'Anonymous' hacktivists become web vigilantes

[sloasdaylight]

Not quite. The Supreme Court decision ruled against the suite for damages against the WBC, but does not prohibit communities from taking actions to protect funeral participants from verbal abuse and attacks by the WBC or anyone else.

So long as WBC stays within the pre-determined parameters agreed upon when they get their protest permit, I really don't see how any action taken against them could stand up at all in a court with a judge who isn't trying to make a name for him/herself.

 

[Hawaii Islander]

So long as WBC stays within the pre-determined parameters agreed upon when they get their protest permit, I really don't see how any action taken against them could stand up at all in a court with a judge who isn't trying to make a name for him/herself.

You seem to missing my point. Communities can adjust local regulations that allow WBC to exercise their rights while creating a shield that effectively protect families from abuse and verbal assaults at their funeral services, including during funeral processions. Simply change the local regulations to require sufficient space between the two so that protests do not interfere with the funeral ceremonies. This is perfectly legitimate and fair.

Edit: Source added

http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2011/03/02/6172336-supreme-court-raucous-funeral-picketers-allowed

Roberts described the court's holding as narrow, and in a separate opinion Justice Stephen Breyer suggested that in other circumstances governments would not be "powerless to provide private individuals with necessary protection."

 

[MIJ-VI]

‘Someone will get shot’
warns father whose son’s funeral
was picketed by God Hates Fags church

--------

And this is why I hope that never happens:

Link Removed

Link Removed

The W.B.C. members have their kids with them at all times.
IMO violence against them is NOT an option.

Westboro Baptist Church - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Son Turns on Church That Pickets Soldiers' Funerals

...Last weekend, Nate Phelps -- now a husband and father -- returned to Topeka, the featured speaker at a rally in support of gay rights.

His homecoming was bittersweet. Phelps is among four of the 13 Phelps children who've severed ties with their family...

--------

For those who feel compelled to act against the W.B.C.

Welcome to the Patriot Guard Riders

​

Patriot Guard Riders Mission Statement

The Patriot Guard Riders is a diverse amalgamation of riders from across the nation. We have one thing in common besides motorcycles. We have an unwavering respect for those who risk their very lives for America’s freedom and security. If you share this respect, please join us.

We don’t care what you ride or if you ride, what your political views are, or whether you’re a hawk or a dove. It is not a requirement that you be a veteran. It doesn't matter where you’re from or what your income is; you don’t even have to ride. The only prerequisite is Respect.

Our main mission is to attend the funeral services of fallen American heroes as invited guests of the family. Each mission we undertake has two basic objectives:

• Show our sincere respect for our fallen heroes, their families, and their communities.
• Shield the mourning family and their friends from interruptions created by any protestor or group of protestors.

We accomplish the latter through strictly legal and non-violent means.

To those of you who are currently serving and fighting for the freedoms of others, at home and abroad, please know that we are backing you. We honor and support you with every mission we carry out, and we are praying for a safe return home for all.

Statement regarding the Supreme Court ruling

The Patriot Guard Riders are a 501c3 organization of support and caring for our military members, veterans, and families. Our mission is to stand for them in their loss and grief and help them to know that there are still people who are aware of the sacrifice their families have made and to show our honor and respect for their service.

The PGR mission is only completed at the request of the family. It's a necessary part of our respect for them. It also has nothing to do with any organized hate groups that conduct protests to hurt them. We shield our families with our care and support. While we stand that line or escort, nothing matters to us except our hero and family.

We respect the right to free speech recognized in our country's founding documents. It's one of the freedoms that define America. Many of our members have served and sworn an oath to support these rights. As an organization, we have to respect the decision of the courts and though our membership has diverse views on the limitation of free speech. Such limitations have been established previously to object to "hate speech" that only offers protection to designated individuals or groups.

The true travesty in this is that we would ever need to consider the "right" of someone to protest at the funeral of an American military member that has given their oath and life to defend these rights.

The Patriot Guard Riders will always stand to honor and shield our fallen and their families. Our mission is founded on respect, and honor, and the debt we owe those that protect us.

