Pagewaxing is a term coined to describe a ruthless campaign of censorship against a specific Internet resource (page, site, etc.) or author. Such a censorship campaign could be initiated by an underhanded competitor, mortal enemy, political opponent, offended(-sive) religious zealot, etc., etc.
Pagewaxing can have any number of sinister motives... to sabotage your business, to make net.life difficult for you, to discourage public debate on an important community issue, to "take care of" a so-called dangerous idea or political principle ... but most often, it is initiated by a large corporation to viciously guard its profit margin using any necessary means. Consumer opinion is the potential Achilles' heel of any business--if a company leaves in its wake a trail of disgruntled and unsatisfied customers, their dissuasion of other potential customers (not to mention agitated calls for petitions and boycotts) can be a well-deserved devastator to the company's bottom line.
But whatever the company's purpose, the end result is the same--a full-fledged (and oftentimes successful) attack on protected free-speech rights and the silencing of yet another innocent voice...an attack often motivated by nothing more than pure greed.

Rather than discussing corporate agendas at-length, a brief example may help clarify things more effectively...:

Say you do business with a particular company...let's call them ACME...and through the course of this business come to rather dislike the quality of their service. Half the time they don't do what they're being paid to, and when they do, they do a real shoddy, half-assed job of it. They never meet their deadlines, they break their contract, they take your money and rip you off like there's no tomorrow. To top all, if you try to contact them (e.g. to lodge a formal complaint), their customer service department is not only rude but downright hostile to you. (DISCLAIMER Remember, this is fictional made-up hypothetical theoretical company.) Nobody should ever have to deal with this evil, evil ACME company. At least, the world has the right to know how you feel about them. Sooo... you write up a webpage that bitches them out. You expose, for their world of potential customers, your experiences with their company, how they treated you, how much they took you for, and urge others not to do business with them. Soon, you get a nasty letter from ACME's legal department telling you that if you don't take down that webpage within 24 hours, and post a retraction apologizing for your "blatantly wrong and misleading" statements, you will be sued. Not more than a couple moments later, you get a nasty letter from your ISP or pagehost telling you not to worry about deleting your page; it has already been deleted at ACME's request, your account has been revoked and you've been banned from the service. Welcome, friend, to the wonderful world of corporate pagewaxing.

The earmarks of pagewaxing (as it appears to the rest of the world)

These, unfortunately, are all too common sights for webmasters that dare track a controversial resource or one with a significant enemy(ies). A web site will seem to be hosted on quicksand; it will sink and disappear from any system it is served from... it will relocate, relocate, relocate... hosting agreements will seem to "rot" into thin air as the assailant lodges complaints and threats with the ISP/server administrator(s), maintaining any kind of up-to-date link to it becomes a time-consuming (not to mention dangerous!) chore... in many cases, the author or legal guardian of these pages will simply give up the fight, rather than waste ungodly amounts of time--and risk financial devastation in the form of a lawsuit--trying to resurrect the censored materials everytime they are shot down.

The true damaging roots of pagewaxing go much deeper: the actions of corporate censors chip away at the rights of every citizen to speak freely and express the freedoms granted to them by (most of) their governments. These rights are protected by the First Amendment in the US, while the free-speech rights of citizens in (most) other countries are guarded by similar provisions. Corporate censorship is a multinational phenomenon.
 

The Censor's Bag of Tricks
I know how hyperbolic this all sounds, especially to newer Web users who haven't read much about dot-com lawsuits and threats yet. But sadly, it's so rampant people even crack jokes about it....

A corporate pagewaxer can achieve its unwholesome goals in any number of ways... but they do, in large part, build their attempts on fear--the object being to frighten their victim to silence, to pretending it never happened, to clapping trap to avoid massive retaliation. The intimidation factor is by far the most widely-used tool of the censoring entity; often its enormous size and power alone are enough to successfully bully its target. (An aside: Corporate censors are by no means limited to the Internet--the same tactics are used pervasively in the Real World to harass company critics as well.) Where Internet censorship is concerned, megacorps can even bypass their target and use their size to muscle the target's ISP or hosting company, interfering with the customer/provider relationship and putting the entire ISP's business in jeopardy. (Note: For the purposes of this page, "ISP" also refers to any sort of Web hosting company.)

A corporate censor can also target the business and sponsorship ties of the ISP. They can smear the ISP's reputation among its business partners and sponsors, putting these ties in danger, or even pull sponsorship directly, if the waxer is a sponsor of the ISP. They can blackmail an ISP; if the waxer owns or can influence a large Web domain (such as yahoo.com) they can threaten to ban the entire ISP (and all its customers) from its domains if its demands are not met. As you can imagine, the ISP's customers would be quite unhappy to know that they're not entitled to the "unlimited" total Internet access they're paying full price for. Either way, depending on the breadth of the waxer's action, this could spell financial ruin for the ISP, and so it will probably bend to the whim of the waxer if such methods are successfully used.

