Social Justice Warriors hack Klan Twitter account

[phiwum]

No, they're not the same, but it might surprise you to know that a lot of people on the left who were communists (aka "commies") or fellow travelers (unionists, civil rights workers, socialists) were calling for people to out themselves and turn the witch hunt into a constitutional crisis. There were many socialists and communists in the USA from the 20s through 40s. The biggest heels of the hearings were the rats who not only lied about their previous involvement, but claimed they'd seen the light and started naming names, knowing that others would suffer at the hands of the hysteria. I knew a number of academics from that period who got blacklisted in various ways, but they outed themselves rather than getting ratted on (but that was the NYC radicals... they were kinda proud of the heritage, bunch of Trotskyists and hard line Marxists!).

And if I was a bible-thumping vile racist and anti-semite? I'd like to think that I'd believe enough in my cause and my beliefs that I'd be recommending the same thing to the other pinheads in the Klavern. Out yourselves! Stand up and be proud of your reprehensible beliefs.

Okay.

To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure how that response is relevant to what I posted. And, we must admit that there are occasions where anonymity is useful for minority political positions that we would support, but I don't think you're necessarily arguing against anonymous participation as a whole.

In any case, I'm forming a new anonymous group for outing the members of Anonymous as a reaction to their attacks on the anonymous racist group. Our new group will be impervious to attack, because not even our members will know whether they are members or not. I may or may not be the leader of the group -- who can tell?

 

[Unabogie]

Did you really mean what you said there?

Namely, that anyone claiming the KKK deserves equal protection under the law is abetting terrorism? That is, that it is a bad thing to argue that racists have the same basic rights as others?

I think you're right, for the most part. People should have the right to hold whatever beliefs they want. But it's not the government doing the cracking down here. It's simply other citizens voicing their beliefs as well and exposing people who tried to threaten physical violence anonymously. And the Klan is not just about beliefs, they are a terrorist organization who is responsible for countless murders (over 3,000 black men, women, and children were lynched in the South), many times with the complicity of the local police. And here they are threatening to use violence again in support of their beliefs yet again. When a group with that history makes a threat, you'd be wise to believe they mean it.

Sidebar: I've seen many recent cases of doxxing. For instance, in the Vonderitt Myers case, conservatives doxxed Myers and came up with pictures of him from social media. Were they breaking the law? Is doxxing actually illegal?

 

[phiwum]

I think you're right, for the most part. People should have the right to hold whatever beliefs they want. But it's not the government doing the cracking down here. It's simply other citizens voicing their beliefs as well and exposing people who tried to threaten physical violence anonymously. And the Klan is not just about beliefs, they are a terrorist organization who is responsible for countless murders (over 3,000 black men, women, and children were lynched in the South), many times with the complicity of the local police. And here they are threatening to use violence again in support of their beliefs yet again. When a group with that history makes a threat, you'd be wise to believe they mean it.

Sidebar: I've seen many recent cases of doxxing. For instance, in the Vonderitt Myers case, conservatives doxxed Myers and came up with pictures of him from social media. Were they breaking the law? Is doxxing actually illegal?

I thought that the central issue was about hacking the twitter account and other dubious online activities. I presume that breaking into online accounts doesn't count as a free speech activity.

As far as whether "doxxing" (a horrible non-word, may God forgive me for typing it) is illegal or not: I don't know. I'd bet that if I publicize your identity, which I happen to know through legal means, then I've broken no law. If I hack your account to get your info, then the hacking may be illegal. I don't know if spreading illegally discovered information is necessarily illegal in itself.

 

[Foolmewunz]

They said they would act according to the law.

And you choose to believe them? I choose not to. Now who's missing their critical bone connected to their typing bone? The KKK says they're going to act according to a specific section of the law. Said law does not say what they (and you) seem to think it says. It's about self-defense. You cannot travel 100 km, armed, to make a grandiose stand in a demonstration (not a terrorist action... a demonstration) and claim ahead of time that you're only going to shoot people in self-defense.

Well, you can claim it, I guess. But you can be laughed at for claiming it or believing it. Ha! (Like that. I laugh at their transparent tactic and your naive hive-minded Illinois acceptance of it.)

