Slashdot Mirror
Anonymous Hacks Westboro Baptist Church
elashish14 writes "The Westboro Baptist Church stated earlier this week that they would be picketing the funerals of the victims of Newtown Connecticut's tragic shooting in an effort to bring awareness to their hate messages. In response, the Anonymous hacker collective has hacked their website and posted the personal information of all of its members."
Happy to see Anonymous making themselves truly useful for the first time since Operation Chanology. I can think of nobody more deserving than a kick in the arse than the Westboro mob.
Dear anonymous. Please find out who phoned in the threat to the church and release his/her/their information.
"What to Expect When You're Expecting Anonymous"
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
For all the trolls here, you're no match for WBC. The Phelps family is the ULTIMATE trolls.
Westboro Baptist Church is an object lesson in why it's good to have some restrictions on speech, such as limiting it to a reasonable time and place.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
these scum do it because they get the attention they want. ignore them, please!
I've always held that anyone is free to speak their mind, even if I don't agree with what they're saying.
If Westboro Baptist Church was really planning to interfere with the tragedy that has happened at Newtown,
they've sunk to a level so low that no reasonable Christian should want anything to do with them. Scum.
This is too far. I don't want to say any more to further dirty the pain the families and the trauma the survivors
are going through.
Linkfarming is shit, give us the direct link PLEASE.
Why don't they just set up a "free speech zone" for them?
Westboro Baptist Church wins. Anonymous and Slashdot brings more attention to hate group
I also wonder how many baptist churches preach against what this church is doing. I mean if a muslim goes out a does something, and every other muslim leader does not immediately condemn the behavior, then all the christians go and condemn all the muslims. So is turnabout fair play?
I would hope that they find the peace of the almighty and work for peace and acceptance that one's faith is not diminished just because others disagree. We have twenty kids dead because we can't just be peaceful and accepting. Now they want to make it worse.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
. . . if they're alive.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
I think they are horrible but I am glad they won many of their lawsuits.
Even though most people, including me, disagree with their opinions that should still be able to picket and print whatever stuff they want.
Why don't you guys have friends or journals?
You didn't mention that thay hacked their website in real time, during a live radio interview. Now, that's an achievement.
#
#\ @ ? Colonize Mars
#
Westboro Baptist Church is an object lesson in why it's good to have some restrictions on speech, such as limiting it to a reasonable time and place.
There should be Free Speech Zones and Free Speech times.
I, for one, think that religious protests should be in Death Valley at 1PM or their locality at 3 - 4 am.
It's reasonable - to me.
If course the WBC are mentally deranged idiots, but they do have a (negative) Right to unlimited Free Speech, including their Web-site. Whether hacking constitutes aggression is a complicated discussion, but the Anontards' intent was clear and despicable! At least the WBC has the balls to drivel in the open, rather than hiding behind masks!
The harm that the WBC does is limited to annoyance, and can be further restricted on the basis of Property Rights - they cannot go where they're not wanted. The Anontards, on the other hand, have no respect for anyone's Rights.
--libman
When you need to feed them!
I can't image Westboro Baptis being a viable food source.
We The People petition: Legally recognize westboro baptist church as a hate group
ruhbarb ruhbarb......
Them assholes deserve it!
The one thing those haters from Westboro Baptist Church is after is notoriety - I mean, nobody with a sound mind would do what they are doing.
By hacking the websites of the Westboro Baptist Church, and by turning this event into a worldwide thing - face it, the news of the hacking of Westboro Baptist Church website has become a sensational news by itself, else /. wouldn't have carried it - what the Anonymous are doing, while still commendable, is to play it into the hands of those haters.
The best way to deal with haters is to ignore them.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Shame those bastards weren't literally hacked.
I think the Westboro Church is a bunch of insensitive asshole douche bags, however I don't think the answer is to form hate groups against the hate groups.
Someone should of told Anonymous that it is never a good idea to feed the trolls.
WBC thrives on negative attention and hate.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Nothing feels as good as the self-righteous trampling the rights and inflicting harm upon their wicked brothers.
After some further reading the dispute is a little more complex.
aparantly someone had earlier hacked the WBC, claiming to be anonymous, but it really wasn't.
Anonymous refuted, and even apologized, and tried to explain this to WBC. WBC, didn't want to back down, and kept talking smack to anonymous, and kept provoking anonymous.
Today WBC found out what happened when you kick a sleeping bear.
They were not silenced for the speech, and the WBC does not "win", and this has nothing to do with their ongoing campaign against everything for tollerating gays.
This his what happens when the sped kid keeps picking a fight with the biggest kid in class, and he finally runs out of patience.
The post was taken down earlier. But just in case anyone missed it and was curious, here's the list: Westboro Membership List. updated October 22, 2012. Westboro Baptist Church 3701 SW 12th St Topeka, KS 66604 Phone: 785-273-0325 Email: wbclist@speakfree.net Email: info@phelpschartered.com Email: chockenbarger@cox.net http://www.godhatesfags.com/ Phelps Law Firm Phelps Chartered 1414 SW Topeka Boulevard Topeka, KS 66612 PO Box 1886 Topeka, KS 66601 Phone: 785-233-4162 Fax: 785-233-0766 Fax: 785-969-9017 Email: info@phelpschartered.com Email: slpr@cox.net Email: kjhoffice@speakfree.net http://www.phelpschartered.com/ — Abigail Phelps Lawyer Employee at SRS – Kansas Juvenile Justice Authority Born 1968 Daughter of Fred Waldron Phelps, Sr 3636 SW Churchill Topeka, KS 66604 Email: bgail@speakfree.net Home: 785-273-7262 work: 785-296-7709 — Barak Phelps-Davis Born ~ Mid-1980s/Mid-1990s Son of Rebekah Phelps-Davis — Benaiah Phelps Born ~ Mid-1980s/Mid-1990s Son of Timothy “Tim/Timmy” B. Phelps — Benjamin C. Phelps Born 1976 Son of Fred W. Phelps, Jr Wife of Mara Jones-Phelps 3632 SW Churchill Topeka, KS 66604 3636 SW Huntoon St Topeka, KS 66604 Email: idontreadthisemail@godhatesamerica.com Phone: 785-228-9239 Home: 785-233-4162 Phone: 785-228-9239 Phone: 785-273-0277 Phone: 785-273-1080 — Betty Joan Schurle-Phelps Lawyer at Phelps Chartered Born 1952 Wife of Fred W. Phelps, Jr 3600 SW Holly Lane Topeka, KS 66604 Phone: 785-273-0438 Home: 785-272-4135 Work: 785-296-3195 — Brent D. Roper-Phelps Human Resources Lawyer for NAIC Employee at Foot Locker Born 1963 Husband of Shirley Lynn Phelps-Roper 3640 SW Churchill Topeka, KS 66604 3636 SW Churchill Topeka, KS 66604 Phone: 785-273-0277 Phone: 785-273-7262 Phone: 785-273-1080 Phone: 785-273-3726 Home: 785-273-1445 Home: 785-273-0277 Home: 785-272-1619 Home: 785-273-0325 Home: 785-273-0325 Work: 785-233-4162 Work: 785-273-0068 — Caleb Phelps Born ~ Mid-1980s/Mid-1990s Son of Timothy “Tim/Timmy” B. Phelps — Charles F. Hockenbarger Born 1974 Son of Karl D. Hockenbarger Husband of Rachel I. Phelps-Hockenbarger 1284 SW Hillsdale Topeka, KS 66604 3220 SW 17th St Topeka, KS 66604 Phone: 785-232-1570 Phone: 785-232-2485 Home: 785-271-1619 Work: 785-273-0325 — Charles William “Bill” Hockenbarger Member of Christian Identity Born 1953 Husband of Mary Hockenbarger 711 NW Page Topeka, KS 66617 3600 SW Holly Ln Topeka, KS 66604 Email: chockenbarger@cox.net Phone: 785-272-8569 Phone: 785-232-2485 Home: 785-246-1567 Work: 785-273-0325 Fax: 785-233-4162 — Chris Davis-Phelps Born 1955 Husband of Rebekah Phelps-Davis 1216 SW Cambridge Topeka, KS 66604 Phone: 785-272-7035 Home: 785-272-7741 — Danielle Phelps Born ~ Mid-1980s/Mid-1990s Daughter of Timothy “Tim/Timmy” B. Phelps 3119 SW Randolph Ave #204 Topeka, KS 66611 Phone: 785-267-3253 — David Hockenbarger Born ~ Mid-1970s/Mid-1980s Son of Karl D. Hockenbarger — Davis R. Phelps Relative of Chris Davis-Phelps 1216 SW Cambridge Ave Topeka, KS 66604 Phone: 785-272-7741 Phone: 785-272-7035 — Deborah Kay Hockenbarger Born ~ Mid-1970s/Mid-1980s Wife of Karl D. Hockenbarger 1929 SW Lane Topeka, KS 66604 Home: 913-233-1848 Work: 785-296-3959 — Deborah Phelps-Davis Born ~ Mid-1980s/Mid-1990s Daughter of Rebekah Phelps-Davis — Elisha Phelps Born ~ Mid-1980s/Mid-1990s Daughter of Timothy “Tim/Timmy” B. Phelps — Elizabeth “Libby” Phelps Born ~ 1982-3-4 Daughter of Fred W. Phelps, Jr 2001 SW 2nd Street Topeka, KS 66606 Home: 785-234-9694 Work: 785-233-0822 — Elizabeth Marie Phelps Born 1962 Lawyer at Phelps Chartered Manager at Sheltered Living, Inc Daughter of Fred Waldron Phelps, Sr 2001 SW 2nd Street Topeka, KS 66606 Home: 785-234-9694 Work: 785-233-0822 — Fred W. Phelps, Jr Lawyer at Phelps Chartered Staff Attorney for Kansas Department of Corrections Born 1953 Son
There have always been recognized limits to free speech. There are components of that here, especially as WBC doing this has been proven to be not political or religious speech, but simply a business model. They are lawsuit trolls. They go anywhere they can incite people, go to the nearest area to it that has an entity with deep pockets (like universities, etc), and attempt to 'protest' in the least practical and palatable manner, and then file suits against everyone involved. They had at one time roughly 1000 suits going in federal and state courts at any given time there for awhile, I am sure that hasn't changed any.
