In late October 2020, the Edmonton Proud Boys appeared at a People Vs. Predators rally.

One member of this @splcenter-designated hate group is John-Clayton Wilson/Jay Wilson/JC Wilson/JC2theW. (1/10)

@DoxerPb @RuthlessWe @AntifaGarfield @AntiFashGordon @AntifascistF12

JCW is an artist and performer, having done trapeze work. He also operated a YouTube channel, which provides men's rights activist analysis of feminism and the LGBTQ+ community, despite being a member of that community. (2/10)
It's hard to know why JC joined the bigoted Proud Boys, but JC's history of men's rights activism and anti-feminism help the connection make sense.

Here's a sample of some video topics. The language and themes align with the far-right. (3/10)
Still, JC being a member of the LGBTQ+ community makes his decision to join a hate group puzzling for us.

Not that this is unheard of, of course, but these people are not your allies. They aren't even allies with each other and we see this play out all the time. (4/10)
We gave JC multiple chances to get in touch so we could connect him with resources and people who specialize in leaving hate groups. He got the message, but he responded by changing his name and trying to hide his accounts

It's not too late to leave. We can delete tweets. (5/10)
How did we find JC?

First, there was an account interacting a bit too much with Proud Boy Mitch Lackie. (6/10)
This led to looking for instances of the screen name JC2theW, which JC was and is fond of using. This led us directly to his name, his YouTube channel, his Deviant Art account, and a Facebook account that was showing signs of being black-pilled. (7/10)
We were left comparing old photos to a relatively far away group shot. Nose and head shape seemed quite similar, but after talking with some experienced researchers, we decided it really wasn't enough to make the call. (8/10)
We knew for certain JC was with the Proud Boys when we received a photo of him with his favourite sunglasses.

We've said before that sunglasses are not enough on their own, but these seem at least somewhat unique. Combined with the other details, that was enough. (9/10)
You joined a hate group, you fucked around, and you found out. It doesn't have to continue, though, and we are sincere when we say we are willing to work to help you leave. (10/10)

More from Law

High crime talk from Fredo


VA curfew


Sen. Grassley - Biden family investigated, potential financial crimes WW including China

Warning


March
This is what he wants to do.

No matter how this trial plays out, the US will remain divided between those who choose truth, Democracy, and rule of law and the millions who reject these things.

1/


The question is how to move forward.

My mantra is that there are no magic bullets and these people will always be with us.

Except for state legislatures, they have less power now than they have for a while.

2/

The only real and lasting solutions are political ones. Get Democrats into local offices. Get people who want democracy to survive to the polls at every election, at every level.

It’s a constant battle.

3/

Maybe I should tell you all about Thurgood Marshall’s life to illustrate how hard the task is and how there will be backlash after each step of progress.

4/

Precisely. That's why Thurgood Marshall's life came to mind.

We are still riding the backlash that started after the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education.

That's why I keep saying there are no easy
I’ve been reading lots recently about the interaction between First Amendment law and free speech principles with respect to online services in light of the events of the last few weeks.

And I have thoughts (MY OWN). So, I’m sorry ... a thread 1/25

One of the main reasons I think users are best served by a recognition that social media services have 1st Amendment rights to curate the content on their sites is because many users want filtered content, either by topic, or by behavior, or other. 2/

So online services should have the right to do this filtering, and to give their users the tools to do so too. For more detail see our Prager U amicus brief
https://t.co/73PswB9Q7Q 3/

So, I disagree with my friends (and others) who say that every online service should apply First Amendment rules, even though they cannot be required to do so. There are both practical and policy reasons why I don’t like this. 4/

Most obviously, the 1st Amendment reflects only one national legal system when this is inherently an international issue. So it’s politically messy, even if you think a 1st Amendment-based policy will be most speech-protective (though probably only non-sexual speakers). 5/
@littlecarrotq I've been tracking these since December. Michigan


Wisconsin


Georgia


Arizona


Another Pennsylvania case. This is the most important one in my opinion. It shows the Republican Legislature broke the law when they created a mail-in ballot law in October, 2019, which they knew was against the state

You May Also Like