• by Wendy Davis , Staff Writer @wendyndavis, March 25, 2008

In another example of an Internet host censoring a Web site, U.S. company Network Solutions has suspended the site where Dutch politician Geert Wilders had planned to post his anti-Islam movie "Fitna."

Visitors to fitnathemovie.com are now greeted with the message that Network Solutions is investigating whether the content violates the company's "acceptable use policy." "Network Solutions has received a number of complaints regarding this site that are under investigation," reads the blurb.

Last week, The New York Times reported that the 15-minute film, as yet unreleased, has alarmed much of the Netherlands because people fear a backlash to the movie. The German magazine Der Spiegel reported that the film "triggered a panic in the Netherlands that could only be likened to the dread leading up to a massive storm," according to the Times.

Northern Europe has clearly been on edge since last month, when protests broke out after the reprint of a Danish cartoon that angered some Muslins two years ago. Osama bin Laden recently responded to the reprint with threats like, "Let our mothers bereave us if we do not make victorious our messenger of God," and "Publishing these insulting drawings ... is the greatest misfortune and the most dangerous."

But none of that means it's a good idea for Internet hosts like Network Solutions to step in and censor material that's legal. On the contrary, the more that intermediaries like hosts are willing to step in and pick and choose which Web publishers it will allow to publish, the more pressure there's going to be on them to act as censors. And, unlike the U.S. government -- which isn't allowed to censor speech based on content -- there are few such restrictions on companies like Network Solutions.

Already, there's a disturbing trend of intermediaries like domain registries and hosting services stifling legitimate speech. Last month, domain registry Dynadot agreed to an injunction shuttering the whistle blower site Wikileaks.org in exchange for dismissal of the lawsuit against it -- even though the company had a strong legal argument that the case should have been dismissed anyway under the federal Communications Decency Act. The Wikileaks judge ultimately vacated the injunction and the lawsuit was dismissed after civil rights groups got involved.

A few weeks ago, GoDaddy and Rackspace both decided against hosting RateMyCop.com, a site where people could share information about their experiences with particular police officers. Even though the biographical information about the police came from publicly available documents, provided in response to Freedom of Information Act requests, and even though the content is clearly protected by the First Amendment, the police complained about the site's existence. GoDaddy said the shutdown stemmed from too much bandwidth usage, but Rackspace admitted it viewed the content as problematic.

RateMyCop.com is now up and running, as is Wikileaks. And, no doubt Geert Wilders will find some way to release his movie. In the meantime, domain registries, Web hosts, Internet service providers and all the other companies that enable online publishing should rethink whether they want to be in the business of censoring lawful material.