You would destroy all of the freedoms so many have died for you to obtain -- if only because a group is using speech you deem unacceptable. Shame. Shame on you sir.
I think you are confusing the perspective of ACLU lawyers with the perspective of military veterans. As for the combat veterans I have known they seem perfectly fine with the notion that some speech will get you a kick in the ass or a punch in the face from your fellow citizen.
You seem to have made the error that freedom from government consequences somehow implies freedom from consequences from your fellow citizens.
Free Speech also includes freely and clearly identifying individual people. Y'know, like if their own speech was just them acting like utter cunts. Fair do's.
you're a very nice person, however unprincipled you may be.
Our personal rights and freedoms are much more at threat from people like you, who would so carelessly define these rights by what most immediately and viscerally strikes their sensibilities.
It would be funny if the church, got shot up and burned to the ground!!!!!!! all while holding their sevices
After the Virginia Tech shootings the WBC threatened to protest the funerals. Some radio guy offered to let them have air time in exchange for not doing so.
As a friend of one of the people killed in those shootings I was very happy the family wouldn't go through this even if it resulted in a sick group like the WBC getting radio air time.
I think we would be serving the families of these new victims well by making some sort of similar compromise. I doubt anywhere near the number of people listened to that radio interview as would have seen the protests in the news, so I don't think it even helps the WBC cause at all.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/define-westboro-baptist-church-hate-group-due-promoting-animosity-against-differing-cultural/xHF0d3nq?utm_source=wh.gov&utm_medium=shorturl&utm_campaign=shorturl
ill bet if you come on here claiming to have the right to speak as a paedophile a load a people gona beat you to a pulp and find you for a shit kicking.
EVERYTHING has its limits and when YOUR speech advocates or brings harm in a real physical way im be there with my baseball bat....
you sound like that pirate bay pair whom owned PRQ and said child advocacy website for child molestation was free speech...
UM NO its saying and speaking of sickos that like to rape kids that don't know any better.
see a difference pal....
i bet you think if mengele were alive you'd be ok with him spending publically all over about all the human experiments he did too i wouldn't its horrible .....
The WBC should never be prosecuted by the government. But that doesn't mean that they get to act like a-holes. If they were picketing a kids funeral and the father or uncle went up and punched them in the nose and I was on the jury I would find them not guilty. If I was on a jury of the government trying to put them in jail for hate speech I would side with the WBC.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
Free speech is not just speech you just like. It's any speech.
Wrong. The constitution only prevents government reprisals or discrimination against a speaker. Private citizens are under no such prohibition. Private citizens are free to punish speakers, that is what recent boycotts against Chick-fil-A were. All we can really say is that Anon is choosing to punish in an illegal manner.
Someone on Fark pointed out that the WBC aren't really haters, or even Christians, just a bunch of lawyers trying to make extortion money from the threat of (very carefully and legally) exercising their 1st Amendment rights:
http://www.fark.com/comments/7488418/81313473#c81313473
The appropriate response is actually to just organize counter-protests that block or drown out their feeble message, until hopefully they run out of money.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/04/AR2011030406330.html
But anytime someone actually blocks them illegally, they get to sue and collect some settlement and they get their payday.
I suppose the DDoS helps them bleed money as well, But probably not enough, esp. if they manage to catch and sue the perpetrators.
"First they came for the communists..." Governments will take your free speech first from the most hateful among us: the hateful, the racist, the pedobears....the worst of us will be restricted first until more forms of free speech are placed on the verbotsliste.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
if every bone in your arms and legs is so badly broken you need to be fed out of a straw...
what a life eh keep it up WBC
Im willing to bet all the hate comments in here towards them are from americans. Americans love to preach freedom and tollerance but they never want to tollerate things they dont like. The only time they preach tollerance is when someone isnt tollerating them, the only time they preach free speech is when they want to be heard.
If you dont like what that group has to say then dont pay attention to them. Its really that easy. But dont be a stupid american jerk when it comes to someone elses thoughts or opinions you dont like.
Do I agree with them? No. But I will never, I mean never tell them they shouldnt be able to print, say, picket or express their opinions. Nor will I ever approve of censoring them. They should be allowed to say what they want and think what they want. Nazis, whatever the black against white people group there is, KKK or whatever I wont agree with them but I always defend their right to say and think what they want to.
If you tolerate something that means you put up with something you dont like. If you dont tolerate that group then youre not tolerant, your just a closed minded moron. If youre a person who think this group is wrong and youre happy anon attacked them or made some kind of hate comment yourself then youre a bad american and the very people who give us all a bad name.
And all of them jumping on the backs of dead children for their 2 minutes of fame. And the sensationalist media gladly giving it to them. Shameful what twisted purposes our hard-fought freedoms are used for.
I realize that it's a different kind of place over there, but either that hack result is fake or there is a LOT of inbreeding going on in that church.. If you look over the list of members, there are 74 listed - and of those 74, there are only three (!) people whose last names are NOT either Phelps or Hockenbarger (or something hyphenated that includes one of those, like "Phelps-Roper").
So, 95.946% of these assholes are in one of those two families. Sounds like a genetic problem to me.
So if free speech is interacting with content, hacking is free speech
hacking westboro website? priceless!!!!!!!!
The IRS should however relentlessly audit the books of this organization. To make sure they are compliant, you know. If they end up costing the "church" a lot of money and frustration in the process, too bad so sad. If the Obama administration has no problem using government agencies to harass non-union companies, they should have no problem doing it to the Westboro terrorists.
Obvious reductio ad absurdum troll is obvious. "First they came for the murderers..." "First they came for the genocidists..."
Raze. Burn that fucking church down.
The suppression of free speech is a pre-fascist act. The remedy for offensive speech is more speech.
I hope somebody goes to jail for this.
There are no rights without responsibilities. Freedom of Speech cannot and should not exist without limits. You can be very liberal about what those limits need to be, but there should still be limits.
Hate speech and incitement to violence should not be allowed under the banner of free speech. Just my 2 cents.
Anyone know how to incite someone to go on a shooting rampage? I know a website with a list of personal information of intended victims.
Seriously.
If you don't want to ignore them, just stage a counter protest and drown out their crazy.
And if you do counter protest them, don't forget to bring your DICK TASTES YUMMY signs.
An article I read here (in NZ) quoted an US pro-gun lobbyist as saying that it's appalling that no-one at the school had a gun. If they had, they could have shot the guy first off.
I guess that was bound to be said: the answer to the gun problem is more guns, not less.
And for what's it's worth - USans, we grieve with you.
"The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
Petition White House to recognize them as a hate group...
...and see if their founder (or their lobby group representative) will write a response to that petition.
What the hell is a "hate group"? Terrorists?
Free speech is all well and good, but I can think of no reason why they should be allowed to be physically ANYWHERE NEAR the funerals of these children, as their aim is only to provoke. They can be free to bark their bullshit anywhere else.
I think what happened is horrible and truly no one should go through it, however why has no one questioned the gun laws? I have yet to hear anyone blame that fact that a gun can be obtained so easily.