Probably the most dangerous trick in the pagewaxer's book involves civil damage suits known as Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs).
SLAPP suits exploit such legal statutes as defamation/libel/slander, copyright, and trademark infringement to silence opposition and present a hostile environment for criticism of their business, goals, political agenda, etc., etc. According to the ACLU website, SLAPP suits have recently been used "by powerful economic interests seeking to silence criticism and public debate." Although such suits are illegal in many states, legal threats still seem to be the weapon of choice among many corporate pagewaxers. (For more on SLAPPs, see SLAPPgate and the California Anti-Slapp Project, which tells you how to identify SLAPPs and protect yourself against them.)

Among waxers, GeoCities (yes, they've tried to wax me!), AOL and the Church of $cientology are probably among the more notorious for their litigation threats against critics. Other known legal-threat waxers include Intel, Wal-Mart, Radio Shack, Terminix and many others.
 

Pagewaxing Prevention and Countermeasures

The best guard against pagewaxers is a good ISP and a working knowledge of the law. A good ISP is one that is strongly against censorship (don't put your waxables on AOL!!) and isn't likely to bend to pressure from your site assailant. For example, ISPs that get advertising money from whoever's gunning for your pages are NOT a good choice.

Paid hosting? Lawyers? I can't afford that!
Unfortunately, waxers often target pages on "free" webhosts because they know these are the easiest to censor...often, a simple request for removal is all it takes for someone with powerful corporate interests to get a page zapped--while a traditional ISP values its paying customers, a FWP needn't be so concerned about a single, non-paying member, especially if the carrot of sponsorship is held in front of its nose. Some ambitious Web folk have come up with interesting mechanisms to resist censorship, including legal and political pressure. One is the Eternity Service [and another Eternity Service], which is based on ideas presented in Ross Anderson's paper by the same name. Another, which works in a similar manner (albeit much better) than the whack-a-mole or "smoke and mirrors" tactic explained later, is the Rewebber Network, explained here. Also, check out this tuorial on hiding your page's URL.

No matter where you put your site, here are some anti-wax tips:
 

• Are you SURE it's legal?

It's not uncommon for the censor to falsely accuse you of some unlawful activity, usually trademark infringement or defamation, that everybody knows would not hold up in court. But if your page really IS breaking the law, that's a whole 'nother ballgame. Know the law especially as it applies to libel/slander/defamation and trademarks. For more on applicable law, help yourself to a self-serve law site such as Nolo Press or Cornell's lawsite...if you're being harassed by lawyers, keep the following in mind when evaluating any threats (Note: I'm not a lawyer, so don't take any of these following pointers as "legal advice"...when in doubt, ask a real lawyer!)
• Libel etc.

Libel is a written defaming statement, slander is a verbal one. (Anti-Bullshit Tip: If you get a nasty letter from the waxer's "lawyer" that gets these mixed up (e.g. accuses you of slander for a written webpage), chances are good that somebody's pulling your leg. Be sure to point things like this out to your ISP, especially if they've been sent a copy of the bogus threat in hopes of getting your account revoked.) Defamation is a false, damaging statement which is intended to harm the reputation of an individual or business. Where any sort of government or public figure (the President, congressmen, Bill Gates etc.) is involved, it must be proven in court that there was a "willful intent" to damage reputation. In most cases, defamation charges do not apply if someone's reputation (or relevant aspect of it) is already so bad that it can not be damaged further. Statements of opinion cannot be considered defamatory (but it has to actually be an opinion; just putting "opinion" in a defaming statement won't make it okay: "In my opinion, Ed is a serial rapist" is no good).  And remember, truth is an absolute defense of defamation. If it's true, it's not defaming.
• Trademarks and servicemarks

The purpose of trademarks and servicemarks is to protect businesses from other businesses. For example, the drug company Pfizer spends a gazillion dollars promoting Viagra...is it fair for another drug company to call one of its own products Viagra, and profit immensely off all the free advertising? Trademark law is governed by the Lanham Act, which protects the trade names of products and services from exploitation and copycatting by others. The difference between a trademark and a servicemark is that the first applies to products while the other refers to services and service-oriented companies. (Anti-Bullshit Tip: Like the confusion of libel and slander, misuse of the terms trademark and servicemark may signal that the legal threat you've just received is bogus, and if the writer claims to be a lawyer you have good reason to be skeptical.) As trademark law is intended to prevent biz-to-biz sabotage, and not to prevent everyday discussion and debate, trademark infringement can normally apply only if the mark is at work in the marketplace; e.g. the "infringer" is actually using it for profit and personal gain--just non-commercially talking about a company/product on a webpage, on the news or in everyday conversation is not a violation of trademark. (How else could Channel 5 tell you about racism at Denny's without Denny's suing them?)
Some of the brainier waxers are well aware that they can't get their critics for trademark infringement, and so have turned to a charge of trademark dilution. This is the act of lessening the "value" of a trademark in the marketplace, or using it in a non-trademark way. An example of this would be using a trademark as an everyday word, e.g. "We went to the store and picked up some cokes." When using a trademark or servicemark in print, be sure to capitalize it as you would a proper noun. The full antidilution law is fairly beyond my scope, so you're on your own on that. When in doubt about trademark liability, what you need is a heapin' helping of....
• ...Disclaimers!

