“Freedom Of Expression BUT”

     If you’ve been walking this ball of mud for any length of time, you’ll be aware that a sentence constructed as follows:

“I’m all for X, but...

     ...really means “I’m against X but don’t want to say so out loud.” It’s wise to pay close attention to people who speak in such a fashion. They’re examples of what Shakespeare had in mind when he wrote that “one may smile, and smile, and be a villain.” (Hamlet) They could turn on you at any moment.

     And so we come to today’s adventure.

     I’ve been anticipating that Google, which owns Blogger, will sooner or later turn on Liberty’s Torch. We’re small fry as such things are reckoned, but after the big fish have all been filleted we’ll surely have our turn. The megapowers of the Left / Establishment coalition intend that no one shall remain unbowed and unbound.

     So I’ve been looking into freedom-of-expression-guaranteed Web hosts. So far, I have serious qualms about every one I’ve investigated.

     Every Web host has a “Terms of Service / Acceptable Use” document the prospective customer must read before committing himself. And every one of them promises to suspend or delete Websites that violate those terms. But what’s missing in such documents is a description of the procedures involved – and that should get one’s danger flag well up the pole.

     Take that perennial no-no, copyright infringement. I’ll allow that copyright infringement ought to be penalized. I’ve been the victim of such, and I didn’t care for it. But let’s imagine that someone were to allege that Liberty’s Torch had infringed on his copyright. How would the Web host react to such an allegation? Specifically, would the host immediately suspend or delete the site, or would there be an investigation first, allowing us to defend ourselves against our accusers?

     I have yet to come upon a ToS / Acceptable Use document that answers that question in an acceptably specific fashion: i.e., a fashion that guarantees that an unsubstantiated, unverified, or unjust allegation would not be used against a hosted site. They never mention procedures. They make no assurances of protection or indemnification against villains who simply want to destroy a disliked site.

     In this age of all-out, no-holds-barred information warfare, that’s an omission no content originator should accept.

     There are other varieties of harassment that can be used to bring down a Website, of course. An allegation that it has at some time hosted child pornography can be used to destroy any site. The hosting provider will act as reflexively as Dracula to a crucifix...and will seldom offer an apology or make amends, should the accusation be proved false later on. Accusations that a site facilitates commerce in drugs, guns, bombs, or other illegal things are almost equally effective.

     These things can constitute a deadly “but” after a hosting provider’s guarantee of freedom of expression. This is not an argument that the laws concerning such things should not be followed. It’s an observation that the accused site and its management might be denied anything resembling due process.

     Plenty of conservative, patriotically oriented, or otherwise controversial but entirely legal sites have been destroyed by accusations that have proved unfounded. The host was more concerned with not becoming a target itself than with right, wrong, and justice.

     So I’m torn. I don’t know where to find a host that I could trust with Liberty’s Torch Mark II. I welcome suggestions from our Gentle Readers about hosts that have proved trustworthy in the past. I’m also interested in hearing about hosts that have shown no interest in the possibility that an accused might be innocent, his accuser being motivated simply by malice.

     Please post your suggestions in the comments, or email them to morelonhouse – at — optonline – dot — net.