Hacker Collective Attacks KKK Sites (theepochtimes.com)

An anonymous reader writes: A KKK web site went offline for several hours Saturday, part of an ongoing attack campaign being attributed to "several hacker collectives, including Anonymous and BinarySec, under a loosely-coordinated operation theyâ(TM)re calling #OpKKK." The Epoch Times newspaper reports that "Over the course of the last couple months, websites belonging to the KKK flicked off and on, members of the hate group have had their identities posted online, and their recruiting efforts have been attacked." Saturday's DDoS attack and others are being chronicled on Twitter with the hashtag #OpKKK, prompting the newspaper to describe the collective as "very active".

"Part of OpKKK is bringing attention to the fact that these groups are not dead and are in fact finding a new life online..." one attacker told the newspaper. "We private citizens have the right to pass judgment and respond to hate speech and those who perpetuate these dangerous ideals...and there are consequences."

Comments

Zealots.

[SuricouRaven]

Even the KKK deserves their freedom of speech. I might support a temporary disruption of service purposes of raising awareness of an issue - the online equivalent of a sit-in protest - but I think everyone is already aware that the KKK exists.

Re:Zealots.

[jafiwam]

But that doesn't give anybody the right to harm you.

and i never claimed it did.

[Sigh]

By asserting it's just to take down someone's web servers because you don't believe in their message, you did assert exactly that.

The provider could take the web sites down because they don't like the site's speech, outside parties don't have a right to interfere with the consensual transaction of third parties. And that's exactly what you are advocating.

Re: Zealots.

[MightyMartian]

No, they're both hateful. One just wants all the Jews dead, the other just wants the Jews moved somewhere else. I'd say the latter inevitably leads to the former, because you're going to find people don't want to move, or perhaps cannot, and thus you start with Hitler's ideas of moving all the Jews to one location,and ends with Auschwitz.

Sorry, "ethno nationalism" is racism. It is a repugnant creed concocted by evil people.

Dangerous Zealots.

[Anonymous Coward]

FTA: "Groups like the KKK are protected by free speech. Zombie Ghost said, however, that only the government isn’t allowed to infringe on free speech, and that “We private citizens have the right to pass judgment and respond to hate speech and those who perpetuate these dangerous ideals and there are consequences.”"

I've been hearing this misunderstanding of free speech more and more. He is right, in that we have a right to pass judgement as private citizens. He is wrong in the part left unsaid. Private citizens do NOT have a right to impose "consequences", especially when those consequences are illegal.

Re:Dangerous Zealots.

[Bearhouse]

Mod up.
As private citizens we cannot "pass judgement" - that's for the courts.
We can have an opinion, and should respond to this kind of crap by voicing it.
Legally.

Re:Dangerous Zealots.

[Z80a]

Actually, Those people generally "respond" by taking over the moderation of several places and carpet banning and deleting everything that goes against their rhetoric, and when its outside the internet calling the police with bomb threats, hitting the fire alarm etc etc etc..

Re:Dangerous Zealots.

[swb]

I've been hearing this misunderstanding of free speech more and more.

There's free speech, which is normally a shorthand for the right to free speech, which is constitutionally protected at the Federal level and often at the state level and the former is often used to enforce that right nationwide where government attempts to limit it.

Then there's freedom of expression, which is the philosophical concept of the moral right to express one's opinion free from arbitrary constraints and reprisals.

Pedants who use the limitations of constitutional freedom of speech as a justification for attacks on freedom of expression I think are somewhat dangerous. If you believe that freedom of expression is good, I don't think you should ever endorse private reprisals against the expression of unpopular opinion. Censorship and repression of speech aren't good qualities just because they are exercised by private entities, especially when implemented as hostile attacks designed to limit the freedom of expression of others.

I think this leads to a mob mentality that justifies repressive behavior against unpopular opinion. If hacking KKK sites is justified because you believe their ideas are reprehensible, why doesn't that give the KKK moral justification for hacking Black Lives Matter? "Black Lives Matter is good and the KKK is bad" isn't sufficient.

Freedom of expression should hold that everyone should be able to express their opinion without fear of reprisal. People may decide not to like you or support you based on your opinions, but this is a the natural outcome of the marketplace of ideas. But if you endorse affirmative attacks on unpopular speech makers, you are only relying on the winds of popular opinion before you may be subject to those same attacks with the same moral weight you claim to have.

Re:Dangerous Zealots.

