More Details on Network Solutions and the Dutch Anti-Islam Movie:

ComputerWorld reports:

Web hosting company Network Solutions LLC has suspended a Web site that a conservative Dutch politician wanted to use to release an anti-Quran video that critics are saying is extremely critical of Islam....

In a statement sent via e-mail, Network Solutions said that it was investigating a number of complaints that the Web site may have violated its guidelines on hate language. Network Solutions' acceptable use policy say that the company bans content "that is obscene, defamatory, libelous, unlawful, harassing, abusive, threatening, harmful, vulgar, constitutes an illegal threat, violates export control laws, hate propaganda, fraudulent material or fraudulent activity, invasive of privacy or publicity rights, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable material of any kind or nature."

According to published reports, Wilders has said the 15-minute film describes Islam as "the enemy of freedom." ... Network Solutions said it has also asked Wilders if the company could review the film before it was loaded onto the site to determine if it violates its acceptable use policy. However, the company said Wilders has not responded to its requests, so, in the interim, it has suspended the Web site....

Note, by the way, that the Network Solutions Acceptable Use Policy begins by saying that it

delineates the relatively narrow range of uses of Network Solutions services that are contrary to Network Solutions' mission, generally because such uses either pose an unacceptable risk to the stability, integrity, or quality of Network Solutions' systems or the systems of its vendors, or harm (or threaten to harm) the rights and interests of third parties

but then goes on to ban, among other things, anything that is "vulgar, ... hate propaganda, ... profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable material of any kind or nature." I realize "relatively narrow" is a pretty vague term, but this doesn't seem "relatively narrow" to me; and it bespeaks a very broad view of what constitutes "an unacceptable risk to ... the rights and interests of third parties." (Of course, if Network Solutions is worried about violent retaliation against itself, that would indeed involve a high risk to their rights and interests; but I'm speaking here of the terms of the policy, and not the particular way it's being applied here.)