Sons Of Confederate Veterans Sued Over Bogus DMCA Takedown

from the well,-that-should-be-interesting dept

As you'll recall, earlier this month we wrote about this bizarre situation in North Carolina, in which the University of North Carolina agreed to give a bunch of racists $2.5 million to settle a lawsuit before the lawsuit had even been filed. The details of the story came out due to some inquisitive digging by North Carolina lawyer Greg Doucette. And, in response to him publishing the details, including a "victory" letter sent by the head of the North Carolina Sons of Confederate Veterans (in which it is admitted that they obviously had no legal standing to sue), Doucette's Dropbox account was blocked thanks to a bogus DMCA letter from the group. Doucette retained lawyer Marc Randazza, who sent the Sons a letter demanding they use the $2.5 million to fund scholarships for African American UNC students or face a lawsuit for the bogus takedown. That letter argued that the bogus DMCA notice violated Section 512(f) of the DMCA, which (in theory) is supposed to stop abusive takedowns by punishing "misrepresentations" in takedown notices.

As I noted at the time, Section 512(f) of the DMCA is effectively dead, as courts rarely enforce anything about it and, at best, have said that those issuing a DMCA notice simply only need to consider fair use and if they, in their minds, think it's not, can still send the takedown. However, Randazza and Doucette have decided to move forward anyway and have sued the NC Sons of Confederate Veterans, along with its leader Kevin Stone, and Dropbox (who blocked Doucette's account). As is fairly typical of a Randazza filing, it's an entertaining read:

Some claim that memorials like these are there to celebrate “southern heritage” rather than as memorials to the subjugation of African Americans.

When Silent Sam was unveiled in 1913, KKK supporter Julian Carr announced that the Confederate soldiers it honored had saved “the very life of the Anglo Saxon race in the South,” and told the following story:

“One hundred yards from where we stand, less than ninety days perhaps after my return from Appomattox, I horse-whipped a negro wench until her skirts hung in shreds, because upon the streets of this quiet village she had publicly insulted and maligned a Southern lady, and then rushed for protection to these University buildings where was stationed a garrison of 100 Federal soldiers. I performed the pleasing duty in the immediate presence of the entire garrison, and for thirty nights afterwards slept with a double-barrel shotgun under my head.”

With a metaphorical flamethrower taken to this myth of “southern pride,” student protesters tore the statue down on Monday, August 20, 2018. The University of North Carolina did not restore the statue to its former “glory.”

On November 27, 2019, the Sons of Confederate Veterans filed a lawsuit against UNC for its failure to return Silent Sam to his location, despite lacking standing (and knowing it) to bring such a suit. Despite the fact that the NCSCV lacked standing, seven minutes after the suit was filed, a state court judge approved a settlement between the parties.

The lawsuit has been filed not in North Carolina, but in Norther California (the other NC). The reasoning here is that because this lawsuit is over a DMCA takedown notice to Dropbox and Dropbox terms require users to consent to Northern California jurisdiction:

This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because a) in using Dropbox, they consented to personal jurisdiction and venue in the state and Federal courts in San Francisco, California; and b) the sending of the takedown notice at issue constitutes sufficient minimum contacts under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 410.10 and U.S. Const., Amdt. XIV, where Defendants purposefully directed their acts toward California, committing an intentional act, expressly aimed at California, causing Plaintiffs harm in California as they have been deprived of the full use of their California-based Dropbox account.

This also appears to be the sole reason that Dropbox is listed as a defendant in the case. The complaint notes that it is not asking for any money from Dropbox, just to have Doucette's account restored:

Dropbox is named as a defendant herein only to achieve complete relief; Plaintiffs seek no damages against Dropbox.

Well, these are the stated reasons for filing in California. I am assuming that the actual reason for suing in Northern California is that probably the only two successful 512(f) lawsuits both came in the Northern District of California and the 9th Circuit has probably the most caselaw on such claims -- but that includes an appellate ruling that the "good faith" requirement is subjective. That is, if the takedown notice filer believes in their minds that the DMCA notice was legit, that's enough. Of course, one other possible reason for filing in Northern California rather than North Carolina? Folks in California might not be quite as sympathetic to the Confederacy as folks in North Carolina.

As much as I'd like to see better rulings on 512(f) (or for Congress to fix it so that it has some teeth), I find it unlikely that this case will get very far -- and, frankly, the California filing feels a bit like jurisdiction shopping. It's not totally egregious as such (Dropbox is here in northern California and there are legit arguments for why the recipient of the takedown may be the proper party for determining jurisdiction), but... it's still a stretch. The declaratory judgment for non-infringement seem like much stronger claims, though they won't generate monetary returns.

In the meantime, the situation with UNC and the statue itself is far from over. Outcry and protests over the sketchy deal has resulted in at least one UNC funder pulling a $1.5 million grant to the University. And it doesn't sound like the outcry and protests are calming down. Separately, a group of UNC students have moved to intervene in the original case (the one that was filed and settled in mere minutes) trying to have the settlement tossed and then the case dismissed entirely.

Filed Under: 512(f), 512f, copyright, dmca, greg doucette, kevin stone, marc randazza, takedowns
Companies: drop box, sons of confederate veterans, unc


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 16 Dec 2019 @ 11:14am

    So, how's that decision working out for you?

    In the meantime, the situation with UNC and the statue itself is far from over. Outcry and protests over the sketchy deal has resulted in at least one UNC funder pulling a $1.5 million grant to the University. And it doesn't sound like the outcry and protests are calming down. Separately, a group of UNC students have moved to intervene in the original case (the one that was filed and settled in mere minutes) trying to have the settlement tossed and then the case dismissed entirely.

    Well, if the cowardly and/or corrupt people at UNC who approved the 'settlement' did so with the hopes of keeping the whole thing quiet it seems to have quite nicely blown up right in their faces.