Are you on crack? That's pretty much the whole topic of national conversation at the moment!
what needs to happen is for all firearms to get banned.
If you want to change the Constitution to modify the 2nd Amendment, go for it. But any attempt to outlaw guns without first altering the Constitution is no less than high treason, and any lawmaker who signs his name to such legislation should be subject to the death penalty we have put in place for such crimes.
See here - http://kanewj.com/wbc/
They are con men.
is a RTFA 747.
I almost want to see them do this, if only for the delicious amount of ways it could quite possibly backfire on WBC horribly. I do love me my schadenfrued.
However, do not be surprised when the parents who are burying their kids grab the shovel and beat your ass to a pulp with it while others wont interfere.
There is a difference between an act and free speech. This is clearly an act
IMHO I think a better thing to do would be to be part of an Angel Action. Fight speech with speech and show community support.
Westboro tied that in Ohio after the Chardon shooting. They were surrounded by counter protesters exercising their freedom of speech and made very ineffectual.
unreasonable is about as loose and wide as a 20 dollar whore.
It is not speech it is an act at this point but an act.
Not protected.
They can have their own racist sermons and I do not care. They can say whatever they feel right. However if they tell and harass these teachers and childrens families that they are going to hell and provoke them then I am grabbing the ditch diggers shovel and beating them up senseless and I assume the families would be more than happy to join.
http://saveie6.com/
I absolutely would never want the government to stop the Westboro Baptist Church from protesting on public property. As an individual however, I would have no problem going to jail for breaking the nose of someone protesting the funeral of a small child killed by a psychotic gunman.
What the hell is a "hate group"? Terrorists?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=hate+group&l=1
Well I think your use of the death of these children to forward your political views of poor form.
Freedom of Speech doesn't necessarily imply freedom of speech AND TIME AND PLACE.
A funeral is one of those things we all will have, and at which none of us will be free to speak back against those who might speak against us. The air should be tuned, on those occasions, to the interests of the deceased and the sensitivities of those who love them. If you are not on the speaker list, you're in the audience, mate. You have the rest of the world and the rest of time to express your caustic views. That's a lot of space and time. It's an uncommon mind that can fill both. Really.
If you cannot come up with something nice to say, and find yourself utterly unable to shut your maw, I can spot you one positive thought: be thankful this isn't YOUR funeral, and think what you might wish that moment to be like.
tone
...it is a matter of allowing the parents to mourn their kids.
One thing is free speech, one thing is disruption.
As a rabid atheist, I wouldn't go in a church and scream that they believe bullshit.
This has nothing to do with free speech.
There should be some protection for those who want to mourn their dead.
If the law does not provide, the citizens usually must take initiative, forcing the law to follow.
Guns have no use but to Kill, so lets take the 2nd amendment right out, No one has any use for a gun, not a police officer, not a hunter not anyone.
Get rid the tax-exempt gravy train for churches. All churches, not just them
The Internet cancer.
I am completely fed up with the gossip, blog posts and innuendos so let me state this very clearly: Pastor Fred Phelps is not a secret gay pedophile! I don’t know what liberal underground organization has been spreading these nasty rumors but they are wholly unproven and offensive. In fact, no one in Pastor Fred’s organization has confirmed these vicious statements and the pastor himself is happily married and has even fathered several children.
http://christwire.org/2010/04/pastor-fred-phelps-is-not-a-secret-gay-pedophile/
What about the woman who is about to be raped?
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
The content of Westboro's speech does and should incur our contempt, but legal regulations have to be independent of what's being said.
right
and we can't legalize gay marriage because then we have to legalize pedophilia and necrophilia
and we can't legalize marijuana because then we have to legalize meth and crack
the slippery slope is a form of fear based logical fallacy
i can tell the difference between homosexuality and necrophilia. i can tell the difference between marijuana and meth. and i can tell the difference between political speech and hate speech
the slippery slope is an idea that only works in a world where nobody can think and identify different topics. therefore, the slippery slope never works as a persuasive argument
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I think Anonymous is giving the Westboro Baptist Church the respect their opinions deserve given they have exercised their First Amendment rights irresponsibly. Anonymous is just making them take responsibility for their own poor judgement so that First Amendment rights are respected.
I don't think they protect you if you're not proud of what you have to say, or you're an idiot, even though political correctness is still really offensive.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
No, I don't want the WBC people to be hurt.
I want them to realize the suffering and hurt they've caused.
This isn't going to happen. If after all they have been through, WBC is still doing this, they aren't going to stop or realize that what they are doing is wrong. At a certain point, you have to just say that these people are a loss, and the best thing that could happen would be if someone just shot them all.
Its nice to think that everyone has the same right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but the sad truth is there are just some people that humanity as a whole would be better off without.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
There are plenty of people with sick ideas and / or are filled with hatred. They want attention. Why does the media give it to them? All the media has to do is ignore Westboro, but they can't resist a good story. They are like an amplifier.
Free speech is one thing, but free publicity is priceless.
Your comment has deeper insight than what appears at first glance.
We are upset with Westboro for the very same reasons we are upset with gunmen who commit massacres.
These people are irresponsible with the liberties we all respect and desire to preserve, whether the 1st amendment or the 2nd.
The question truly is this: Is restricting the liberties of those who are abuse them worth the price of infringing upon our own?
I believe there is no good answer.
The only solution I can see is better education for our children about understanding, appreciating, and upholding our responsibilities inherent to our liberties.
You would destroy all of the freedoms so many have died for you to obtain -- if only because a group is using speech you deem unacceptable. Shame. Shame on you sir.
The basic ideal of our freedom is that you can do anything you want, provided it doesn't hurt others. They are have no right to free speech if all they are doing is trying to hurt the friends and families of dead gay people they don't like to get attention.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Lord Moulton nailed it in his 1924 piece Law and Manners:
"I must ask you to follow me in examining the three
great domains of Human Action. First comes the domain of Positive Law, where our actions are
prescribed by laws binding upon us which must be obeyed. Next comes the domain of Free Choice,
which includes all those actions as to which we claim and enjoy complete freedom. But between
these two there is a third large and important domain in which there rules neither Positive Law
nor Absolute Freedom."
The Westboro gang would have us believe that the third domain - Obedience to the Unenforceable - is meaningless.
They are barbarians.
Manners makyth Man.
There were a lot of Christians on my Facebook feed - none of them extremists or anything, mind you - but they certainly felt the need to tell the world that the shootings were a direct result of removing God from the school system.
To me, that is intellectually the same as what the Westboro folks believe. Just without the picketing.
There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
I have yet to hear anyone blame that fact that a gun can be obtained so easily.
Indeed. That rifle is sold by Walmart... WALMART FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS HOLY
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
Being able to say anything you want wherever you want comes with the responsibility to know...That you may get your ass kicked or killed.
You can't just shoot someone who hasn't done something, they will would be at fault for murder.
The Westboro Baptist Church have a right to be complete assholes and say and do completely assholish things. That's really where it starts and ends.
No matter how good it feels that someone might make them possibly feel even a little bit as shitty as they love to make other *victims* feel. Goddammit. What a bunch of sick fucks. Never protest people when they're up. Never go and spew their shit at an ROTC center, or during a parade. No, it's got to be some funeral, where a bunch of people who are already facing the worst day of their fucking lives and trying to move on now have to deal with the Westboro shit too.
But that's their right, and that's how it has to work.
But I must admit I wouldn't be unhappy, if it turned out that Anonymous were prosecuted for this only after every lost library book in America was tracked down and returned.
The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
I for one would like to see thousands of people in Guy Fawkes masks descend on Topeka, very peacefully and very quietly. All holding the same sign advertising the fact that Westboro is not a church, but a cabal that makes money from hate speech, nothing more, nothing less.
Bringing the capital of Kansas to a halt, while exercising free speech might send a better message than a petition.
I prayed to the Dark Lord, Satan for all the members of the Westboro Baptist church to get herpes, gonorrhea, syphilis, and AIDS, as well as brain cancer, and anything else nasty and horrible I missed, and to die slow, horrible, painful, agonizing, humiliating, and above all ironic deaths.
Satan replied immediately that they were doing WAY too much for him here on Earth, and that he wanted them to remain healthy, and active, to continue to spread his message of hatred, fear, anger, and stupidity for as long as humanly possible, since they are HIS DARK MINIONS, not the faithful of God.
As a consolation though, Satan did say that Adam Lanza is fitting in well in his new digs there in Hell, and that there are legions of demons with broken-glass studded cocks who are literally lined up waiting to fuck him up the ass.
