Anonymous hack group plans to out anonymous hate group Persons using the name and iconography of online activist collective “Anonymous” (PUTNAIOOACA) have threatened to out members of the Ku Klux Klan. In a Pastebin post PUTNAIOOACA operatives say “we will be revealing about 1000 of your klan member identities.” The motivation for the campaign appears twofold, with the Pastebin …
The comment referred to a large number of jewish people as "shitheads" in general. I just listen to what's said. If it is to be assumed that the offending statement was not meant to be taken literally, then that should be stated at the time in some way. It wasn't, so therefore my "assumption" seems justified.
I'm willing to let DAM straighten me out about just what was meant by that comment, np.
This post has been deleted by its author
Why these "elite" Defcon script kiddie hacker peckerheads chronically find cartoon targets rather than the ones that might actually do some damage to the globalist fascist financial oligarchy is a mystery of fairy tale proportions. C'mon, kidz, play for all the marbles, direct your magic fingers towards a truly bragging rights hack into, say, the Bilderberg Group, Bohemian Club, Club of Rome, Council on Foreign Relations, Rhodes Trust, Skull and Bones Society, Trilateral Commission, etc. Instead we get a modern day wonder of distorted lensing and Occupy fiasco generation. Hit the ding dong popinjay for once.
Ah yes, the Internet, where so many, many commentards fail to understand the distinction between "free speech" and "being an asshole."
What the KKK bozos are about to learn, hopefully with considerable force, is that while you have the freedom to maintain whatever obnoxious, racist, asshole ideas you wish, you are also free to live with consequences of your actions.
Funny how so many lovers of "free speech" get all miffed when they find themselves on the receiving end.
Who gets to decide where the division between free speech and forbidden speech lies...
"What the KKK bozos are about to learn, hopefully with considerable force, is that while you have the freedom to maintain whatever obnoxious, racist, asshole ideas you wish, you are also free to live with consequences of your actions."
So you thereby agree that someone can come to your home, create utter chaos, possibly kill you or your family because they don't agree with your ideas ? Do you really think that that is a good idea.
The problem lies in the fact that there will always be someone who disagrees with you ideas/thoughts, dress standards, favourite authors...
Radical ideas and actions are part of our society, they won't go away by being "radical"...¨
Killing or destroying the KKK means that you yourself commit a greater crime.. Will Anonymous also attack the other radical minority groups, they too exist... Will they attack the wealthy white people who stole from the poor, the corrupt Priests, the school bullies and the people who are above average intelligence...
Where do you draw the line ?
Anonymous have no right to take any "action" whatsoever, no one voted for Anonymous, they are a radical and anarchaic group, they have become self appointed judge and jury and that is dangerous for everyone ( probably even for themselves). They do however have the right to say what they think and make videos while wearing masks.
Good for the goose, sauce for the gander.
> they (anonymous) have become self appointed judge and jury and that is dangerous for everyone ( probably even for themselves)
Don't said pointy hat lovers have a bit of history on that too? Or was all that 'strange fruit' stuff made up by Billy Holiday to sell records?
One bunch of radicals has a pop at another, no innocent bystanders get hurt, what's the problem?
Presumably if they thought they were socially acceptable as a movement folks wouldn't try so hard to hide their participation in it.
Truth and facts do like to be free which is why, in general, you shouldn't be doing shit you'd be ashamed (or otherwise inconvenienced by) of the world-at-large finding out. Everyone has secrets of some order of magnitude but if you're trying to hide shit-you-do that would seriously mess with your life if uncovered then you probably just shouldn't be doing it in the first place, yes?
"...if you're trying to hide shit-you-do that would seriously mess with your life if uncovered then you probably just shouldn't be doing it in the first place, yes?"
That depends on what shit you do and who might mess with your life. If it's unlawful stuff against innocent people, then just don't do it. If it is dealing with dangerous criminals or corrupt government, then it might be prudent to provide all public service information/announcements anonymously.
"Who gets to decide where the division between free speech and forbidden speech lies..."
Warning, American like typing detected. Here's a hint, not everyone in the world thinks your constitution is as just and fair as you like to think.
The KKK would not be allowed to spread their hate speech over here in Europe, it would be illegal, and rightly so
The KKK would not be allowed to spread their hate speech over here in Europe, it would be illegal, and rightly so
... because pushing hateful ideologies underground is a surefire way of eliminating them. That has never backfired in the entire history of the world.
On an unrelated topic, did you know that you can cure a disease by hiding the symptoms?
"Who gets to decide where the division between free speech and forbidden speech lies..."
That's what the courts are for: They decide.
"Where do you draw the line ?"
Actually, it's not that difficult, either.
If I say that Martians were responsible for atrocities in the wars of 1810, resulting in the deaths of millions of ants: That is free speech. I can say it. It might offend people, but it's a statement they can show as being utterly rubbish (not too hard).
If I then went on to say that we should do something about it... that isn't free speech and what I suggest or even hint at being done could be judged as incitement.
The only grey area (pun intended) is where action is not called for but might be implied. Something like 'It is intollerable that Martians should kill innocent ants by their millions' certainly implies that something should be done, but it's not actually being called for.
