"As Students Face Retaliation for Israel Statement, a 'Doxxing Truck' Displaying Students' Faces .."

[redqueen]

I missed this story before, sharing in case anyone else did.

As Students Face Retaliation for Israel Statement, a ‘Doxxing Truck’ Displaying Students’ Faces Comes to Harvard’s Campus

Updated: October 13, 2023, at 4:01 a.m.

A billboard truck drove through the streets surrounding Harvard’s campus Wednesday and Thursday, digitally displaying the names and faces of students allegedly affiliated with student groups that signed onto a controversial statement on Hamas’ attack on Israel.

Amid continued national backlash and doxxing attacks, at least nine of the original 34 co-signing Harvard student groups as of Thursday evening withdrew their signatures from the statement — originally penned by the Harvard Undergraduate Palestine Solidarity Committee — that called Israel “entirely responsible” for the violence. In a later statement, the PSC wrote that it “staunchly opposes” violence against all civilians.

By Tuesday evening, at least four online sites had listed the personal information of students linked to clubs that had signed onto the statement, including full names, class years, past employment, social media profiles, photos, and hometowns.

(Snip)

“It is quite literally physical threat, a heinous intimidation technique, a warning sign meant to scare ideological allies into repudiating our mission — and for the Jewish members of associations linked to our own, an unjustifiable and insulting slap in the face,” it continues. “The doxxing truck is the ugliest culmination of a campaign to silence pro-Palestinian activism that the PSC has experienced for years.”

(Snip)

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/10/12/doxxing-truck-students-israel-statement/

[617Blue]

1. "Accuracy in Media, a conservative media advocacy group."

Accuracy in Media (AIM) is a conservative "media watchdog" organization founded in 1969 by Federal Reserve economist, staunch anti-communist, and unhinged Bircher nutcase Reed Irvine (1922–2004),[1] currently run by his son, Don. It was one of the first watchdog groups set up to fight "liberal media bias," making it something like the older but still ragingly crazy brother of Brent Bozell's Media Research Center. While its content tends to be less fluffy than your average Bozell material, AIM is notorious for pushing quite a lot of its own insanity.

Bircher anti Semites calling other people anti Semites.

[EllieBC]

2. There are TikTok and Twitter accounts devoted to

doxxing racists and bigots.

But somehow it’s only wrong when it’s doxxing Hamas apologists?

[bigtree]

6. it's as wrong as doxxing Democrats

...this isn't hard.

'The stunt was sponsored by Accuracy in Media, a conservative media advocacy group.'

[redqueen]

7. Who said it was only wrong now?

Doxxing rapists and abusers is one thing, doxxing people for opinions is wrong.

[kelly1mm]

78. Any opinions? If someone has an opinion that all Muslims are terrorists or that black

people are inherently inferior to others should they be subject to doxxing? As we often say free speech is not consequence free speech.

[The Magistrate]

3. I Have Very Little Sympathy, Ma'am

For people who place the blame for atrocity anywhere but squarely on the people who conceive, plan, and execute it.

[bigtree]

4. we're not in Israel

...and no one should express sympathy or support for anyone breaking the law in this country to encourage attacks on our citizens or inhabitants, no matter where the miscreants' sympathies lie toward some foreign conflict.

Cheering doxxing on isn't actually an admirable American value.

[inthewind21]

10. Oh but it is

IF it's something said people agree with. Funny how that works isn't it.

[krawhitham]

74. It only works that way in your head

[The Magistrate]

12. If The Information Bruited About Is Public, Sir

Where is the violation of law? If portions of it required hacking records or any other form of unauthorized acquisition of confidential information, I will change my view of the matter.

People took a public stance in this, one readily seen as apologia for atrocity. That was their choice. That they gauged poorly the direction and intensity of the response merely adds an additional layer to their poor judgement in signing the thing in the first place.

[bigtree]

36. that's their right, in America.

...and it's not a right only afforded in just their defense.

No one excercising that right made a 'choice' to be publicly exposed for the purpose of directing attacks toward them personally.

Your animosity doesn't outweigh that correct expectation of their right to express an opinion publicly. The 'online intimidation and harrassment' isn't just about the 'intensity of the response,' it's about targeting these individuals for bullying and other abuses - something which the Harvard Executive Vice President took time to address.

"Harvard “takes seriously the safety and wellbeing of every member of our community” and “does not condone or ignore intimidation.”

