusing on alleged Jewish conspiracies and other anti-Semitic topics. Upon reading Weinstock’s mission to have Jew Watch removed from Google’s search results via a petition of 50,000 signatures, I decided to do a little research of my own.  Google’s policy is not to remove a site from their search engine based on a petition, regardless of the number of signatures.

The journey through the land of hate begins. First I found that this hate group also has a site called martinlutherking.org. The site is being used as a front in that it initially appears to be a legitimate site. The web site not only defames Dr. King it encourages students to print flyers that encourage hate. This is a hate site and can easily be found by students doing research. It was the fifth result returned by Google’s search after entering “Martin Luther King”.

The Bill of Rights under the 1st Amendment   grants freedom of speech. The amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” The First Amendment protects our rights that the government will not interfere with freedom of speech.

However, a private organization, business or any other non-government entity has the sole discretion to censor what conduct is or is not allowed. We all see this everyday. For example, if I walk into any store and start yelling obscenities, that store can make the choice not to serve me and it is perfectly legal. I’m not allowed to offend other customers in the store, which is why I would be asked to leave.

Outside of the store, I can say whatever I want.  You can’t yell "Fire!" in a movie theatre or "Bomb!" on an airplane just because you feel that you’re exercising your right to freedom of speech.  WebHostingTalk.com is a good example, as you all know there is a code of conduct that you must abide by or you will not be allowed to post on WHT.

Since it had been eight days since the first email, it was time for a phone call. I contacted HostDime and left a message for Manny to give me a call. A couple of hours later, I get a call from Sean, President of ServerCove, who asked that I not use his last name.  I let Sean know that I was researching an article for WebHostingTalk’s HostingTech.com.  Sean then informed me that ServerCove is the host of the “hate group”, not HostDime. But the IP’s trace to HostDime so what’s the relationship?

Sean first states that ServerCove and HostDime are partners.  He then says he mis-stated himself and that the two are not partners but only share a common board member.  Sean then informed me that the sites would not be taken down because of the right to "freedom of speech", and that he would only take a site down if it were illegal or was causing problems on their network due to attacks.  Sean also asked me not to mention the "attack" part because he thought it might encourage individuals to attack their network.  Hmm, I would’ve guessed that the network of any host of hate sites would be under constant attack.

I request to speak to the President of HostDime, Manny Vivar.  About five minutes later Vivar comes to the phone.  According to Vivar, HostDime owns 50% of ServerCove. Vivar said that he was in a difficult position and was reluctant about taking the sites down.  Keep in mind the email eight days earlier where Vivar stated that he was giving his clients notice. Although Vivar was reluctant he didn’t want the bad press to reach WebHostingTalk, "it’s the largest web hosting forum in the world," Vivar said. I told Vivar not to take the sites down out of fear of bad press, I’m just reporting the facts.  I stated that I just wanted to know if the sites were in violation of his AUP and if they were, why hasn’t he taken them down.

After a lengthy conversation with Manny, he makes the decision to honor HostDime’s AUP and take the sites down. But I thought the sites weren’t hosted by HostDime. (hmmm, scratching head) Eight days after Vivar said he notified the "hate group", four of the twelve sites owned by the "hate group" were taken down. ( Three of these sites are now hosted elsewhere and I have an email in to the host and will let you know the outcome.)

Vivar later emails me saying " I hope you will post something positive as we have held up to our AUP."  Vivar also states, “I would have never authorized that site [martinlutherking.org] to be on our network if I knew before hand. Those kind of sites should be kept down.”  I wonder what reason Vivar gave the hate group for taking some of their sites down.

I find it amusing that several days later, on the forum of the "hate group", the owner of the hate sites stated that their host took down four of their sites claiming that Time Warner, the backbone of the host, would shut the host down if they didn’t take the sites down.  (I have an email in to Time Warner awaiting their response as to whether or not they would take such a stand.) I did not include a link to this forum because I do not want to encourage hits to their site.

Vivar Contradicts Himself

Several days later I realize that the site JewWatch is still up. I emailed Vivar on May 3 and am still awaiting a response. Meanwhile, an individual who I’ll call “The Mole,” contacted Vivar to confirm what his AUP really means when it comes to hate groups. “I’m interested in hosting some controversial websites and I wanted to talk to you rather than the sales guys to make sure it’s okay because I don’t want to run into any problems later. I have several hate sites, because I hate everybody,” the Mole says. Vivar says that he would have no problem hosting the sites and that "business is business."

“You have an accent, are you from Spain or Mexico?” asks the Mole. ”My origin is Mexican,” states Vivar. “Won’t your Mother or Daughter be upset if they find out you’re hosting my sites?” asks the Mole. “I hope they don’t find out but if they do I hope they’ll understand that business is business,” Vivar says. “So you don’t care as long as the check clears, right?” the Mole asks Vivar. “Yes,” states Vivar.

