Website Calls Out Authors of Racist Anti-Obama Posts

so what if they're minors? by TWX · 2012-11-16 06:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

Sounds like a good life's lesson before they'll face real consequences for their actions, and maybe their parents won't be able to continue to delude themselves about their childrens' behavior anymore.

--
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.

Re:so what if they're minors? by metlin · 2012-11-16 07:02 · Score: 5, Insightful

You think bigotry and prejudice evolves in a vacuum? A good many of those kids probably live in households where their parents, relatives, and friends tout those views.
Re:so what if they're minors? by cornjoelio · 2012-11-16 07:10 · Score: 3, Insightful

These are all public statements on social networks, is there a reasonable expectation of privacy even for minors in this case?
Re:so what if they're minors? by h4rr4r · 2012-11-16 07:11 · Score: 2

Why not?
What law prevents this if they are minors?
I would think the first amendment would protect the poster.
Re:so what if they're minors? by Juanvaldes · 2012-11-16 07:24 · Score: 4, Informative

I saw the site yesterday and a number of posters exposed also included bits about how their parents shared the same views.
Re:so what if they're minors? by h4rr4r · 2012-11-16 07:35 · Score: 5, Insightful

What jurisdictions have these laws?
Please name one.
I don't see how he put anyone in danger. These were copies of posts people made online. These folks were already telling the world this about themselves. He did not secretly record their bed time conversations.
Re:so what if they're minors? by bfandreas · 2012-11-16 07:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

Children deserve special protection. While proper and appropriate sanctions are in order dragging them into the court of public opinion is not.
The internet has become a gormless lynchmob.
Children behaving like idiots is news? Hardly. It is the norm and that's why we protect them and punish in a way that does no lasting harm. "Real consequences" are community service, being grounded for months, being cut off the internet for month(including their parents deleting their internet personas permanently) being lectured by a judge in a closed session. All done in private. Not a public punishment under the eyes of a jeerying crowds and most certainly not a visit by the Secret Service lest it be for proper educational purposes. And least of all being pointlessly thrown into jail.

The much more interesting question is why they post this particular type of hateful tripe.

If you want to answer that with "friends and family" then you are propably partly correct but also shortsighted.

--
20 minutes into the future
Re:so what if they're minors? by Intrepid+imaginaut · 2012-11-16 07:36 · Score: 2

Please. I'd bet half the trolls on the internet are minors. Kids say and do things just because they are forbidden, its normal.
Re:so what if they're minors? by h4rr4r · 2012-11-16 07:46 · Score: 3, Insightful

Most of them were facebook posts using their real names and pictures of themselves.
Identifying who they were was clearly trivial.
Re:so what if they're minors? by amiga3D · 2012-11-16 08:07 · Score: 4, Insightful

Yes. That is not protected speech. They are idiots and hopefully no one over the age of 15 or so is engaging in such juvenile behavior. Too bad corporal punishment is frowned on nowadays because they definitely need their asses whipped. Regardless of political considerations President Obama is the executive officer of the United States and it is not only illegal but immoral to threaten him and the racism speaks for itself. I say this as one who politically is totally opposed to most of the President's policies. It's too bad that civilization has deteriorated so badly.
Re:so what if they're minors? by h4rr4r · 2012-11-16 08:21 · Score: 4, Informative

This mostly addresses the special concerns school publishing has to work with. It admits the government cannot limit the media to print youths names so long as they are correct and were legally collected.
Re:so what if they're minors? by h4rr4r · 2012-11-16 08:37 · Score: 2

Those are when you attend a trial. Are you even reading this stuff you post?
Re:so what if they're minors? by drinkypoo · 2012-11-16 08:38 · Score: 2

You might have to explain that one.
If you make promises you have to keep them. But if you attempt to hold people to illegal promises, you can't.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:so what if they're minors? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2012-11-16 09:06 · Score: 2

when you can just say something bad about religion or conservatives or capitalism and get instant +5 insightful
That's probably because criticising religion, conservatives and capitalism quite often is insightful.

--
Ezekiel 23:20
Re:so what if they're minors? by bfandreas · 2012-11-16 09:27 · Score: 2

I often criticise religion for being too purple. I mean, what's going on with all that purple?

