Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Hacker Collective Attacks KKK Sites (theepochtimes.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the tweeting-for-social-justice dept.

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."

7 of 191 comments (clear)

  1. Zealots. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Zealots. by jafiwam · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  2. Dangerous Zealots. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Dangerous Zealots. by Bearhouse · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Dangerous Zealots. by Z80a · · Score: 5, Informative

      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..

    3. Re:Dangerous Zealots. by swb · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

  3. meh by arbiter1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.