I'm pretty sure that what Anonymous did is called a "felony", not civil disobedience.

Hacking web sites owned by others is a felony, and an attempt to restrict the free speech rights of others. That is not "civil disobedience". And civil rights protesters back in the day engaged in civil disobedience in an effort to support the rights of others, not to restrict the rights of others as Anonymous does and which you are supporting. That's kind of a significant difference.

Hmmm? Ya know, Wildcat, I'm beginning to think your involvement with the ACLU was perhaps not as deep as I'd thought. Can you show me the USC or Missouri State Code defining the crime of "civil disobedience". Hint: It's not a crime. Certain things are crimes. Some may be felonies, some may be misdemeanors. Civil disobedience could be a choice to commit either. So whether it's a felony or not has nothing to do with whether it's civil disobedience.

Ya sure got me there!

And now you prove my point - you only support freedom of speech for views you hold. Just like the Communist Party of China and the military junta in Thailand.

Hyuk! Hyuk! Just like them commies and fascists! (Keep it up, it's getting funny, now.)

Hong Kong is definitely part of Communist China, and the mainland has been asserting its power as of late. And if you think your family is better off under a military junta that's your choice.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/01/world/asia/hong-kong-elections.html

You've never been to Hong Kong. You have no idea what you're talking about.

And it seems to have slipped my memory. Do you remember when the coup was in Thailand and when I arrived here? And let's say you're living in a state where a corrupt system takes over and abuses its power... what do you do? You stay and fight the good fight to change things? Or you run away? Me. I'm staying. I'm a staunch supporter of the populist faction who were driven out of office. When the coup turns the country back to democratic rule, which they will sooner or later, the struggle continues.

You are making a fool of yourself, if you continue posting on topics you have no knowledge of. Meh? I know me some KKK. You? You don't have a clue about life in Hong Kong, nor in China, and certainly not in Thailand.

 

[bit_pattern]

I'm pretty sure that what Anonymous did is called a "felony", not civil disobedience.

Um... That's kind of what civil disobedience is.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disobey

dis·obey
verb \ˌdis-ə-ˈbā, -ō-\

: to not do what someone or something with authority tells you to do : to refuse or fail to obey rules, laws, etc.

 

[Foolmewunz]

It's the blathering of a group with no power or influence, and of whom no one would have heard of had not Anonymous raised their profile.

This is getting precariously close to the "jus' a couple of good old boys having theyselves some fun" defense, common in Mississippi in the 60s, usually after someone of a lesser race had been drug behind old Dub's pickup truck for a few miles 'cuz he looked at Dub's woman the wrong way.

Anonymous raised their profile after they made the news with their circular warning off DEMONSTRATORS. I emphasize that once again. They referred to DEMONSTRATORS as terrorists. They raised their own profile. Anonymous reacted to it.

Bad Anonymous! You let them ol' boys have themselves their fun. Ain't hurtin' no one!

Since the government is not trying to prevent this group from demonstrating there's no need for the ACLU to take up their cause. However, the ACLU has taken up the cause of the KKK in the past. This whole free speech thing seems to have you confused, probably from living for decades in places where it is unknown. I'm unaware of the ACLU ever in its history fighting to suppress the free speech of others, like the actions of Anonymous which you support.

Bu... bu... you told me that the ACLU takes up the cause of free speech. If this is about free speech as you claim in your delirium, then surely the ACLU is going to sending a task for down to Putzville to make sure they don't get their rights trampled on.

Or maybe it's not about free speech, at all.

 

[WildCat]

Does the Klan have a good track record in this regard?

I don't think they have a record of doing anything since the 1960s.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Did you really mean what you said there?

Namely, that anyone claiming the KKK deserves equal protection under the law is abetting terrorism? That is, that it is a bad thing to argue that racists have the same basic rights as others?

You're conflating "racists" and "KKK". There are a lot of racists out there. There aren't many racists out there glorifying and clutching at an organization that was created and has always stood for hate, lynchings, beatings, tarring and feathering, and terrorizing a minority community.

