Social Justice Warriors hack Klan Twitter account

[The Norseman]

Lastly, there is no state or federal right to anonymity on the internet. In other words, you posts your messages, you takes your chances.

While not explicitly stated, there is quite a bit of case law on the federal and state levels which does guard the right to post anonymously. This is not a popular stance to take, IMO.

And, I really should not have to add this, but the case law which supports the right to post anonymously does not extend to every kind of anonymous post made; however, the right is acknowledged as such.

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

Um...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan

It's kinda what they do, threatening or committing violence anonymously. It's what they were founded on, to cause terror in support of white supremacy. This is pretty basic US history.

I'm not happy about anyone being doxxed. But if you are an active member of a well-known terrorist group, such as the KKK, I can't really complain.

Okay, I'm not really familiar with the Klan, and assumed that that wasn't really what they were all about anymore. But I don't know one way or the other.

ETA: This is the kind of stuff one tends to hear from them now:

Today, when speaking to leaders of the Klan, you won't hear racial epithets or a denunciation of any ethnic groups.

"We do not hate anyone,” said Frank Ancona, the imperial wizard of the Traditionalist American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. “The true Ku Klux Klan is an organization that is looking out for the interests of the white race. It is a fraternal organization, and we do good works.”

Ancona's words are a contrast to criminal acts historically associated with the Klan - a divergence from intimidating images of hooded figures with lit crosses cutting through a dark night.

"We look out for the interest of our family first, I feel that other races feel the same way - it's a natural instinct, " he adds.

After all, who can argue with anyone about taking care of one's loved ones or cleaning up a national highway?

"These groups are interested in the press they know they are going to get off this – it doesn’t have anything to do with improving the world," said Mark Potok, editor in chief of the Intelligence Report, which tracks hate groups and extremists for the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Potok concludes that it is not a kinder, gentler Ku Klux Klan but merely a sign of the times.

“Even the Klan recognizes there is no way that they can recreate America as an all-white country,” he said.

http://inamerica.blogs.cnn.com/2012...n-we-do-not-hate-anyone-imperial-wizard-says/

Is it actually the case that the KKK still engages in threats and intimidation? I'm not attempting to credit their attempts to paint themselves benignly, and I understand that they might still engage in intimidation and threats, but I was wondering if there is actual evidence to support the charge.

 

[yodaluver28]

Okay, I'm not really familiar with the Klan, and assumed that that wasn't really what they were all about anymore. But I don't know one way or the other.

ETA: This is the kind of stuff one tends to hear from them now:



http://inamerica.blogs.cnn.com/2012...n-we-do-not-hate-anyone-imperial-wizard-says/

Is it actually the case that the KKK still engages in threats and intimidation? I understand that it's possible, but I was wondering if there is actual evidence to support the charge.

The KKK is what they have always been. The whole "but...but...but, we're nice, cute, cuddly racists now and we wouldn't hurt a fly, scouts honor" routine is an act to get white people who aren't comfortable saying the n-word out loud in public to support them because deep down a lot of them are afraid of the big bad black boogeyman in the White House. It's cynical false advertising at best.

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

The KKK is what they have always been. The whole "but...but...but, we're nice, cute, cuddly racists now and we wouldn't hurt a fly, scouts honor" routine is an act to get white people who aren't comfortable saying the n-word out loud in public to support them because deep down a lot of them are afraid of the big bad black boogeyman in the White House. It's cynical false advertising at best.

Oh, I understand that they aren't cute and cuddly and that they are still a racist organization. I'm just wondering if there is actual evidence that they engage in illegal activities threatening people's lives and property.

 

[Ladewig]

Oh, I understand that they aren't cute and cuddly and that they are still a racist organization. I'm just wondering if there is actual evidence that they engage in illegal activities threatening people's lives and property.

Well, the Missouri branch of the KKK seems to have some difficulty buying into the whole we-are-not-about-violence-anymore schtick.

Members of the KKK have been threatening to use “lethal force” against demonstrators in Ferguson, Missouri, who are protesting about the fatal August shooting of unarmed black teenager Michael Brown by white police officer Darren Wilson.

A grand jury, sitting in the county seat of Clayton is currently deliberating whether to bring criminal charges against Wilson.

Flyers handed out by the Traditionalist American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, which is the Missouri branch of the sect, told “the terrorists masquerading as ‘peaceful protesters’” that they had “awakened a sleeping giant”.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-anonymous-over-ferguson-threats-9864764.html

 

[Ladewig]

While not explicitly stated, there is quite a bit of case law on the federal and state levels which does guard the right to post anonymously. This is not a popular stance to take, IMO.

And, I really should not have to add this, but the case law which supports the right to post anonymously does not extend to every kind of anonymous post made; however, the right is acknowledged as such.

I was wrong.

Does this right protect one from the government trying to de-anonymize one's posts or from private individuals trying to de-anonymize one's posts? Or both? Or something else?