“We do not condone or ignore threats or acts of harassment or violence,” Weenick wrote. “Officials within our Schools have been in contact with students to ensure they are aware of resources available to them if they are concerned about their physical safety or experience an immediate threat.”

Replace that with your falderal and we might as well be in Russia, or some other country which regards non-threatening speech they disagree with as a weapon.

[The Magistrate]

46. I Disagree, Sir

Politics, as they say, ain't bean-bag. Taking public sides in a war certainly is not.

I do confess some animosity towards people capable of such stupidity as the statements emerging from some left groups embody, and grant you it lends some extra edge to my view of this triviality.

[bigtree]

48. this is about university policy, more than about someone's politics

...these college students exercising their rights to protest are doing so within a community which has to manage myriad views and interests in a setting which values ideas and the free expression of views which aren't inherently threatening.

The concern from the university president is clear and valid:

Harvard Executive Vice President Meredith L. Weenick wrote that the school “takes seriously the safety and wellbeing of every member of our community” and “does not condone or ignore intimidation.”

“We do not condone or ignore threats or acts of harassment or violence,” Weenick wrote. “Officials within our Schools have been in contact with students to ensure they are aware of resources available to them if they are concerned about their physical safety or experience an immediate threat.”

These students will very likely change their views several times over the course of their school year, much more after they leave school.

They should be allowed to engage in those pursuits without fear of doxxing. But most importantly, the school is correct in assuming responsibility in ensuring they can do so in a safe environment, free from those who believe their personal animosities entitle them to disregard those laws and other protections the university provides.

[stopdiggin]

53. wait a sec. this was a PUBLIC statement

not something intended for the confines of the Harvard community.

While I totally disapprove of the doxing - you simply cannot affix your name to something like this - with the expectation of maintaining anonymity. I really hope no one suffers physical harm as a result. But, yee gods - the stupid ...
- - - - - - - - - - -

[bigtree]

60. all I see are people jumping on students

...for doing what college students do.

No one has a right to endanger students because they disagree with what they're saying.

There isn't a more important issue here. Debating what they said, and making that some arbiter of whether they deserve to be able to speak without fear of harm in America completely misses what's really at risk here.

[stopdiggin]

63. I agree. But then we would have to also agree

that the virulent racists and white nationalists on campus (and Jew/LGBTQ/Muslim haters) are allowed their 'voice' - and accorded safety and protections from doxing, etc. ...

(and as other posters have pointed out - the reaction there from a lot of our number is, "Oh, now wait .. That's really different! ) Agreed?

[Ms. Toad]

71. In several instances, the groups' names were affixed without going through the proper channels.

In some instances board members of the endorsing groups were not even aware of the letter before it was published.

[stopdiggin]

72. then we of course will be seeing mass

resignations and public disavowals ...
And, no, I am not offering snark. I think this 'mistake' was egregious enough that people wishing to retain their good name - will necessarily be reconsidering their affiliation and membership with organizations that so seriously blundered ...

As for the doxing - I have never been a fan, and that includes instances when it is employed in the opposite direction. But - in the very midst of this bloodthirsty slaughter of civilians ... ! That is some serious mistake, my friend. And, some sort of reckoning for this kind of contorted rationale and horrible misjudgement is - probably no more than due.

And, so - - with full expectation of those rightful resignations and disavowals to come ...

[Ms. Toad]

84. Resignations and disavowals are happening.

But those never receive the kind of publicity the initial story does.

[stopdiggin]

87. point. too true. -(nt)-

[kelly1mm]

80. Why should they be allowed to engage in those persuits without fear of doxxing? Racist,

homophobic, and other bigoted opinions by people, including students are often met with doxxing, Are all those wrong as well. Doxxing Jan 6th people?

[musicblind]

85. n/t

Because of the length of this reply, I am going to move it to a more relevant place in this conversation.

[kelly1mm]

79. Free speech is not consequence free speech. While THE GOVERNMENT cannot

suppress speech or punish the speaker, other people/entities are free to do so. In fact, their 'punishing' the original speaker is also free speech and not subject to government suppression.

[musicblind]

86. Regarding free speech and consequences...

The belief that "free speech does not mean freedom from consequences" is an unproductive belief that is not compatible with the purposes of free speech, and I'll tell you why.

While the First Amendment only applies to the government, the concept of free speech exists in many forward-thinking countries, and the free flow of information provided by unchilled speech is a necessary part of the process of exchanging ideas and changing ideas. The exchanging and changing of ideas is not only a vital part of free speech, but it is the reason free speech holds societal value to begin with.