Patriot Guard Riders (Facebook)

Patriot Guard Riders - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

--------

United Support for Al Snyder
and Against Military Funeral Protests
(a Facebook group)

--------

Angel Action
(a Facebook group)

​

Angel Action is an organization that protests any and all discrimination that occurs in current society. We are based the original angel act at the trial of the murderer of Matthew Shepard.The Westboro Baptist Church (http://www.godhatesfags.com and http://www.godhatesamerica.com/) were the ones picketing against homosexuals during the trails. They are also the group who protests against the troops. Matthew's friend Romaine Patterson organized the original group (which had no official name) in order to silence WBC's message by encircling the protesters and blocking view of them with the angel wings.

Wikipedia has a decent article over it at Matthew Shepard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to the World of Romaine Patterson!

Romaine Patterson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

--------

Anonymous takes down
‘God Hates Fags’ church websites

The two 'hacktivist' entities who collaborated in
(temporarily) taking the W.B.C.'s servers & web sites off-line:

Link Removed

Harley 'Jester' Quin (th3j35t3r) on Twitter

Hacktivist for good. Obstructing the lines of communication for terrorists, sympathizers, fixers, facilitators, and other general bad guys... living the dream?

The Jester (hacktivist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
Thursday, March 24, 2011

--------

Link Removed

Anonymous (group) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

--------

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed] ​

Disclaimer: The following was written by the user El_Camino_SS Invalid Link Removed, 02/21/2006.
I do not claim to have written this. This was found while browsing and is being reprinted without the consent of the original author, albeit I don't think this person would mind me having it here, I don't want any mistake made that I claim ownership of these words.

I merely agree with them...

The Scam of the Decade

Fred Phelps does not believe what he is doing. This is a scam.

It's a business. They travel the country, set up websites telling you exactly when they'll be there, and using the most inflammatory statements all over the place, just to get someone to violate their rights for profit. Then they sue the military, the police force that was to protect them, and everyone that is around them for money. This is a sham, and it is a trap to get people sued. Every member of his family is an attorney. Phelps does not break the law. What he does is try to make you break the law by trying to punch your sensibilities about everything you hold dear, and then sue you and everyone municipality around him to the max.

This is a scam.

Whether he believes his posters or not is irrelevant.
He's using this as a moneymaking scheme.
Lay one finger on him, do one thing that violates him, and he will sue you, and more importantly, the city, the police department, the US Military, and any private property owner he happens to be standing on to make money off of it.

Let's look at the ways he's trying to get you up in a tizzy to violate his civil rights for profit:

• He says God Hates Fags, God hates the US Govt., that God hates the US Military, God Hates you, and God justifies the killing of others.
• Phelps knows that saying 'God' and 'Hate' in the same sentence gets people worked up. He knows that. He knows that people have a knee jerk reaction to that.
• He says that the US Govt. and the United States are evil.
• This is another hot button with people who love their country. It is intentional. It is designed to make you take a swing at him. He wants $50,000 from you. He wants a Powerball winner to swing at him so he gets 100 million dollars. It's that simple.
• He goes after homosexuals, he goes after people who are making sacrifices. Phelps intentionally targets people that are being victimized, or good people doing their jobs to create more outrage. He kicks people when they're down. He does that so someone will come up and defend them. Then he will sue you.
• His boards are laminated on hardwood, because he pulls them out of trucks at least five times a week. He also puts them in bright colors for attention, and makes absolutely sure that you can read them at all time. He's phishing you. Everyone must know that.

The most telling tale about all of Phelp's behavior is the schedule he keeps, and the company he keeps as well. The parties sometimes split up and go to two separate state funerals to maximize the profitability of them. There are, at maximum, twelve members to the party. They never stay more than thirty minutes (I assume they realize that someone will do something to them the MOMENT they come out of the vans, and really, after that, they get their camera shots to cause the outrage for the next stop, and then they move on) to maximize their profits, because time is money, and really, they're not interested in the message, because they're just interested in the lawsuit.

See? They don't believe this stuff. If they did, they wouldn't have come to Coretta Scott King's funeral. Because in their doctrine, they don't believe that G-d hates black people who tried to promote Christianity. So why were they there? They were there to make a buck when someone slipped up. They were there to petition the police department for a right to protest, and if they didn't get it, take them to court over it.

Basically, Phelps is playing the Ken Lay, Karl Rove, "Smartest Man in the Room" game where he is willing to do anything (if it be lying or stealing, or telling you God hates you) to make himself rich and powerful. This is his scheme, and admittedly, it's clever, but just downright evil to promote so much hatred in the world.