    One source(so far) of funding pulls a $1.5 million grant, students are working to undue their (at best) cowardly capitulation to a pack of racist losers, their image has been dragged through the mud thanks to their actions and said actions have painted a huge target on their back should anyone else feel like shaking them on on similarly baseless grounds, given they've demonstrated that they'll fold like a cardboard house the second any pressure is applied.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Karl Burkhalter, 17 Dec 2019 @ 8:40pm

      Re: So, how's that decision working out for you?

      “One argument used by those wanting to remove Confederate statues is that contemporary blacks had little chance to oppose them when they were erected. Aside from anecdotal evidence that blacks joined white crowds to observe the dedication ceremonies, one example in Mississippi provides undeniable evidence of explicit high-level black support. In 1890 the Mississippi legislature voted on a bill to appropriate $10,000 for a Confederate monument. The vote in the lower chamber was 57-to-41 in favor. All six black representatives voted “yea.” One, John F. Harris, made a supporting speech excerpted below prior to the vote:

      ‘Mr. Speaker! I have risen here in my place to offer a few words on the bill…I was sorry to hear the speech of the young gentleman from Marshall County. I am sorry that any son of a soldier should go on record as opposed to the erection of a monument in honor of the brave dead.

      And, sir, I am convinced that had he seen what I saw at Seven Pines and in the Seven Days’ fighting around Richmond, the battlefield covered with the mangled forms of those who fought for their country and for their country’s honor, he would not have made that speech….When the news came that the South had been invaded, those men went forth to fight for what they believed, and they made no requests for monuments…But they died, and their virtues should be remembered.’

      Sir, I went with them. I too wore the gray, We stayed four long years, and if that war had gone on till now I would have been there yet….I want to honor those brave men who died for their convictions.”

      He knew about Devil's Punchbowl, do you?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 18 Dec 2019 @ 1:16am

        Re: Re: So, how's that decision working out for you?

        "He knew about Devil's Punchbowl, do you?"

        One of the sordid informal death camps made by white americans to kill black americans right after the civil war? What does that have to do with the statues of the confederate generals who swore on their lives to preserve slavery?

        Fact of the matter a statue of a confederate soldier has the same moral argument for staying up as a statue of Rommel or Goering.
        Whether they were good soldiers doesn't matter when the cause they marched for was slavery.

        The american south always wants to whitewash its history but there's just no getting around the fact that the confederate constitution to which their soldiers all swore themselves had the concept and defense of slavery as a core article, to the point of mandating that no laws could be made which abolished that abominable institution.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Wendy Cockcroft (profile), 18 Dec 2019 @ 5:18am

          Re: Re: Re: So, how's that decision working out for you?

          I daresay the Black representatives were afraid of reprisals if they voted against it. It's unlikely that they were in favour of slavery — or the Jim Crow Laws that followed the end of the Civil War.

          I'd be interested to see their other voting records.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 19 Dec 2019 @ 2:15am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: So, how's that decision working out for you?

            "I daresay the Black representatives were afraid of reprisals if they voted against it."

            Or, far more likely, they had been cherry-picked by the bigoted pricks still in power in the south for being good and obedient Uncle Tom's.

            I can imagine the room they made that legislation now. The speaker stands and bellows "What do the Nxxxxh's have ta say?". Only to be met by quiet reluctant whispers of "aye" from the chosen black representatives pinning their eyes to the floor.
            "Motion carried! Yee-HAW!"

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Norahc (profile), 16 Dec 2019 @ 12:18pm

    I'm waiting for the RICO to make an appearance....
    We've already got conspiracy and fraud.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 16 Dec 2019 @ 12:30pm

      Re:

      Nah, Randazza reads (and posts) on Popehat, so even if they didn't teach that in law school, he already knows what is or isn't RICO.

      Now if the RICO charge came from the Sons Of Confederate Veterans, or UNC (we already know they didn't consult their own law school, or competent lawyers) it could be understood, even if still wrong.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Norahc (profile), 16 Dec 2019 @ 12:48pm

        Re: Re:

        Forgot the /s

        Since the AG is now looking into the deal criminal RICO may be in the realm of possibility.

        But you're right...I would fully expect the SCV to claim it in their counterclaims.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 16 Dec 2019 @ 12:46pm

    As a native North Carolinian, I have only one thing to say:

    May the Sons of Confederate Veterans one day fly the only Confederate flag that matters. 🏳️

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Norahc (profile), 16 Dec 2019 @ 12:57pm

      Re:

      Isn't that cultural appropriation from France?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Talmyr, 6 Jan 2020 @ 2:37am

        Re: Re:

        Without the French you would still be flying the British flag. As for the French surrendering in WW2, like you could have stood up to a full-scale Blitzkrieg either. You were too chicken to even enter the war(s) until attacked/declared war upon. And they were right about being skeptical of Iraq.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          bhull242 (profile), 9 Jan 2020 @ 5:08pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          I agree (mostly), though you’re taking the joke a bit too seriously.

          That said, regarding WWII, I do feel it worth mentioning that France relied on the same defense along the Maginot Line that failed in WWI without also building fortifications along the France-Belgium border.

          And as for being “chicken”, we’re on a completely different continent. We just didn’t care.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 16 Dec 2019 @ 12:58pm

      Minor correction:

      '... the only Confederate flag that ever mattered.'

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      icon
      Connie Chastain (profile), 17 Dec 2019 @ 8:00am

      Re: Who cares what you say?

      Not the SCV.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        That One Guy (profile), 17 Dec 2019 @ 10:00am

        However shall he survive such devastating news...

        Oh noes, a bunch of racist, cowardly and dishonest losers might not care what he says, I'm sure he'll be absolutely devastated. /s

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 17 Dec 2019 @ 10:37am

        Like I give a fuck what those slavery-celebrating racist swamp rats have to say.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 18 Dec 2019 @ 1:22am

        Re: Re: Who cares what you say?

        "Not the SCV."

        Hardly surprising that an organization glorifying racial hate and slavery would disagree with what any sensible and moral person had to say.

        Here in europe I think you could make a case that Rommel and Goering were good soldiers and yet no one is daft enough to demand statues in their honor.

        Yet in the american south too few realize that what the people they want to celebrate fought and died for was the preservation of the institution of slavery enshrined in the confederate constitution those soldiers all swore themselves to.