A bunch of legal disclaimers can be a big help to those in danger of wax attacks. Many companies use an "All trademarks are property of their respective owners" type of line in ads, particularly if they compare their product to that of a competitor (yep, even small businesses have to worry about anti-competitive suing!). If you've already been the target of a "defamation" waxing, or feel you might be, a disclaimer along the lines of "Everything herein is a statement of opinion...opinions are by their nature not libelous, defaming or in any way illegal" or similar may deter bogus charges along those lines, or may assist your ISP in judging the (in)validity of the waxer's defamation claim. To put some extra teeth into your disclaimers section, add a line warning potential waxers that any censorship attempts by them will be taken as a form of harassment, denial of service, interference with contract (with your ISP), etc., and may subject them to a little liability. (Note: see the disclaimers for this site and my personal page.)
Finally, if you suspect you may be getting some scary (but bogus) legal threats, do add a statement to your disclaimers saying that by sending any email/etc. to the site author, you are giving up to the site author all copyrights, etc. to the mail and granting the right to post it publicly. Since the waxer might try to keep the harassment private (many waxer legal threats will contain explicit instructions not to share it with anyone), you can use that as a sort of free license to post it on your homepage (or alt.censorship and alt.conspiracy ;) and give them an even bigger black eye by showing the world how they tried to harass you. If they complain about it, just point them to the disclaimer!
 
• Open letter to the world

If you're the subject of waxing because of "controversial" materials, be they sexual, political, vulgar... it may be advantageous to explain your position on the subject matter (e.g. I don't personally condone this material; I just put it here for those who want it; [material] does not represent the opinions of myself or [ISP]...) or justify why you should have the right to post it. Not extremely useful, but may earn you some brownie points. If nothing else it may deter everyday surfers from lodging complaints about whatever you're posting (remember, when ISPs get complaints, sites get canned).
 
• Act like you know something about the law

You may...or you may not. But whatever the extent of your legal knowledge, at least make it look like you know your rights with respect to the law. Citations of specific legal statutes (e.g. the Fair Use doctrine [17 USC § 107], stuff on defamation and trademark, if they want to target you for that) can make you look knowledgeable and not easily intimidated by blatantly phony legal posturing. Even the worst of waxers may be wary if they think they may be sued themselves for their attempts. Citing case law dealing with similar sites to yours, or similar sites that have been (unsuccessfully) challenged with similar crap, anti-SLAPP statutes for your state, etc. may persuade your waxer to pass you by in seek of easier prey.
 
• Keep those waxers out of your files

They can't wax what they can't see. Obviously sending the waxer your URL or copies of your files ("Since your company sucks so bad, I wrote a website saying you suck! http://...") is a really, really dumb idea. But even if you don't tell them you've got waxables, they might find 'em sooner or later via search engine or webring. It would be worth your while to invest a little time looking for a domain-banning CGI script (or even a JavaScript, if worst comes to worst) to eject known waxers from your pages.

There are some sites that don't hold up well even on paid webhosting accounts. If this applies to your pages, there's always the ol' smoke and mirrors game. The idea is to hide your identity (the smoke) and post as many copies of your pages in as many free Web locations as you can (the mirrors) and register them all with major search engines. (This is variously referred to as the whack-a-mole technique, with reference to the popular amusement.) The whole point of this is not to stop the waxer from censoring your page, but to replicate it faster than it can be censored. If you want, you can get a url redirector so that your pages can move all over the 'net and still be accessible from a single URL. Some redirectors include come.to, cjb.net (Warning!! Will try to auto-install crap on your viewers' computers, including Gator and Xupiter spyware), and tsx.org. Just make sure the waxer can't get your redirector killed off too!

The key to success of this plan is anonymity, anonymity, anonymity! Whenever you sign up an FWP account to stick a copy on, be SURE you fill it out with bogus info. Don't put in your web account signups, or even on the pages, any identifying info the waxer can use to track you down and send you lawsuits with. The other key is actually having more free time than the waxer, so that you can easily out-post your censors without taking time out of your day from other activities. Depending on the popularity of your topic/position/etc., you can even offer your pages as a .zip file, and encourage readers to mirror it themselves, thereby taking a lot of workload off your back.

Other alternatives
Never under-estimate the power of Newsgroups to get your message across! Unless they want to illegally forge Usenet cancels, your site assailant will be able to do nothing against a text strategically posted to the appropriate newsgroup(s). Just don't forget to send it via anonymous remailer if possible.

Two up-and-coming systems, Freenet and the Eternity Service, are designed specifically to provide an anonymous, decentralized data haven for controversial materials. The architecture of both of these systems is such that popular materials are automatically copied over to multiple systems (nodes); documents can (theoretically) stay in the system forever. Cons: The "general public" is largely unfamiliar with these systems; use is currently feasible for storing out-of-reach of censors, but not for getting the word out to the masses.