Also why do conservatives pause so long between breaths? They CONSISTENTLY deviate from the mean by AT LEAST two milliseconds! Those breathless bastards!

And capitalism is far too capital! I mean, does it have to be that large? You can hardly move it through the staircase when moving out. You just might as well call it aunt Edna.

--
20 minutes into the future
Re:so what if they're minors? by The_Wilschon · 2012-11-16 09:47 · Score: 2

Yes, and every thread will be investigated by the Secret Service.
I don't think that this guy's blog will have any impact on Secret Service investigations. If they felt there was a sufficient threat to merit investigation in any particular case, then they are more than able to discover the information this guy has uncovered (and more!) without his help. If they felt that some other particular case was not worthy of investigation, then this guy's blog will not convince them to investigate. The blog is a complete non-factor as regards the Secret Service.

--
SIGSEGV caught, terminating

wait... not that kind of sig.
Re:so what if they're minors? by funwithBSD · 2012-11-16 10:33 · Score: 4, Informative

Really? Ok, I will bite...
King Henry asked "Will no one rid me of this trurbulent priest?"
Well, that is one version, there's are others reported, but the meaning was clear: someone cap that fucker.
That incited some of his knights to do exactly that. Went medieval on his ass with broadswords.
If you wanted an updated version, it is like Don Corleone commenting what a beautiful family you have, and what a shame should something happen to them.
So if some one with sufficient real or moral authority and/or infulence made the same sort of comments about a President, it could be taken as a serious threat.

--
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
Re:so what if they're minors? by amiga3D · 2012-11-16 12:45 · Score: 3, Insightful

I do find the lack of decorum and respect concerning the office of the President of the United States very disturbing. It's not about President Obama or President Bush but the failure to have just manners. It offends me when I hear people treating my President, despite the fact that I didn't vote for him, like he was a piece of trash. Calling him names and suggesting someone harm him is just plain wrong. He represents the People of the United States. Disagree with him, fine. This other crap needs to stop. It doesn't matter if it's President Bush or President Obama. If people can't disagree without losing their minds we will end up looking like one of those Middle Eastern countries with shelled out buildings and rubble filled streets.

and salon by nimbius · 2012-11-16 06:52 · Score: 3, Insightful

http://hellothereracists.tumblr.com/
salon just made a decent argument lambasting them for outing kids in a manner that could permanently stigmatize them as racists. Granted I think arresting the penchant for racism at a young age is a good idea, perhaps it would be more fruitful if the parents of the children were outed instead?

additionally, many of the posts come from regions of America that you would anticipate racism to emanate from. at very least it helps to dispel the often heralded myth by of the GOP that racism happened a long time ago and we don't need to talk about it, as they did during the Treyvon Martin murder. The south, as a touchstone example, while forced to integrate has never been forced to accept it socially.

--
Good people go to bed earlier.

Re:and salon by ShanghaiBill · 2012-11-16 07:02 · Score: 5, Insightful

the often heralded myth by of the GOP that racism happened a long time ago and we don't need to talk about it, as they did during the Treyvon Martin murder.

You seem to have a memory problem. In the Treyvon Martin case it was the "liberals" that were knee-jerk racists, and it was the "conservatives" (including Fox News to their credit) that were saying we should actually look at the facts.
Re:and salon by ilsaloving · 2012-11-16 07:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

There's only one problem with Salon's argument. The kids themselves have already permanently stigmatized them as racists.
One something goes onto the internet, it's there permanently. It will never go away. Therefore, what you say COULD very well bite you in the rear years later. People have already lost jobs and whatnot because of stuff they've posted online. Sometimes very publicly. And yet people still can't seem to get the picture.
Even a highschooler should know better than to say incredibly stupid things like this in a public forum. High schoolers are not stupid. They may not be as mature as a full adult, but they are not stupid.
More generally, anyone may be free to say whatever they want, but they do NOT have the right to avoid the consequences of what they say. These people have no one to blame but themselves. Period.
Re:and salon by beckett · 2012-11-16 07:10 · Score: 5, Funny

citation? i'm sure this will be a lively debate considering you mentioned 'fox news' and 'facts' in the same sentence.
Re:and salon by amicusNYCL · 2012-11-16 07:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

salon just made a decent argument lambasting them for outing kids in a manner that could permanently stigmatize them as racists.
What exactly is the problem with calling a racist a racist?