[MightyMartian]

Can you define "consequences"? While I agree that no one has the right to do anything illegal, there is no right to be free of the consequences of your speech. If you publicly and openly espouse racist beliefs, then there will be consequences; everything from shunning by friends and neighbors to even potentially losing your job. The state cannot punish you for your beliefs, but society is not limited to state action.

Re:Dangerous Zealots.

[Yosho]

Ok, so all the posters being called SJWs here on Slashdot or Reddit or elsewhere for having an opinion have such magical censorship powers? Good to know how you view your reality and people you disagree with.

Do you remember that time Slashdot interviewed Brianna Wu, and a few days after the "Ask your questions" article was posted, the majority of comments or questions that were critical of her -- several of which were at +5 -- was suddenly modded down to -1? And then every question she was asked was a total softball?

Re:Dangerous Zealots.

[Alumoi]

So you'll kick him out because it could be damaging to your company image, not because he's a member of KKK.
Now tell me, would you do the same for an anti gay/lesbian? Or for a pro-abortion? Or for ... (insert not PC actions here)

Re:Dangerous Zealots.

[KGIII]

I think the clarification actually needs to go a bit further. It's not the freedom of speech, not really. It's the right to free speech.

To put this in perspective, I have the freedom to punch you in the mouth. I do not have a right to do so. Or, if you prefer, I am not at liberty to punch you in the mouth.

You have a right to free speech. That right, like any other, can be limited. As I may not be able to reply, I will to make it clearer. Try to communicate with a certain class of prisoners. Try saying something that is a credible threat concerning a politician. There are other examples but those are a couple of easy ones.

The "Freedom of Speech," as it is popularly known and phrased, really is no such thing. Freedoms are taken by force and, typically, through restraint. Thus, it is a right to free speech. That is not a distinction without difference but an often overlooked aspect that leads to some rather odd beliefs about the purpose of the legislation. Many, many people do not actually even know what freedom is and what liberties are. Ironically enough (or perhaps not ironic at all) they're often the most vocal of people.

At any rate, I'm of the opinion that this move by this "hacker collective" is asinine and, for the record, I'm lots of things but white is not one of those things. I'm kind of brown(ish) and partially black. So long as their speech does not translate into action, they've any right to say what they wish. One does not have a right to commit criminal offenses in order to silence them, no matter how much one dislikes them. Their rights, clearly enumerated in the Constitution, trump their non-existent right to commit crimes. It's pretty bad when someone is in a fight with the KKK and they're the loser on the morality side. It's pretty bad when they're less ethical than the KKK. It's usually pretty bad when one is worse than their enemy but this is all the more disgusting when that enemy is the KKK.

Re:Dangerous Zealots.

[MightyMartian]

In the Jim Crow south, there was a body of law that sought to deprive blacks of political and economic rights. Segregation wasn't merely a sort of social agreement between white folk, it was the law in several states.

Re:Dangerous Zealots.

[AK Marc]

"When spouting off your mistaken and deceptive rants"

No, nothing hateful or biased in that question. As I said, the deliberately trolling questions were deliberately trolling.

And the second was accusations of elitism, without a question in there (other than, why are you an elitist).

Both of those questions were obvious trolls. Neither asked a question that would have resulted in an interesting answer.

Your complaint is "someone downmodded the obvious trolls" That makes you the troll.

meh

[arbiter1]

Shocked they haven't tried to change the pages with support ad's for trump to try to push he is racist some more. At this point KKK has been pretty peaceful and certain other group won't say (#blacklivesmatterbutnottootherblacklives) are ones that loot and burn buildings down when they find an something that happens they can protest for even when the something is for a criminal that played a stupid game and won a stupid prize.

Re:meh

[dadelbunts]

BLM is hardly "activists" All their "protests" were just rioting and looting. Many of black owned businesess. BLM is a racist organization that wants to absolve black people of any personal responsiblity and put the blame on "white people"

Re:meh

[MightyMartian]

The KKK is granddad's white's only club. The current white supremacist movements overtook them a long time ago.

But the KKK didn't come to its low point simply because people walked away. The FBI spent years undermining, much as it does with newer white supremacist organizations.

Didn't these guys declare war on Islam State?

[BigChigger]

How's that working out?

Re:oh, great

[sribe]

"force them to justify the KKK to their family, friends, co-workers, and voters", they'd only be preaching to the faithful.

Having grown up in the Deep South, I can assure you that the KKK is a tiny, and generally despised, minority. Sure, they have close friends and family who share their secret, but outside of that tiny subculture, in the broader community, they are subject to scorn and ridicule. Why do you think they're not public with their membership???