His mother, who raised the little monster and provided him the weapons he used to murder a bunch of innocent children and a few of those charged with their education and safety, is bent over a rock right next to him, her only consolation is that unlike her son, whose hands are both chained to the rock he'll be bent over for all time, one of her hands is free so that as she gets her ass reamed for all eternity, she can reach over and punch him right in the head for the fact that she's there too.
If /. had a like button I would have just clicked that....
Could they get up to all these antics in an airport where the coffins are unloaded without being dragged away and locked up? That's why they do it near Churches where it is politically inconvenient to drag them away and lock them up.
1. Both detached from reality
2. Little to no impact from their efforts
3. Publicity whores
Thank you.
The idiots here are programmer types. In their little world, law is a set of rules. "Punishment" comes from a predetermine set of rules ("the law") and the judge is just an interface between the law and real life.
But the problem is, real life is FAR more complicated. And judges, *gasp*, judge! They don't just "rule". They don't just "serve a veredict". Judges take many factors into consideration, and yes, sometimes, factors OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF LAW. Judges apply that little thing called "common sense" all the time. Not just "the law".
She's probably not very happy about the gun pointed at her head.
The reason why the Westboro Baptist Church gets away with it, is because they have all gone to law school and they have a VERY successful law practice in Wichita. People there hire them because they win cases. They would shrivel up and die if their funding was cut off, but there are people who want to win their case at all costs, which includes their apparently enjoyment of seeing the WBC mock the immense pain of families at funerals. So they persevere.
When WBC was picketing the funerals of AIDS victims, mainstream America did not care. WBC did not hit the big time until they started picketing the funerals of military personnel. Then Americans suddenly started to care and demand why these sickos were allowed to picket funerals.
WBC have been taken to court, and they keep winning. A judge ordered the grieving father of a soldier killed in combat to pay WBC millions in damages and legal fees because the father tried to take them to court after they picketed his son's funeral. WBC has zero common decency and will stop at nothing to let Americans know that God hates our country because we are "sinners", and they have a better understanding of the laws than most people.
Now that all the members' personal information is out in the open, maybe it's time for the companies that employ them to fire them especially in right to work states and, possibly really hurt them by finding a way for fire them with cause in such a way so that they can be denied unemployment.
Perhaps, fellow employees should file harassment clams with HR against the Westboro Baptist Church members. That way when their fired they will definitely be denied unemployment.
Maybe one of these pissed-off kids with a gun will decide to pay a visit to WBC. Then we can all picket their funerals.
I think you are confusing the perspective of lawyers with the perspective of military veterans. As for the combat veterans I have known they seem perfectly fine with the notion that some speech will get you a kick in the ass or a punch in the face from your fellow citizen.
FTFY. It's partly what's causing society to denigrate into a mass of only the lowest common denominator. The idea that the text of the law says something (or doesn't say something) means that it embodies the spirit and purpose of the law.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Makes perfect sense - he must've just made a typo. I don't know what kind of connection they have up in heaven to servers here on Earth, but I used to have satellite Internet for a while, and latency was terrible! He should at least throttle Joshua's bandwidth when he [NSFW] BitTorrents Glee...
8-P
--libman
You do not have the right to say whatever you want. Hate speech or inciting violence are not protected. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942.
"There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality."
And that was the unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court. So no, people did not die for us to have the freedom to hurt each other with hate speech.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
If they were picketing a kids funeral and the father or uncle went up and punched them in the nose and I was on the jury I would find them not guilty
Why do you want to corrupt my court system by deciding a case not on the facts but on your little feelings?
What really gives Christians a bad name is:
1) attempting to prevent fellow humans from having basic civil liberties (oppressing homosexuals by not letting them marry, for example).
2) attempting to use the law to halt science education in public schools.
3) believing whatever crazy nonsense a bunch of desert nomads once wrote about God. (remember: faith in God should exclude faith in other human (fallible) ideas about God, lest you fall prey to intellectual idolatry).
we should all see who these people are. pretty confident the world will see them for what they are. very little can hurt the victims of this tragedy at this point. Let the world see and judge WBC and people like them. its important to understand every aspect of a sickness to cure it.
Signed this petition 3 hours ago and it's already up about 17k signatures to 83k.
In this world 4 boxes are the solution to every problem: soap, ballot, ammo and jury.
Soap and ballot won't fix this problem, so I think this calls for ammo and jury
It's a funeral for children killed in a shooting spree. Leave the dick signs at home.
Large white blank banners, silent counter-protest. Simple force of numbers to physically block the WBC "protesters" signs from line-of-sight of the parents attending the funeral; without adding to the noise, and without giving the WBC grounds to sue the county (which is their primary purpose).
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
People?
Why not:
1) Issue them traffic ticket for their traffic violations. Issue so many of them them that their driving licenses get seized.
2) Lock these fellows in a parking lock by two cars on both the sides so that they can not get out until the event is over.
3) Ask our friendly TSA guys to keep checking them till they miss their flights.
4) If nothing else works, give them an iphone 5 and hope they use Apple Map, that will make sure they never reach where
they want to.
Regardless of the 2nd Amendment, I have a legal right to kill someone on my property if I believe my own life is in immediate danger or if they are about to commit a felony (yay castle doctrine). Personal self-defense training, marksmanship, and gun ownership don't grant me that right, but they sure make it easier to execute.
everyone read about this yesterday, slashdot... :(
I don't mind free speech, I just want to know who is saying what is being said.
In this way I can at least put a face on it.
I find that anonymous free speech troubling.
What Anonymous did to WBC seems similar to trespassing and vandalizing, but not really in that it is more like taking the sheeps clothing off of the wolf.
The WBC members were exposed. So, now I can see who the WBC are now, which I appreciate. So, in the end there is the conflict for me.
I remember there was a kid in high school who said very hateful things & stupid things. Everyone knew who he was.
Nobody took him seriously after a little while. Sadly, we found out years later that it was a mental disability, that he was born with.
Now, we know more about these challenges that people face and how to catch them (or there is the potential too) sooner than later.
We The People petition: Legally recognize westboro baptist church as a hate group
No. The idea that we can label any group as a "hate group" to limit Free Speech is disgusting and an affront to the very idea of a Free Society.
I don't care if you want to hate blacks or hate whites, hate atheists or hate some religious group. I don't care if you want to hate the troops or hate the people who don't want to serve, I don't car if you hate war or hate peace. It's your right to hate or love as you see fit, and to speak your mind without fear of retribution for those things.
I hate the WBBC, I hate what they stand for and hate what they do. In many cases I personally feel that their actions often cross the line from being speech to active harassment and intimidation, and for those things they should indeed be prosecuted. But they should not face Censure or additional penalties simply because you don't like their message.
If what they are doing makes you that angry, how about you get off your ass and stand across from them with a picket sign. These online petitions don't mean jack shit, they're just an empty gesture to make you feel good about not doing a damn thing.
I despise WBC and what its members do but I don't want to block them from speaking. I don't think that it a good idea to restrict free speech. A part of me does cheer upon hearing that Anonymous gave WBC a kick in the rear but rationally I am not comfortable with the precedent.
WBC thinks that their purpose is to convince people that accepting homosexuality is bad. In fact, I believe that the affect is the opposite. WBC's tactics are so reprehensible and their language so odious that it turns people off and makes people who might otherwise sympathize with them to think better about it.
In a weird way, I thank WBC for being unsympathetic pricks and convincing so many people that gay people really aren't so bad.
Surely the WBC wouldn't object to someone exercising their right of freedom of speech by erecting billboards on property they purchased near the WBC's building that read something like:
'I am not affiliated in any way, shape, or form with the owners of that building. (with an arrow pointing to the WBC building)' -- God
So how much would the land, permits, and construction costs for such a billboard be these days?
I'm curious as to what would happen if some parents/citizens "snapped" and a big group got into a fist fight with these people. Could they then claim temporary insanity? What if a group of sympathetic people claimed that this group (that beat up the WBC group) acted in self defense and the WBC group started it? Would that stand up in court?
As nutty and distasteful as the Westboro folks are, I don't understand why they aren't simply ignored, like the faint smell of dung wafting over from a nearby field during a walk on a sunny day.
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
I can't think of any group more deserving than the Westboro Baptist Church. Their existence makes me sad to be the same species as them.
Seems to me that the most sensible course of action would be for everyone to give money to pro-homosexual charities every time WBC pickets anything.
sig not found. please replace sig.
Look, who in America has NOT heard of Westboro? Few. Damn Few.
As such, the amount of press on this is minimal, BUT, pointing fingers at these ppl will certainly make them edgy.
Personally, I am disgusted by that church's actions, and am thankful for what Anonymous is doing to them.
The reason is that they are NOT looking for press, but are looking to be attacked by opposition. Then they sue those that attacked them.
