> Sure, but what about the company that they rented the car from? Or the company they bought car insurance from?
I expect if they said "I want to rent a car to use as a getaway vehicle for a bank robbery" whilst standing next to a TV showing a picture of them committing a bank robbery, yes, the rental company would have some culpability.
Say you go to a bank to get a loan, and you give the bank your details, including your address. The address you give is in a notorious crime-infested neighborhood. Does the bank have the moral obligation to deny you a loan, in order not to support criminal activity? I mean, they most likely will. However, most people instead like to attribute this behavior to banks being racist. Are you saying that this should instead be mandatory for the banks to do?
If you were getting that loan to buy a house to use as a base of operations for harassing people in the neighborhood, the bank would rightfully deny your application.
You're strangely trying to tie this to someone simply living in a high-crime neighborhood. It's racist to deny a qualified person because the neighborhood is "high-crime" because often neighborhoods are high-crime because they're also over policed (which increases crime stats). In your analogy, the person isn't a known criminal, and isn't more likely to commit crime simply by living in an area that has a higher crime rate.
I’m using banks denying a loan to a high-crime neighborhood address as an analogy to explain why it’s also bad to deny hosting or service based on the domain name alone. It’s basically the Scunthorpe problem.
It's not being based on the domain name. KF was created with the intent of harassing someone, and has continued that to harass people both online and offline. The content on the site is hate, and the content occasionally includes illegal activities.
In the eyes of the law, the intent of the person is often (not always) extremely relevant.