If they're RIGHTS, then yes, no matter how repulsive you find someone, they're entitled to them. Otherwise, they're privileges. What makes YOU deserving of your rights?
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
'Anonymous' hacktivists become web vigilantes
- Thread starter MIJ-VI
- Start date
If they're RIGHTS, then yes, no matter how repulsive you find someone, they're entitled to them. Otherwise, they're privileges. What makes YOU deserving of your rights?
- Nov 8, 2010
- 1,391
- 9
- Disclosures
- Unofficial Endorser: Ibanez, D'Addario, Zoom
The lawsuits against them seem a bit weird to me as I don't know what they're suing for. This one seemed to make sense as suing for psychological terrorism but couldn't they just as easily sue for libel(published poem) as the WBC is hurting his family and son's name yet can not be substantiated as truth? Last time I checked libel/slander isn't protected under the constitution.
Yes very. They have no political agenda. If someone pisses them off they attack for the lulz.
As far as I'm aware, WBC did not silence the people they're protesting against, nor did they infringe on anyone's constitutional rights.
This is Anon taking the law into their own hands and enjoying the fact that they can't be held to any type of accountability.
The fact that I dont go abusing them. Plenty of people, legally, lose their rights when convicted of crimes. What the WBC does, though protected by free speech, is a crime against humanity. Entitled to them or not, their abuse of their rights is a clear indicator, to me, that they are not deserving of them.
I'm sure, while enjoying your right to free speech, in your lifetime, you've said things that offend others. Should you have your right to free speech taken away because of this? Its on a larger scale, yes, but in essence, thats all the WBC have done - offend people exercising their free speech.
Apparently your legal system doesn't see what the WBC do as a crime. While I don't agree with it, neither do I. Crime against humanity? I don't think so. Removing their right to free speech, however, would be.
I would respectfully disagree.
The WBC is infringing on the "rights" of the families to greave in peace.
They are infringing on me and my religion by creating a inaccurate and slanderous view of Christianity and the Judeo-Christian God.
I am a huge supporter of free speech but that speech often impedes on other's rights. Does my right to call a black person the N-word overrule their right to not be verbally attacked? This is what I meant when I said it is not black and white (no racial overtones intended)
The truth is, we do not have free speech in this country. We cannot simply say anything that comes into our mind. Even the mere mention of many acts will have us silenced. I cannot pretend to be a terrorist on an airplane, I cannot go around town calling people names (the police will remove you from the area).
Try and go around town calling a gay man a "******" and telling him God hates him (The WBC's mantra) and see how long it takes for the police to silence you.
Are Anonymous criminals? maybe, but they are smarter than the authorities (and will probably remain so) so yes they are enjoying the fact that they can't be held to any type of accountability.
I consider the WBC thing the price one has to pay for the rights one enjoys. Am I happy about it? No. DO I wish that the WBC would be wiped from the face of the earth in a firestorm or something? YES! Will I rejoice if it turns out that Fred Phelps is a closet homosexual? YES!!! Do we have the right to legally gag them, tho? No.
Ah but no one is legally gagging them. That is the whole issue here. Is it ok for the government to shut them down? No
But is it ok for a bunch of hackers to attack their network? In this case I say yes, The WBC brought this on themselves.
Free speech is a concept that really only applies to the government. It is not enforcable nor present in the private sector.
Well at least Anonymous can tell the difference between good and evil. Forget freedom of speech, how about the right to fight back on some hate mongers.
Its funny because all these "freedom of speech" posts sound like people backing WBC. Really? Your going to defend the WBC for freedom of speech? While I'm with you, you should pick a better mascot. Just saying........
Its funny because all these "freedom of speech" posts sound like people backing WBC. Really? Your going to defend the WBC for freedom of speech? While I'm with you, you should pick a better mascot. Just saying........
Fair enough. It's an "I'll pistol whip the next person who says 'shenanigans' " situation to you.
Free speech is free speech. I don't support Klan members any more than I support the WBC, but everyone has the right to say what they will.
The problem I have is with the vigilante mindset of shutting people up, and people cheering that **** on from the sidelines. Suppressing minority viewpoints is no way to facilitate discourse.
Vigilantes get a lot more done. Discourse? Do you think the WBC is interested in having a moral discussion with you? No, they want to make their point and shut you up from saying anything to the contrary.
We all have offended someone on some level at some point in time. We also have the right to ask for forgiveness, and it will often be granted when another realize that there was not an intention to offend. What the WBC does is intentionally offend people, and thats called harassment.
No, the legal system cannot do anything because the WBC is protected by their right to free speech. Taking down a website is not removing anyones free speech, if anything, it's only slowing it down a little, by removing one avenue for it. And frankly, we could all use a little less hate speech on our monitors.
I am pro free speech as well FWIW. I do not mind thier positions on thier religious view, they are entitled to them no matter how much I think they are wrong and they are free to preach whatever they want in their own church. It is the emotional attacks on people when they are at thier most vulnerable that I feel should not be protected (the supreme court disagrees with me though).
As for the vigilante mindset, get used to it. With all the cuts to law enforcement and the general disconnection from the rest of the nation that the politicians seem to have vigilantes will be more and more commonplace. If the goverment/law enforcement wont protect you we are gonna have to do it ourselves.
(That last statement was not a comment on cops abilities just the fact that they are overworked and undermanned)
Oh yeah............'shenanigans'
Deluge of Sound -
I actually agree with you in principle. In a perfect world your view would work very well. I just do not think that in application it is effective.
The laws that are there to protect the quiet voice are often abused by the loudest ones.
Just an old pessimist here though.
I actually agree with you in principle. In a perfect world your view would work very well. I just do not think that in application it is effective.
The laws that are there to protect the quiet voice are often abused by the loudest ones.
Just an old pessimist here though.
Does this mean you support the Klan and WBC equally
I really just think sometimes in life you need to choose your battles. And coming to the defense of the WBC is one thing I would see as not worth defending free speech. There are plenty of oppressed minorities that could use your support in this department.
Picking and chosing is the exact opposite of what should be done. It needs to remain constant in oder for it to be effective. If there are "better" causes, then are there really any at all?
Who are the "opressed minorities" that are in need of free speech help?
Lynch mobs didn't have any type of accountability either, and were supported by people in their time. This situation, though in scope is different, is identical in principle.
- Nov 8, 2010
- 1,391
- 9
- Disclosures
- Unofficial Endorser: Ibanez, D'Addario, Zoom
I'm not sure how Baptist churches work but couldn't the main body sue them for wrongful association of principles/defamation? Or do all Baptist churches believe in what WBC is protesting/their tactics?