However, other than the leaders, few of them have been IDed. Now, that they all have the press on them, I would not be surprised to see a number of them quit.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
First, some on Slashdot reuse to see it but Anonymous is a nasty group of vigilantes; there's no place for them in a civilized society. They attack people and businesses they do not like always with the pretense that they have attacked somebody who was in the wrong ... but they do their attacks using attack methods that are themselves illegitimate and wrong. They'd be the first ones outraged if somebody formed an "anonymous anonymous" group to use hacking attacks to attack them...
Second, the so-called westboro baptist church is a scam. You have a big extended family of lawyers who long ago stumbled onto all of the loopholes in American law nobody else had previously tried jumping through... they call themselves a "church" and therefore get tax and "free-speech" protections they know people will be unable to beat in the courts, and then they do everything they can to try to incite Americans to "violate their rights" ... at which point they sue for damages. They've been awarded plenty of money this way. Where better to incite and get somebody to punch them or get somebody to try erecting laws to stop them than by making outrageous attacks on the families of fallen soldiers???? And the whole "God Hates Fags" line they use?? Really??? Wake UP people! ... they NEVER try this where it is both a significantly related location (San Francisco? Miami?), and out-of-sight of the cameras that they need to help document the backlash (and aid in their lawsuits). They know the law VERY well and know EXACTLY how far they can push and incite while still being sheltered by the 1st Amendment. They do their shtick in middle-America, in places where the thing they supposedly oppose is not a generally relevant matter, where emotions will run hot (funerals of dead kids or fallen soldiers, etc), and where the population they anger is not loaded with constitutional lawyers.
Anybody who thinks this group is a real church should ask these simple questions:
1. How many of them have law degrees and have passed bar exams?
2. How many of them have theological degrees, degrees in ancient Greek, or ancient Hebrew? (compare the number to the previous number)
3. How much money have they made from lawsuits claiming people have violated their rights?
4. How much money have they collected in their offering plates that is unrelated to lawsuits? (compare the number to the previous number)
5. What percent of the "members" are related to each-other by blood or by marriage?
There are many churches/synagogues whose conservative Christian/Jewish members believe (some very strongly) that homosexuality is wrong/sinful, but who NEVER behave the way the WBC people do; The WBC people behave like a caricature of what people think religious people might be. The seriously religious easily recognize these freaks for what they are and never ally with them. If the WBC crew truly believed what they make money pretending to believe, then they'd never use the tactics they use which make everybody hate them AND their supposed message. They are laughing all the way to the bank.
I will sleep soundly tonight and dream a happy dream in which these two groups fight a great apocalyptic fight ... and they all go to hell
The leaders are disgusting in that they make ambulance chasers look like good guys. These ppl are hearse chasers, with the intent to get others to step out of line.
As it is, they get their press. There is little that will change with/wo anonymous. However, if anonymous goes after the members of this church and are able to cause chaos to them, then I say great.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
If they were picketing a kids funeral and the father or uncle went up and punched them in the nose and I was on the jury I would find them not guilty
Why do you want to corrupt my court system by deciding a case not on the facts but on your little feelings?
Because he wants justice. Justice being something that the letter of the law occasionally fails to deliver. Its one of the reasons we have jurors, to cover such omissions of the legislature.
Also, it seems a fact that the protester in this case deserved a punch in the nose.
i can tell the difference between homosexuality and necrophilia. i can tell the difference between marijuana and meth. and i can tell the difference between political speech and hate speech
the slippery slope is an idea that only works in a world where nobody can think and identify different topics. therefore, the slippery slope never works as a persuasive argument
Your argument seems to assume that we can all argree on objective definitions of sexuality, drugs, and speech. Differences in drugs can be objectively determined. Sexuality I'll give you as well. Can you honestly say we all agree on what is hate speech? If not, then yes, hate speech laws can, and most likely will be, abused to censor one party. It may not be a slippery slope, but the infringement of rights will occur.
There is a fine, but important distinction you need to state in your case against using the slippery slope.
the slippery slope is an idea that only works in a world where nobody can objectively and uniformly identify different classes.
The slippery slope argument is, by nature, not logical, but if you're going to take the time to dissect a piece of rhetoric, then get it right.
I don't think it's out in the open anymore. Did someone remember to cut and paste it?
Blatant and repeated harassment should never be considered protected speech. This is why current interpretations of the first amendment are broken. WBC harasses people. There is nothing peaceful about their protesting.
http://pastebin.com/G3ZGbbaX
Someone hacks your shit, you wouldn't like it, so stop acting like it is OK when it happens to people you don't like. CRLF, not stfu.
I absolutely LOVE IT when a group of "The Faithful" get together and basically act like a bunch of complete assholes.
Because, you know, THAT is the entire point of "having religion", they even have a phrase for it "self-righteous".
This is absolutely a case of them having read every single Word of The Bible (and could probably, literally, quote you chapter and verse) yet NONE of them , not a single one, have read The Message Of The Bible.
Of course, what d'you expect from a bunch of lawyers - stick to the exact literal letter of the law and completely ignore the intention.
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
Won't someone like Patriot Riders be there to prevent just such a thing? I don't know if they still exist or are active but I find it hard to imagine that this won't motivate a LOT of people to place themselves between the mourners and the filth.
And from what I seen as a European of this, there are a LOT more guys on bikes then filth. And as long as that is the case, the world ain't gone to hell yet.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
WBC want to picket - fine, as has been stated in other comments, that's not illegal.
What we should really do is get people to picket IN FRONT of them, holding up massive white sheets (with perhaps messages of support for the families), so that no-one can see their offensive material.
Totally legal, can't be sued, threat neutralised.
From WIkipedia:
An important binary in the New Testament is the opposition between law and love. Accordingly, the New Testament, particularly the Synoptic Gospels, presents especially the leadership of the Pharisees as obsessed with man-made rules (especially concerning purity) whereas Jesus is more concerned with God’s love; the Pharisees scorn sinners whereas Jesus seeks them out. (The Gospel of John, which is the only gospel where Nicodemus is mentioned, particularly portrays the sect as divided and willing to debate) Because of the New Testament's frequent depictions of Pharisees as self-righteous rule-followers (see also Woes of the Pharisees and Legalism (theology)), the word "pharisee" (and its derivatives: "pharisaical", etc.) has come into semi-common usage in English to describe a hypocritical and arrogant person who places the letter of the law above its spirit.
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
It's a lovely idea, in theory. In practice, it's more likely that the rapist will have a gun than the victim. If they both have a gun, then she's likely to die, rather than be raped. Knowing that the rapist is also going to die is pretty cold comfort.
Those can and often do include physical harm when those you speak in front of exercise their right to free will.
I'm just hoping the big media to pick up on this. NPR touched on the subject of money-baiting on last year's profile on Westboro Baptist Church, and it's no coincidence that the bulk of Phelps' family are lawyers. They bait the subjects on the grounds of free speech, and usually win. That's how they make money.
That's upto the courts to figure out, just as we don't have a fixed definition for "beyond reasonable doubt" when determining whether someone should be found guilty it has to be based on the weight of the evidence presented in the case - it's subjective.
From TFA: [quote]Of course, Westboro denied the charges and taunted Anonymous as incompetent hackers. They claimed their website was protected by God. Big mistake[\quote] That just made my fucking morning! Holy shit that was funny!
Congratulations. This is the 50th comment I've read in this thread that suggests violence as the one and only solution. And all describe how happy they would be. Best thing to do and only thing that comes to your mind is to just kill the people you don't like. You seem to see the world exactly like Adam Lanza did.
seriously.. they "reposted" PII from WBC, nothing was hacked, just like the website wasnt hacked during the radio show, but rather ddos'd. How many fake hacks is it going to take before _anyone_ says "hey you know I should verify this info before I write a story about it"?
What if they picketed over Jews or Blacks instead of Homosexuals? Would it be okay to censure them? Or is it not hate until the particular minority is recognized by the government as truly human, equal in all respects to the establishment?
What about the woman who is about to be raped?
Her body can just shut that right down.
Perhaps you believe you can make the distinction with your own set of values what is free speech and what is hate speech. Perhaps you are a very wise man and you are correct. That would place you in the tiniest minority of all mankind, but let's run with that tenet for the time being. Do you suppose the government bureaucrat, police captain, or 20-year-old beat cop who will ACTUALLY be making the call in real life can be trusted to make that distinction? Hateful free speech, no matter how distasteful, that hurts nothing but feelings must be protected under the rule of law. Personal freedoms are protected not by a major war every generation, but by resisting government's daily attempt to chip away at them. "the slippery slope is an idea that only works in a world where nobody can think and identify different topics"....you have just perfectly described those folks most likely to be making the distinction for us.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
The WBC agents act as provocateurs in order to induce lawsuits which they attempt to win for financial gain. That they do so using reprehensible speech which is not illegal is pathetically sad. /. how reprehensible their speech is. Tit for tat.