        That is deserving of a place in a museum as warning to future generations but NOT as a publicly placed statue glorifying the enslavement of black people.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 16 Dec 2019 @ 1:01pm

    I wish the stupid villains would give up... I'm starting to not enjoy popcorn.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2019 @ 1:31pm

    Folks in California might not be quite as sympathetic to the Confederacy as folks in North Carolina.

    They are, however, sympathetic to copyright, and California is way more racist than NC. In the south they mouth off, in the north and west they just cross the street when they see a minority and toss their resumes in the trash while saying the right things.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2019 @ 3:40pm

      Re:

      Or this is complete bullshit.

      Source: I'm from the South and live on the west coast. The South is a helluva lot more racist, both systemically and verbally, than the west coast.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Karl Burkhalter, 17 Dec 2019 @ 8:45pm

        Re: Re:

        Dr King wrote in his Autobiography that Illinois was more Racist than Alabama. Your Virtue Signaling is obscene. This Iconoclastic Mania is a temper tantrum over Hillary's Loss. The North invaded for cotton and tariffs not to do Blacks any favors. One million Freedmen starved under Union Contraband policy before Confederates were allowed to vote because the North wanted to be free of Blacks not free for Blacks.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2019 @ 10:26am

          Re: Re: Re:

          I suppose there is some sort of documentation from which you pulled this from, right?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 20 Dec 2019 @ 1:07am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "The North invaded a slaver regime for cotton and tariffs not to do Blacks any favors."

          Fixed That for you.

          No doubt that the north had opportunism as a side goal but at the end of the day the real issue of contention was that the confederate constitution had slavery enshrined and defended as a primary amendment.

          But go ahead and keep trying to defend the confederacy slaver nation with whataboutism. That argument would similarly exculpate ISIS completely though, so I'm not too sure you WANT to go down that road.

          Or maybe you do. What one non-caucasian does to another doesn't seem high on your list of priorities.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2019 @ 3:44pm

      Re:

      You know how I know you are a racist bro?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2019 @ 1:58pm

    Good to see that Randazza finally realized that abusing DMCA to censor stuff isn't a good thing.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2019 @ 3:52pm

    The lawsuit has been filed not in North Carolina, but in Norther California

    Norther California: when North California isn't north enough, but Northest California is too far north.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 16 Dec 2019 @ 5:02pm

    UPDATE:

    https://www.wral.com/silent-sam-deal-included-extra-75-000-to-keep-confederate-group-s-flags -off-unc-campuses/18837378/

    In addition to the $2.5 million the University of North Carolina paid to have the Sons of Confederate Veterans take a controversial Confederate monument from UNC-Chapel Hill, UNC paid the group $74,999 not to meet or demonstrate on any of the system's campuses for five years, according to documents released Monday.

    It just keeps getting worse.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Norahc (profile), 16 Dec 2019 @ 5:27pm

      Re:

      Especially when you consider that the 74,999 was one dollar below the amount that would have required the Attorney General's approval. Sure seems like they didn't want anyone else to know about it.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 16 Dec 2019 @ 5:30pm

        Sure seems like they didn't want anyone else to know about it.

        Ain’t no “seems” about it, not with a move that deliberate. UNC paid off a bunch of racist pricks and hoped nobody would find out until after the checks cleared.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        That One Guy (profile), 17 Dec 2019 @ 12:31am

        Re: Re:

        I seem to recall a few articles a good while back that covered lawsuits over bank transactions that were claimed to be just under the point where they'd need to be reported, and if they tried to buy off the racist losers with an amount literally a dollar short of the point where they'd need approval that strikes me as a pretty obvious attempt to dodge those requirements, and something that should be looked into as well.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2019 @ 8:30pm

    They are a part of history so I can see why the statues need to be housed somewhere.

    I don't know what the right solution for confederate monuments is.

    There is a good chance they are not all racists but I don't personally know any of them.

    Offensive art is still a protected thing.

    Some of them did things of great artistic value even if their other history is deeply immoral.

    We have a better Parthenon than Greece.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2019 @ 8:48pm

      Re:

      That Venn diagram is a perfect circle.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 16 Dec 2019 @ 9:33pm

      The overwhelming majority of Confederate statues went up after the War to Preserve Slavery. They existed, and those still in place arguably still exist, for the sole purpose of spreading a message of White supremacy to Black people: “You’re free, but we’re still in charge.” States that weren’t even in the Confederacy — or the Union, for that matter! — have Confederate statues, too.

      If I had my way, we’d melt down every last one of those monuments to White supremacist traitors and recycle the metal into whatever, then plant trees where the statues once stood. But if we’re going to pretend the statues are about “heritage” and all the other smokescreen bullshit, we should move them into museums and replace them with statues of the leaders of slave rebellions, Black leaders of the civil rights movement, or…well, pretty much anyone who doesn’t represent the Confederacy.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        That One Guy (profile), 17 Dec 2019 @ 12:38am

        Re:

        'Here's a statue of one of the traitorous racists, and right beside it is a statue of one of the people who kicked their ass in the war to preserve slavery(great name by the way, much more accurate and descriptive). Now over here we have a wing highlighting the people who had to fight for equal rights and treatment, as unfortunately just because the racists got trounced didn't mean that racism went away...'

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2019 @ 5:11am

        Re:

        Like the bullshit about eliminating copyright enforcement isn't advocating piracy?

        "Copying is not theft." Well, a confederate statute is historical, not racist.

        Don't you hate it when others are better at your own game than you?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 17 Dec 2019 @ 6:20am

          Copying is not theft.

