Spectrum Fairness had to go through an emergency move of site on 4-5 Oct 2005: away from domain hosting by 1and1 (Schlund) who treat their clients illegally and in breach of contract and of a law that affects web page hosting, by not defending them against malicious third parties. The world must be warned against their unethicality and authoritarian behaviour – those are statements of clear legal fact about them, shown by these events. An agenda for a small media class to bring the internet’s content under arbitrary control, is shown to public concern. Bookmark SF’s case with 1and1 and refer to it as a watermark of whether the web is still a free enough place to be usable by ordinary people in resisting the drift towards police states.
We were told by the Blogspot company in 2006 (not the hosts here, so I thank them for their independent information) that it is against Section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act, a US law covering web hosting, to remove material in response to arbitrary allegations of libel. So there you have it: on Blogspot’s information 1and1 broke a law when they bowed to Aspies For Freedom‘s threats and censored the original URL site of SF. While this is anyway a verified event, under the same legal terms 1and1 can’t get this fact about them wiped by saying “we allege libel.”
What was done to the original SF site was medical deception and an extension of a personal cross-site stalking by AFF. 1and1 was told this and disregarded it. Its dictatorial hit man Choudhry, when annoyed with not being blindly obeyed, he let slip a mention of contacts by a lawyer hired by AFF. This is something 1and1 never mentioned in writing and were clearly trying deceitfully to conduct the whole crisis without ever mentioning. That’s all the facts we’ve got: speculate as you will. The cost of hiring a lawyer just to posture with is not huge, but following up the postures you imagine would have a greater cost. If 1and1 were seriously and behind-the-scenes being made to fear a follow-up, only financially because there can be no fear of follow-ups legally when AFF is in the wrong, then what forces were backing it on AFF’s side? or would have any motive to?