--
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Re:and salon by h4rr4r · 2012-11-16 07:21 · Score: 2

I have no way to check that since the site seems to be down but that does not seem surprising at all.
Much of the Northeast is rural and racist as hell. I have lived in the deep South and the North east, rural vs city was a far better predictor of racism than latitude.
Re:and salon by PPH · 2012-11-16 07:21 · Score: 2, Interesting

How, exactly, do you "force" someone to accept something socially?
You take a page from the social conservatives' playbook and make it the responsibility of the government to arbitrate morality. Public pressure denouncing the unwanted ideology is the first step to establishing government policy. Once we establish a 'moral majority' that believes this behavior must be dealt with, we are on our way to achieving this goal.

How do you force people to think in a particular manner,
You don't, directly. But if you proscribe the unsuitable behavior, people will eventually fall into line. Or they'll out themselves as being social misfits who can then be dealt with.
Of course, I'm playing devil's advocate here. Swallowing one's own medicine sure is a bitch, isn't it?

--
Have gnu, will travel.
Re:and salon by i+kan+reed · 2012-11-16 07:24 · Score: 3, Insightful

Where "look at the facts" means "not even have a trial for an obvious suspect." I think you'll find that most liberals would be perfectly ok with a "not guilty" verdict if the evidence pointed that way, but not even charging someone who beyond a shadow of a doubt, and by their own volition, shot and killed a minor, is not a sane course of action.
Dealing with the intricacies of what is murder, what is manslaughter, and what is completely justifiable is something that should be handled by a jury of ones peers.
Re:and salon by Obfuscant · 2012-11-16 07:59 · Score: 2

How do you "out" somebody who's posting to what is essentially a public forum.

By tracking down not only their real names, but their physical addresses. "strength_of_10_men" is really George Thompson who lives at 3482 Wayback Lane, Apt. 4, Glen Close, CA, and his phone number is 800 555-1212.
This is a celebrated tactic when anti-spammers deal with spam kings (who are sending email out to anyone with an email address, or essentially "public"), with the implication that someone should go "visit" them to help them straighten out their lives. Why would we not recognize it as the same type of tactic here?
Re:and salon by Obfuscant · 2012-11-16 08:13 · Score: 2

What exactly is the problem with calling a racist a racist?
Nothing, if the person the label is being applied to has actually said something truly racist deliberately.
But, if it is a case of ignorance of the listener ("niggardly" is not a racist term), or someone helpfully trying to "decode" a "keyword" for us, or assuming because one party to some event was white and the other black that the event must have been racially motivated (e.g., the white cop who made a black congressman who had just broken into his own house show ID), there's a lot wrong with trying to permanently stain someone with the accusation. This would include the case of someone who, nine and a half years previously, while working with a Hollywood script writer to create dialog for a cop show, suggested that the bad cop being portrayed might use 'the N word'.
Adding to it by posting true identities and physical locations just makes it worse.
Now, I haven't seen the tumblr stuff so I don't know if the person who was doing this limited himself to clear-cut unambiguous things, but I'm responding to your simple question "what's wrong with".
Re:and salon by tibman · 2012-11-16 08:34 · Score: 2

Is their intention to kill innocent people? or something else?

--
http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
Re:and salon by Petron · 2012-11-16 09:14 · Score: 5, Informative

No that was the police, that were the first ones who took in the evidence, talked to witnesses, dealt with injuries.
Evidence overwhelmingly put Zimmerman in the clear. Trayvon had bruises on his knuckles that shows he was punching somebody. Zimmerman had no bruises on his fists, he wasn't, but he did have multiple wounds including a broken nose and bleeding from the back of the head. Eye witnesses saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman, went to call the police - heard the gun shot and returned to see Trayvon on the ground. Interviews with Trayvon's girlfriend indicates Trayvon went back to confront Zimmerman, and what was said before (T: 'Why are you following me?" Z: "What are you doing here?" then a fight breaks out).
Liberal news agencies altered the 911 call to make Zimmerman sound racist (they apologized for this), filtered images to hide wounds on Zimmerman's head (after removing the filters they announced there were wounds...) They published a 6-7 year old picture of Trayvon as a 11 year old kid (helps draw sympathy), and an old mug shot of Zimmerman (Boy, helps the innocents there right? Didn't even mention all charges against him were dropped and he had a clear record).
All evidence collaborates with Zimmerman's story of self-defense. Trayvon did attack Zimmerman. Zimmerman's wounds were all self-defense style wounds.

