Oh suuuuuuure, NOW you wanna wear masks over your face. Now that you're up to some racist shit. But in 2020 it was all "I can't breathe with a mask on"!
Honestly confused why they blacked out the contacts there... usually that's done to protect individuals from things, but I'm pretty sure "fuck the kkk" is pretty well and good.
Look at the fucking Nazis. Say what you will, those motherfuckers had style. It's too bad they completely ruined the swastika for the rest of time because it's kind of dope looking when you strip away any context. And those uniforms, goddamn.
I always pictured them being really proud of having shit themselves. Just waddling about, pants full of shit, with big smiles on their faces. Happy boys, who reek of shit.
That's a tough call, on one hand recruiting (obviously). On the other, we could set up a bot to spam the number to hell and back so they can't get any actual calls
Listen, if your name is associated with the "Klanline" phone number I don't think you care if people call you a racist online and post your home address.
I'd argue that it wouldn't even be doxxing to show it, personally. They put out the flier with their number on it, how is me posting a picture online any different from posting the flyer for a local pizza place with the number visible? Seems to me if it's on the flier it's now public info.
For anyone stumbling across this comment: qualified immunity isn't a bad thing. It shields all sorts of public employees from civil liability only while doing their jobs. It does not shield them from criminal liability and the civil liability is transferred to their agency.
This means that if a mail carrier opens your mail box to deliver your mail and the lid falls off in their hand, you have to use USPS for damages, not the mail carrier as an individual. You still get compensated for damages, but the government employee can do their job without getting personally bankrupted. If they genuinely did something wrong (as in breaking procedures, not breaking the law) they'll get disciplined or even fired.
Because cops get qualified immunity and it has the word "immunity" in it everyone with a beef against police ignored the word "qualified" and started screaming that it was evil and means government employees can get away with felonies. That's not true. If the aforementioned mail carrier rocks up, decides you suck, and hits your mailbox with a baseball bat, then threatens to beat you to a pulp they're going to face criminal charges. Qualified immunity simply does not apply for crimes committed regardless of if they were done on the clock or in uniform.
Before a bunch of brain-dead people off their meds start bringing up specific cases where cops weren't charged for specific actions that were either possibly or outright illegal please look at those cases for issues with the prosecutors handling them. They are always because a grand jury failed to indict, not because of qualified immunity.
Either way, QI is illegal by the law of the land as passed, not as improperly copied in 1874. I'm not discussing it's merits. The law of the land is being broken, and either needs to be rewritten by Congress, or followed.
Harlow v Fitzgerald should have been ruled the other way.
There are a couple of big, huge caveats to that particular case. They're stated explicitly in the last two paragraphs of the article you linked:
The case is being appealed to the Supreme Court. I'm not sure of the current status, but as of the time that article was written things hadn't been settled.
While the money offered by the city was undeniably too little, the guy also chose to knock down the house and rebuild a bigger, nicer house than he had. A civil claimant is trying to get back what they lost, they can't expect to get a leg up.
The fact that he spent more money is extremely relevant because that's what he was seeking. It would have been totally reasonable for him to pay for home repairs on the existing foundation and structure.
While the $5,000 the city gave him certainly wouldn't accomplish that, he took it too far. He destroyed all remaining value left in the structure, built a new (and more expensive) house on his land, and expects the public to pay for that upgrade. He had a right to compensation for repairs, not to have the taxpayer fund the construction of his dream home.
please look at those cases for issues with the prosecutors handling them. They are always because a grand jury failed to indict, not because of qualified immunity.
And this is how I know you have either fallen for the propaganda or you’re arguing in bad faith. A grand jury would indict a ham sandwich for murder if the prosecutor wanted them to do so. The prosecutor has full control over what evidence the grand jury does or does not see. And there is no defense attorney present to argue against indictment. The prosecutor can intentionally exclude exculpatory evidence, include hearsay (and other types of evidence that would be excluded from a trial,) etc… Lastly, the threshold for indictment is laughably low, because it’s basically just the jurors going “yeah it looks like there’s enough evidence to bother with a trial.
To be clear, the grand jury is just an arm of the prosecutor. The district attorney can decide to prosecute even without a grand jury indictment, but that isn’t always politically advantageous. Since district attorneys are typically elected officials, they need to worry about the optics of whether or not they charge someone, while also trying to maintain a positive working relationship with the courts and police.
Let’s say the public wants to see a trial after a cop kills someone. The DA doesn’t want to prosecute them, because the police union has vowed to stop cooperating with investigations if the cop is prosecuted. But the public wants to see a trial, and it’s an election year for the DA. They’ll fall back to the grand jury as an excuse. They’ll go to the grand jury and bring no evidence, (because again, they have full control over what evidence the jury is allowed to see).