Tell all your friends about this.
This man is a con artist, and he's not a man of religion whatsoever.

After all, he makes everyone around him a lawyer.
That should tell you right now he is not anything.

------------------------------------------------------------

How do I know that Fred Phelps is suing people? I can tell you I just have too much experience around him. I am a journalist in Nashville, TN, and work at a television station that works the Ft. Campbell area. As a television photographer and journalist, I have been trained in all of the rules of private property, verbal conversation, what is legal and what is not legal, etc. (what you can and cannot say, what you can get away with). Honestly, in the last few months, I have seen waaay too much of Mr. Phelps and his crew. Since the war began, I believe they think this is the moneymaking source of a lifetime.

So how am I sure? After the third run in, and not one slip, not one piece of paperwork out of line, I knew something was fishy. My newsman skepticism left me with the idea later that something was more phishy than fishy.
I will tell you where I got this truth about Phelps. I looked him in the eye. I saw that he was way too calm and collected for what he looked like in the media. I noticed that he never made personal statements against a person, which is verbal assault, and an out against a lawsuit. Also, for a religious fanatic, a group of people who pride themselves on personal attacks, he was running a protest so terribly by the books that I was impressed by it. He will not bait a person, ever. He will not make personal attacks. He will make blanket statements. He will look at a person in the crowd that he thinks is gay, walk over to his stack of signs, pull out the appropriate, well designed, easily read, laminated bright board, and hold it up and loudly proclaim that "gays are going to hell" or some such nonsense, and make eye contact, but he will never cross the line of telling that person that they're going to hell. That would be the part that would screw up the lawsuit. He just wants to get them after him, but wants to appear utterly blameless for damages.

They run too tight of a ship to slip up, and at that point, I realized that the objective of the group was not anything religious at all. Someone told me along the way that they were all turned into lawyers after he got disbarred. After that, the stench was just too intense for me. He makes money off of this. He does this so much he has everyone around him do the legal legwork so he doesn't have to pay anyone else.

The last time confirmed everything I suspected about them.
A few weeks later, I saw them again (they LOVE to come to big name funerals) and after I saw the laminated signs change for the audience, I knew EXACTLY what they were doing.

His 'crew' isn't a 'church' as you and I would know. The 'church' are more of a motley crew of family members. Some of them are six year old children that are doing what they're told. I have spoken to them, and they have a lawyers sensibility on them on how they speak to the public. They never make personal attacks. They never verbally assault anyone. For a group of people that are accusing damn near every group of people around them for going to hell, wouldn't that seem odd to you? Do you know any religious fanatics that don't make personal attacks? I don't.

They also don't stick around after the cameras roll. They have an itinerary like a semi truck driver. For them to get cleared for all of these press event protests they're doing, then they have to have someone at home doing all of the setup. For you to get the press clearances by the prescribed times? That's a lot of professional legwork. I should know, I've coordinated a newsrooms credentials when the President comes to town, and that's a lot of phone calls and faxes.

They probably file a load of civil rights violation lawsuits. If a police department looks them up and says, "we're denying your protest right," BOOYah. They just got to sue a police department for the very thing that Americans can't stand, rights violation. I am assuming that this is where they get almost all of their money.

See my previous post. Their beliefs are so riddled with inconsistency. The 'real inconsistency' is that every position that contradicts every other of their beliefs is designed to maximize the number of people that they offend. You cannot be saved to them. You are evil in their beliefs, no matter who you are, and God will punish you like the evil gays/soldiers/innocent people/people who love America/people who are black/everyone else we can think of.

Here's the proof. Who in the world makes a poster that says, "Thank God for IEDs" (Improvised Explosive Devices, aka Roadside Bombs). They are saying God is with the terrorists. Then they say God hates you. And homosexuals. Then when they see you looking patriotic with your American flag shirt, they point the sign at you and say, "Americans are going to hell for supporting this country!" and look you in the eye. NOTICE THOUGH, they never say, "You're going to hell." (That would give a judge an out to deny them their claim.)

--------

A novel approach to combating the W.B.C.'s hurtful mischief-making:

Invalid Link Removed

--------

Invalid Link Removed
words by: Matt Debord - Mar 12, 2011​

"I have concluded that any system sustained by hatred, any theology that acts with deliberate cruelty to others and laughs at the suffering it causes, any ideology that marginalizes a group of people based on whom they choose to love is morally bankrupt and I reject it."