          That’s right, copying in and of itself isn’t theft.

          a confederate statute is historical, not racist

          Then how come California, a “free state” that wasn’t part of the Confederate States of America, has several monuments to the Confederacy? Also, per Wiki:

          According to the American Historical Association (AHA), the erection of Confederate monuments during the early twentieth century was "part and parcel of the initiation of legally mandated segregation and widespread disenfranchisement across the South." According to the AHA, memorials to the Confederacy erected during this period "were intended, in part, to obscure the terrorism required to overthrow Reconstruction, and to intimidate African Americans politically and isolate them from the mainstream of public life." A later wave of monument building coincided with the civil rights movement, and according to the AHA "these symbols of white supremacy are still being invoked for similar purposes." According to Smithsonian Magazine, "far from simply being markers of historic events and people, as proponents argue, these memorials were created and funded by Jim Crow governments to pay homage to a slave-owning society and to serve as blunt assertions of dominance over African-Americans."

          I’m sure there are people who see monuments to the Confederacy as part of a heritage. But that heritage is hate — a heritage of the idea of racial supremacy through force, a heritage of enslaving people based on the color of their skin, a heritage of splitting from the United States and fighting an entire goddamn war to keep alive the institution of slavery.

          We should acknowledge the history of the Confederacy and the War to Preserve Slavery. But we don’t need public monuments for the Confederacy to do that. Put the statues in museums, rename buildings and streets that were named for Confederates, and let anything that can’t be easily moved or renamed stand.

          Don't you hate it when others are better at your own game than you?

          A little, sure, but I never have to worry about that with you.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 17 Dec 2019 @ 6:33am

          Re: Re:

          "Like the bullshit about eliminating copyright enforcement isn't advocating piracy?"

          The same way that rejecting the concept of "guilty until proven innocent" means we abolish good law enforcement, you mean?

          ""Copying is not theft." Well, a confederate statute is historical, not racist."

          A statue of a man who swore an oath to preserve the institution of slavery is, indeed, racist.

          "Don't you hate it when others are better at your own game than you?"

          Only you, Bobmail, could deliver several abject and obvious failures in a row and call it "success".
          No, Jhon, as usual all you managed to do is package and deliver five suck and fails for the price of none.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2019 @ 10:29am

          Re: Re:

          “Don't you hate it when others are better at your own game than you?”

          Someday that might actually be the case bro.

          Someday

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2019 @ 7:15pm

          Re: Re:

          Like the bullshit about eliminating copyright enforcement isn't advocating piracy

          Mate, the reason why people want to "eliminate" copyright enforcement is because your approach to it catches more children and grandmothers and corpses than actual pirates.

          If the police were allowed to flamethrower babies at traffic stops and people complained you'd bitch about people wanting to advocate murder.

          Go cry about your mailing lists, Herrick.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          bhull242 (profile), 23 Dec 2019 @ 12:54pm

          Re: Re:

          Like the bullshit about eliminating copyright enforcement isn't advocating piracy?

          Well, it isn’t, nor is that what we’re doing. We’re against overenforcement of and misuse of the enforcement tools available for copyright, as well as using it against nonprofit, noncommercial fanworks, not copyright enforcement in general. Specifically, abuse of the DMCA to remove content for reasons other than copyright, removing fanworks and emulators, the fact that DMCA requires takedowns before and without a legal finding that the content actually infringes on copyright and with essentially no evidence, and ignoring fair use entirely. That’s not completely eliminating copyright enforcement. It’s a lot more nuanced than that.

          But at any rate, that doesn’t really have anything to do with anything in this article or thread.

          "Copying is not theft."

          This is true.

          Well, a confederate statute is historical, not racist.

          I assume you meant “statue”. If so, there are a number of problems with that.

          1. A statue of a person outside a museum isn’t just historical; it’s a veneration and show of support. We don’t put up statues of Benedict Arnold, Adolf Hitler, or the Boston bombers. They, too, are part of our history. People put up statues of people because they support the people depicted or their cause in some way. And these people fought in a war on the side of slavery.

          2. Context around the erection of these Confederate statues is important. The vast majority of these statues were erected at two points in history: the enacting of segregation and the civil rights movement. Both of these were well after the end of the Civil War and were done for clearly racist reasons. They were erected in support of segregation and against granting blacks equal rights.

          3. That has nothing to do with copyright or the argument that “copying isn’t theft”. Those two things have absolutely nothing in common that make them remotely similar or analogous.

          4. You provide no arguments supporting the claim that the Confederate statues are all both historical and not racist. (It’s worth noting that being historical and being racist are not mutually exclusive or collectively exhaustive. Proving or disproving one doesn’t necessarily prove or disprove the other.) By contrast, we’ve provided plenty of arguments and evidence supporting the claims that a) the Confederate statues are racist and b) copying isn’t theft.

          5. “Copying isn’t theft” is not saying that copyright infringement isn’t wrong or illegal any more than saying “taking things isn’t murder” is saying that theft isn’t wrong or illegal. Copying =/= copyright infringement, and copyright infringement is still illegal and, in many cases at least, immoral. That copying isn’t theft says nothing about whether copying is wrong or illegal, let alone copyright infringement (which is a subset of copying). It’s a linguistic argument. So even if there were parallels between that argument and yours, that would only mean that your argument doesn’t support the erection of Confederate statues or go against their removal or destruction.

          Now, if you did, in fact, mean Confederate statutes, that’d be even dumber. Many of those were very clearly racist and were supposed to be. Also, I don’t think anyone is demanding that Confederate statutes should be publicly displayed on public property. But I highly doubt that’s what you meant.

          Don't you hate it when others are better at your own game than you?

          I find it enjoyable, actually. I enjoy a good challenge, particularly in a debate. That said, you’re not one of them, and that isn’t “our game” that you’re using.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2019 @ 7:41am

        Re:

        Small semantic point, calling the Confederates traitors is extremely revisionist, since by the social conventions of the time they would have owed no loyalty to the Union. Before the Civil War everyone was expected to be loyal to their State, their County, their family, their militia, etc. Loyalty to the United States only mattered in regard to its relations with other countries.

