Comments on: ‘Anonymous’ Attacks, Shuts Down Neo-Nazi Web Forum

By: Vieux Normand

Vieux Normand — Wed, 06 Mar 2013 00:05:21 +0000

Why do the supposedly-courageous have to hide behind anonymity?

By: Xiao Jiu

Xiao Jiu — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 04:33:55 +0000

GO, ANON!

By: Savior

Savior — Thu, 16 Aug 2012 08:22:56 +0000

Anyone that hacks a site has way too much time on their hands.

Whatever happened to the right of free speech? If a person or persons does not like the contents of a site, then don’t visit it.

There are always going to be things people don’t want to see or read. So, just avoid the various sites you don’t like. One has to go out of their way to view any site, no?

Plus, it seems “Anonymous” is a coward or a bunch of cowards that simply like to hack free speech sites. These cowards are not putting a dent into anything. It seems they are a bunch of nerd(s) that have nothing better to do.

All these forums are becoming obsolete anyway. From what I heard, the Aryan Front site was going to close anyway.

Common sense dictates that Aryan Front has a backup made daily. So, if they really wanted to, Aryan Front could put the site back up with everything intact the day after it was hacked. But Aryan Front did not bother, as it was becoming obsolete to begin with.

By: Joseph

Joseph — Mon, 18 Jun 2012 17:00:42 +0000

I think it’s funny. And I hope they never get it fixed so that they are forced to go back to physical meetings so they can complain about affirmative action.

Hate speech should not be protected. I will defend your right to be proud of your race. That’s fine. But I will not defend your right to hate other people.

By: Aron

Aron — Fri, 15 Jun 2012 16:15:17 +0000

Trick, if you’re attempting to paint Anonymous as an homogenous group, you’ve obviously no idea of that which you speak. Anonymous as about as heterogenous an any group could possibly be. I highly suggest a thorough Google search in order to enlighten yourself.

By: Snorlax

Snorlax — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 16:46:50 +0000

Anonymous ROCKS!!

By: Trick

Trick — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 16:41:44 +0000

Don’t be fooled, Anonymous has attacked good web sites like the government and credit card companies. Anonymous are just trying to put on a ‘good face” and in doing so people give them money, but they also attack good people and so this also makes them computer criminals like the guy named Sabu who ratted out the other Anonymous who were making trouble for good people. Some people say that Anonymous is a Christian vigilante group who has government agents also as members. If they are not Christians why do they hide their face like the KKK with the mask of Guy Fawkes who is a know Catholic terrorist who wanted to kill the king and his government to set up a Catholic dictatorship?

By: WMDKitty

WMDKitty — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 16:28:22 +0000

Go, Anonymous!

By: DrMJG

DrMJG — Wed, 13 Jun 2012 05:10:23 +0000

Just to be clear. The first Amendment deals with governmental entities prohibiting speech. It DOES NOT mean private entities cannot disrupt a speech or such. To give a bit of an example. It is not legal for the government to prohibit Westboro Church from standing on public land (Sidewalk) and holding the “God Hates Fags” signs. But, an owner of private land, if the same group hold the signs, can deal with them (within limits) for standing on his property and holding the same signs. It is a public/private thing.

So this cyber attack is NOT a free speech issue. Now, perhaps some other laws may come into play. Just not a federal free speech issue.

By: Ian

Ian — Mon, 11 Jun 2012 20:31:43 +0000

Aron,

The RT page says “[A]ll posts made on Aryan-Front.com appear to be erased from the server, or at least have been rendered unavailable to its 1,441 registered users.”

The WBC and Stormfront attacks also disabled the sites.

By: Ian

Ian — Mon, 11 Jun 2012 19:31:34 +0000

This is just a high-tech form of vandalism.

The speech of WBC, Stormfront, and this new site- which, to be honest, I never heard of before – is despicable, but it is protected. I see no difference between this act and stealing some books and burning them.

I hope law enforcement finds these people.

By: Aron

Aron — Mon, 11 Jun 2012 19:27:09 +0000

Concerned, Anonymous is not preventing them from using their first amendment. They are still free to communicate. What Anonymous is preventing is their sense of privacy. And as we all know, there is no constitutional right to privacy.

I eagerly anticipate the ensuing hijinks…

By: Concerned Citizen

Concerned Citizen — Mon, 11 Jun 2012 18:35:42 +0000

One wrong is just as wrong as. Nazis and others have a right of free speech under the First Admendment. Like it or not. Annoymous is abusing their right of free speech at the expense of those they dislike. By my standard. Annoymous are no better than the hate groups that they opposed.

By: Aron

Aron — Mon, 11 Jun 2012 18:14:36 +0000

Wayne, I don’t represent the SPLC, so don’t take my opinion for the official one. But what would happen if they did support Anonymous? I take it you’re no fan of the SPLC, so what does their opinion matter to you?

By: Wayne

Wayne — Mon, 11 Jun 2012 16:21:16 +0000

Does the SPLC condone the actions of Anonymous in this case?

By: Linnea

Linnea — Sun, 10 Jun 2012 04:49:13 +0000

I also generally don’t approve of hacking. But in this case: go get ‘em, Anonymous!

By: Ruslan Amirkhanov

Ruslan Amirkhanov — Sat, 09 Jun 2012 14:39:08 +0000

I can’t wait for them to release those private messages. It’s going to be hilarious.

By: Supersonic250

Supersonic250 — Sat, 09 Jun 2012 01:28:40 +0000

I rarely approve of anything the /b/tards of 4Chan do… But this is the one occasion where I have to say bravo! Keep hitting ‘em hard, Anonymous.

By: Shadow Wolf

Shadow Wolf — Sat, 09 Jun 2012 00:27:01 +0000

Praise “Anonymous” for unleashing unorthodoxy cyber attacks on our racist enemies.