'Anonymous' hacktivists become web vigilantes

[sloasdaylight]

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........

Not really. If you're going to take a stand on something, the right and just thing to do is to maintain that position even when you find the person you're defending to be detestable. You can't pick and choose who you fight for when you're talking about constitutional rights due to American citizens. To do so is to be intellectually dishonest.

I detest WBC, and if they all decided to retreat into an underground facility in Kansas somewhere and stay there until the comet hits and wipes out life as we know it, i'd rejoice. But until they do, and so long as we still have freedom of speech and freedom of demonstration in this country, I'll speak out about their right to say what they want.

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.

You have the right to say what you want about WBC, protest their church and church functions, write them mail, not donate to them (not that I figure you would to begin with), but you don't have the right to take the law into your own hands to do something about it.

Also, Anonymous doesn't know **** about good and evil, they just know what they do like vs what they don't like, which in this case, is something you agree with. Anonymous has wreaked havoc on individual, private citizens, other organizations and all sorts of **** in the name of lulz, and they do it because they know they can get away with it, just like the big kid knows he can take your pudding at lunch cause he knows he can get away with it.

Anon is neither good, nor just, you just happen to agree with their target this time.

 

[sloasdaylight]

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?

WBC is an independent Baptist church, and doesn't belong to any major baptist conventions.

 

[TheVoiceless]

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?

Another WBC fan

I can think of a few, Women in the work place, Gays, People who serve in the Military, Gay people that serve in the Military bass players etc.... pretty much everyone the WBC hates. Hence the need for their defense. Since last I checked the WBC was on the attack, not vice versa.

I think its important to keep it in perspective. I'm not saying the government should shut down WBC or anything can really be done. But just understand when you use the WBC as a defense of Free Speech you really are not picking a good mascot.

 

[Martin89]

WBC is an independent Baptist church, and doesn't belong to any major baptist conventions.

I was curious to see if maybe one of the major conventions had some sort of copyright/trademark and could sue similar to Gibson/Fender clone battles. I figured the independent thing but I have many curiosities; and to think it'd probably get shot down due to lack of enforcement considering how long they've been at it now.

 

[sloasdaylight]

Another WBC fan

I can think of a few, Women in the work place, Gays, People who serve in the Military, Gay people that serve in the Military bass players etc.... pretty much everyone the WBC hates. Hence the need for their defense. Since last I checked the WBC was on the attack, not vice versa.

I think its important to keep it in perspective. I'm not saying the government should shut down WBC or anything can really be done. But just understand when you use the WBC as a defense of Free Speech you really are not picking a good mascot.

Herp Derp.

The WBC saying and protesting what they do doesn't keep gays, women in the work force, people in the military, or yellow people from the planet Alpha Seti-IV from saying what they want.

Also last I checked, WBC was the group that got their servers/websites hacked, and, other than verbally and visually spreading their hate filled agenda, have not done anything to threaten anyone they've protested against since.

 

[sloasdaylight]

I was curious to see if maybe one of the major conventions had some sort of copyright/trademark and could sue similar to Gibson/Fender clone battles. I figured the independent thing but I have many curiosities; and to think it'd probably get shot down due to lack of enforcement considering how long they've been at it now.

Not really, because if I'm not mistaken the baptist offshoot of protestantism is a rather large umbrella that no one church or group of churches holds a monopoly over.

 

[dj150888]

Another WBC fan

I can think of a few, Women in the work place, Gays, People who serve in the Military, Gay people that serve in the Military bass players etc.... pretty much everyone the WBC hates. Hence the need for their defense. Since last I checked the WBC was on the attack, not vice versa.

I think its important to keep it in perspective. I'm not saying the government should shut down WBC or anything can really be done. But just understand when you use the WBC as a defense of Free Speech you really are not picking a good mascot.

Your argument is totally disingenuous, defending their rights doesn't make him a fan.

 

[Waterpilot]

Another WBC fan

I spent 4 years in the United States Marine Corps. Please do not assume you know me or anything about me. I detest the WBC and everything it stands for.

I can think of a few, Women in the work place, Gays, People who serve in the Military, Gay people that serve in the Military bass players etc.... pretty much everyone the WBC hates.

Women in the work place don't have free speech? You must not work with very many women...

 

[MIJ-VI]

The sequence of events would indicate that the W.B.C.'s exercise of their freedom of speech (provocatively misrepresenting themselves as being Anonymous with the aim of goading some of Anon's members into DDoS-ing a Westboro honeypot trap) was countered by Anon's and thejester's freedom of expression (temporarily taking said trap off-line).

 

[sloasdaylight]

Article about the 8-1 Supreme court decision today about this matter.

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

 

[LiquidMidnight]

And it's a long way to drive but I may have to go up and pee on Phelps's grave, if the line isn't too long.

Make sure you drink some really bad, cheap beer before doing so. Phelps doesn't deserve anything that costs more than $2.00 for a six-pack.

 

[LiquidMidnight]

Not in any community larger than 1.

Justice is based around what a group of people find socially acceptable, which conforms to their own moral standard. That's why there are vastly different punishments for crimes from country to country and region to region. DUI is an executable offense in some countries in SE Asia, and will lose you your license on the first go in others, while here it's a fine and suspension.