.
But it's also like strange bullies who will come up to your face and shout at you, and if you hit them well now you've committed assault and you've become the bad guy who can be arrested for assault. So in that scenario, you can't meet words (however abhorrent) with physical violence; you can respond with words and free speech against Westboro Baptist Church either by picketing against them wherever they happen to picket or by stating publicly in forums such as
I wonder if they would protest the deaths of their own people? For example, as a result of their repeated insults to innocent people one of them suffered from a 'heart attack'... do you suppose they would say it was God's wrath?
because we can't judge 100% accurately, we can never judge at all?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
we can say the slippery slope doesn't work, even with subjective judgments. because we can't judge perfectly, doesn't mean we should stop judging. and because a gray area between A and B exists, doesn't mean there is clear daylight between A and C that any fool can see
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
right
and we can't legalize gay marriage because then we have to legalize pedophilia and necrophilia
and we can't legalize marijuana because then we have to legalize meth and crack
the slippery slope is a form of fear based logical fallacy
i can tell the difference between homosexuality and necrophilia. i can tell the difference between marijuana and meth. and i can tell the difference between political speech and hate speech
the slippery slope is an idea that only works in a world where nobody can think and identify different topics. therefore, the slippery slope never works as a persuasive argument
Your argument is fundamentally flawed here. Gay marriage and necrophilia are well defined. Pot is not Meth. "Hate Speech" and "Political Speech" are not cut and dry. Who defines "hate speech?" You? A representative government? Is it "hate speech" to say I am not homosexual? Is it "hate speech" to say I do not believe in homosexuality? Is it "hate speech" to denounce homosexuality? Is it "hate speech" to denounce homosexuality at a funeral? Where is the line?
The Slippery Slope argument IS over used. In this case however, it is entirely accurate. When we start dividing all speech into subcategories it does open the gates to interpretation. And while everyone here can point at the WBC and say "Yes, I recognize that as hate speech" where do we eventually draw the line? When have we gone to far?
DISCLAIMER: I am NOT anti-homosexual. I firmly believe that this country was founded by people trying to escape persecution and therefore NO ONE should have the right to pass judgement, impose personal beliefs, repress or exclude anyone for what they believe or who they are.
because there is a gray area between A&B doesn't mean we should ignore the daylight between A&C that any fool can see
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
So when politicians hold an event, it's illegal to protest the event outside of so-called free speech zones, far away from the event. But WBC is allowed to harass family members of the slain? Not that I believe that free speech should be cordoned into a zone.
because there is a gray area between A&B doesn't mean we should ignore the daylight between A&C that any fool can see
So where do you draw the line? Between denouncing homosexuality and denouncing it at a funeral? What if they weren't at the funeral? What if they were across the street? How about if they were in the house next door to a reception? Do we now sensor free speech in the home because the guy next door might hear us and be getting dressed for a wake?
I realize this is ridiculous, but if anything we can learn from this that there are groups out there who will test the limits of any law. No matter how well intended or how carefully you craft a law defining "hate speech" you will find someone willing to test the limits. And once there is one law limiting free speech who's to say someone else wont find another good reason to make a second? A third? When does it go from an extreme example to common place? How many laws limiting free speech are acceptable before you wake up and realize you cant say anything because someone might hear you and be offended?
If we start down this path, how long until my post here could be misconstrued as defending the WBC and I am arrested for hate speech?
It might be wrong to find them completely innocent of assault. However, if the defense were to raise the excuse defense of provocation, it would be entirely reasonable -- it only requires that the juror believe that the accused acted because of provocation and that a reasonable person would have acted similarly.
If Anon could hack the inner workings of the WBC legal engine. Give it all to Wikileaks.
Unpopular speach has always been what free speach is about. No one wants to prevent you from saying nice things. Calling someone a racist. Preaching that slave owners are evil. Saying that abortiion is murder. All of this directs hate at certian people. What free speach means is that we counter speach with more speach.
Before I begin, let me first say that I absolutely agree that the WBC's proposed actions are horrible and deplorable. However, I still think we need to be careful about how we limit their speech, if we do.
i can tell the difference between political speech and hate speech
Really? Your other examples include well-defined categories. And what if my opinion of what constitutes "hate" differs from yours? You want to enforce your definition of morality on the world?
"Hate speech" is a problematic term because it draws distinctions based on the content of speech and usually ends up protecting only certain groups. Is it "hate speech" to carry a sign that says "God hates gays," but NOT "hate speech" to carry a sign that says "God hates people with green eyes" or maybe "God hates John Smith"??
If you're John Smith or have green eyes, you might find that sign incredibly hateful. Depending on the circumstances (who John Smith is, why the signs are up), it may inflict as much emotional distress on John Smith as signs attacking homosexuals, people of specific races, genders, whatever.
Okay, so maybe you begin to say, "well, a sign that says that is hateful to John Smith," so that's outlawed too. And then we start going down the line -- is it okay to carry a sign that says "God hates George Bush" or "God hates Obama"? If that's bad, how about a sign saying "I hate George Bush" or "I hate Obama"? If that's bad, how about a sign saying, "I have a mild dislike of our President"?
Where's the line??
You may say, "Well, I don't know where the line is, but I know THIS is it." That's like the famous Potter Stewart line about obscenity: "I know it when I see it." That's great for you, but it isn't very practical in an objective legal system. That's the reason why it's become almost impossible to prosecute people for obscenity over the years... what one person considers to be "obscene," another thinks is "artistic expression" or simply not harmful in any way.
I personally don't like "hate speech" arguments because they end up protecting some people more than others, just on the basis of things like race or sexuality. Everyone should be equal under the law.
That said, there are reasons to place some limits on the content of speech, and the Supreme Court has done so: you can't use speech to incite a riot or immenent lawless behavior. And, though it has been chipped away at over the years, you can't use "fighting words" to incite a breach of the peace.
These unusual exceptions that limit content of speech are meant to prevent extreme social disorder (e.g., rioting). If there is a continuous pattern of a particular person or group using speech to harass or threaten another specific person or group of people, there are also legal remedies (restraining orders, etc.) to stop that speech. Those latter restrictions are about preventing violence and other problems between specific people, not between nebulous groups like "all homosexuals" or "all people of a particular race."
The problem in this specific instance seems to surround a question of decorum. The vast majority of reasonable people find the WBC's actions offensive. But, personal offense is NOT a good legal standard. Some people found it offensive that a person might wear a tee-shirt that said "F*** the draft" to a courthouse. The Supreme Court, however, said we can't limit speech on the basis of content, and I agree with them.
Some people think it's offensive to burn flags in a protest. I don't think it's very nice, but I don't think it rises to the status of a crime. Again, the Supreme Court agreed. I think burning a prominent national symbol is pretty much the definition of "hate speech" toward that nation or at least its policies or government, pa
But any attempt to outlaw guns without first altering the Constitution is no less than high treason, and any lawmaker who signs his name to such legislation should be subject to the death penalty we have put in place for such crimes.
Does this apply to any law that is subsequently overturned by SCOTUS or just the ones designated by 'pclminion' as treason? How about if the legislators sincerely believe from their reading of the constitution (e.g. the 'well armed miltia' bit) that a general gun ban is constitutional, but SCOTUS disagrees with their interpretation? Or maybe you think you have the right to personally enact the death penalty in this case.
To simplify: Nobody with more than two brain cells has ever believed that passing an unconstitutional law and then having it overturned is treason, since there are no actual criminal acts involved at any stage and this is how the law making process, the constitution and SCOTUS are *supposed* to interact.
>Why do you want to corrupt my court system by deciding a case not on the facts but on your little feelings?
I'm going to drop a bombshell on you, because if you feel the he's trying to corrupt it this way, then you have a big problem: It's been "corrupt" in this fashion since the day it was created. Please google "Jury Nullification". At all times the jury always has the option of simply saying "No". Judges try to encourage them in various heavy-handed fashions not to, but in the end, as long as there's not enough people out there who disagree with it, you will be found not guilty. It just might take a while for the judge to realize he's lost the battle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
They have a long track record of suing people that get angry and punch them in the face; they fully intend to incite lawless action. They're going to a service for twenty dead children; if that isn't imminent and likely to produce said action then I have no idea what IS.
They fail the test. The Nazis in Skokie were protected, but fuck all if these guys are.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
I can defend myself if I'm in danger
You need to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that your in danger BEFORE you defend yourself. People don't think about this, sure you can offload your clip into someone because you think your in danger but if you can't PROVE you were then you nothing but a murderer.