Changing bad ideas is essential to the betterment of society, but chilling bad ideas worsens society by making it less predictable and concealing danger. If you chill an idea, that does not make the idea go away; that makes it hide under a rock like a coiled snake. Much like a coiled snake, that idea lives on, grows, and bides its time, waiting for an opportune moment to strike. The damage that bad idea will cause is not stopped, only delayed.

The only way to stop a bad idea is to change it. The only way to change a bad idea is through persuasion and not coercion. If you use coercive fear to chill ideas, then you will never be able to turn your attention to the next rung on the ladder of progress because the moment you move on, that bad idea will flare up like a flame starved of oxygen. However, if you persuade someone that their idea is wrong, you can freely move on to tackle other goals.

People who believe in chilling speech do not believe in free speech because the goal of chilling speech is to make the consequences of saying a bad idea so grave that the person harboring that idea does not feel free to speak it. Instead, that idea swims around in their stomach and festers like a wound, waiting to infect others.

Shouting down ideas is easy, and it gives us a quick rush of dopamine, but it does not cure anything. It masks the linguistic symptoms of a larger social disease. Instead of doing the easy things, we must be willing to do the hard things because it is the hard things that bring about real change. Easy things are rarely worth doing.

[kelly1mm]

91. Should racist, bigoted, homophobic speech have consequences? Should employers

have to hire speakers who are openly anti-muslim? If any and all speech should be consequence free should Jan 6 supporters have free reign in our workplaces and schools to spew whatever with no consequences?

What about speech that equates to sexual harassment in the workplace? Basically that is not a criminal act (by the state) but is 'free speech' that can lead to termination. In your view isn't that chilling free speech?

I believe if your opinion were adopted it would be an end to almost all workplace harassment claims that only involve speech. Is that what you are arguing for?

[Ms. Toad]

70. Not everyone being doxxed did.

Several of the groups ignored their processes for endorsements, and members - and in some cases officers - had never seen the statement until after it was released with an endorsement they never consented to.

So no, in many cases, it was not their choice.

As for doxxing for taking public stances - I've been doxxed for being a lesbian whose name was associated with a national LGBTQ organization. Fortunately, it was before the internet took off, so the backlash wasn't too bad. But I did receive hate mail from Fred Phelps at my personal address. Doxxing for the purpose of encouraging harassment is morally wrong, whether it is legal or not. It is even more reprehensible when - as here - some of the people being doxxed were not involved with the decision to endorse the publlic stance - or - as is more common, when people dox individuals they believe were engaged in bigoted behavior without bothering to first confirm that they got it right.

[stopdiggin]

73. 100% -(nt)-

[redqueen]

14. They're doxxing people who had nothing to do with it.

But yeah I get it - cOnSeQuEnCeS!!!1!

[The Magistrate]

16. Had Nothing To Do With What, Ma'am?

You cite an account saying that members of a group which produced the statement are being made known. If the statement was the official expression of the group, all members share the responsibility for it. Those who do not support it are free to resign membership.

[redqueen]

19. From the link:

Harvard Economics professor Jason Furman ’92 shared a similar statement on X, writing that he had been contacted by a student who had been doxxed despite no longer attending Harvard or affiliating with the co-signing group.

[The Magistrate]

22. There Are Always Errors, Ma'am

I do not expect perfection in any human enterprise. Should a sizeable portion of the names publicized be of people unaffiliated with the groups at present, that would change my view of the matter.

But I repeat, I have little sympathy for people who place blame for atrocity anywhere but squarely on the persons who conceived, planned, and executed it.

[cayugafalls]

26. It wasn't people, it was the groups, signing for the members, who may or may not agree.

Sir.

[The Magistrate]

29. Fine

People had nothing to do with it, the group was made up of something other than people, and members of the group do not support its public expressions.


"I'm going home. Someone get me some frogs and some bourbon."

[cayugafalls]

25. If they resign and still get doxxed, are you ok with that?

Sir.

[redqueen]

27. That's the thing about these internet vigilantes

they don't care. They just want to feel righteous and punish the wicked for their sins.

[cayugafalls]

30. It is not a world for pacifist, anymore.

I find it hard each day just to not scream at the insanity of it all.

[redqueen]

32. Just remember there are lots of us out here

Most of us are just usually quiet and non confrontational

[bigtree]

38. well said, redqueen

...thank you.

[Bluethroughu]

5. There is no way, we can allow the middle east conflict divide

Our country up.