Treat them equally under the law. Make the KKK illegal as its entire history is one of violence and Anti-American activity. Get 'em a good lawyer and make sure they're treated like other felons and get a good clean cell and health care and visiting rights,... in prison. I'm not saying that we should suspend habeus corpus and just round 'em up and jail. First we try 'em, then we jail 'em.

 

[Unabogie]

I don't think they have a record of doing anything since the 1960s.

You'd think that living in the epicenter of all American Knowledge you'd at least read your local paper.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-klan_bdnov23-story.html#page=1

Even more ominously, America's most potent symbol of racial hatred—the Ku Klux Klan—has begun to reassert itself, emerging from decades of disorganization and obscurity in a spate of recent violence.

Two weeks ago, the leader of a Klan cell based in this backwoods town once known as the Klan capital of the nation was charged with second-degree murder for allegedly shooting to death an aspiring member who tried to back out of an initiation ceremony.

Late last month, two suspected skinheads with ties to a notoriously violent Klan chapter in Kentucky were charged in a bizarre plot to kill 88 black students and then assassinate Obama by shooting him from a speeding car while wearing white tuxedos and top hats.

 

[WildCat]

So at first you couched this as a defense of the Klan's right to voice abhorrent views, sort of like it's you and the ACLU, out there fighting the good fight. But little by little, you've now morphed that argument into a spirited defense of the Klan itself. You're saying that they don't commit crimes anymore, so they're not as bad as Anonymous. You're saying the SPLC doesn't consider them a "threat" anymore, then you mitigate their numbers down to half dozen people, even though the OP shows far more faces than this just in Klansmen behind the threats against black people in Ferguson. You're saying that their clear threat of physical violence, along with their inclusion of the Missouri laws regarding justifiable homicide, aren't even actually threats. In post after post, you're defending the honor of the Klan.

I think this thread is quite eye-opening.

I have never defended the "the Klan itself" aside from saying they have the same free speech rights as anyone else, sne deserve the same protections of law as anyone else. And the ACLU agrees with me, do you thionk the ACLU "defends the Klan itself"?

Of course, this is not the first time you've come out against the 1st Amendment on this forum.

Is this a skeptical forum? Please show me where I've even mentioned Wilson's name, much less associated the Klan with him.

I never said it was you, but others posting in this very thread have. I'm still confused as to why you're accusing me of using guilt by association?

I don't give a rat's ass for Wilson. This thread, as much as you'd like it to be, is not about Ferguson. It's about the Klan and their right to distort a section of the law and use it to threaten demonstrators.

So who's confused, Wildcat? You're making up positions. (And frankly, you're not very good at it, but that's to be expected from someone who chooses to live in Illinois, after all.)

I think you're confused. There is no "distortion" of the laws regarding free speech here, indeed it is only such unpopular speech that requires the protection of the laws. It's why the 1st Amendment exists.

I'm not accusing you of opposing free speech because you have chosen to live in countries where it doesn't exist, but because in this very thread you have taken positions opposing free speech. In this very post you called the fact that the flyer was legal a "distortion" of free speech. It's obvious you are unclear on the concept at best, and consciously opposed to it at worst.

 

[WildCat]

Um... That's kind of what civil disobedience is.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disobey

This is like how truthers post definitions of "conspiracy" and "theory" to make it look like "conspiracy theory" is a legitimate position.

Hint: sometimes a phrase means more than the sum of its parts.

 

[Unabogie]

I have never defended the "the Klan itself" aside from saying they have the same free speech rights as anyone else, sne deserve the same protections of law as anyone else. And the ACLU agrees with me, do you thionk the ACLU "defends the Klan itself"?

Of course, this is not the first time you've come out against the 1st Amendment on this forum.

What? You're saying they aren't even really a terrorist organization anymore. You're saying they haven't done anything really bad lately. You're totally trying to defend their honor and everyone here can see it.

As for your second sentence...WHAT???

Please cite a single instance in which I've "come out against the 1st Amendment". You're being silly because everyone sees your slip showing and you're trying to save face.

 

[bit_pattern]

This is like how truthers post definitions of "conspiracy" and "theory" to make it look like "conspiracy theory" is a legitimate position.

Hint: sometimes a phrase means more than the sum of its parts.

