'Anonymous' hacktivists become web vigilantes

[MatticusMania]

My favorite .gif of all time! This has been on my myspace page for the longest time, even though I no longer have access to it and dont really know if it exists anymore.

 

[MatticusMania]

This is much better Nate, and I, now, can totally understand your point! 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.

Free speech is not a human right, its a right granted to us by our political paradigm. And rights are taken away from people on a daily basis, by our political paradigm. Slippery slopes should not always be avoided.

While I abhor the WBC and everything they stand for, and they may indeed be abusing their right to free speech, but in my eyes it is still their RIGHT to abuse.

Wrong. No one has the freedom to abuse our rights without consequence. WBC is free to say what they want without intervention from the government, but that does not protect them from the people. What Anon is doing may not necessarily be legal, but clearly they are supported in their actions by a number of people. You can make references to a lynch mob all you like, but that doesnt mean what they are doing is unjust. And, when Anon is caught (not IF, but WHEN) they will be tried for their actions.

 

[LiquidMidnight]

[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.

Unless I was mistaken, you said that justice reflect the morality of groups of people. The Constitution is law and is therefore instrinsically tied into justice. What I was referring to didn't necessarily differentiate between written law and interpretative case law.

I suppose for a better example, I'd say that a number of people in our nation's history believed that lynching was justice and a moral act; however, obviously, another group of people did not see it as justice as all.

Also going back to my quote anyways, you'll see that I wrote "A group" not a majority.

See the last sentence of my post.

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.

To a certain point. I'd argue that they have to answer to the more affluent, because, while it is the people who elect candidates, the powerful and affluence can marshall the social capital to get them elected.

[/sidetrack]

Nothing wrong with a good sidetrack.

 

[My name is Mudd]

Nope, they are not commenting about Anonymous' actions at all.

I didn't understand that you were talking about Anon up there.

 

[Hawaii Islander]

You mean like the free speech zone that universities have now?

Also the WBC has, as far as I'm aware, complied with all the permits they've been given to protest, and in the case that I linked to from yahoo, they were 1000 feet away from the church where the funeral took place, and, I believe, out of direct line of sight.

Which universities have free speech zones? Could you give examples? What are the specifics?

Thanks!

 

[TheVoiceless]

So far we all agree what the WBC is doing is wrong, correct? Not in the legal sense but in the moral sense. I haven't read any pro WBC posts, just pro free speech. So where is the mix up?

I think the laws of right and wrong should hold more water then what some piece of paper says at a certain time in history. And let's face it, I think we all have a few laws we scratch our head and think " what were they smoking when they wrote this". So the laws system is far from perfected.

And while we are talking rights, how about the right to a private and dignified burial of a fallen hero, causality of war? How about the families right to have their most important moment of a passing loved one not be marred by some group of people we all agree are wrong? How about those rights?

Ok so now we have two rights at battle. The RIGHT to free speech, and the right to a Proper burial. Who wins?

 

[Deluge Of Sound]

I'm not getting into what I think about that whole situation--you'd probably sic anon on me.

 

[aborgman]

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........

The more detestable the speech, the better a mascot they are.

 

[MIJ-VI]

My favorite .gif of all time! This has been on my myspace page for the longest time, even though I no longer have access to it and dont really know if it exists anymore.

I can't remember for sure but I believe I 'borrowed' it from another TB'er.

Just right-click on it, choose Copy Image Location from the pop-up menu, then paste its URL into a text document for later use.

 

[jady]

I didn't understand that you were talking about Anon up there.

No Problem

 

[MIJ-VI]

I'm not getting into what I think about that whole situation--you'd probably sic anon on me.

A browse through Link Removed will reveal a number of "not your personal army" responses to those posters who advocate attacks on targets chosen for personal reasons.

 

[sloasdaylight]

Which universities have free speech zones? Could you give examples? What are the specifics?

Thanks!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone#On_college_and_university_campuses

 

[Waterpilot]

Wrong. No one has the freedom to abuse our rights without consequence.

What "rights" are being abused?

WBC is free to say what they want without intervention from the government, but that does not protect them from the people.

WBC is free provideded they don't break any laws. The "people" are not free of laws so they are also protected from the people.

I think the laws of right and wrong should hold more water then what some piece of paper says at a certain time in history. And let's face it, I think we all have a few laws we scratch our head and think " what were they smoking when they wrote this". So the laws system is far from perfected.