 

[arthwollipot]

Your argument only works when you are on the "winning" side.

ALL arguments only work when you're on the winning side.

 

[The Norseman]

I was wrong.

Does this right protect one from the government trying to de-anonymize one's posts or from private individuals trying to de-anonymize one's posts? Or both? Or something else?

From what I remember, a bit of both. I had occasion to do some reading for another thread here and I don't have the links offhand, though several of the cases I read about had to do with libel suits as well as many courts saying that the burden to prove necessity of discovery in criminal matters was pretty steep. Much of the reasoning came from the Founders, many of whom published anonymously in support of throwing off British rule (a treasonable and therefore hanging offense).

My understanding is that the first amendment was originally written to protect free political speech and only later turned into a more general freedom. In order to fully participate in government, they reasoned, sometimes it was necessary to promote logically and rationally ideas and concepts which might have been unpopular at any given time and therefore, in order to more fully explore these ideas, the persons themselves must remain protected from violence.

I happen to be a perfect internet anarchist in that I do not believe it is any government's right or duty to infringe upon the free exchange of information in any capacity.

 

[Foolmewunz]

So, there are some thoughts that are so inappropriate that those holding them should LITERALLY be exposed to real-life danger of life, property, or livlihood just for holding them?

What happens when "the worm turns" and it's YOUR beliefs that are considered to be such?

Your argument only works when you are on the "winning" side.

I spent the early part of my life in just that danger. From THOSE people. I grew up as an activist in the deep south. I had my mother drummed out of her job by the lovely folks at the White Citizens Council because she was a "commie-jew n-lover" who helped organize voter registration drives in an era when voter registration meant hustling black voters in large groups to where the cameras were because if they took the normal rural roads, the Klan was out in force to prevent them from getting into town.

I support any person's right to say anything. And I support my right to say that they are miscreants, hate-mongers and liars... and possibly much worse. The hoods are for a reason. They are to invoke terror. So the poor babies and their supporters don't like being outed and having their livelihoods threatened by people in figurative hoods? My heart bleeds for them. Big brave patriots who post their verbal diarrhea without having enough backbone to actually take a stand in their own names? Cowards and terrorists.

I'm going to bet that the loony right who are aghast about this would be cheering anonymous on if they were outing Islamists making threats of Jihad or evil black racists promoting an uprising, right?

The only thing I'm against here, is Anonymous not bellying up to the bar. When I performed civil disobedience it was with the knowledge that I might spend a night or weekend in jail. That was part of the plan... it brought attention to whatever it was we were performing the act to protest over.

 

[WildCat]

In fairness, Anonymous said that while they agree with you in principle, in this case the Klan was threatening to kill people for expressing their OWN beliefs which differ from the Klan.

I'm pretty sure, vile as the KKK is, that's not what they said.

 

[bookitty]

I'm pretty sure, vile as the KKK is, that's not what they said.

The original letter which promised the use of lethal force

A statement from the Grand Wizard

...We held a Klan wide meeting today with the Imperial Wizard, who has decided if you want war, we will give you war, not online, but on the streets, we will hunt you down and tear those masks from your face. You'll be strung up next to the chimps. On display for the whole world to see. The Klan is to be feared, not threatened. Turn away, or face the consequences.
We would like to wish Officer Darren Wilson and his family all the best in the future. To Anonymous and the people of Ferguson, we will see you on the streets.

 

[WildCat]

The original letter which promised the use of lethal force

As allowed under the law, not to kill protesters for exercising their rights as has been claimed. Unabogie is known here for lying about, well anything if he thinks it will help his case. That's the third lie I know he's told just today. You'd be smart to not believe the things he claims, in fact one would think you'd at least have read the link you posted yourself.

A statement from the Grand Wizard

And if they actually do use violence their intended victims are free to use lethal force against the Klan. But the problem with you posting that is it is dated Nov. 19, so it cannot be the threats Anonymous claims to be responding to since that happened prior.

 

[bookitty]

As allowed under the law, not to kill protesters for exercising their rights as has been claimed. Unabogie is known here for lying about, well anything if he thinks it will help his case. That's the third lie I know he's told just today. You'd be smart to not believe the things he claims, in fact one would think you'd at least have read the link you posted yourself.


And if they actually do use violence their intended victims are free to use lethal force against the Klan. But the problem with you posting that is it is dated Nov. 19, so it cannot be the threats Anonymous claims to be responding to since that happened prior.

Anonymous was responding to the threat of lethal force in the original letter. Speaking of which, when the KKK threatens primarily black protestors with lethal force, does under the law really matter? At best that letter was meant to intimidate people into silence.

The Nov 19th letter is after the Anonymous take-over. It is that Grand Wizard's measured and thoughtful* response to thT take over. As was the tweet pointing out that it is hunting season and oh how difficult it would be for Klan members to tell the difference between a deer's tail and an anonymous mask.