--
if (it != oneThing) it = another;
Re:and salon by Whorhay · 2012-11-16 09:16 · Score: 2

"Even a highschooler should know better than to say incredibly stupid things like this in a public forum. High schoolers are not stupid. They may not be as mature as a full adult, but they are not stupid."
I would amend that to "they are not anymore stupid than the average adult." Because make no mistake people, kids included are stupid.
Re:and salon by amicusNYCL · 2012-11-16 10:55 · Score: 2

Do you really imagine every time utters the "n" word, they actually believe in the superiority of the white race?
If they use it in a derogatory sense, like the people responding to Obama's election, then yes I do. If they use it in a joke context then they're still racist as fuck but I have no clue what's going in their tiny confused brain with regard to superiority. But yeah, I think all the racists out there bitching about the election do in fact resent that they are essentially being led by someone who is not white. I think that they think that they are "better" than that, that they "deserve" a white leader instead of the "inferior" one they have.

There doesn't seem to be any allowance here for reality. I mean, every time we say anything, it's true, accurate and balanced?
Not necessarily, but someone who isn't racist wouldn't make a racist remark. It wouldn't even occur to them to do so. I didn't vote for Obama either, but my first reaction to his victory wasn't to bitch about the color of his skin. To me Obama's identity isn't the color of his skin, it's his job. He's not "some black guy" or "some nigger", he's "the President", regardless of whether or not I agree with his policies or actions.

Being stupid and socially rude is one thing, and perhaps something to scoff at. But labelling someone as a full-fledged racist because of an online comment beggars belief.
What do you suggest, should we enroll both them and ourselves in sensitivity training classes until we all end up in a drum circle singing? How about calling out their racist bullshit for what it is, and letting them know that we don't respect or agree with it? That's called self-correction by society. They made the remark, they have to stand by their words. If that's not what they believed then they shouldn't have said it. Responding to them in a negative manner should hopefully get the point across that we don't accept their behavior. If they truly didn't mean it then it will be a wake up call that maybe they shouldn't casually be so racist as fuck.
I feel like you're saying "just because someone fondles one kid, do we really want to brand them as a pedophile?" Yeah, we do. They deserve it. "But they're really nice! They were just drunk!", you protest. Yes, well, if they weren't a pedophile then they wouldn't have had the idea to fondle the kid, would they?

--
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Re:and salon by misexistentialist · 2012-11-16 11:13 · Score: 2

What about 12-year-old girls who stigmatize themselves as sluts?
Re:and salon by amicusNYCL · 2012-11-16 11:27 · Score: 2

You mean if a white guy got elected and a bunch of black racists started posting a bunch of racist messages on Twitter and Facebook, would I react the same way? Yeah, I would.
But go ahead, keep defending racism.

--
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Re:and salon by thesandtiger · 2012-11-16 12:35 · Score: 2

Question for you:
Zimmerman was following Martin around and could certainly be considered threatening in that respect. Why can't Trayvon be covered under stand your ground? Had Zimmerman not followed Martin around the incident would not have happened. I've asked this of numerous people who insist Zimmerman was obviously in the right and never got a response.
He should have a trial. He went out of his way to follow Martin and ultimately caused the incident. If he is found to have acted in self defense then good for him. And before anyone says that his life is forever changed - Trayvon is dead and the Martin family lost a loved one. Zimmerman can nut the fuck up and deal with the ramifications of his actions.

--
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.

Definition of racism? by SirGarlon · 2012-11-16 06:56 · Score: 4, Insightful

So who gets to decide the difference between a "racist" comment and a generally insulting comment?

Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr's famous "dream" was that [people] will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." Many of Obama's critics are doing exactly that.

Disclaimer: I'm a halfhearted Obama supporter in the "lesser of two evils" sense.

--
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.

Re:Definition of racism? by Ixokai · 2012-11-16 09:51 · Score: 5, Insightful

In this case, its pretty easy.
If you say he's a bad President with bad policy decisions and poor judgement, that's the content of his character (or actions). If you say he's a (sand) nigger or muslim or mention slavery or his non-whiteness, as many of those posts in the blog did, its racist. If you talk about the preferred method of assassination being lynching as MANY of these did, its *really* racist (also stupid as shit).
Those were *really* blatant. "I'm not racist!" one said, "I like plenty of black people, I just hate niggers" (paraphrased by me, site's down now). Its hard to read that as anything but, "I like the black people who know their place, i.e., subservient to my white ass." And that'd be one of the nicer ones.
Things get fuzzier when you have someone talking about the loss or waning of "Traditional America", which is IMO racist -- but which is trying very hard to cover it.
When you talk about the only reason he won is because the "new" America is getting "gifts" from Santa, you're bemoaning the decline of the white male bloc and rather offensively deciding no one but that white male bloc can make an intelligent decision on its merits -- that's just generally insulting, but arguably not quite racist. But is it *damn* close to both racism and male chauvinism (since this new America also happens to include whores and sluts: i.e., single women who are thinking only of sex sex sex sex sex sex and all the sex they can have for free now, and not about the future as a responsible wife and mother would).
Sure there are plenty of people who are Obama critics who are not racists. However, a LOT are -- and a LOT of what's going around is very thinly veiled racism. This blog was posting up stuff which didn't even try to veil said racism, though. :)
When a frankly moderate (at best: we progressives did /not/ get the far-left guy we thought we wanted) President's every action is treated as some sort of alien insurrection that is utterly incomprehensible to the people -- there's something more then just policy disagreement going on. It's so far beyond partisan or political policy.

Wheeee! Spinning!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-16 06:57 · Score: 4, Insightful

FTA:

Some also state specifically that they are not racist.

Oh, I guess that makes everything all right then.

The most racist comments by the most racist people always start with "I'm not racist, but..."

FTS:

The HelloThereRacists blogger himself may have some problems publicly identifying posters, who are frequently underage teenagers.

This, and similar, statements are made in the article, but never explained or justified. There's nothing illegal or immoral about revealing the source of a quote, regardless of age.

Re:Free Speech by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-16 07:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

Freedom of speech absolutely does not imply freedom from consequences.

Re:Free Speech by tnk1 · 2012-11-16 07:03 · Score: 4, Insightful

Free speech does not mean that there are no social consequences of that speech. I am not so sure I like what this guy is doing, but I'm inclined to think that he has the right to do it (as long as he breaks no reasonable privacy laws doing so).

Of course, he should also understand that there are consequences to what he does too. It's one thing to be a verbal racist against someone in a chat room, it's another thing to put someone's real name out there with the implication that perhaps someone should *do something* with that data. I mean, honestly, what does he expect people to do with that information but to get them harassed or trolled?

OK by Quiet_Desperation · 2012-11-16 07:05 · Score: 2, Interesting

Will they also be outing the authors of all the tweets that threatened to assassinate Romney or riot and murder in general if Romney had won? Just curious.

Uncovering what? They used their real names by musixman · 2012-11-16 07:06 · Score: 2

I disagree with this website & they didn't "uncover" anything these people used their real names. While I'm against racism personally, people need to understand that tolerance works both ways. You can't on one hand say people should respect your views & then on the other not at least respect theirs.

Re:Uncovering what? They used their real names by ShanghaiBill · 2012-11-16 07:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

You can't on one hand say people should respect your views ...
I don't respect your views, and I don't expect you to respect mine either. But I do respect your right to express those views.

Re:With supporters like these.... by Quiet_Desperation · 2012-11-16 07:12 · Score: 2

This is ideology. It's intellectual filth. It's a mind cancer. You get two sides attacking each other in a fog of hypocrisy so dense you wonder how they can even keep moving.