—Nate Phelps, the son of Fred who's Invalid Link Removed to come out of the Invalid Link Removed, tells a high school audience that his father's mission in life is a farce [[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]]

 

[bigfatbass]

I read 7 pages, that was enough.
2 points being endlessly ignored:

1. The WBC is not a church. It is a front put up by a small group of calculated zealots who's sole intention is to generate contributions and lawsuit money by being so unbelievably offensive/inappropriate, that people react to them beyond the scope of what is legal. Like Anon is doing right now.

2. Nobody who values free speech wants to deny them the right to spout their phony hate, we'd just like to stop them from screaming directly in the faces of grieving families.

The Supreme Court exhibited EPIC fail on this issue. 8-1? Really? Read the lone dissent and you will be shocked the other robed corpses could vote to uphold the WBC's right to harass the mourning.

There is no slippery slope, there is no grand constitutional argument, there is no chicken little "free speech is falling" nonsense. Just a simple, perfectly valid, application of common human decency.

Protesting a funeral is hardly an action that deserves 1st amendment protection. I think shouting "god hates you" in the faces of a family that just lost their child in a war falls under free speech exemptions, like shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

Frankly, defending it as some sort of grand free speech windmill to tilt at, just sounds silly.

 

[bigfatbass]

And a BIG +1 to supporting the Patriot Guard Riders!

 

[NateS]

Protesting a funeral is hardly an action that deserves 1st amendment protection. I think shouting "god hates you" in the faces of a family that just lost their child in a war falls under free speech exemptions, like shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

this pretty much fits exactly my post - that just as laws are in place to prevent the physical pain that is caused by the "fire!" panic, and you are thus not allowed the right to yell it, the laws should also be in effect to prevent the equivalent (or worse) mental pains that are caused by the hate of the W. "B.C.". And it isn't their fault as Anon that the laws do not currently contend in that order.

 

[MIJ-VI]

Invalid Link Removed
by Bernard Keane​

Some time back I suggested the online “group” Anonymous was worth keeping an eye on. This suggestion was subsequently vindicated by the remarkable HB Gary saga involving cyber security consultant Aaron Barr who, to use Stephen Colbert’s now-famous description, stuck his penis into a hornet’s nest when he declared he was going to “out” senior members of Anonymous....

...Along with the likes of Palantir and Berico, these are the arms dealers and military contractors of the internet war, hoping to reap huge profits as cyber security, espionage and the deployment of online attacks by government and non-governments actors alike moves to the centre of national and corporate security strategy. This is a whole new military-industrial complex in development, out of sight, online, beyond normal accountability...

...The HB Gary emails, however, reveal a corporate America with an extensive arsenal of cyber weapons at its disposal, and a willingness to deploy them against those wanting to bring greater accountability to the corporate sector and the influence it wields.

 

[emor]

1. The WBC is not a church. It is a front put up by a small group of calculated zealots who's sole intention is to generate contributions and lawsuit money by being so unbelievably offensive/inappropriate, that people react to them beyond the scope of what is legal. Like Anon is doing right now.

I agree, but who's going to define what is and what is not a "church"?
Do you consider "television ministries" valid churches, because to me they look like scams.
The part of your quote I bolded could be said of any number of churches.

I could say more, but discussing religion is against TB rules (unless, apparently, it is a church that everybody hates).

 

[MIJ-VI]

And speaking of 'free speech'...



More revelations from Anon's exploit of HB Gary

Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed
​

 

[aborgman]

this pretty much fits exactly my post - that just as laws are in place to prevent the physical pain that is caused by the "fire!" panic, and you are thus not allowed the right to yell it, the laws should also be in effect to prevent the equivalent (or worse) mental pains that are caused by the hate of the W. "B.C.". And it isn't their fault as Anon that the laws do not currently contend in that order.

...and abortion protesters cause mental pains to women who are getting abortions, and the KKK causes mental pains to African-Americans, and American Communist Party causes mental pains to conservative Capitalists, and anti-war protesters cause pain to soldiers, and...

You're going to argue that people have a right not to suffer mental pain caused by words?

 

[sloasdaylight]

I read 7 pages, that was enough.
2 points being endlessly ignored:

1. The WBC is not a church. It is a front put up by a small group of calculated zealots who's sole intention is to generate contributions and lawsuit money by being so unbelievably offensive/inappropriate, that people react to them beyond the scope of what is legal. Like Anon is doing right now.
You know this how? Without proof, this is nothing more than your opinion and means less than bupkis.