        There were massive government propaganda campaigns to unify the country under a single national identity after the war had ended. We still see the legacy of those campaigns today, and Americans continue to have an unusually strong sense of national pride.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 17 Dec 2019 @ 7:51am

          calling the Confederates traitors is extremely revisionist

          Would you prefer I be more accurate by calling them a bunch of White supremacist assholes who literally bled and died to protect the institution of enslaving Black people?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2019 @ 11:18am

            Re:

            I'd prefer you remember that there were human beings fighting on both sides, and they were no more singularly motivated by a desire to do evil than you are. Rebellion is not treason by any reasonable definition. It's as accurate to say that George Washington was a traitor as it is to call the Confederates traitors. In the context of their struggles the fact that they technically committed treason is meaningless.

            Your alternate description is no more accurate than your first. To claim that Confederate soldiers all "bled and died to protect the institution of enslaving Black people" is bullshit, because you're implying that was their intent. You're saying hundreds of thousands of poor southern boys all marched off to die specifically so that rich plantation owners could keep their slaves, rather than because their homes were being invaded by a marauding, pillaging army sent by a distant and seemingly uncaring government.

            Lots of people on both sides didn't even have a choice. Did you forget that the Union invaded the Confederate states? Did you forget that the Civil War was the first time conscription was introduced in the US, and every eligible man and boy had to register regardless of their beliefs about slavery?

            History is never so clearly Good vs. Evil as you desperately want to believe. Slavery and racism were considered normal at the time of the Civil War, and would remain common throughout the world until after the first World War.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Stephen T. Stone (profile), 17 Dec 2019 @ 11:42am

              To claim that Confederate soldiers all "bled and died to protect the institution of enslaving Black people" is bullshit, because you're implying that was their intent.

              The Confederate States of America was formed specifically to protect the institution of slavery. The men who created and led the Confederacy intended for its army to fight and die for everything the Confederacy stood for — including slavery. Whether the soldiers themselves intended to fight and die for the protection of slavery is largely irrelevant.

              You're saying hundreds of thousands of poor southern boys all marched off to die specifically so that rich plantation owners could keep their slaves, rather than because their homes were being invaded by a marauding, pillaging army sent by a distant and seemingly uncaring government.

              Why, it’s almost as if the rich sold the poor a bill of goods~. Imagine that~.

              Lots of people on both sides didn't even have a choice.

              Especially the enslaved Black people.

              History is never so clearly Good vs. Evil as you desperately want to believe.

              Tell me something new.

              Slavery and racism were considered normal at the time of the Civil War, and would remain common throughout the world until after the first World War.

              So what? That doesn’t make racism or slavery right or good. “We’ve always done it this way” doesn’t justify those things, either. The Confederacy was formed primarily to protect the institution of slavery; everything else sprung from that one specific goal. Fuck the Confederacy, fuck Confederate monuments, and fuck the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2019 @ 11:58am

                Re:

                Yeah, fuck all of them. And fuck you too. Even knowing, as you do, that most soldiers are duped into fighting for whatever side, you still try to vilify them for it and claim they did it to "preserve slavery".

                Blaming victims is fine if you don't like them, according to Stephen T. Stone. What an undeserving, self-righteous, hypocritical turd of a person you've turned into.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Stephen T. Stone (profile), 17 Dec 2019 @ 12:26pm

                  Even knowing, as you do, that most soldiers are duped into fighting for whatever side, you still try to vilify them for it and claim they did it to "preserve slavery".

                  The Confederate army as a whole was formed to protect the Confederacy. The Confederacy in general was formed primarily to protect the institution of slavery. Ergo, Confederate soldiers ultimately fought to preserve slavery regardless of whether that was any individual soldier’s intent.

                  “Fuck the Confederacy” isn’t an condemnation of every individual Confederate soldier, especially not the enslaved Black people who were forced to fight. It is a condemnation of the Confederacy as both a “country” and a concept, and of the men who formed it. If’n you can’t deal with that, I suggest praying in front of Silent Sam abou—oh wait

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 18 Dec 2019 @ 3:39am

                  Re: Re:

                  "Even knowing, as you do, that most soldiers are duped into fighting for whatever side, you still try to vilify them for it and claim they did it to "preserve slavery"."

                  So...what you are saying is that the german Wehrmacht in 1936 consisted of good people who shouldn't be vilified just because they were the obedient servants of the nazi regime?

                  You're not winning this argument, this battle, or this war. The confederacy can not be defended from ANY moral viewpoint and the only thing you've done so far is delivering one argument after another which would similarly have given moral high ground to erecting statues of Hess and Heydrich, had those arguments been accepted.

                  The confederacy was dedicated and formed to protect the institution of slavery. The army was marching in defense of slavery. The soldiers don't get exculpated for simply "obeying orders" since, you know, they could have done what the US soldiers dodging the vietnam draft did én másse. Desert.

                  Instead they failed to say "not in my name". They picked up their guns and used them in defense of the confederacy.

                  That makes them - at absolutely best dupes and victims. It doesn't make them good soldiers. It doesn't make them good people. In fact it makes them pretty shitty people who were willing to support an inhumane and barbarous junta out of fear.
                  At best.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 18 Dec 2019 @ 1:31am

              Re: Re:

              "I'd prefer you remember that there were human beings fighting on both sides, and they were no more singularly motivated by a desire to do evil than you are."

              Well, the same way it's been shown that most nazi camp guards were very decent people to anyone who wasn't jewish, and made for good spouses, fathers and neighbors.

              That isn't an excuse for putting up statues of them, the same way no good argument exists for preserving statues of confederate generals in public spaces.

              "To claim that Confederate soldiers all "bled and died to protect the institution of enslaving Black people" is bullshit, because you're implying that was their intent."

              At the end of the day every last one of the confederate soldiers swore themselves and their lives to defend and protect the confederate constitution - which was nearly identical to the union constitution save that it held slavery as a sacred institution which no laws were to be made to abolish.

              So yes. The confederate soldiers died to defend slavery in exactly the same way the wehrmacht soldiers in 1936 died defending nazism.

              The difference is that most europeans and especially germans know better than to try to defend those forefathers.

              "Did you forget that the Civil War was the first time conscription was introduced in the US, and every eligible man and boy had to register regardless of their beliefs about slavery?"

              Still not one single reason to glorify or acknowledge, in any positive light, the confederate soldiers.