Re:Free Speech by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-16 07:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

you're assuming the names of people published are accurate. if they are not then he could face a huge ton of legal issues.

Re:Racism should be okay. by h4rr4r · 2012-11-16 07:13 · Score: 2

You know how I know you never saw "Book of Mormon"?

and its down by lactose99 · 2012-11-16 07:14 · Score: 2

wow, site goes down right as its being discussed....

--
Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist

Re:and its down by lobstrosity · 2012-11-16 07:25 · Score: 2

Google cache is your friend -- cache:hellothereracists.tumblr.com

Re:Racism should be okay. by lactose99 · 2012-11-16 07:15 · Score: 3, Insightful

impeachment yes, assassination no

--
Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist

Re:Free Speech by h4rr4r · 2012-11-16 07:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

I believe the GP meant free speech can have consequences that are not from the government.

Short of assassination threats the folks with black SUVs should leave you alone, but I should be able to find out about it and avoid you.

Should I not have the right to chose not to associate with such folks?

Re:Free Speech by ColdWetDog · 2012-11-16 07:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

Oh settle down. You and all of the Paranoid Drama Queens out there. The Secret Service / FBI / NSA / Men In Black isn't going to whisk you away to Guantanamo Bay in the dark of night. Neither the little racist asshole or yourself are so special.

If anything they'll ask you some questions. If they feel like further evaluation is needed, you will be able to get a lawyer. The vast majority of times they'll just stare at you and maybe ask you to grow up a tad.

There are enough issues with government intrusion into personal privacy to keep everyone on their toes. Jumping up and down about this sort of thing just creates noise, not signal.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!

Usual jerks by Animats · 2012-11-16 07:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

On the actual site (quit linking to some blog that links to a site of interest, Slashdot submitters), it's just typical jerks, mostly in high school. Somebody at the Secret Service will have to read through all that dreck looking for someone who might conceivably be a threat. It's mostly just kids mouthing off. Ones who are both making threats and have guns may get some attention.

It's sad reading the Facebook pages of some of those people. Their future is dim. For white people with only a high school education, life in the US has become slightly worse each year since 1973. For them, there is no American Dream. Hard work is no longer enough. Of course they're angry. The GOP and Fox News exploit and direct that anger at Obama, but they didn't create it.

Re:Usual jerks by mydn · 2012-11-16 10:44 · Score: 2

For white people with only a high school education, life in the US has become slightly worse each year since 1973. For them, there is no American Dream. Hard work is no longer enough.
My ancestry is caucasian, and I have a high-school diploma. My life is much, much better than that of my parents in 1973. I am in the top 17% based on income. And my income is from wages, not from investments or annuities or anything else.

For them, there is no American Dream.
No American Dream, really? How do you define the American Dream? Owning a home, providing for your children, giving them an opportunity for a better life; all of those are possible and achievable. Does not being white improve those opportunities? I don't think so. Does having post-high school education? Yes, but it doesn't mean that it is not otherwise achievable.

Hard work is no longer enough.
Hard work has never been enough. My ancestors worked hard as shit and died destitute. When a small minority of people control the vast amount of wealth, you are at their mercy. How hard you work might possibly make a difference, but it's much more likely that you will succeed because your parents have wealth and connections, or because you were just dumb lucky, or because you found a way to exploit the work of others to your own benefit. Hard work has never been a guarantee of, nor prerequisite for, success.

Re:What about threats to conservatives? by ChipMonk · 2012-11-16 07:25 · Score: 3, Informative

You only need to do a Google search for "new civility" (include the quotes) to see the hypocrisy behind HelloThereRacists. But don't expect to see Diane Sawyer, Brian Williams, or Scott Pelley saying anything about the threats of violence and murder against Romney and Ryan. The "objective" news sources were silent this time around, just like they were four years ago.

Re:Free Speech by tbannist · 2012-11-16 07:31 · Score: 2

So you are free to say anything you want as long as your ok with consequences of the men in black suv's showing up and putting you down sans trial under patriot act anti terror legislation.

Because the men in black SUVs only show up if you threaten to kill someone important? But beyond that the AC didn't say that any consequence was justifiable. Having your real name attached to stupid racist things you've said is a far cry from extraordinary rendition.