I'm sure we all agree on the same things:

1. Hamas attack on Israel is a disgusting crime against humanity!

2. The majority of Palestinians should not all be put to death for the minority among them.

3. We need to coalesce around world peace and prosperity for all humans, and work to elect governments that protect us by producing policies that promote equality, freedom and prosperity for all. People just want to live life, and the more people have to lose, the less likely they will involve themselves in horrible behaviors.

[inthewind21]

20. Too late

That ship has sailed

[Bluethroughu]

23. President Biden is already moving policy there in a humanitarian way.

We can be better here, together we can fix the broken or go out MAGA CHAOS STYLE, that's made to be broken.

[redqueen]

33. +1

[justaprogressive]

8. K'n'R

to the greatest page m'lady

[Ocelot II]

9. I don't like the idea of doxxing anyone for expressing an opinion, even a reprehensible one.

We do have the right to our opinions, even bad ones, and doxxing encourages harassment and even violence. Things are bad enough as they are without throwing even more gasoline on this particular fire.

[redqueen]

17. "doxxing encourages harassment and even violence"

Apparently this is ok now.

[wnylib]

52. Totally agree.

[JI7]

11. The statement supported Hamas and justified the attacks

against Israeli civilians which at that time was still happening and Israel had not responded.

This would be the same as people that supported the terrorists that attacked the Capitol.

And of course all those Karen incidents .

[wnylib]

54. I agree. It's a reprehensible statement. But doxxing is also reprehensible because

it leads to harassment and violence.

[leftstreet]

13. DURec

jfc

[Beakybird]

15. I think doxxing is ok if you say something out loud, but not if you sign onto a letter or petition.

[JohnSJ]

18. As I see it there are two schools of thought. One believes this is McCarthism in full view, while

others believe the protesters have chosen to make their views public, and exposing them is a reflection of first amendment rights.

[redqueen]

21. Is doxxing a first amendment right? nt

[JohnSJ]

37. I stated my view a few days ago, and my argument that it was close to McCarthyism, was not

successful in my position with the consensus in the thread I was engaged in.

I don't plan to reargue my point.

As to your question regarding doxxing, my question would be is doxxing illegal?

[Sympthsical]

39. Easily, yes

If you're publicly attached to a statement, spreading that information around doesn't run afoul of any First Amendment right I'm aware of.

Public statements aren't made in secret. If you didn't know a group you were in was doing that, ok, resign and make a statement (as some have). And be careful of the people you associate with in the future.

Lessons being learned.

Look, the fact of the matter is that doxxing and hounding people for Wrong Opinion has been going on for some years now, cheered precisely in some of the ideological enclaves that now find themselves targeted. I hate the shit, and I have long, long warned that one day it will circle round right back on the promoters of it.

Those who enjoy persecuting are somehow always surprised when they become the persecuted. Gee, what a completely unforeseeable consequence of these actions!

Do I like what's happening? No. I'm against this shit on principle. However, there is a level of care I'm prepared to assign these things. Nurse just trying to get home from work? I'm at a 10 on being against doxxing based on out of context social media video.

Students part of radical groups that go after people for Wrong Opinion who find themselves suddenly getting nailed for Wrong Opinion? I'm at about a 1 or 2. It's wrong, but I somehow don't give a shit and am not mustering up much sympathy.

It's the dildo of foreseeable consequences, and it chafes.

[stopdiggin]

55. +1. nailed pretty much ever single point! brava! -(nt)-

[kelly1mm]

81. Yes. nt

[LuvLoogie]

24. These are young adults forming their worldviews.

While some will conflate support for Palestinians with support for Hamas, most don't. Doxxing kids for their opinions, uninformed or otherwise, just doesn't sit right with me. One may be a member of a student group without necessarily being involved in their communications at a given time.

Everyone is entitled to their political voice. Making a hit list because someone has a differing opinion, or set of priorities they care about on Israel-Palestine, is itself a militant action, and might even be a form of stochastic terrorism.

Support for Palestinians is not going to end. Neither is support for Israel.

[redqueen]

28. +1

[Sympthsical]

42. Do people say that about racists?

I don't think they say that about racists.

I've seen people have their lives ruined over tweets they made at 14 or 15.

Don't recall seeing hand-wringing, "Just young and learning!" much in response from our side.

If you want consequences for others, you have to have those consequences for yourself. That's how it works.

[LuvLoogie]

44. The students that got doxxed. Are they calling for the iraddication of Israel?

The extermination of Jews? If you doxx somebody's daughter over their support for Palestine, you gonna call a kick in the teeth by her Dad felonious assault, or "consequences?"