When the grand jury fails to indict because they were given no evidence to indict with, the DA can then jump in front of the news cameras and go “oh woe is me, I tried SO hard to prosecute them but the mean and nasty grand jury refused to indict! My hands are tied! But I really did try to prosecute, so remember to vote for me!”
And the inverse is also true: Maybe a big case is in the news and the DA needs to look strong. Maybe a pretty white girl went missing and was found dead after a big public search. They can literally frame someone for the crime, and since the DA has full control over the evidence, the grand jury will happily indict them even if they’re clearly innocent. Maybe the DA has DNA evidence proving that the person wasn’t who rapemurdered the girl. But the DA doesn’t care if they’re actually innocent, because that’s what the trial is for; They just need a trial to look like they’re working on solving the case.
Ok, you misunderstood me and flew right off the handle. I said "look for issues with the prosecutors". I'm laying the blame on prosecutors for not getting a case past a grand jury.
They usually use the information of other people they want to harass. The last time I saw one of those flyers, the number was to an elderly black woman.
It’ll likely be another “good people on both sides” type of endorsement. The type of thinly veiled support without outright stating that he supports them. Weasel words, so opponents can’t say he outright endorsed them. Because if they try, he can just go “that’s not what I meant” and dismiss it.
I've been wanting a democratic president to do this my whole life. If fuckers wanna pretend the democrats are turning the country over to immigrants, let's play ball.
While you would think that they would have figured out that would be a good idea to rebrand by this point, I'm really glad that they're too stupid to actually do so. It's good to be able to identify which ones are the assholes on sight.
I remember in the 90s when I was 14 I had a petition I was trying to get people to sign, that would push for a bill to allow for legal violence against the kkk and nazis. This was 1997ish.
Literally everyone thought I was joking. Some laughed. Some scolded me. One old man said he killed nazis in the 1940s, and it was disrespectful to mock his efforts. I said "I'm not mocking you. I want to kill any nazis that may arise in the 1990s." He still didn't believe/appriciate me.
We'll likely reach German Nazi levels of hateful sentiment this century almost ten years ahead of them. Our 1935 will be somewhere around 2025-2029. They're not going to go, "Oh, nevermind, we're actually okay with the immigrants now. Forget all the mass deportation, back the blue, and returning lynching threats. We're good."
These LIES (as JD Vance Said) have NO RESPONSIBILITY for this Quiet town now being Overrun with Racists! In fact it's the DEMOCRATS fault for allowing this in Far Right Ohio!
Oh suuuuuuure, NOW you wanna wear masks over your face. Now that you're up to some racist shit. But in 2020 it was all "I can't breathe with a mask on"!
Honestly confused why they blacked out the contacts there... usually that's done to protect individuals from things, but I'm pretty sure "fuck the kkk" is pretty well and good.
Not gonna give out their recruitment number for them.
Fair, and sad that is a real possibility
Especially on Twatter.
Ah recruitment, touche. I was thinking more malicious.
Someone more talented than me could probably recover the phone number via edge analysis.
There's a good chance it's more for their post to not get taken down. That said this is from Twitter, so... IDK
The original wasn't censored so I did it.
And thank you for that. No sense in basically giving them recruitment advertisements for free.
Can't you like sign that number on to a multitude of spam / scam mailing lists?
Preferably foreign ones?
Yeah, sign them up for alll the insurance quotes, healthcare help and home renovation contacts you can find.
Fill those fuckers inboxes with unintelligible voicemails to sift through and unknown callers.
You can find the uncensored version on Twitter fairly easily
Fucking racists need to stay away from the cool fonts, they're ruining them
That and Celtic or Viking iconography.
Let's shame racists into using only Comic Sans
"All fonts were made by foreigners, only the true Comic Sans is full blooded American."
It's a tradition as old as fonts itself.
Look at the fucking Nazis. Say what you will, those motherfuckers had style. It's too bad they completely ruined the swastika for the rest of time because it's kind of dope looking when you strip away any context. And those uniforms, goddamn.
the swastika is a cool ass design, it's pretty low down on my list of reasons to hate Nazis but it's for sure on there
Lol. The Proud Boys. When I first heard it I thought they were talking about a gay porno....
I always pictured them being really proud of having shit themselves. Just waddling about, pants full of shit, with big smiles on their faces. Happy boys, who reek of shit.
If you refer to them as boylove enthusiasts, they lose their goddamned minds.