Justice.
Here here, are we to afraid to stand up to the bullies in our society because our government protects them so much?
I agree the government should not limit free speach.
But the government should also be more lenient on other forms of expression as well, such as kicking someones ass who is on your property or in your face. I know allot of places and juristictions were this is the case and not a problem.
But in some place like a very urban area or most of the north east coast ( those states tend to be the worst offenders ) this is not really the case. (there may be exeptions in a few states and counties)
http://kanewj.com/wbc/index.html
Holy crap! In the 3 days that petition has existed, it's got over a hundred thousand signatures. That's GOTTA be some kind of record.
Sadly WBC is made up of lawyers (that being their whole business model... sue the piss out of people that even look at them the wrong way while their 'protesting'), so a buck says the white house lets Fred Phelps (or whatever the hell the main guy's name is) write the response.
There is a petition at the White House that if i were an american citizen I would sign to declare WBS a hate group:
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/legally-recognize-westboro-baptist-church-hate-group/DYf3pH2d
This should be slashdoted.
Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
It's sad that the asshole that went on this murderous rampage went after innocent children instead of this family of scum.
That's what always bothers me the most about murder-suicide situations. With so many people in this world in desperate need of being killed, it always seems that those willing to do the killing go after the wrong people.
the slippery slope is an idea that only works in a world where nobody can think and identify different topics.
That's pretty close to the world in which we live. People hate thinking.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I think you are confusing the perspective of ACLU lawyers with the perspective of military veterans.
Members of the military being confused as to exactly what they're fighting for? That's a shocker.
As for the combat veterans I have known they seem perfectly fine with the notion that some speech will get you a kick in the ass or a punch in the face from your fellow citizen.
As long as they're perfectly fine with spending the day in jail and having an assault conviction on their record.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
This is not a popular sentiment and people do get emotional over the issue, but the church has every to spread their hate near funerals. They are protected under free speech.
Congratulations. This is the 50th comment I've read in this thread that suggests violence as the one and only solution. And all describe how happy they would be. Best thing to do and only thing that comes to your mind is to just kill the people you don't like. You seem to see the world exactly like Adam Lanza did.
Violence is acceptable as far as I am concerned. Difference is we do not kill children. But they are free to have their acts of anger and vengence and we are free to respond. Perfectly fair. I wouldn't kill them, but rough them up.
Was it ok to let OBL live after what he did? FYI I was in lower manhatten and heard the terrors and screams of those who fell to their deaths. Such people can not continue and deserve what they get.
http://saveie6.com/
Since WBC hide behind the law, and since they're obeying the letter of the law to make money (regardless of the reprehensible nature of how they're making money), perhaps the best way to approach this is a legal one. While I'm not a lawyer by any means, would this work?
1. Township creates a legal requirement that protests request permission to conduct a protest.
2. WBC applies for the required permit to conduct a protest.
3. Township grants permission to conduct a protest - schedules the protest for the day AFTER the funeral.
4. Township advises the local constabulary that anyone protesting on the day OF the funeral should be arrested for protesting without a permit.
5. Any member of WBC who attempts to protest on the day of the funeral is locked up - preferably in general population....
That way, it would not suppress their First Amendment rights to free speech, the funeral would be conducted without insult or offense, and WBC does not get any money from provoking an assault(s).
I think you are confusing the perspective of ACLU lawyers with the perspective of military veterans.
Members of the military being confused as to exactly what they're fighting for? That's a shocker.
According to the Supreme Court military veterans are not defending fighting words.
..."
"Fighting Words
Inflammatory words that are either injurious by themselves or might cause the hearer to immediately retaliate or breach the peace. Use of such words is not necessarily protected "free speech" under the First Amendment
http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/fighting-words-term.html
As for the combat veterans I have known they seem perfectly fine with the notion that some speech will get you a kick in the ass or a punch in the face from your fellow citizen.
As long as they're perfectly fine with spending the day in jail and having an assault conviction on their record.
"... If the hearer is prosecuted for assault, claiming fighting words may establish mitigating circumstances."
http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/fighting-words-term.html
More likely charged with disorderly conduct.
Plus unlikely to find a jury to convict a combat veteran of assault on WBC member at a funeral for a simple kick in the ass or punch in the face.
Also, you realize that combat veterans have demonstrated the ability to do what is right, to protect others, rather than what is in their personal best interest?
According to the Supreme Court military veterans are not defending fighting words.
Nor are the WBC speaking fighting words. What the WBC may be hateful, but they do not incite imminent lawless action. The legality of what the WBC does has been upheld by the Supreme Court before. Do some research.
Also, you realize that combat veterans have demonstrated the ability to do what is right, to protect others, rather than what is in their personal best interest?
No, I don't realize that at all. I realize that combat veterans are foolish enough to believe that's what's good for Halliburton is good for America. There hasn't been a war since WWII that's actually been about protecting Americans and their freedom. If veterans were wise enough to see the value in speaking truth to power, they would have never joined the military.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
The bottom line is that someday they are going to piss off the wrong person/people and their will be bloodshed. I am not saying it's right, but I am saying I wont shed a tear.
First time I have ever read story I wanted to "Like" ala Facecrook...
"Slippery Slope" is only a logical fallacy when there is no direct or likely link between the logical outcomes, and it's fallaciousness increases with the number steps or leaps required between each point on the "slope"
It is not "Slippery Slope", rather, Associative Fallacy that you are referring to. Gay marriage, pedophilia, and necrophilia are types of love; marijuana, methylamphetamines, and cocaine are types of drugs; they are 'associated'. You're fallacy is thus: they must be equally legal because of their 'equivalence' from their association. There is no legal necessity to allow all types of 'love' or 'drugs' to be legal simply because one is made legal.
Precedence takes place in common-law during *trials*, not when making *law*. If all *law* making was required to follow precedence, we would never make any *new* laws. You're arguement suggests that if we made marijuana or gay-marriage legal, that it would set a precedent *requiring* us to make any number of other things legal. I don't believe your state-legislature or Congress or Parliament or any governing body is *bound* by precedence when contemplating effection of new laws.
You are incorrect in your assertion that the "Slippery Slope" is present in your examples. You may be correct that a Slippery Slope exists between hailing Anonymous for limiting other's free speech because their limitations were 'righteous' in your eyes. But Slippery Slope is only a fallacy when a direct or logical series of causalities between the conclusions cannot be established with confidence at each step.
This is right on - we only ever think that there must be a perfect solution to the problem that won't have any unforeseen consequences. We want "set it and forget it" laws. Fortunately (or unfortunately), reality is far more fluid - particularly in law and politics. This is exactly why we have the legal and political systems we have: to provide the flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances. Sure, people will take advantage of law and politics - but as they say - eternal vigilance is the price we pay to live in a democratic society.
+1 Disagree
So what's the difference between a naked guy at a tragic funeral and a WBC member?
Only one of them gets hauled away for public indecency. We should be able to find a middle ground here.
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
There is another aspect to consider, though: what can someone deliberately aiming to pervert a law to prevent such behavior accomplish? It may be relatively easy to tell how the law is meant to be used, but you can be assured that, eventually, someone will try to twist it into a weapon against a target it was never intended to be used against. Or maybe some of the people championing it were planning to use it that way all along.
Either way, the slippery slope is something to be concerned about, because it doesn't matter that people (such as prosecutors or the police) can tell the difference between vaguely similar things if they don't care.
When someone says, "Any fool can see
You can tell the difference between political and hate speech? Are you sure? They are starting to sound a LOT alike lately.
Video games have no use but to waste time. Nobody has any use for a video game. Not a computer nerd, not a teenager, not anyone.
Cars have no use but to cause accidents and pollution. No one has any use for a car. Not a commuter, not a delivery man, not anyone.
Dogs have no use but to bite and shit. No one has any use for a dog. Not a deaf person, not a police officer, not anyone.
C'mon man, *think* before you post.
+1 Disagree
Their behaviour is anomalous enough that it could be claimed that they are No True Christian.
Though the hatred they show does exist in places in the Christian church, for example in Uganda.