I'm a social social constructivist, so I do agree with you to a point. However, you have to look at the power differentiatial and consider how laws become social structures/social facts that drive behavior, even if people do not personally believe that certain laws should be legitimized. For example, recently when it was ruled that corporations could donate as much money as they wanted to political campaigns - That was obviously a ruling that benefited corportations and upper-upper class people. However, if you polled a representative sample of everyone in America, you may find that many people find the ruling morally objectional. The elite were able to marshall enough social capital to secure that ruling, though they are actually a statistical minority.

[/Michel Foucault]

Unless of course you weren't making the claim that justice has to be agreed upon by a majority. In that case, ignore my strawman.

 

[MIJ-VI]

Article about the 8-1 Supreme court decision today about this matter.

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

..Many Americans will be outraged about the Supreme Court's decision, but many also will see it as a reaffirmation by the court that all Americans have a right to express their views, popular or otherwise, about matters of public interest. An overriding commitment to freedom of speech—even deeply offensive speech—is at the heart of the court's decision, and of the First Amendment.

Well that settles it then. In this case the W.B.C.'s initial misrepresentation of itself as being Anon, and Anon's & the jester's subsequent responses, all lie beyond the court's ruling.

 

[Selta]

I haven't read most of this thread, but did anyone point out the fact that the WBC literally started the "fight" with Anonymous, with their first "letter" that they forged?

 

[MIJ-VI]

Yep.

--------

BTW. They're still down:

downloads.westborobaptistchurch.com

http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&xhr=t&q...robaptistchurch.com&pbx=1&fp=da78929158d96174

 

[sloasdaylight]

I'm a social social constructivist, so I do agree with you to a point. However, you have to look at the power differentiatial and consider how laws become social structures/social facts that drive behavior, even if people do not personally believe that certain laws should be legitimized. For example, recently when it was ruled that corporations could donate as much money as they wanted to political campaigns - That was obviously a ruling that benefited corportations and upper-upper class people. However, if you polled a representative sample of everyone in America, you may find that many people find the ruling morally objectional. The elite were able to marshall enough social capital to secure that ruling, though they are actually a statistical minority.

[/Michel Foucault]

Unless of course you weren't making the claim that justice has to be agreed upon by a majority. In that case, ignore my strawman.

[sidetrack]

The ruling you're talking about had/has nothing to do with what you're talking about, and is/was instead a purely constitutional matter. Previously, a law had been made that said that corporations and individuals could not give as much as they wanted to political campaigns, which in essence, as was successfully argued, that the congress had implemented a law that had abridged the freedom of speech and exercise of those wealthy individuals, corporations, businesses, unions, etc.

Also going back to my quote anyways, you'll see that I wrote "A group" not a majority. The laws in this country are currently determined by 538 senators and congressmen, then approved by the president, and if necessary, challenged by 9 supreme court judges, making 548 people directly responsible pretty much for our laws. The catch is that 539 of those people have to answer to the American people every 2, 4, and 6 years, so that, in theory, makes them watch their asses.

FWIW, I don't believe in a true democracy, because that's mob rule, and no one wins with that.

[/sidetrack]

 

[Hawaii Islander]

if you use freedom of speech to harm the freedom of others - through preaching hatred - then you don't deserve it.

Americans are not allowed to cause harm to others through speech. Such speech is not free speech and is not protected under the law or the US Constitution. It's the yell "Fire!" in the crowded theater type of situation.

I like the counter protests that have thwarted WBC efforts at some of the funerals. Counterprotesters occupied the area near the funeral, which prevented the WBC access to the funeral service or their participants. In one instance, the WBC protestors packed up their signs and left before the funeral services were over.

Laws can be made to protect paticipants of a funeral from harassment, by establishing protest free zones within a specified distance of funeral services. Sort of like no smoking zones around public schools.

 

[MIJ-VI]

As I've learned more about Anonymous' actions (and the consequences thereof <--please read), and their goals & tactics, I've added more links to some of my earlier posts with the aim of keeping relevant info grouped together.

In hindsight, I should have mentioned this earlier for the benefit of those who've posted near the beginning of this thread.

 

[stevetx19]

Laws can be made to protect paticipants of a funeral from harassment, by establishing protest free zones within a specified distance of funeral services. Sort of like no smoking zones around public schools.

I think this is where the law is headed with the WBC news heating up. There are tons of groups like the WBC that hold demonstrations of very controversial material. The WBC creates such havoc because it is targeted at funerals; find me a culture that would not be upset by funeral crashing. It is not the WBC's message that really bothers us, as their opinions are pretty inconsequential and the same message has been vomited many times by others without more than a dismissal.

 

[CBgaragebassist]

One thing, then I'll try to stay away. Power has always been said to be according to "the will of the people" in this country. Hasn't been that way alot but that's what people believe. I can stand firm in my saying more people would rather see Westboro gone than continue with their bigotry. Free speech be damned. There are many issues to subjective to say "this is wrong, this right", but the things Westboro spews out has to call to your better judgement, we all know this is wrong. I feel no problem with saying some people shouldn't have free speech and if they do, at least have it on probation status...