I understand what you're saying, but... Laws are more perfect then an individual's version of what is right and wrong. What I consider right, you may consider wrong... There has to be some sort of collective medium otherwise humanity would run helter skelter all over the place.

I get you're talking about the WBC specifically but there has to be a constant in order for it to be effective.

 

[Hawaii Islander]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone#On_college_and_university_campuses

Thanks for the link.

There are many issues covered in the wiki page. Protest (Free speech) free zones, free speech zones, etc. I don't like the idea of defining where people need to be in order to exercise their right to free speech. I do think there are instances where the rights to free speech clash with the rights of others and a reasonable compromise must be made to accomodate both groups. For example, the WBC has every right to express their views and families have a right to privacy during funeral ceremonies (private funerals are not public events). Providing a buffer zone (not creating a free speech zone) is a reasonable compromise in this particular case.

Although I do not view free speech zones (designated protest areas) as acceptable on college campuses (or anywhere else), I do support designated smoking areas on college campuses.

 

[MatticusMania]

What "rights" are being abused?

Maybe it'll make more sense if I word myself better... the WBC cannot abuse their right to free speech without consequence.

WBC is free provideded they don't break any laws. The "people" are not free of laws so they are also protected from the people.

The law does not protect people from one another. It is not only morally wrong to kill a person, but legally as well. Yet, still people are killed by others.
The law is not established to protect anyone, but rather to punish those who go against. Therefore, the WBC is not protected from any radical vigilante (or Anon) who takes it upon themself to break the law and take action against them. The law will dole out the consequence to that individual (or Anon) after the law has already been broken, and when that individual (or Anon) is caught.

 

[sloasdaylight]

So far we all agree what the WBC is doing is wrong, correct? Not in the legal sense but in the moral sense. I haven't read any pro WBC posts, just pro free speech. So where is the mix up?

I think the laws of right and wrong should hold more water then what some piece of paper says at a certain time in history. And let's face it, I think we all have a few laws we scratch our head and think " what were they smoking when they wrote this". So the laws system is far from perfected.

And while we are talking rights, how about the right to a private and dignified burial of a fallen hero, causality of war? How about the families right to have their most important moment of a passing loved one not be marred by some group of people we all agree are wrong? How about those rights?

Ok so now we have two rights at battle. The RIGHT to free speech, and the right to a Proper burial. Who wins?

The one protected by our Constitution.

 

[Waterpilot]

Maybe it'll make more sense if I word myself better... the WBC cannot abuse their right to free speech without consequence.

Ah, though you're talking about consequence from a minority, of law breakers, and those same people are then ones everyone has to worry about whether you're abusing free speech or driving to the store.

The law does not protect people from one another. It is not only morally wrong to kill a person, but legally as well. Yet, still people are killed by others.
The law is not established to protect anyone, but rather to punish those who go against. Therefore, the WBC is not protected from any radical vigilante (or Anon) who takes it upon themself to break the law and take action against them. The law will dole out the consequence to that individual (or Anon) after the law has already been broken, and when that individual (or Anon) is caught.

Ah, I see what you're saying. And for the most part I do agree. Though... One could probably argue that as a result of the punishment people are protected, with the exception of a few. I know I don't regularly drive around at 100 mph. Not because I feel it's unsafe or immoral, but because I fear the punishment.

 

[Hawaii Islander]

The one protected by our Constitution.

The family members are also exercising their 1st Amendment rights to peacefully assemble and express their views in the form of a funeral service for their loved one. They are also exercising their religious freedoms, if the ceremony involves any form of prayer, be it of a formal religion or personal. Both groups are attempting to exercise their Constitutional rights and both are protected under the Constitution.

 

[sloasdaylight]

The family members are also exercising their 1st Amendment rights to peacefully assemble and express their views in the form of a funeral service for their loved one. They are also exercising their religious freedoms, if the ceremony involves any form of prayer, be it of a formal religion or personal. Both groups are attempting to exercise their Constitutional rights and both are protected under the Constitution.

And the WBC is not keeping the family from any of that, they're just protesting it, i.e. you can't do anything about it. There's no right to have a funeral free from douchebags.

 

[Hawaii Islander]

And the WBC is not keeping the family from any of that, they're just protesting it, i.e. you can't do anything about it. There's no right to have a funeral free from douchebags.

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.

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."