2. Nobody who values free speech wants to deny them the right to spout their phony hate, we'd just like to stop them from screaming directly in the faces of grieving families.
Did you read the article? Specifically the part where it stated the church stayed within the designated public area and was 1000 feet from the church where the funeral service was being held. I don't know if you know what 1000 feet looks like, but it's most definitely not up in your face.

The Supreme Court exhibited EPIC fail on this issue. 8-1? Really? Read the lone dissent and you will be shocked the other robed corpses could vote to uphold the WBC's right to harass the mourning.

There is no slippery slope, there is no grand constitutional argument, there is no chicken little "free speech is falling" nonsense. Just a simple, perfectly valid, application of common human decency.

Protesting a funeral is hardly an action that deserves 1st amendment protection. I think shouting "god hates you" in the faces of a family that just lost their child in a war falls under free speech exemptions, like shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

Frankly, defending it as some sort of grand free speech windmill to tilt at, just sounds silly.

Protesting a funeral is an action that deserves 1st amendment protection, especially if the protesters are obeying the law.

 

[bigfatbass]

This is the important bit, to me.

There is no slippery slope, there is no grand constitutional argument, there is no chicken little "free speech is falling" nonsense. Just a simple, perfectly valid, application of common human decency.

 

[sloasdaylight]

This is the important bit, to me.

You know, it's funny, because at the start of the slope, no one ever thinks it's slippery, or a slope, usually because they think whatever's happening is fine and dandy and under control, or because they approve of it.

This is no slippery slope to you because you detest WBC, as does I think everyone on this board, and you appear to have no problem removing someone's right to free speech because it's an affront to "common human decency". The problem is there is no such thing as "common human decency", so what you find to be decent is just that, what YOU find to be decent, not what some one else may.

All of this is why we're a nation of laws, not men, and frankly, I'm grateful for it, because judging by the responses here, I wouldn't want some TB members making the rules.

 

[R. Laevinus]

All of this is why we're a nation of laws, not men, and frankly, I'm grateful for it, because judging by the responses here, I wouldn't want some TB members making the rules.

Wow, nice burn! Even though, I think, it was at me and those like me.

Even though you and I disagree, I applaud you for being a better man than I, as demonstrated by your ability to consider the long-term ramifications of emotional responses, yours and others.

10 Man Points to you, sir.

 

[NateS]

...and abortion protesters cause mental pains to women who are getting abortions, and the KKK causes mental pains to African-Americans, and American Communist Party causes mental pains to conservative Capitalists, and anti-war protesters cause pain to soldiers, and...

You're going to argue that people have a right not to suffer mental pain caused by words?

Do you not see the clear difference between those and the W."B.C."? The W."B.C." isn't done to push an agenda that is aiming to get people on their side. They protest even when they are put in boxes out of sight of anyone. They protest when they are encased in bikers. They don't protest to cause change. Their goal, from beginning to end, is hatred. To cause humanity pain. "god hates everyone"? That is not a slogan for change. That is "**** you". Do you not see the INCREDIBLY HUGE difference? It's like comparing a abacus to a super computer.

They are doing it specifically to spread pain, for the point of spreading pain. If they caused physical pain for the point physical pain, they would be psychotic serial killers. They cause mental pain for the point of spreading mental pain. They specifically aim for the weakest point in your life, just to grind you down and cause mental pain, for heir own sadistic psychotic pleasurem. Hardly an agenda to prevent abortions, or prevent wars, or to push the feeling that you and your group are better.

 

[bigfatbass]

I still can't believe the only counter argument is the slippery slope.

The slope is only slippery if you allow yourself to slide.

A minor rewording of the crowded theater exemption is all it would take. Not the end of free speech. To extrapolate the end of free speech will come about, simply because we made it a bit harder for cretins to spread hate, is ridiculous.

It's the same ridiculous argument the NRA uses to justify 30+ shot clips for assault weapons in the public sector.

Just because we won't let you put a 40 round clip on your semi-auto Glock does not mean the feds are coming to take all your guns away.

I think the chickenlittles need better tin foil hats.

 

[sloasdaylight]

Wow, nice burn! Even though, I think, it was at me and those like me.