This is how the likes of the Western Baptist Church and the current KKK persist. As long as they moderate their tone to express their beliefs then they are exercising freedom of speech. The moment they even hint that people should take any action at all... they're no longer protected.
And mentioning the Western Baptist Church isn't by accident - I've wondered for a time if all they are doing is demonstrating how far freedom of speech can be taken, and that was their whole plan from the outset.
Anyway, people only give offence if that was their intent. In all other cases, offence is being taken, and under no circumstance should taking offence be protected.
(edited as I noticed I'd used speach not speech... doh!)
And mentioning the Western Baptist Church isn't by accident - I've wondered for a time if all they are doing is demonstrating how far freedom of speech can be taken, and that was their whole plan from the outset.
They game the system. They started protesting some things and some bystanders took offense. WBC sued and won on the grounds of "free speech". Seeing what this brought to the group (money and publicity), they expanded and made more money and got more publicity. Since the founder has died, I think they're imploding into factional in-fighting now.
@Barry Reuger
Ah yes, the Internet, where so many, many commentards fail to understand the distinction between "free speech" and "being an asshole."
Unfortunately you can't seperate the two.
Let me begin by saying that I strongly dislike the KKK. Racists, in my view, are the product of repeated bad experiences that outweigh all positive interactions, or much more commonly, the product of low intelligence and small minds.
However, you can't determine that just because someone holds views with which you disagree, that they should be prevented from holding or expressing those views; there will always be people that disagree with your views on any/every subject.
Take the last general election in the UK. The online behaviour of a great many Labour supporters was absolutely disgusting, but there's no way to prevent them without curtailing free speech. Assholes, certainly, but they have to be allowed to speak. Clamping down on the free speech of ordinary Labour members cannot be justified in terms of preventing their more vile brethren being abusive.
KKK are a parody of themselves. They're a rediculous facsimilie of their forefathers, whose battle was lost before most of us were born (and I'm in auld giffer territory), and the more society integrates the more impossible their position and views will become. As time passes society becomes more educated, which I sincerely hope will one day end racism. So, let them shout, and then laugh at them.
And yes, before someone brings up the inevitable, innocent people have been killed by KKK members. But recently more innocent people have been killed by wannabe gangster rappers too, which is no reason to ban rap music/videos.
"However, you can't determine that just because someone holds views with which you disagree, that they should be prevented from holding or expressing those views"
Agreed! But it's missing the point slightly. Anonymous aren't attacking free speech. They are seeking to unmask KKK members in revenge for (alleged) KKK attempts to target Anonymous members and activities. The irony of one faceless bunch of vigilantes exposing another bunch of faceless vigilantes cannot surely be lost on most, least of all Anonymous!
In many ways I share the same sympathies as Anonymous seem to and if I had to live with one and without the other I would rather see the demise of the KKK. But I would have a lot more respect for Anonymous if they would take the masks off and become lawful activists - difficult in many ways I know but not impossible. Both Anonymous and the KKK seek to take the law into their own hands and that is why they attempt to hide their identities. So from a dispassionate standpoint, neither has the moral high ground.
@dogged: "I'm going to assume this is a Reg-ism like TIFKAM but it's really not helpful not to at least footnote what the fuck it actually means."
You don't need to footnote when it is written at the beginning of the article with the initialism shown in brackets afterwards!
"Persons using the name and iconography of online activist collective “Anonymous” (PUTNAIOOACA) "
@Fraggle850
Not quite: Even showing the list came from a KKK source doesn't mean that it's a) accurate or b) hasn't been tampered with and names added to cause mischief.
After all, the KKK could have added names just to discredit the list if it was acquired by the police or a third party, just as those who 'acquired' the list could have added names. It's not like the KKK are going to say 'well, 90% of the names are correct, but those 10% are wrong', are they?
because more likely it'll be a specifically crafted "enemies list". A nastier version of SWATting. Child molesters are too prominent in Hollywood these days and with calls for more "tolerance" the nastiest thing to ruin a career of someone who spurned your advances or disrespected your online clique is to brand them "racist".
I think it's great that anonymous is outing KKK members. I think they can perform further public service by outing the 1% contributors to SuperPACs.
The cockroaches always scurry for cover under the light of public exposure......I applaud anonymous for lighting up the KKK cockroaches.
The KKK historically isn't about free speech. Their legacy can't be escaped. It's one thing to disparage a racial group, but the KKK has in recent past gone well beyond speech. If they want to claim they're different now, they need to rebrand themselves with a new name. Good luck with that.
I say if you are a racist - it is only fair you be outed. If you don't openly back your beliefs, then they are not worth having. Not that I like bigotry in any form what so ever.
However - you could also say the same thing about Anonymous, even though they may have good reason to stay in the dark. I say it is better to openly defy tyranny in public; but then I don't live in a country that can have you shot for what you say. Does that mean I don't have a right to have an opinion on it?
Sometimes I think Anonymous is a modern day replacement for the secret Masonic traditions.
and no one will simply add their favorite enemies to the "racist" list.
McCarthyists disguised as SJWs are gonna be all over this. I can hope most of the "release" are actual Kluxers but who knows? Whole things could be a sham and the haters will eat it up without a shred of proof.
anonymous so anonymous doesn't add me to the list for doubting their pimply faced, parent subsidized basement dwelling zealotry.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