Opposition to Hamas is pretty widespread in this country. Just a few fringe elements might support their existence and what they did.

But there is also valid and growing criticism of the State of Israel in how it has handled the occupied territories.

Are there anti-Semites in these organizations expressing support for Palestine? I'm sure there are a some.

But expressing support for Palestine and criticism of Israel isn't in itself racist.

[Sympthsical]

45. None of that addresses a single thing I said.

And you're offering hyperbolic scenarios no one here as posited rather than engaging with the current fact set. This isn't useful or productive.

You are papering over the problem in the statement. When a terrorist group is in the middle of committing one of the worst terrorist atrocities in modern history, and your very first instinct is to blame the victims and let the terrorist group slide, guess what?

It's not a good thing, and people aren't going to like it. People are going to have things to say about that. They are.

Speech for thee, speech for me. That's how it works.

[LuvLoogie]

59. The end game of racism is genocide.

Hyperbolic scenarios? A six-year-old boy and his mother were stabbed in Illinois this week. The child died. Likely a racist killing fueled by past and current demonization of Palestinians in this country. Granted it's an offshoot of America's home grown racism, but if you are going to try and create a straw man out of racism, then have him bring both feet into the fire.

Let me ask you this. Do you believe there is systemic racism against African Americans in the U.S.?

Is it possible that, maybe, just a little, perhaps, systemic racism has crept into Israel's policies toward Palestinians?

Arabs are roughly 20% of the population in Israel, and have less than 10% representation in the Knesset.

In the U.S., African Americans comprise about 12% of the population and have about 11% representation in Congress.

So is support for Palestinians anti-Semitic, or is support for Israel anti-Semitic? Arabs are Semites too.

Who killed Yitzhak Rabin? Why?

[Sympthsical]

62. This is topic jumping

We've now gone from sanctioning people for speech to a hate crime. You know, Jews have not been having a good time of it either, in case you didn't notice. You then move to discussing racism at large - which has zero to do with the student statement.

And you - not me - you are conflating Palestinians with Hamas. Which I'm almost positive is something you don't intend. At least, I don't think so. It's certainly not something I'd do.

The student group statement controversy has to do with a lack of condemnation of Hamas and blaming Israel for a terrorist attack against innocent civilians.

That's the topic at hand. Not "What do you think about Whatever Topic I Throw Into This In The Hopes Something Sticks?" If people are interested in peace, truly interested, the first thing they should do is stop muddying the waters and combining Hamas with innocent Palestians and lumping the entire populace together in such a way that what Hamas does is justified by the Palestinian problem.

Which, again, is what you've been doing. I honestly am not sure if you realize you're doing it. The argument is so strangely omnidirectional, you've somehow become more anti-Palestinian than most people as a result. That the Palestinian issue is somehow Hamas-justifying.

Which is worse than the Harvard statement. Which I really hope you're not intending.

Arguments matter. Throwing stuff around willy nilly can end up in a weird place.

[LuvLoogie]

65. Equating racism with the student statement

is willy nilly. And is a lazy excuse for doxxing them.

What they basically said is the chickens came home to roost. And you are supporting putting a target on their backs for saying so.

BTW, there are reports saying that Netanyahu was kinda feeding those chickens, just a little, to play them against the Palestinian Authority.

You wanna stick to one hook without realizing you opened a can of worms and forgot to close the lid.

[stopdiggin]

56. read the statement they released again.

WAY beyond just 'support for Palestinian' (and/or their mistreatment and plight). Way beyond.

[LuvLoogie]

61. It's strongly worded, immature and emotional.

But I've seen worse from elected representatives, government officials, pundits and professionals.

I've seen similar statements in the past from guests on news shows.

It doesn't say that it supports what Hamas did. It doesn't call for the elimination of Israel or of Jews.

People have characterized the "right of return" an anti-Semitic, anti-Israel position.

Doxxing these students, places a target on them.

[stopdiggin]

64. it was strongly worded. way off base. and supremely stupid.

WRONG in almost every respect.
(elsewhere I have made my opinion on 'doxing' clear) But that's a separate issue, and I did not address it with that post.

Being in college is not a 'get out of jail' card. Harm dealt out is harm dealt out. This was harmful. And I stand by the post.

[LuvLoogie]

66. I'm not disagreeing with you

I just don't think it's as over the top as others I've seen in the past. I understand why you feel the way you do about the statement.

But I also understand the motive, in this environment, of doxxing them. That is more egregious than the student statement. In my opinion.

