ANONYMOUS hacks the Daily Stormer website

a reply to: dreamingawake

Here are more 'freedom of speech (FofS)' issues surrounding sites like The DS. They attracted complaints for their content and were provided with the personal details by CloudFlare. The site responded by using their FofS to pursue the complainants via social media with one woman receiving phone and email harassment.

Cloudflare's boss makes a reasonable point vis-a-vis FofS:

“A website is speech. It is not a bomb,” Cloudflare’s CEO Matthew Prince wrote in a 2013 blog post defending his company’s stance. “There is no imminent danger it creates and no provider has an affirmative obligation to monitor and make determinations about the theoretically harmful nature of speech a site may contain.”

How One Major Internet Company Helps Serve Up Hate on the Web

But he also gave The DS all the details including phone numbers of complainants.These were posted on the site and led to threatening phone calls and harassment through social media.

We need to make it clear to all of these people that there are consequences for messing with us,” Anglin wrote in one online post. “We are not a bunch of babies to be kicked around. We will take revenge. And we will do it now.”

It's a good article that shows the challenges of FofS.

Stories like this just confirm (to me anyways) that Anonymous is just another deep state psyop.

Wonder what else is going on in the world while everyone is so focused on this (quite obviously) staged white racist rally?

That is the real question people need to be asking themselves.

a reply to: 4N0M4LY

You can't yell "fire" in a theater because people will die. The same thing with organizing hate groups. At some point, someone will take it too far and someone will die. Organizing hate groups seems somehow different than individual free speech issues. Someone speaking out against the government is not the same thing as using hate speech to organize a new government against citizens. The end result of the Nazis is to take away people's rights.

[snipped]

You are really going to support these guys by allowing them free speech rights? This is more like fire in a theater to me.

a reply to: Cancerwarrior

I disagree with absolutely everything in your post. The real question is not the one suggest. I think there may be several real questions to ask. But the one you think it is seems like it should not be the focus of this thread. I don't think Heather was a paid actress and her death was faked if that is what you are going to suggest next.

a reply to: Byrd

Not sure why Anonymous would care about some random website even if their views are controversial.

Wouldnt surprise me if its some other group claiming to be Anonymous.


a reply to: dfnj2015

I think these are sensationalized stories being posted by those who have attacked the site.

a reply to: gladtobehere

No one attacked the site. This is a stunt that DS is performing to drum up ad revenue because GoDaddy is kicking them off their domain. It's working too. Need I remind people on ATS that it is against the T&S to link to articles on the Daily Stormer?

a reply to: dreamingawake

Dangerous speech talk by these hate sites are causing people like the killer to act.

The DRIVER is responsible for his actions, no one else.
There are no actual wizards who can MAKE people do things.

Also who get to determine what is "dangerous speech talk" ?
The first works for everyone or it works for no one.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: dreamingawake

Dangerous speech talk by these hate sites are causing people like the killer to act.

The DRIVER is responsible for his actions, no one else.
There are no actual wizards who can MAKE people do things.

Also who get to determine what is "dangerous speech talk" ?
The first works for everyone or it works for no one.

Yes, he is responsible but as a Neo Nazi and sympathizers to the groups he was taking into context they hate they preach. Opposition to their protests(such as Antifa, Dems and liberal groups) are big attention of these Neo Nazi groups. At this point who knows what they were inciting members of the groups to do.

Laws that determine hate speech when it is exempt from free speech: defamation,inciting rioting and violence.

Nope they were getting shut down anyway
www.independent.co.uk... 91836.html

a reply to: dreamingawake

At this point who knows what they were inciting members of the groups to do.

So why then did you blame the drivers actions on "dangerous speech talk"?

Laws that determine hate speech when it is exempt from free speech: defamation,inciting rioting and violence.

Now you are just making thing up that do not exist.
SCOTUS backed world renowned pos Fred Phelps. Disparaging someone at their funeral is pretty low, but even that did not provoke "imminent violence".
en.wikipedia.org...

