Rząd USA zamknie nazistowską stronę Redwatch ?

Jestem przekonana że tu wina także jest po stronie rządu Polskiego, który nie chce nic z tym robić a korzysta z rządu USA jako wymówki.

1. Faktem jest że DA się blokować strony internetowe. Wszyscy wiemy co zrobił rząd Chin. A nie tylko Chiny kontrolują internet. Maroko, Tunezja, Pakistan, Burma, Kuba, Iran, Libja, Nepal, Pn. Korea, Arabia Saudyjska, Syria, Turkmenistan, Wietnam - te wszystkie kraje kontrolują dostęp do zawartości internetu - nawet Dania próbuje filtrować strony pedofilskie. Nie wierzę, że rząd Polski nawet próbował stronę blokować.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_cyberspace#Censorship_by_gove...
2. Mimo tego, że prokurator mówił jak "długo" próbowali zamknąć RedWatch itd, udała się rozmowa z kierownikiem starego serwera komercyjnego w USA i serwer ich wyrzucił. Teraz pewnie mają serwer u nazistów na Florydzie i na jakimś DreamHost w Kalifornii. (O prawie w Kalifornii przeciw "hate crime", patrz dalej.)
3. Rząd USA nie ma prawa przeciw stronom neonazistów. Według konstytucji, wszyscy mają prawo wypowiedzieć się. Jednak jest coś takiego jak "fighting words doctrine" gdzie może być takie przestępstwo jak "nawoływanie" lub "immiment lawless action". Przestępstwo według doktryny "fighting words" ma miejsce, jeśli nienawiść jest skierowana przeciw konkrenej osobie. Jeśli ktoś popełnił przestępstwo, własciciel serwera może być zkazany jako wspólnik, jeśli jest pewne łącze między stroną przestępstwa - tylko w tym przypadku tego chyba nie udowodniono.
Są różne precendensy sądowe
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969); Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942) i R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 112 S.Ct. 2538 (1992).
Prawo stanu Floryda (patrz punkt 2 na dole) mówi wyraźnie, że kto został ofiarą przestępstwa ma prawo uzyskać odszkodowanie i dostać nakaz sądowy.

Dalej po angielsku:
What are fighting words or threats in the library?
According to the Supreme Court, "fighting words" are epithets reasonably expected to provoke a violent reaction if addressed toward an "ordinary citizen." The Supreme Court held: "... such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality."[v]

A threat must be a "true threat" with a specific target. Political hyperbole, even if "vituperative, abusive and inexact" is protected by the courts against a "background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials."[vi]

For example, if a library patron says all civil servants are scum, he is participating in robust debate. If he says to a clerk, "I'm going to knock your head off, you government scum," that's "fighting words."

The fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as granted in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution In its 9-0 decision, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine and held that "insulting or 'fighting words,' those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech [of which] the prevention and punishment of...have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."

DreamHost could be prosecuted as an associated party to a crime under Sections 422.6 and 422.55 of the California penal code against hate crimes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime

The U.S. Congress defined in 1992 a hate crime as a crime in which "the defendant's conduct was motivated by hatred, bias, or prejudice, based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or gender identity of another individual or group of individuals" (HR 4797).

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/pen/422.55-422.57.html

422.55. For purposes of this title, and for purposes of all otherstate law unless an explicit provision of law or the context clearlyrequires a different meaning, the following shall apply: (a) "Hate crime" means a criminal act committed, in whole or inpart, because of one or more of the following actual or perceivedcharacteristics of the victim: (1) Disability. (2) Gender. (3) Nationality. (4) Race or ethnicity. (5) Religion. (6) Sexual orientation. (7) Association with a person or group with one or more of theseactual or perceived characteristics. (b) "Hate crime" includes, but is not limited to, a violation ofSection 422.6.
The role of hate speech in the hate crimes is defined here:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/pen/422.6-422.865.html

422.6. (a) No person, whether or not acting under color of law,shall by force or threat of force, willfully injure, intimidate,interfere with, oppress, or threaten any other person in the freeexercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him or herby the Constitution or laws of this state or by the Constitution orlaws of the United States in whole or in part because of one or moreof the actual or perceived characteristics of the victim listed insubdivision (a) of Section 422.55.
(emphasis added)

In section (c) it's clear that hate speech is a relevant factor in convicting someone of a hate crime in California, even hate speech alone without an action is a crime - under the very special circumstances defined in that law, such as threatening violence against a specific person, which is clearly the case for the redwatch.info site:

However, no person may be convicted of violatingsubdivision (a) based upon speech alone, except upon a showing thatthe speech itself threatened violence against a specific person orgroup of persons and that the defendant had the apparent ability tocarry out the threat.
So DreamHost's clients (of the redwatch.info site) are committing a crime under Section 422.6 of the Californian Penal Code since they are making "speech which itself threatens violence against specific persons". They risk 12 months prison or a $5000 fine.

DreamHost has a clause about not allowing content which is illegal.

If DreamHost management acts in "good faith" to prevent the continued crime, then they would presumably be able to defend themselves from being convicted as a supporting partner in crime and avoiding having to manage the DreamHost service from inside a prison cell.

FLORIDA HATE CRIME STATUTE
775.085. Evidencing prejudice while committing offense; enhanced penalties

(1) The penalty for any felony or misdemeanor shall be reclassified as provided in this subsection if the commission of such felony or misdemeanor evidences prejudice based on the RACE, color, ancestry, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or national origin of the victim:

(a) A misdemeanor of the second degree shall be punishable as if it were a misdemeanor of the first degree.

(b) A misdemeanor of the first degree shall be punishable as if it were a felony of the third degree.

(c) A felony of the third degree shall be punishable as if it were a felony of the second degree.

(d) A felony of the second degree shall be punishable as if it were a felony of the first degree.

(2) A person or organization which establishes by clear and convincing evidence that it has been coerced, intimidated, or threatened in violation of this section shall have a civil cause of action for treble damages, an injunction, or any other appropriate relief in law or in equity. Upon prevailing in such civil action, the plaintiff may recover reasonable attorney's fees and costs.

(3) It shall be an essential element of this section that the record reflect that the defendant perceived, knew, or had reasonable grounds to know or perceive that the victim was within the class delineated herein.