              Because sure as hell the SCV aren't upholding their ancestors as "pitiful victims being forced at gunpoint to march in the defense of slavery".

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Talmyr, 6 Jan 2020 @ 2:44am

          Re: Re:

          Except they were US citizens and absolutely owed loyalty to the Union - they were secessionist traitors right from the get-go by definition. Not surprising though, in a nation born from secessionist treachery :)

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          bhull242 (profile), 9 Jan 2020 @ 5:24pm

          Re: Re:

          …by the social conventions of the time they would have owed no loyalty to the Union. Before the Civil War everyone was expected to be loyal to their State, their County, their family, their militia, etc. Loyalty to the United States only mattered in regard to its relations with other countries.

          That was only with regards to some southern states, at best. The so-called “border states”, the western states, and the northern states had a very different view on things. That’s why states like Maryland and Missouri stuck with the Union: loyalty to the country superseded loyalty to local issues.

          Also, they really only did the “states’ rights” thing when it was convenient for them. Fugitive slaves? The federal government must step in and force northern states to help recapture them.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2019 @ 6:14am

      Re:

      They are a part of history so I can see why the statues need to be housed somewhere

      https://alwaysbuyingscrap.com/

      Some of them did things of great artistic value even if their other history is deeply immoral.

      Cheesy decontextualized ripoffs of ancient buildings are not of "great artistic value".

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 17 Dec 2019 @ 6:29am

      Re:

      "There is a good chance they are not all racists but I don't personally know any of them."

      Every confederate officer swore to their flag and, more importantly, their constitution.

      Which means they did swear themselves to this: "the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress..."

      If the oath of office you take demands that you give your life to preserve the institution of slavery practiced upon the black man then hell yes, you're a racist. I don't even think the nazis were that clear-cut and outspoken about it.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        bhull242 (profile), 23 Dec 2019 @ 12:15pm

        Re: Re:

        While I mostly disagree with them, I would like to point out that a substantial portion of the Confederate Army consisted of drafted soldiers, i.e. people who didn’t volunteer at all. So saying that they all swore to their flag and constitution is a bit misleading.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 27 Dec 2019 @ 6:56am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "I would like to point out that a substantial portion of the Confederate Army consisted of drafted soldiers, i.e. people who didn’t volunteer at all. So saying that they all swore to their flag and constitution is a bit misleading."

          Less than 10% of the confederate army was drafted - some 82000 out of 8-900000. And only after they'd found themselves significantly outnumbered by the union.

          James McPherson also wrote about the moral stance of the soldiers, and i quote;

          "“Slavery was less salient for most Confederate soldiers because it was not controversial. They took slavery for granted as one of the Southern ‘rights’ and institutions for which they fought, and did not feel compelled to discuss it. Although only 20 percent of the soldiers avowed explicit proslavery purposes in their letters and diaries, none at all dissented from that view.”"

          We've got ample historical evidence that draft or not, it was VERY rare to find a single confederate soldier who didn't perceive slavery as something less than a god-given "right".

          I think I'm on pretty safe grounds to say that the confederate soldiers all swore to defend slavery, and the overwhelming majority did so very willingly.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      bhull242 (profile), 23 Dec 2019 @ 1:15pm

      Re:

      For the record, we’re not arguing that these statues should be illegal. They absolutely are protected by the First Amendment. I’m also not opposed to them being in a museum, though I would prefer portraits. They do have some historical value, after all, and some, like General Lee, played important roles prior to the Civil War that I’m okay with.

      That said, I don’t think that prominently displaying them out in public the way they are or on publicly owned property that is not a museum is a good idea, and it’s pretty offensive, especially considering the fact that, whether or not the individuals themselves were racists or pro-slavery, not only are they being venerated for fighting in a war in support of a country that was founded for the sole purpose of protecting the institution of slavery, but the vast majority of these statues were erected not for artistic or historical reasons but for racist reasons well after the end of the Civil War. That’s not just art or history; that’s veneration.

      Again, I’m not opposed to depicting Confederate figures in museums or on private property. The First Amendment protects that right, even if they are offensive. I just have a problem with publicly-owned monuments to the Confederacy being publicly displayed on publicly-owned property.

      For most monuments, I think moving them to a museum or selling them to private individuals would work. If not, I think either juxtaposing them with Union soldiers, prominent African-American figures, or Civil Rights leaders would help. And while I’m not opposed to preserving these monuments, I’m not against destroying them either (at least if it’s done legally). But if they must be kept, they should either be given to private citizens or be presented with the proper context, which a museum or opposing monument would provide.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      pouar (profile), 4 Jan 2020 @ 12:24pm

      Re:

      Having lived with members of the SCV most of my life. I can safely say they're not all racist.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2019 @ 11:26pm

    The only good confederate is a dead confederate. This is why they lost and died in the war like the racist traitors they were. Goons like the ones in the article are losers, they aren't sons of veterans they are sons of traitors. Historical revisionism doesn't work for filthy people who believe their race is better than the rest. They are bound for history's forgotten pages wether they want to or not.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2019 @ 4:38am

      Re:

      Some of those monuments are actually pretty big and will probably be around for a long time.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_Mountain

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Connie Chastain (profile), 17 Dec 2019 @ 7:59am

      Re: Racists infested the north and the union army, as well

      There may have been a people somewhere on the planet with the moral authority to make war on the Confederacy but it wasn't the United States. What's worse? Slavery or genocide of American Indians carried out by the U.S. Army (including black buffalo soldiers)?

      Slaves had shelter, food, clothing, medical care, religions instruction and about 25% of slave occupations required literacy. Compare that to the lives of native Americans imprisoned in concentration camps artfully called reservations in conditions worse than plantation slavery.

      Whatever charges you want to lay at the feet of Confederates, the same and worse can be said of the barbarians wearing military uniforms who came down here to make war on them.

      Most people today cannot conceptualize the union army's savagery and barbarism perpetrated against the South.