Vivar went from saying “I would have never authorized that site [martinlutherking.org] to be on our network if I knew before hand. Those kind of sites should be kept down,” when he knew he was speaking to WebHostingTalk, to “business is business” when he didn’t know that he was talking to “The Mole.”  Need I say anything more? It’s all about the Benjamins.

Who Hosts the DNS?

Who is the host of several DNS (Domain Name Server) servers for the aforementioned hate group? ZoneEdit, Inc. is the host of DNS to this “hate group”. I was able to speak with Erik Aronesty, the owner of ZoneEdit, Inc. who says “We’re not police officers and we do not police our users. If someone was doing something illegal we would certainly discontinue their service.”  We know that hosts cannot police their customers, the issue arises when something has been brought to your attention, then what will you do about it?

I’d like to further clarify the Whir’s   report on April 27th about the anti-Semitic Jew Watch being dropped from the top of Google’s search results when searching the term “Jew.”  It was during that down time after EV1 cancelled it’s hosting of the site that Google’s “crawler” went to work. Jew Watch ended up somewhere on the fifth page of search results during this time period, but unfortunately martinlutherking.org dropped only one notch to sixth, still on the first page. 

Google’s search results are determined by a complex set of algorithms that measure factors such as how many sites link to a given page. The timing was perfect for the search results to get dropped for the anti-Semitic website. News.com   reported that Google spokesman David Krane attributed the change to a combination of timing and Web hosting policies. David is absolutely correct. "Our crawler was unable to reach the site while it was offline, so it dropped from our index," Krane said. "If they remain online over the next month, it’s likely we’ll pick it up again." And they have, jewwatch was back as the first result, now it’s fourth. [May 18]

The only sites we omit are those we are legally compelled to remove or those maliciously attempting to manipulate our results. We do not remove sites from our search results based on a petition. However, you can choose to screen most hate sites from your search results with our optional SafeSearch filter, activated from the preferences page linked off Google’s homepage.” I completely understand Google’s policy. Having people sign a petition, even a million people will not get Google to alter their search results.

Jewwatch is now back on the first page of Google’s search results when searching the term "Jew."  However, Google has placed an ad at the top of the page explaining that the offensive search results "are not in any way endorsed by Google."  In addition they explain why you see certain results and why search results will not be removed via a petition.

Hate Sites Increasing on the Net

The BBC News    wrote an article titled “Internet driving hate site surge”. This article exposes the martinlutherking.org site as a hate site and brings awareness to the increase of hate sites on the Internet. It’s not just the aforementioned hate group. Groups like al-Qaeda are recruiting on the Internet and terrorist groups are looking for suicide bombers on the Internet.

The FBI has increasingly become involved since the addition of more hate sites and threats on the Internet. The Associated Press   reported two weeks ago that “the FBI has increased its monitoring of hate groups’  web sites since the conviction of a white supremacist on charges he sought to have a judge murdered, agency officials said.”

Federal officials will not tolerate anyone crossing the line from free speech to advocating violence. There are a couple of  Web sites that have not been named that are of particular concern, with views "almost threatening in nature."  The Associated Press   also reported “One racist Web site posted an incorrect home address and cell and home phone numbers for FBI informant Anthony Evola, with the title "In Case Anyone Wants To Say Hi," said Richard K. Ruminski, the FBI’s assistant special agent in charge of counterterrorism investigations in Chicago . The address and phone numbers were really those of another man named Anthony Evola, not the person who was the key witness during Hale’s trial, officials said.”  "It concerns us to the point where we’re going to see what legal actions can be taken in order to maybe legally take that Web site down," Ruminski said .

New York City Council Speaker Gifford Miller was quoted as saying,  "People need to realize how much hatred there is … and the extraordinary technological advance of people who are spreading these lies," CNN reported.

Are Hate Sites Dangerous?

“Dislike” for someone or some people is significantly different than “hate” towards someone or some people. Hate is an emotion that controls the individual. Hate can easily make those who hate, capable of hurting those they hate. Dare I say, even a desire to hurt the hated.

Is Hosting a Hate Site like Hosting a Terrorist Site?

These hate groups can’t talk about hurting those they hate on their websites, that would be illegal. But don’t be naive and think these hate groups would never do anything beyond talking about hate.  Remember, hate crimes are still in the news. Is it fair to compare some hate groups to terrorist groups?  Let’s define terror according to Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary :
 
2 a : one that inspires fear b : a frightening aspect c : a cause of anxiety

In Conclusion

Just remember, everything you read on the internet is not true. Watch out for imitators, those web sites that pose as something they are not. I’m an advocate of free speech, but I don’t hate. The First Amendment accentuates peace by stating “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting…the right of the people peaceably to assemble.” Keyword: Peaceably

I’ll be exercising the freedom of press by following up on this article in the near future with any host that is willing to host this “hate group” or any other organization that has a negative impact on society. In addition, you’ll hear about the reaction when the host finds out who they are hosting and what they choose to do about it if anything at all.
 
The conclusion of this article is only the beginning of a series of articles on hate sites, their hosts and freedom of speech. I will keep you all informed of the turn of events to come. If you host a hate site, expect a call from me.