Lulwut? I'm not a fan of the dog but if ever a post has demanded it it is something that you've written

Are you trying to claim that civil disobedience never involves breaking the law?

 

[phiwum]

You're conflating "racists" and "KKK". There are a lot of racists out there. There aren't many racists out there glorifying and clutching at an organization that was created and has always stood for hate, lynchings, beatings, tarring and feathering, and terrorizing a minority community.

Treat them equally under the law. Make the KKK illegal as its entire history is one of violence and Anti-American activity. Get 'em a good lawyer and make sure they're treated like other felons and get a good clean cell and health care and visiting rights,... in prison. I'm not saying that we should suspend habeus corpus and just round 'em up and jail. First we try 'em, then we jail 'em.

Is there some issue about rights of association that might interfere with making the KKK illegal?

I think that Wildcat has a point. The current members of the KKK are responsible for the current activities of the KKK. Now, it may be that these activities are illegal, and so the relevant parties should be punished, but I do doubt that the current KKK is quite as heinous as fifty years ago. (Perhaps lack of opportunity plays a role, and perhaps racism isn't quite as virulent even among inveterate racists as it used to be.)

On the other hand, I wonder whether it is legal to proclaim membership in IS or al Qaeda in the U.S. I suspect that doing so would break a law regarding abetting and supporting terrorism. So, if the modern KKK is literally a terrorist organization, then perhaps a similar consequence would follow.

But we don't see any prosecutions like that, suggesting that the Justice Dept. (or whoever) doesn't view the KKK as equivalent to a terrorist organization or at least not as a priority.

Aside: for what it's worth, Wikipedia treats the Klan as (at least) three different groups since the first was founded during Reconstruction. Of the current KKK, they say, "The current manifestation consists of numerous small unconnected groups that use the KKK name." I take it that you are referring only to the "current manifestation", but you're including each of the "small, unconnected groups" in your comments.

 

[Belz...]

Uh, right... let us all know when the KKK goes about extorting protection money from businesses. I'll be all for tossing them in prison when that happens.

It's amazing how much energy you had to expend to ignore the point there, WildCat. The point is that you have to take the Klan's history as context for their current actions. Do you disagree ?

 

[MG1962]

Did you really mean what you said there?

Namely, that anyone claiming the KKK deserves equal protection under the law is abetting terrorism? That is, that it is a bad thing to argue that racists have the same basic rights as others?

Yes it does seem a strange position. Though it might depend if we assume equal protection under law also equates to equal responsibility under the law

 

[marplots]

There may be fewer members in the KKK, but I'd guess the quality per member is much, much higher. Especially since half the membership is undercover FBI. Don't all those guys and gals have college degrees?

 

[phiwum]

Yes it does seem a strange position. Though it might depend if we assume equal protection under law also equates to equal responsibility under the law

I'm afraid I don't understand your point.

 

[bookitty]

You'd think that living in the epicenter of all American Knowledge you'd at least read your local paper.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-klan_bdnov23-story.html#page=1

You can add this SPLC Report: Nearly 100 Murdered by Stormfront Users to the list.

 

[newyorkguy]

<snip>
Are you trying to claim that civil disobedience never involves breaking the law?

Echos of the nineteen-sixties!

When Rosa Parks refused to stand in the crowded back of a Birmingham transit bus and instead sat down in one of many available seats in the front she was breaking the law. The city of Birmingham specifically mandated by statute that on city buses the seats forward of the rear door were white-only and the seats to the rear of the rear door were for "colored passengers." It wasn't mere tradition or custom. It was a city law. When Rosa Parks, an African American woman, sat in a seat in the white section she broke that law and as a result was arrested. Some people considered her little more than a criminal.

Same thing in Boston Harbor when the colonists boarded a British vessel and threw tea into the harbor. They were breaking the law.

It's about context. If Anonymous wants to harass the KKK I applaud them. Do I think Anonymous should get legal immunity? No I don't. When you commit an act of civil disobedience you should be willing to suffer the consequences. If you're not the act loses much of its power. I am also not suggesting the KKK should lose their free speech rights. I am suggesting its perfectly okay to harass them. In fact I would say its admirable.