Anonymous and the KKK are having a Twitter fight over Ferguson protests. Anonymous is winning.


The Ku Klux Klan's Twitter feed has probably never been so popular: On Sunday, after a week of online sparring, the hacktivist collective Anonymous appears to have taken control of two KKK Twitter accounts and knocked offline one of its websites:
Until Twitter steps in or the KKK somehow wrests control of its Twitter feed by itself, this is @KuKluxKlanUSA's avatar:
The fight started after a KKK chapter in Missouri, Traditionalist American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, threatened to use "lethal force" against "terrorists masquerading as 'peaceful protestors'" in Ferguson, the St. Louis suburb on edge awaiting the grand jury decision on Darren Wilson, the white police officer who shot dead unarmed black teenager Michael Brown under contested circumstances. In response, Anonymous started publicly revealing the names and other details of KKK members and declared "cyber warfare" on the Klan. The KKK responded with taunting.
The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
In a video posted Friday by Anonymous Australia, a computer voice tells the KKK that Anonymous isn't "attacking you because of what you believe in, as we fight for freedom of speech." Instead, "we are attacking you because of your threats to use lethal attacks against us at the Ferguson protests." You can read more about the fight at ZDNet, but needless to say, two secretive groups threatening each other probably won't lower the temperature in Ferguson. And as long as this fight stays online, though, I wouldn't bet on the KKK.
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
Peter has worked as a news and culture writer and editor at The Week since the site's launch in 2008. He covers politics, world affairs, religion and cultural currents. His journalism career began as a copy editor at a financial newswire and has included editorial positions at The New York Times Magazine, Facts on File, and Oregon State University.
-
Can Trump put his tariffs on stronger legal footing?
Today's Big Question Appeals court says 'emergency' tariffs are improper
-
Film reviews: The Roses, Splitsville, and Twinless
Feature A happy union devolves into domestic warfare, a couple's open marriage reaps chaos, and an unlikely friendship takes surprising turns
-
Thought-provoking podcasts you may have missed this summer
The Week Recommends Check out a true crime binger, a deep-dive into history and more
-
US kills 11 on 'drug-carrying boat' off Venezuela
Speed Read Trump claimed those killed in the strike were 'positively identified Tren de Aragua Narcoterrorists' shipping drugs to the US
-
Trump vows to send federal forces to Chicago, Baltimore
Speed Read The announcement followed a California judge ruling that Trump's LA troop deployment was illegal
-
Trump crypto token launch earns family billions
Speed Read The World Liberty Financial token is now the Trump family's 'most valuable asset'
-
RFK Jr. names new CDC head as staff revolt
Speed Read Kennedy installed his deputy, Jim O'Neill, as acting CDC director
-
DC prosecutors lose bid to indict sandwich thrower
Speed Read Prosecutors sought to charge Sean Dunn with assaulting a federal officer
-
White House fires new CDC head amid agency exodus
Speed Read CDC Director Susan Monarez was ousted after butting heads with HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. over vaccines
-
DOGE put Social Security data at risk, official says
Speed Read DOGE workers made the personal information of hundreds of millions of Americans vulnerable to identity theft
-
Court rejects Trump suit against Maryland US judges
Speed Read Judge Thomas Cullen, a Trump appointee, said the executive branch had no authority to sue the judges