      Nothing -- not secession, not preserving the union, not ending slavery -- NOTHING justified the uncivilized brutality of the union's war on the Southern people.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 17 Dec 2019 @ 8:24am

        What's worse? Slavery or genocide of American Indians carried out by the U.S. Army (including black buffalo soldiers)?

        Neither is worse than the other. They are both atrocities and should be treated as such.

        Slaves had shelter, food, clothing, medical care, religions instruction and about 25% of slave occupations required literacy.

        So what? Enslavers keeping their property in good shape doesn’t make them morally righteous when you know what property means in this context.

        Whatever charges you want to lay at the feet of Confederates, the same and worse can be said of the barbarians wearing military uniforms who came down here to make war on them

        …which is why anyone with a goddamn lick of sense sees the War to Preserve Slavery as a low point in American history for numerous reasons.

        Most people today cannot conceptualize the union army's savagery and barbarism perpetrated against the South.

        Most people today can’t conceptualize the average enslaver’s savagery and barbarism perpetrated against enslaved people. I don’t see you shittalking the South — which fought a war to preserve that savagery and barbarism as a legal right — for it, though.

        Nothing -- not secession, not preserving the union, not ending slavery -- NOTHING justified the uncivilized brutality of the union's war on the Southern people.

        Nothing — not tradition, not preserving the economy, not dying for the right to enslave people — NOTHING justified the uncivilized brutality visited upon enslaved people in (and by) the South/the Confederacy.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2019 @ 8:30am

        Re: Re: Racists infested the north and the union army, as well

        Found the racist.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 18 Dec 2019 @ 1:42am

        Re: Re: Racists infested the north and the union army, as well

        "What's worse? Slavery or genocide of American Indians carried out by the U.S. Army (including black buffalo soldiers)?"

        And the statues of monsters within the rest of the US Army should similarly not be on display other than in a museum as warning to future generations.

        "Slaves had shelter, food, clothing, medical care, religions instruction and about 25% of slave occupations required literacy. Compare that to the lives of native Americans imprisoned in concentration camps artfully called reservations in conditions worse than plantation slavery. "

        OK, full stop there. You are seriously justifying slavery because it's not as bad as actual genocide? Goebbels wants a word with you, you're cribbing his material.

        "NOTHING justified the uncivilized brutality of the union's war on the Southern people."

        Actually, yes. Slavery was every moral authority required for the war. In an ideal world of course the monsters on the union side should have been similarly brutalized.

        Your entire wordwall seems to be that if law enforcement fails to catch one bad guy the rest should be let off with a warning.

        The confederate constitution was primarily about defending slavery which is where the irreconcilable difference from the union one lay. The confederate soldiers all swore to and marched in the defense of slavery as an institution. At best that makes them similar victims of the confederacy.

        But the ones having statues made of them? They were all too willing and in no few cases prime motivators of slaveholding. The only place fit to hold their statues is a museum on crimes against humanity.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2019 @ 10:34am

        Re: Re: Racists infested the north and the union army, as well

        "There may have been a people somewhere on the planet with the moral authority to make war"

        • I do not think anyone has such authority. Why do you?

        "Slaves had shelter, food, clothing, medical care, religions instruction and about 25% of slave occupations required literacy."

        • and this makes it all ok ... their kidnapping, low shipboard survival rate, torture, abuse, rape, being treated as though they were subhuman its all ok because we treated them better than we treated the native americans - wow, are you for real?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 20 Dec 2019 @ 1:11am

          Re: Re: Re: Racists infested the north and the union army, as we

          "wow, are you for real?"

          Going by his arguments, s/he's all too real. And probably writing this carrying a Tiki torch while wearing white sheets.

          I mean, here in europe we've seen neo-nazis using those arguments in the defense of the third reich, but never quite that clumsily. Guess the nazi rhetoric is still more polished than that of the KKK.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 20 Dec 2019 @ 1:18am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Racists infested the north and the union army, a

            Addendum to the above, if it's the genuine "Connie Chastain" writing this then we're looking at a proliferous writer and blogger who has made it her life's calling to come up with apologetics for southern racism because of twisted whataboutism about how the north was "also bad".

            Her running argument seems to be that any one bringing up slavery and racism in the US south is out to demonize southerners for no reason.

            And she completely fails to see the irony in that she's personally on record trying to push the paradigm of the superiority of one race visavi another.

            Essentially she's trying to go to any lengths to prove neither she nor the slave owners in the south were really racist, and appears to think that as long as anyone buys her reasoning the south will come out as the guy in the white hat of the civil war.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              That One Guy (profile), 20 Dec 2019 @ 3:28am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Racists infested the north and the union arm

              Making it your life's work to defend a bunch of inhuman racist losers... that is just beyond sad.

              Her running argument seems to be that any one bringing up slavery and racism in the US south is out to demonize southerners for no reason.

              ... other than the racism and the slavery? Because I'd think for any even remotely moral person those two would be more than enough.

              And she completely fails to see the irony in that she's personally on record trying to push the paradigm of the superiority of one race visavi another.

              I'm not sure that's irony so much as telling and a possible explanation for her actions, as if she really has pushed the idea that some races are better than others defending historical racism would double as defending her racism.

              No, for irony I'd probably go with a woman arguing that some groups are inherently superior to others, given how that mindset has typically worked out for women in the past.

              Essentially she's trying to go to any lengths to prove neither she nor the slave owners in the south were really racist, and appears to think that as long as anyone buys her reasoning the south will come out as the guy in the white hat of the civil war.

              I mean, swap 'hat' with 'hood' and that would be accurate I suppose...

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 20 Dec 2019 @ 7:19am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Racists infested the north and the union

                "Making it your life's work to defend a bunch of inhuman racist losers... that is just beyond sad."

                Yup. At least when you know the other person is KKK or a neo-nazi they are NOT going to try to weasel their way out of atrocities by whining "But...look at the OTHER side, they were bad as well!!"

                "... other than the racism and the slavery? Because I'd think for any even remotely moral person those two would be more than enough."