Why hide the details at the bottom? Seems like they're asking to be doxxed
Not gonna recruit for them
That's a tough call, on one hand recruiting (obviously). On the other, we could set up a bot to spam the number to hell and back so they can't get any actual calls
Listen, if your name is associated with the "Klanline" phone number I don't think you care if people call you a racist online and post your home address.
I'd argue that it wouldn't even be doxxing to show it, personally. They put out the flier with their number on it, how is me posting a picture online any different from posting the flyer for a local pizza place with the number visible? Seems to me if it's on the flier it's now public info.
The details at the bottom show Kentucky address and numbers.
Isn't the klux an illegal organisation?
According to the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871? Yep.
The 1871 Congress really tried to fix things only to have at least one other law illegally changed, which caused Qualified Immunity.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/15/us/politics/qualified-immunity-supreme-court.html
For anyone stumbling across this comment: qualified immunity isn't a bad thing. It shields all sorts of public employees from civil liability only while doing their jobs. It does not shield them from criminal liability and the civil liability is transferred to their agency.
This means that if a mail carrier opens your mail box to deliver your mail and the lid falls off in their hand, you have to use USPS for damages, not the mail carrier as an individual. You still get compensated for damages, but the government employee can do their job without getting personally bankrupted. If they genuinely did something wrong (as in breaking procedures, not breaking the law) they'll get disciplined or even fired.
Because cops get qualified immunity and it has the word "immunity" in it everyone with a beef against police ignored the word "qualified" and started screaming that it was evil and means government employees can get away with felonies. That's not true. If the aforementioned mail carrier rocks up, decides you suck, and hits your mailbox with a baseball bat, then threatens to beat you to a pulp they're going to face criminal charges. Qualified immunity simply does not apply for crimes committed regardless of if they were done on the clock or in uniform.
Before a bunch of brain-dead people off their meds start bringing up specific cases where cops weren't charged for specific actions that were either possibly or outright illegal please look at those cases for issues with the prosecutors handling them. They are always because a grand jury failed to indict, not because of qualified immunity.
Either way, QI is illegal by the law of the land as passed, not as improperly copied in 1874. I'm not discussing it's merits. The law of the land is being broken, and either needs to be rewritten by Congress, or followed.
Harlow v Fitzgerald should have been ruled the other way.
Aaand here we go again...
There are a couple of big, huge caveats to that particular case. They're stated explicitly in the last two paragraphs of the article you linked:
The case is being appealed to the Supreme Court. I'm not sure of the current status, but as of the time that article was written things hadn't been settled.
While the money offered by the city was undeniably too little, the guy also chose to knock down the house and rebuild a bigger, nicer house than he had. A civil claimant is trying to get back what they lost, they can't expect to get a leg up.
The fact that he spent more money is extremely relevant because that's what he was seeking. It would have been totally reasonable for him to pay for home repairs on the existing foundation and structure.
While the $5,000 the city gave him certainly wouldn't accomplish that, he took it too far. He destroyed all remaining value left in the structure, built a new (and more expensive) house on his land, and expects the public to pay for that upgrade. He had a right to compensation for repairs, not to have the taxpayer fund the construction of his dream home.
And this is how I know you have either fallen for the propaganda or you’re arguing in bad faith. A grand jury would indict a ham sandwich for murder if the prosecutor wanted them to do so. The prosecutor has full control over what evidence the grand jury does or does not see. And there is no defense attorney present to argue against indictment. The prosecutor can intentionally exclude exculpatory evidence, include hearsay (and other types of evidence that would be excluded from a trial,) etc… Lastly, the threshold for indictment is laughably low, because it’s basically just the jurors going “yeah it looks like there’s enough evidence to bother with a trial.
To be clear, the grand jury is just an arm of the prosecutor. The district attorney can decide to prosecute even without a grand jury indictment, but that isn’t always politically advantageous. Since district attorneys are typically elected officials, they need to worry about the optics of whether or not they charge someone, while also trying to maintain a positive working relationship with the courts and police.
Let’s say the public wants to see a trial after a cop kills someone. The DA doesn’t want to prosecute them, because the police union has vowed to stop cooperating with investigations if the cop is prosecuted. But the public wants to see a trial, and it’s an election year for the DA. They’ll fall back to the grand jury as an excuse. They’ll go to the grand jury and bring no evidence, (because again, they have full control over what evidence the jury is allowed to see).
When the grand jury fails to indict because they were given no evidence to indict with, the DA can then jump in front of the news cameras and go “oh woe is me, I tried SO hard to prosecute them but the mean and nasty grand jury refused to indict! My hands are tied! But I really did try to prosecute, so remember to vote for me!”