Even though you and I disagree, I applaud you for being a better man than I, as demonstrated by your ability to consider the long-term ramifications of emotional responses, yours and others.

10 Man Points to you, sir.

It wasn't aimed at anyone in particular, but I see a lot of people, here and other places, who say things like how WBC should just be shut down, or shut up, or blah blah blah; and it's a trash argument in my opinion because it's based around tugging heart strings and calling people who oppose the view point sympathizers, etc.

I still can't believe the only counter argument is the slippery slope.

The slope is only slippery if you allow yourself to slide.

A minor rewording of the crowded theater exemption is all it would take. Not the end of free speech. To extrapolate the end of free speech will come about, simply because we made it a bit harder for cretins to spread hate, is ridiculous.

It's the same ridiculous argument the NRA uses to justify 30+ shot clips for assault weapons in the public sector.

Just because we won't let you put a 40 round clip on your semi-auto Glock does not mean the feds are coming to take all your guns away.

I think the chickenlittles need better tin foil hats.

Lunch just ended, but i'll address this post when I get home.

 

[neurotictim]

You know, it's funny, because at the start of the slope, no one ever thinks it's slippery, or a slope, usually because they think whatever's happening is fine and dandy and under control, or because they approve of it.

This. +1

"A minor rewording" can have major consequences.

IME, the problem with this whole discussion is that people are suggesting that a fundamental facet of being American should be changed to protect someone's feelings.

I am completely, utterly, 100% sympathetic to the families of the late soliders - and I like the idea of people volunteering to be a shield between the protestors and mourners especially - but I will never agree that censorship due to hurt feelings is justified, no matter the degree.

WBC is _____________, __________, and ___________. (insert appropriate words in the blanks as you see fit)

I could probably use the same words to describe any group that I vehemently disagree with, but only WBC is vitriolic enough to warrant changing the 1st Amendment?

Once we decide that other people or groups fit those three categories and can be censored, it's only a "small rewording" to add a couple here, add a couple there, for the sake of "common decency".

I don't like the idea that someone who believes or feels that what I say is indecent can have a chance at making what I say illegal, with only a "small rewording".

EDIT: Also, I think being referred to a "chickenlittles who need better tinfoil hats" for disagreeing is hateful, unwarranted speech, and you shouldn't be allowed to say that.

EDIT 2: For clarification's sake, this isn't going to turn into the debate about, "You can't support the soldiers but not support the war," is it? Because I tried to address that above.

 

[aborgman]

Do you not see the clear difference between those and the W."B.C."? The W."B.C." isn't done to push an agenda that is aiming to get people on their side.

It absolutely IS aimed at pushing a political agenda.

...and I'm sure it is intended to get CERTAIN people on their side.

They protest even when they are put in boxes out of sight of anyone. They protest when they are encased in bikers. They don't protest to cause change. Their goal, from beginning to end, is hatred.

Well, I can't read their minds - so I won't make that claim, but even if true... it's irrelevant.

Folks have a right to say offensive things. Folks do not have a right to not be offended.

To cause humanity pain. "god hates everyone"? That is not a slogan for change. That is "**** you". Do you not see the INCREDIBLY HUGE difference?

No - I don't see the difference.

The WBC is pushing their picture of how they believe the world should be.

So is the KKK.

Neither group is advocating for positive change - but they're both advocating for change, and they're both within their legal rights.

They are doing it specifically to spread pain, for the point of spreading pain. If they caused physical pain for the point physical pain, they would be psychotic serial killers. They cause mental pain for the point of spreading mental pain. They specifically aim for the weakest point in your life, just to grind you down and cause mental pain, for heir own sadistic psychotic pleasurem.

If they caused physical pain, they would be violating your inalienable rights.

Instead they're causing emotional pain, something you have no inalienable right to be free from.

Hardly an agenda to prevent abortions, or prevent wars, or to push the feeling that you and your group are better.

The KKK is pushing an agenda to mold the laws in their image. So are WBC.

 

[PBassFunk]

I don't get how "liberalism" - and I consider myself a liberal - has come to mean "suppression of differing viewpoints by any means necessary, including mayhem and murder" in the West in the last couple of decades.

Actually that's not true, I do know what has happened: "liberalism" has pretty much come to be synonymous with "Stalinist totalitarianism" thanks to the way a particular breed of angry post-punk talentless young imbecile has co-opted the term.

Kind of makes me puke, actually.