Remember, this is suppose to be the new improved friendly cuddly Klan.



*that was sarcasm.

 

[WildCat]

Anonymous was responding to the threat of lethal force in the original letter. Speaking of which, when the KKK threatens primarily black protestors with lethal force, does under the law really matter? At best that letter was meant to intimidate people into silence.

Did you actually read the letter? It was clearly intended to intimidate people who would physically attack them or their families, not for speaking out. And that's an acceptable use of lethal force in every state of the USA.

The Nov 19th letter is after the Anonymous take-over. It is that Grand Wizard's measured and thoughtful* response to thT take over. As was the tweet pointing out that it is hunting season and oh how difficult it would be for Klan members to tell the difference between a deer's tail and an anonymous mask.

Remember, this is suppose to be the new improved friendly cuddly Klan.



*that was sarcasm.

The claim was that anonymous was responding to the KKK threatening lethal force against people for exercising their Constitutional rights, which is clearly not what they did. I have no interest in discussing the KKK's marketing strategy or defending their vile beliefs.

Just because a group or person has beliefs most people find abhorrent doesn't mean we're free to lie about them and pretend it's skepticism and critical thinking.

 

[newyorkguy]

It is becoming standard practice for a group with an agenda to not just argue against those who don't toe the line sufficiently regarding the agenda, but to attempt to destroy them in real-life terms by doxxing, by harassment/threats, by trying to get people fired from their real-world jobs, etc.

First, I understand what you're saying but I don't think this is a good example. How would Klan members be fired, by someone telling their employer, "Joe belongs to the Klu Klux Klan." Would that be enough? Might be. I belong to the New York Historical Society; if my employer found out...so what? If someone belongs to a group -- actually a hate group -- considered so vile that mere membership is enough to get you fired maybe the person should rethink their membership.

Second, they're not doing this against Klan members because they don't "toe the line sufficiently regarding" Anonymous' agenda. They're doing this because they regard the Klan the same way you do:

I have no brief with the Klan. They're a bunch of racist thugs. No doubt about that.

 

[bookitty]

Did you actually read the letter? It was clearly intended to intimidate people who would physically attack them or their families, not for speaking out. And that's an acceptable use of lethal force in every state of the USA.



The claim was that anonymous was responding to the KKK threatening lethal force against people for exercising their Constitutional rights, which is clearly not what they did. I have no interest in discussing the KKK's marketing strategy or defending their vile beliefs.

They specifically used the phrase "lethal force." The rights in question are freedom of assembly. That is what they clearly did. Instead of going the "concerned citizens" route, they used the Klan letterhead to evoke the reputation of the Klan. A reputation earned by murdering black people without provocation. The only way you can read that letter as non-threatening is if you ignore the entire history of the Klan in that region.

 

[Unabogie]

I'm pretty sure, vile as the KKK is, that's not what they said.

You're coming to the defense of the KLAN now???

Go ahead, this should be entertaining. How exactly do you read something like this?

http://www.theroot.com/articles/cul...lethal_force_against_ferguson_protesters.html

 

[newyorkguy]

I love the (unintentional) irony here. From Grand Wizard Frank Ancona:

The KKK has been bringing a message of hope and deliverance to a white, Christian America now for a number of years, we preach a message of love, not hate....The Klan is to be feared, not threatened. Turn away, or face the consequences.

One question I have about the Klan: they wear those pointy hoods of what appear to be soft cloth. How do they manage to keep them standing up? Do they have some kind of frame inside?

 

[angrysoba]

First, I understand what you're saying but I don't think this is a good example. How would Klan members be fired, by someone telling their employer, "Joe belongs to the Klu Klux Klan." Would that be enough? Might be. I belong to the New York Historical Society; if my employer found out...so what? If someone belongs to a group -- actually a hate group -- considered so vile that mere membership is enough to get you fired maybe the person should rethink their membership.

Maybe, but that's not really a good argument. If the test is "If you belong to a group so reviled that people will fire you for belonging to it, then you should rethink your membership" then the bar could be set low. Remember that lots of people hated Communists in the 1950s, 60s, 70s, 80s etc... and were fired on the basis of such associations. I think we generally think that was wrong now, don't we?

As for this specific incident, I can see it being acceptable if these groups were promising violence.

 

[Unabogie]

They specifically used the phrase "lethal force." The rights in question are freedom of assembly. That is what they clearly did. Instead of going the "concerned citizens" route, they used the Klan letterhead to evoke the reputation of the Klan. A reputation earned by murdering black people without provocation. The only way you can read that letter as non-threatening is if you ignore the entire history of the Klan in that region.

I'm honestly at a loss for words on this. I'm used to posters torturing the meaning of words around here to the point of death, but this is a group of TERRORISTS threatening people with DEATH. And it's THE KLAN.

Do we really need to debate this in 2014???