Additionally, free speech has never meant you were free from the consequences from your fellow people, only from government reprisal for most things that you can say. Even that protection from the government has been limited. For example, you're are still legally responsible for crimes commited with speech such as fraud, intimidation, uttering death threats, treason, and other related crimes that can result from your speech. In addition you can be held civilally responsible responsible for many types of speech such as slander, copyright infringement (public performance of a protected work), wrongful death (if someone dies because of what you said) and others.

Beyond that there are all kinds of consequences your fellow citizens can inflict on you, such as telling other people your real name when you spout offensive crap. There is no way to have consequence free speech other than making sure no one ever hears it.

--
Fanatically anti-fanatical

Re:Racism should be okay. by Zemran · 2012-11-16 07:31 · Score: 4, Insightful

Generally, discussing racist views should be OK but as soon as it is targeted that is wrong. If a person feels uncomfortable sitting next to a different person they should be encouraged to discuss it but in the current PC climate they cannot. If someone feels uncomfortable with a black man or a woman running the country, they should be free to discuss that without any problem. I do not support their view in any way but pushing these things underground creates a bigger problem. So I think we should defend their free speech...

Suggesting harm is not wrong because the target is black or Muslim or a woman, it is wrong because it is an assault. It is already a crime and in a truly non racist society we should just see it as a crime because it is one, not because the victim was different.

We need to end racism in society by stopping racism from being the crime. End all racism, sexism etc. We need a society that treats all people the same, regardless of who they hate.

--
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.

Re:Double standard by Beerdood · 2012-11-16 07:35 · Score: 2

This isn't "exposing identities" - the vast majority of these posts are facebook and twitter accounts using their real names! These are proud racists - obviously having no issues with how other people view their thoughts. This isn't some IP-investigative / anonymous coward mission where cryptic handles are associated with real people. Their friends and family already know this stuff - there's simply more people being aware of this right now

--
Global warming and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking number of pirates - Gospel of the FSM

Re:Racism should be okay. by Jeng · 2012-11-16 07:36 · Score: 2

We need to end racism in society by stopping racism from being the crime. End all racism, sexism etc. We need a society that treats all people the same, regardless of who they hate

The laws were established because we as a society do not treat all people the same, in fact parts of society not only wants to see the other part die, they want to see them die a gruesome and painful death.

--
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.

Blog down: Google Cache instead by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-16 07:38 · Score: 2, Informative

Here's a cached version, since the site is no longer available.

Re:Free Speech by Archangel+Michael · 2012-11-16 07:46 · Score: 2, Interesting

"If anything they'll ask you some questions. If they feel like further evaluation is needed, you will be able to get a lawyer"

Not under NDAA (Obama's Law), all you need is to be declared a "terrorist" and they can drop a bomb on you from a drone aircraft, no court, no judge, no lawyers no nothing. Don't get me wrong, the (R) president would do the same.

In other words, Obama is the worst part of GWB and then some. The Next President will be all the worst parts of Obama and then some.... see how that works?

--
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.

Cached page by GameboyRMH · 2012-11-16 08:03 · Score: 4, Informative

Replying off-topic but it's relevant:

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahellothereracists.tumblr.com

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel

On a related note... by Black+Parrot · 2012-11-16 08:06 · Score: 2

Looks like the blog is gone.

I guess tumblr was afraid of the slashdotting they were about to get.

Here's a map someone made a week ago:

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/11/where-americas-racist-tweets-come-from/265006/

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade

Re:Double standard by Score+Whore · 2012-11-16 08:31 · Score: 2

Say you have a collection of statements:

Barack Obama is a fucking nigger!
Mia Love is a fucking nigger!
I'm glad that cracker Romney didn't get elected.
Was offline for a few and now I'm back, glad to see my president is still black.

If the only one you call out is "Barack Obama is a fucking nigger!" then you have an agenda of criticizing your political opponents, not of speaking against racism. The fact that the statement is racist doesn't change that.

Re:Free Speech by pla · 2012-11-16 08:43 · Score: 2

It's something more: it's called bullying (through verbal harassment). Now, are we gonna accept bullying as a right, too?

