I am all for the right to free speech. it is a right, and everyone has it. We, as humans, have agreed that people have these rights as long as a person doesn't violate an agreed-upon rule that permits the people to remove that right from that someone. However, just because there isn't an agreed-upon rule that states that this is a violation worthy of removing the right to free speech, doesn't mean that some people, maybe even a plurality or majority, consider it an offense worthy of removing the right - only that the specific people who the majority have entrusted to act in their behalf don't consider it an offense. Because of the ever-shifting weight of power in this democracy, the group of people holding the power
rarely have the same opinion as the plurality/majority of the people that the powerful rule over, it makes complete sense that what is, and what should be, considered a violation worthy of removing the right to free speech isn't the same. Because of stagnation in legislation, unwillingness to change, and general laziness of the american public, legislation, and media, this will probably not change. I contend that the W."B.C" willingly, knowingly, and continually commits acts that should be considered an offense punishable by the removal of their right to free speech.
(In this same sense, what Hitler did to the jews was legal, and thus went unpunished in Nazi Germany, even though the plurality/majority of Nazi Germany
more than likely considered it to be a grave violation of rules that would render any person, sane or otherwise, completely stripped of any and all human rights. Thus, Hitler and Nazi Germany is an
extreme example of the same general idea of what is at happening here at present times with the W."B.C."
I digress..)
Does that make it right? No, it does not. Can something be done about it? Yes. Is that something legal? It is a grey matter. Anon is acting in what is technically an illegal zone, but because of jurisdictions being drawn the way they are, there is nothing to be done about it. Are they justified? I assure you, I could write a paper/thesis/book on the subject. I don't feel like it, and I won't. In light of the evidence that the original letter from "Anon" was forged by the W.B.C themselves, IMO it acts as an informal declaration of e-war upon Anon, which the W.B.C stupidly attempted to do to gather more media attention and was rightly and thoroughly shut down. They did it to themselves, and deserve everything that comes their way, from Anon, /b/tards, th3j3st3r, and all the other left-wing hactivists of the world.
(A theoretical example, going back to Goodwin's law, would be comparing this to Lichtenstein telling Nazi Germany to "bring it". All bark, and no teeth, or even jaw muscles. Again, I only make this reference to poke you for being defensive against Hitler reference. I do it for the lulz.)
P.S: I'm pretty sure I haven't wrote this much in one post/topic/idea since I graduated high school two years ago. Feels nice.
P.P.S: I intentionally quotate the B.C in W."B.C." because, even though I am an athiest, even I believe that any attempt to actually consider this inbred clan of humans a "baptist church" to be a slap to the face of anyone who considers themselves a believer in the Muslim-Judeo-Christian diety, regardless of division or sect. I would consider abbreviating them as W.C, for "Westboro Cult", well before i consider dropping the sarcastic quotations.
Hey! Look at what I just found! 
I get exactly where you're coming from, however I still disagree. I think that human rights should exist for ALL people, no matter what their crime. When you start making rules for who can and who cannot have their rights, you're on a very slippery slope. I think its a very dangerous precedent to create.