It is right to argue against people like the WBC and see them for the nutters they are, but that also applies to the same kind of behaviour in a more dilute form in other churches. Plenty of Christians are lovely loving people, but don't hide behind the "Don't attack Christianity" when an atheist complains about something like the Ugandan anti-gay laws or the recent death in Ireland after life saving treatment was refused.
again, like i said, because it's hard to draw the line doesn't mean we don't draw the line. because some situations it is hard to tell, doesn't mean we don't draw the line in plenty of other situations where it is easy to tell
you want to take a hypothetical situation where there is a large gray area, and say therefore we can't ever draw the line. i am saying that there are still plenty of scenarios where you can easily draw the line. and we also draw the line in the difficult ones if we have to
you need to come to grips with the fact that the existence of gray areas does not stop us from thinking and acting in this world. life can get messy at times. your entire post speaks of this concept guiding you to inaction and hesitancy. your post speaks of your own mentality, not the reality of human thought and action. we get it mostly right most of the time. because we can make mistakes in this world is no reason not to act, and never will be. maybe for you, not for the rest of us
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Though I would be understanding. To be honest, I am amazed it hasn't happened already.
How many dogs have taken out school's, work places and nations. As for Cars and Video games, lets get rid of them also, I don't really need either.
So guys I'm thinking the name these people actually use gives them too much dignity, I want a new option. What do y'all think of Freddie's Funkybunch?
If I heard that any of these cunts were going to turn up at a family members funeral then I'd take a baseball bat and hurt the fuckers, fuck the law if it doesn't stop them.
Well, 18 people killed by dogs this year in the US alone according to the wikis. Sure, not quite as many as in this tragedy - but that's just one year.
My point is - just because you don't understand something doesn't mean nobody does. Sure, let's be sane about gun control - but that doesn't mean no guns for anybody.
disclosure: I have a dog, car, and play video games. I do not own a gun.
+1 Disagree
We all judge, and each and every decision we make is colored by individual upbringing, education, belief set, advantage, prejudice, and even some logic. Perfect impartiality is a lofty enough goal, but incredibly difficult to achieve. The SCOTUS heard the same issue in Brown vs Board of Education as they did in Plessey vs. Ferguson...but the era and Justices were different. There are times when it is much more convenient for governmental agencies to bypass those first ten amendments. There are also times when the War on Drugs, the War on Terror, and the War on Ridiculous Churches offer tempting opportunities to diminish inalienable rights WITH the tacit permission of the rights-holders. 99%+ of the Sapiens who've ever lived on this rock do not enjoy the freedoms North Americans, Europeans, and Auszealanders are only to busy to notice slipping away from them.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Here's a question: Let's say that we get a bunch of large linebacker types to surround the area where the funeral is, and keep the WBC fuckheads out. And the WBC tried to force their way in. The linebackers want to keep them out. At what point does the thing turn violent, and who has committed the violence?
All you need to do is take into account human nature and you can clearly see it'll be abused. Countless governments have abused their powers throughout history; you'd have to be a fool not to see that governments would abuse something like this. Remember "fire in a crowded theater"? That decision enabled the government to arrest war protestors. The obscenity standard? Max Hardcore (among others).
These things can and will be abused, and only naive, trusting fools who believe the government is run by perfect beings think otherwise.
Of course they're immoral and rude to disrupt funerals and taunt survivors.
But the rest of your argument falls apart - assault is illegal, so people whose services are being disrupted aren't allowed to go beat up the WBC trolls, and if they do, they'll be sued, successfully, and possibly jailed (or if they're not jailed, the town may get sued for that.) Most you can do is tell them to get off your property, and they already know to do that.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Maybe Anonymous can find some useful way to harass WBC that doesn't involve illegally threatening violence against them but is effective enough to get their attention. They're not people you can embarrass by publishing their names. They're not Chik-fil-A; they don't have a product you can boycott except publicity. If you can convince the press not to cover them, at all, cool! But while a few thousand emails to Arianna Huffington might keep her from running stories about them in HuffPo, it's a lot harder to convince your local TV news station not to cover them if they're coming to town.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Yes, there are consequences - most of the world hates them. They don't really care. And they hate everybody, as poisonous as that is to their souls, but they don't care. The police protect them well enough to prevent major injuries, and nobody's killed them, and when they have been physically attacked, they're quite successful about suing everybody involved, because you can't do that in America.
And if the consequences are that the police or a local government try to ban them or interfere with their speech, they win big, because in America and other civilized places, the government's not allowed to interfere with free speech. (Yeah, it has to be reminded periodically, so please go see the Freedom of the Press foundation that Xeni's just helped start.) So they can sue, and profit.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
You can only disbar a lawyer for breaking formal bar rules. You can't disbar them just for being an asshole, or for taking unpopular cases (because justice depends on that.)
They're not committing crimes, so you can't disbar them for that - they're really careful.
They're primarily handling their own cases these days. So their clients don't complain, and even if they were disbarred, you don't need to be a lawyer to sue pro se.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
WBC isn't camping out overnight in the park. They come to town, do their picketing, and leave to annoy their next target, or stay to sue the town if their rights were violated. "Free speech zones" are a hopelessly unconstitutional concept, but Occupy usually needs a bigger space than the sidewalk in front of City Hall or MegaComboBankstersInc. anyway. There's a lot of established law about where you can legally picket, and WBC knows it really well (as does Occupy), and most of their targets aren't somewhere that has specific restrictions. They stay on the sidewalk or public right-of-way, and if they have to keep walking instead of standing, they'll do it.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Glad you're not in charge, then, because you'd get your town or organization sued for violating their rights, and they'd win, profit, laugh at you, and go find the next bunch of suckers to annoy into illegally suppressing their speech.
And they'll thank you for calling them despicable, because if they didn't get feedback like that from the public, they'd find something even more offensive to yell about. Dead soldiers are a pretty steady market for them, though.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
... some gun nut exercise his god given right to exterminate the vermin that are Westboro?
Difference is we do not kill children
Sure thing. Oh ... and have you seen any of the WBC protests? Most of them are children.
Was it ok to let OBL live after what he did?
That's quite off topic, isn't it? Whe are talking about people that do nothing but stand on some street corner and shout stupid things. Do you understand the difference between this and mass murder?
Maybe it's a matter of language, but ad-hominem arguments ("any fool") don't work either. You weaken your argument. (Who keeps modding you up?) ... here we are.
Which, I have to admit, I'm not entirely sure that you are debating anything to the heart of the matter, but
I think you're going a little personal on someone's flippant slippery slope comment. No one ever said stop judging, but a real think about statutes need to come into play rather your gut-feeling/Miller Test.
If you want to post in generalities, then I guess, yeah, you admit that hate speech laws will be used to censor. One man's cheeky Mohammad cartoon is another man's hate speech/blasphemy.
Just because people speak in proverbs or or logical fallacies doesn't mean that they don't happen. Please elaborate how, since the ratification of the US Constitution, speech freedoms are greater today.
If you do not believe that once given more control (laws), then one party (government) will not seek more control. Well, I see your logic, but you should bone-up on more history and less philosophy.
?? What other groups are "legally" hate groups? AFAIK the only group that actively identifies groups as "hate groups" is the SPLC, and they're not a government organization.
The WBC is a law firm that exploits the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Award Act of 1976. They engage in acts that provoke people to sue them. When they win the case on First Amendment grounds, they then collect a jacked up fee for their legal services from the opponent. This is why they never do anything outrageous in their home state. They need to be in federal court for the 1976 Act to apply.
What Anonymous did is exactly what the WBC wants. They want publicity and notoriety so that they increase the number of parties that will sue them or in someway violate their civil "rights".
I mean, dealing with dirty pieces of shit like Westboro is really going to stink up under your fingernails and everywhere. It'll take ages to get the smell of the contact out of your skin.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Have the Freedom Riders committed to follow the WBC? It would be nice if they did. May God bless and protect all the guys who go after the WBC. Because whatever you may think about gun control, this parasitic behavior of the WBC is evil. OK
You are correct but the slippery slope argument is useful in a practical sense. I.e. if marijuana really did act as a gateway drug to meth then society may be better off maintaining its illegal status even if its use is harmless in itself.
Pragmatism usually stands in contrast to idealism but ironically it may be more practical to take an ideological position. This is especially true for freedom of speech and I see many complaints from Americans in recent years about the government encroaching on civil liberties. If you maintain a pure position that all speech should be free then you don't create a slope for your government, and whichever interest groups, to abuse by rolling down the speech of their opponents.
Is Westboro protected by the first amendment? Absolutely.
Is it destroying or otherwise hindering their abuse of that freedom by disagreeing with them and expressing that disagreement? Absolutely not, freedom is a two way street. The Government can not and should not interfere until there is a breach of peace but only to the extent of the the law allows.?
Did Anonymous do something illegal? Sure. Do I care? No.
Westboro is nothing but a group of hate mongers and do not have one ounce of common decency about them. They are not Christians in the truest sense of the term, they are agents of Satan period. Anyone that has an opinion about then are just as free to express that opinion. The government cannot by law tell them to stop their stupidity but the common citizen sure as hell can. It is as much their right to protest Westboro Satanic Church as it is for those morons to spout their garbage.