                Yep again. Apparently according to Chastain there is a large conspiracy to "evilize" the civil war era south who were really just "defending themselves from an atrocious aggressor".
                Hell, you can see the gist of her "arguments" right here on this thread. I don't normally like to toss the word "Evil" around, but that poster will, without a single second, exculpate slavery and similar atrocity.

                "...if she really has pushed the idea that some races are better than others defending historical racism would double as defending her racism."

                True enough. I guess if you have a hateboner for people of another skin color than your own at least you'd feel more comfortable if you could tell yourself that you aren't actually a horrible person because that hateboner is just natural.

                "No, for irony I'd probably go with a woman arguing that some groups are inherently superior to others, given how that mindset has typically worked out for women in the past."

                True enough - you could replace the word "woman" with "black" in many 18th century scholarly debates and end up with the verbatim southern justification for slavery.

                "I mean, swap 'hat' with 'hood' and that would be accurate I suppose..."

                What makes it truly ridiculous is the way she keeps trying to remove the confederacy from racism in general, i think. It's as if the only card she has to play is "South Good, North Baaad!".

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        bhull242 (profile), 27 Dec 2019 @ 10:05am

        Re: Re: Racists infested the north and the union army, as well

        I’d like to point out a couple of issues that others have yet to mention because of the fractal wrongness of this post. (In fact, the only right part is that the North committed atrocities, too.)

        First, the South fired first. They attacked Fort Sumter. Now, you may think that they were justified in doing so. However, that is immaterial because it still shows that the North was purely motivated by aggression. Again, the South started the war.

        Second, it’s worth noting that the South committed just as many atrocities against Union soldiers and American Indians as the North did against Confederate soldiers and American Indians. It’s just that the South also committed atrocities against African-Americans, and those atrocities also included slavery. So yeah, while the Union wasn’t exactly smelling like roses, the Confederacy was objectively worse.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    Connie Chastain (profile), 17 Dec 2019 @ 7:49am

    Speakers at Monument Dedication

    Carr wasn't the only speaker. The Gov. of North Carolina spoke also, and his remarks included this:

    “Ours is the task to build a State worthy of all patriotism and heroic deeds, a State that demands justice for herself and all her people, a State sounding with the music of victorious industry, a State whose awakened conscience shall lead the State to evolve from the forces of progress a new social order, with finer development for all conditions and classes of our people.”

    The source for the quote is the June 3, 1913 edition of the Charlotte Observer. The dedication of the monument is covered on pages 1, 2 and 3. It quotes several of the speakers- the Governor, President of UNC and representatives from the UDC. It mentions Carr, but does not quote any of his speech.

    How come this is ignored? Oh, I know. Because truth doesn't matter in the hate campaign against white Southerners.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 17 Dec 2019 @ 8:27am

      The Gov. of North Carolina spoke also, and his remarks included this:

      “Ours is the task to build a State worthy of all patriotism and heroic deeds, a State that demands justice for herself and all her people, a State sounding with the music of victorious industry, a State whose awakened conscience shall lead the State to evolve from the forces of progress a new social order, with finer development for all conditions and classes of our people.”

      And putting up a monument to the Confederacy, which was formed and fought a war specifically to preserve the enslavement of Black people as a legal right, does that…how, exactly? 🤔

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Thad (profile), 17 Dec 2019 @ 9:26am

        Re:

        Imagine signing up for an account on Techdirt just to defend slavery. Christ on a bicycle.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          That One Guy (profile), 17 Dec 2019 @ 9:54am

          It is a seriously self-damning unintentional admission, yes. 'Someone's ragging on slavery and those that fought and died to support it? Well hell, only one thing to do, defend that practice and those people.'

          As the saying (roughly) goes, 'It is better to be suspected of being a racist, slavery-defending scumbag than to comment and remove all doubt.'

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 18 Dec 2019 @ 1:44am

          Re: Re:

          "Imagine signing up for an account on Techdirt just to defend slavery. Christ on a bicycle."

          Not too surprised. Revolting as his/her arguments are it amply fulfills the argument for Free Speech. If the poster didn't bring these repugnant arguments into the open, no one would know that there are still people who actually think like that out there.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2019 @ 8:32am

      Re: Speakers at Monument Dedication

      What was said, even at the time, hardly matters. What was intended is far more important and actual history even moreso.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2019 @ 10:31am

      Re: Speakers at Monument Dedication

      Well at least you had the balls to create a profile. Your folks usually operate under a white hood so I guess that’s some progress.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      bhull242 (profile), 27 Dec 2019 @ 10:07am

      Re: Speakers at Monument Dedication

      That’s because the Governor and the Charlotte Observer had the good sense to realize that the truth wouldn’t sound good for those who wanted the monument.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Talmyr, 6 Jan 2020 @ 2:52am

      Re: Speakers at Monument Dedication

      If you want to celebrate the poor buggers who fought and died, put up a memorial to an unknown soldier, or one with a confederate and union soldier. Celebrating the generals who fought for slavery and treason - not very justifiable or admirable.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        bhull242 (profile), 9 Jan 2020 @ 5:16pm

        Re: Re: Speakers at Monument Dedication

        I agree. If you had Confederate statues together with Union statues, that’d be one thing, but Confederate statues on their own are problematic, to say the least, and don’t quite match the justifications given.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2019 @ 1:35pm

    The big question is, how much are the judge and whoever agreed the original multi-million dollar settlement profiting PERSONALLY from this.

    Because it's painfully obvious this racist group offered the judge a massive bribe and someone from the university is effectively stealing money from the uni and taking personal kickbacks too.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 17 Dec 2019 @ 4:10pm

      Re:

      The judge could very well be innocent, as while the timing is suspicious as all hell they could have just brushed it aside as 'no longer my problem' and just been glad it wasn't on the docket any more.

      When it comes to university staff on the other hand that's a lot more questionable, as they are either incredibly stupid, monumentally spineless, or corrupt and were just looking for an excuse to kick some money to the racist losers.

      Barring some evidence coming forth regarding the judge I'd say it's probably safe to dismiss them as not being part of the scam, but even the best case scenario leaves the university looking all sorts of bad.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.