Slashdot Mirror
Website Calls Out Authors of Racist Anti-Obama Posts
stevegee58 writes "A tumblr blog entitled 'HelloThereRacists' is publicly identifying other online posters who make racist/assassination comments about President Obama. Beyond merely identifying online usernames, the blog's author is uncovering and publishing the real names and locations of offending posters. It's an interesting mess of legal issues. The outed posters are at risk of a Secret Service visit, but the trouble may not end there. The HelloThereRacists blogger himself may have some problems publicly identifying posters, who are frequently underage teenagers."
Update: 11/16 19:17 GMT by S : The blog has already been taken down.
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.
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.
FTA:
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:
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.
Freedom of speech absolutely does not imply freedom from consequences.
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.
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?
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.
citation? i'm sure this will be a lively debate considering you mentioned 'fox news' and 'facts' in the same sentence.
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
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.
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?
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!
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.
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
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
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.
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;
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.