Yes. As part of having the right to free speech, others have that same right.

But you (unintentionally, I presume) make light of "real" bullying here, which goes far, far beyond "speech". Those chronically bullied very quickly become numb to mere words, and would gladly put up with that over what they actually endure.

Re:Free Speech by scot4875 · 2012-11-16 08:51 · Score: 5, Informative

Not under NDAA (Obama's Law)

You mean that thing that congress hashed out and sent him to sign?

It's funny how people's understanding of how government works goes right out the window as soon as they find a talking point to latch onto.

--Jeremy

--
Jesus was a liberal

Re:Double standard by ilsaloving · 2012-11-16 08:53 · Score: 2

Well, if republicans don't want to be associated so much with racism, maybe they should... you know.... stop being so racist?

Re:Double standard by Score+Whore · 2012-11-16 09:00 · Score: 2

The number of posts calling the president racists terms probably is 100 times more than any of those other folks.

Citation or retraction please.

A google search turned up this quote:

This reporter searched Twitter with several specialized Twitter search engines using the keywords “Romney,” “Obama,” “kill,” “shoot,” “riot” and other terms to denote violence, and found scores of original Tweets and re-Tweets advocating violent behavior against both the President and Romney. Many more of the Tweets, though, were, in fact, directed against Romney.

And these pages -- don't even bother reading the articles just scroll down through the tweets:

http://twitchy.com/2012/10/14/death-threats-against-mitt-romney-proliferate/
http://www.prisonplanet.com/obama-supporters-continue-threats-to-riot-assassinate-romney.html
http://www.infowars.com/threats-to-assassinate-romney-explode-after-debate/

While these are specifically about threats against Romney, it certainly doesn't suggest a dearth of such threats. Hell searching for "twitter threats obama" turns up page after page of threats against Romney with the occasional link to something against Obama.

False positives by sideslash · 2012-11-16 09:01 · Score: 4, Interesting

I looked through the cached page, and it was a little disturbing to see a false positive. Specifically, Hallie C. She may or may not be a racist, but clearly the evidence that I saw on the blog was not sufficient to call her one. Apparently she complained that proposed race-based quotas would remove a requirement to work hard in order to get a job (which seems plausible, since it de-emphasizes merit-based competition in order to consider instead the color of your skin). And so our blogger claimed she was saying black people are lazy. Whatever, dude.

Also, the chairman of the Maine Republican party. If black people are not known to live in a town, yet they are bused in to vote, it is legitimate to ask questions about that. Sorry, it just is. If he's mistaken about the demographics, let him be duly raked over the coals for crying wolf unnecessarily. But why call him a racist for apparently being a watchdog against voter fraud?

This blogger was apparently in over his head, and most definitely does not have my respect. Glad his site is down.

You don't bring everyone to trial by Sycraft-fu · 2012-11-16 09:17 · Score: 2

The idea in the US is that you really try to only bring people you are fairly sure are guilty to trial. A trial costs a lot of money and majorly disrupts a person's life. You don't say "Just take them to trial, it'll get all sorted out there."

In the case of an affirmative defense, like self defense, what should happen is the police investigate the situation and determine if the affirmative defense holds water. If it doesn't, they then had it off to the DA for charges.

So "Wait for the facts," is indeed appropriate. You would probably like the same courtesy extended to you if you were suspected of a crime. You'd like them to see if there is a reason to actually charge you, not just toss you in a trial and let that sort it all out.

Also there's the issue that you don't want to go to trial if you aren't ready, or you can well lose. If the state goes off half-cocked and charges someone with little to no evidence, their lawyer will likely file a speedy trial motion to push for a fast date, because they know the state will be screwed.

Re:Not against the law to be racist by Mindcontrolled · 2012-11-16 10:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

There is nothing illegal about exposing racists to the public either. Where does legality even enter the picture with regard to this story?

--
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.

Re:Free Speech by s73v3r · 2012-11-16 13:29 · Score: 2

There's a huge difference between homosexuality, which is something you're born with, and being a dumbfuck, which is something these people chose.

Slashdot Mirror

Website Calls Out Authors of Racist Anti-Obama Posts

71 of 423 comments (clear)