In 2011, the Supreme Court issued their ruling on Snyder v. Phelps, which concerned the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to protest with signs found offensive by many Americans. The issue presented was whether the 1st Amendment protected the expressions written on the signs. In an 8–1 decision the court sided with Fred Phelps, the head of Westboro Baptist Church, thereby confirming their historically strong protection of freedom of speech, so long as it doesn't promote imminent violence. The Court explained, "speech deals with matters of public concern when it can 'be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community' or when it 'is a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public.

Effectively, the Supreme Court unanimously reaffirms that there is no 'hate speech' exception to the First Amendment.

What the nazis say is heinous and vile, but it is not illegal.

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court articulated the fighting words doctrine, a limitation of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech.

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: d11_m_na_c05

SCOTUS>New Hampshire law

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: dreamingawake

At this point who knows what they were inciting members of the groups to do.

So why then did you blame the drivers actions on "dangerous speech talk"?

Laws that determine hate speech when it is exempt from free speech: defamation,inciting rioting and violence.

Now you are just making thing up that do not exist.
SCOTUS backed world renowned pos Fred Phelps. Disparaging someone at their funeral is pretty low, but even that did not provoke "imminent violence".
en.wikipedia.org...

In 2011, the Supreme Court issued their ruling on Snyder v. Phelps, which concerned the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to protest with signs found offensive by many Americans. The issue presented was whether the 1st Amendment protected the expressions written on the signs. In an 8–1 decision the court sided with Fred Phelps, the head of Westboro Baptist Church, thereby confirming their historically strong protection of freedom of speech, so long as it doesn't promote imminent violence. The Court explained, "speech deals with matters of public concern when it can 'be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community' or when it 'is a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public.

Effectively, the Supreme Court unanimously reaffirms that there is no 'hate speech' exception to the First Amendment.

What the nazis say is heinous and vile, but it is not illegal.

Because it seems more likely he was following what they say about Dems, Liberals and Antifa, the fact that running protestors over is now to be legal in some places and or being talked of.

Why do you think he targeted the counter protestors by ramming them? Just because right or he was defending himself as initial claims were saying? No, the answer is not defending himself. The video claiming that is doctored to make it look like he was going slow then sped up when his car was being hit by a protestor. When he was already accelerating to his destination. That is a lie that people are falling for in about two threads so far with it included in the topic.

Speaking of lies, no, I'm not making stuff up/lying about it. Sources were saying that.

a reply to: gladtobehere

That could be. Propaganda is designed to enrage people (both people on the left as well on the right). So you may be right.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Do you have the link to the T&S? I would like to read what you are talking about.

a reply to: dreamingawake

Because it seems more likely he was following what they say about Dems, Liberals and Antifa, the fact that running protestors over is now to be legal in some places and or being talked of.

It doesn't matter what ANYONE says, the DRIVER is responsible PERIOD. Unless you have some evidence of the nazis/alt right/idiots/ect telling people to use cars to run over counter protesters. Is there any evidence of anyone at that event telling others to attack people? I would love to see it if it exists.

The driver targeted people because he is an ahole. There is no excuse for what he did, and he has been taken into custody and will be held accountable for his actions.

This whole event imo is a farce.
abc7chicago.com...
The officials in that state and city KNEW there would be problems with this event, and imo did very little to prevent the violence.
If it were my loved one that was hit by the car I would sue the city and state as they failed to adequately protect those injured. There should have been some kind of leo line between those who obtained the LEGAL paperwork for the protest and the counter protesters who did not obtain the LEGAL paperwork for a protest.

Please Stay on Topic!!!!

This is about an alleged incident of a hate site getting hacked....NOT about any of the incidents over the weekend....there are other threads for that!

You are responsible for your own posts.....those who ignore that responsibility will face mod actions.


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!

nvm