And the inverse is also true: Maybe a big case is in the news and the DA needs to look strong. Maybe a pretty white girl went missing and was found dead after a big public search. They can literally frame someone for the crime, and since the DA has full control over the evidence, the grand jury will happily indict them even if they’re clearly innocent. Maybe the DA has DNA evidence proving that the person wasn’t who rapemurdered the girl. But the DA doesn’t care if they’re actually innocent, because that’s what the trial is for; They just need a trial to look like they’re working on solving the case.
Ok, you misunderstood me and flew right off the handle. I said "look for issues with the prosecutors". I'm laying the blame on prosecutors for not getting a case past a grand jury.
You just bit my head off to agree with me.
Shouldn't block out the number and address, maybe we would like to spam them
Exactly. Nazis aren't human and don't deserve privacy.
They usually use the information of other people they want to harass. The last time I saw one of those flyers, the number was to an elderly black woman.
I think we may be about to see an endorsement of the kkk by a major republican politician.
Good people need to stand by?
It’ll likely be another “good people on both sides” type of endorsement. The type of thinly veiled support without outright stating that he supports them. Weasel words, so opponents can’t say he outright endorsed them. Because if they try, he can just go “that’s not what I meant” and dismiss it.
The first film ever shown in the White House was Birth of a Nation. That's how fucked up this country is.
Things are going great, everybody. Just great. /s
If I were in charge, I would fast track citizenship for every Haitian in Springfield that wants it. In 7 days you could be a permanent citizen.
I've been wanting a democratic president to do this my whole life. If fuckers wanna pretend the democrats are turning the country over to immigrants, let's play ball.
Lifelong resident here, majority demographic, I'm game letsdoit.
Fuck yeah, let's do it. We are a country of immigrants, it's time us white folks take a backseat
I hate Ohio klansmen
Seeing this makes me sad.
"these beast of the fields"
Fucking dimwits
Who tf privacy-blocked the info? That's a public poster of the fucking KKK I shpuld be allowed to harrass them on the phone as much as I want
I didn't want them getting recruits with it. But enough people have asked, so 606-301-8149.
It's trollin time
based
Hold up. They often use the number of someone they want harassed
While you would think that they would have figured out that would be a good idea to rebrand by this point, I'm really glad that they're too stupid to actually do so. It's good to be able to identify which ones are the assholes on sight.
Shitty if true. I hope they fuck around and find out.
It's astounding that nothing prevents them from fucking around in the first place
I remember in the 90s when I was 14 I had a petition I was trying to get people to sign, that would push for a bill to allow for legal violence against the kkk and nazis. This was 1997ish.
Literally everyone thought I was joking. Some laughed. Some scolded me. One old man said he killed nazis in the 1940s, and it was disrespectful to mock his efforts. I said "I'm not mocking you. I want to kill any nazis that may arise in the 1990s." He still didn't believe/appriciate me.
Somewhere out there might exist a man who regrets not signing your petition.
I would have gotten my ass beat trying to pass that petition.
But I grew up in the south.
They have enough men, in the streets, in government, in law enforcement. We don't.
We were asleep for too long. In terms of political activism, not just in terms of "aware of the opression".
No.
Men stopped standing with the left because of how much it embraced sensitivity and demonized everything rude and crude.
And also completely expected.
We'll likely reach German Nazi levels of hateful sentiment this century almost ten years ahead of them. Our 1935 will be somewhere around 2025-2029. They're not going to go, "Oh, nevermind, we're actually okay with the immigrants now. Forget all the mass deportation, back the blue, and returning lynching threats. We're good."
Didn't know that the KKK considered Haiti part of the USA. Since they specifically named them as not foreigners.
Yeah yeah, I know that it's just them being dumb, but it still gives me amusement how dumb they are.
These fucking morons think $2 million is even a drop in the bucket of a state's budget...
The Klan should try to recruit a graphic designer first.
Which Springfield?
"Third world countries bring third world diseases"
Yet their Supreme Leader's inaction allows them to spread and fester unchecked. Who is to blame? Certainly not Supreme Leader!
Support your community https://m.yelp.com/search?cflt=haitian&find_loc=Springfield%2C+OH
KKK: Claims to be the Master Race.
Also the KKK: Too soft to do any field work.
Am burning that paper and reporting this to the police
Some of those that work forces are the same who burn crosses
oh
These LIES (as JD Vance Said) have NO RESPONSIBILITY for this Quiet town now being Overrun with Racists! In fact it's the DEMOCRATS fault for allowing this in Far Right Ohio!