[stopdiggin]

67. and I would probably agree there

the doxing thing was also bottom shelf kind of stuff. We simply don't need that in the public arena.

[Butterflylady]

92. Yes!!!

[AkFemDem]

31. How is this any different

Then when people post pictures and names of racism Karens and the like all over social media??

We often say actions have consequences, but these students are learning that words do too. If you say or back antisemitic rhetoric then you may find yourself held accountable in uncomfortable ways.

[redqueen]

34. Doxxing abusers and rapists is one thing

Doxxing people for opinions is wrong. Yes, even repugnant opinions.

Also 'Karen' is a sexist insult, jsyk

[Zeitghost]

47. Funny that nobody around here

Had a problem Doxxing Proud Boys and other racists.

[Ocelot II]

40. A racist Karen has taken a direct action in public, usually in the form of harassing

or otherwise harming someone else. These days just about everything you do in public might end up on social media, and that sort of behavior often ends up on video. The person might lose their job or suffer other consequences as a result. But even that isn't the same as doxxing, which usually takes the form of publishing a person's name and home address; and these days this can result in even worse and more extreme consequences to the person's family and property. I'm not OK with doxxing even those Karens, and certainly not some bonehead students who got on an ideological bandwagon without thinking, as so often happens -- in the current atmosphere people are being harmed or killed for their opinions.

[wnylib]

58. And then doesn't that discourage people from expressing opinions because

they might get doxxed, harassed, and targeted for worse as a result of expressing a view?

Doxxing encourages polarization and simplistic slogan "thinking." Like Bush the Lesser, it is a way if saying "with me or against me." If you are with me, ok. If not, you are a subhuman "other" and fair game for anything.

[sarisataka]

35. I oppose doxing

'Nuff said.

[bigtree]

41. it's been interesting to watch

...as a progressive community wrestles with applying values to our our own behavior which we regularly apply to those we politically oppose.

[kelly1mm]

82. So much this! nt

[musicblind]

90. On the topic of doxing, there is a divide in our community.

Not every progressive supports doxing people for racist, homophobic, or bigoted speech.

Their hate speech is repugnant, but nobody has ever had their minds changed by having their lives ruined by the people they hate.

We should be in the business of changing minds, not ruining lives. The more minds we change, the more people we can protect because bad ideas are like seeds. If you bury them, they grow.

[ripcord]

43. How is it doxxing if they signed a public statement?

If you are going to put your name on an incendiary statement that is releases to the press do you have any expectation of privacy at all?

[Crunchy Frog]

93. They didn't. As far as I know,

these statements were signed by organizations without their regular members necessarily either knowing or approving.

Some of the people doxxed weren't even affiliated anymore.

[DBoon]

49. Imagine if they had this in the 1960s

They could have made life even more difficult for students opposing racial segregation or the Vietnam War

[jcmaine72]

57. +1

[bucolic_frolic]

50. Weren't these the clowns behind Jesse Helms takeover attempt of CBS?

[oldsoftie]

51. If they're just IDing them, own your words.

Calling for any violence or the like is unacceptable
But as an employer, I'd like to know if you're going to support terrorists. I dont.
If they are making racist statements we'd want them exposed as well.

[Mark.b2]

68. I continue to be shocked at the utter intolerance on campuses.....

I remember in the early 80's on my campus this evangelical nut preaching and proclaiming villainy on women and LGBT members...saying they deserved death. That stoning should return. Shit like that. He was there almost daily. Most of us just went about our day even though I never saw someone support him. No way he could do it nowadays.

[stuck in the middle]

83. Brother Jed and Disco Cindy?

Just a wild guess.

[ripcord]

69. If you are going to support groups that support false and hateful statements

Don't be surprised when you are held responsible for them. Even without the truck the names of these idiots were going to come out.

[DearMusic]

75. The act of hate and targeting innocents will be dealt with in whatever violence is needed to defeat such evil.

hamas started this and their demise will end it ... until the next evil comes along. Bless Israel and all those for good.

[disablegamer]

76. The group doing the doxxing is not your friend

Plz remember we have to be better then to think just because in the moment a group that doesn't ally with our cause is standing with us. Think Why this right wing group is willing to dox people. I'm sure in your heart you know they aren't doing it to stand with anyone just to cause chaos.

[ripcord]

89. Hateful statements get hateful responses

[Captain Stern]

88. We've danced this dance a bunch of times here. We know all the steps

Freedom of Speech doesn't not mean you don't have to face the consequences of that speech.