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.
"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.
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
#
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
This is how the supreme court interprets it, speech can be limited in this way.
Not everyone agrees on where the exact line between reasonable and unreasonable lies, but certainly there are times when most people agree it is unreasonable (in the middle of the night with a bull-horn in a residential neighborhood when everyone is sleeping counts as unreasonable; telling the victims' families that god hates them and their children are in hell during the funeral counts as unreasonable).
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
ruhbarb ruhbarb......
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.
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
posted as the "Anonymous Coward".
The irony is killing me. Not only do you hide behind the "anonymous" title like they do, you ultimately got it the same way.
Postinging in a threaded message board and not choosing to use a name.
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.
This is how the supreme court interprets it, speech can be limited in this way. [snip] ... certainly there are times when most people agree it is unreasonable ([snip]...telling the victims' families that god hates them and their children are in hell during the funeral counts as unreasonable).
Umm, the Supreme Court has explicitly ruled that such things are "reasonable," at least regarding civil actions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyder_v._Phelps
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.
Yes, yes they did. That doesn't contradict what I said. (note also that in that case, the protestors were far away from the actual funeral).
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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.
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 .....
Good Idea I suggest we send them to Iran. They love that kind of speech there.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
Ironically, I'm not a very nice person. A lot of times I insult people here on Slashdot for no good reason. I am, however, in this case correct.
For example, come start yelling outside my window at 3AM, and you will see how 'nice' I am. You don't have a right to disturb my sleep, no matter how disturbed you are.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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.
Better yet, burned to the ground if they don't stay home and stand guard.
Have gnu, will travel.
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
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.
Yes, yes they did. That doesn't contradict what I said.
You're right -- the Court's ruling does not contradict the literal words that you wrote in your previous post.
However, by citing the Supreme Court's idea that there are "reasonable" times and places where speech can be restricted, and then summarily declaring that speech at a funeral is "unreasonable," your post implied a connection. A reasonable reader would conclude, not having any other facts, that the Supreme Court agreed with your declaration of specific "unreasonable" actions. And that's why it was reasonable for me to post my reply, since a naive reader of your post would potentially be misled by your declarations.
(note also that in that case, the protestors were far away from the actual funeral).
Yes, yes they were. Thus we don't know whether the Supreme Court might rule differently in different circumstances. That I agree with.
However, that has nothing to do with what you said. You wrote that "telling the victims' families that god hates them and their children are in hell during the funeral counts as unreasonable." If a family is being told something during a funeral, either the protesters are actually attending the funeral or they are generating enough noise to be disruptive. In the former case, they would be on private property and thus could be removed without any argument about free speech. In the latter case, they would probably be in violation of some noise ordinance and could be silenced at least temporarily on those grounds.
In both cases, the protest would be prohibited from disrupting the funeral on other grounds, not because of the content of their speech. Your argument, reading the literal words of your post, is irrelevant. Which is the reason I took you to be making a general implicit argument about the situation -- and that general argument is in fact contradicted by the ruling I cited.
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.
Thank you for posting this.
So if free speech is interacting with content, hacking is free speech
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.
Well you can either take the literal meaning of my post, which you seem to object to for some reason, or you can take the spirit of the meaning of my post, which you agree with because you mention situations where speech is unreasonable.
Either way you don't have an argument, and are probably posting only to be argumentative.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Obvious reductio ad absurdum troll is obvious. "First they came for the murderers..." "First they came for the genocidists..."
?
You have no right to be free of hate. I'm sorry, people hate you. They don't know you, but they still hate you. That is part of living in the world.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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.
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.
If that's for real, they sound kind of ... inbred, or something.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
As much as I don't want to say this, the Westboro church is just as valid a church as any other. Any random talk put on by someone who claims they have the word of god or a similar entity is rightfully a church.
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
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.
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.
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/
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.
Well you can either take the literal meaning of my post, which you seem to object to for some reason, or you can take the spirit of the meaning of my post, which you agree with because you mention situations where speech is unreasonable.
Look, I didn't object to anything about your post initially. As I tried to explain, I posted an additional bit of information that I think is relevant to someone evaluating the quality of your information. You stated that the Supreme Court allows restrictions, and then proceeded to give an example that is potentially in conflict with a recent ruling. I offered a clarification.
You then claimed that what I said didn't contradict what you said, without any further details... and the "spirit of the meaning" of such a reply usually means either "what you said is irrelevant" or "piss off!"
In either case, I do think my initial reply was relevant and actually important to know to understand your post in context. Furthermore, as to my objections "for some reason" to the literal meaning... well, please re-read. You might learn something.
I was actually pointing out that in the specific situation you brought up with the specific wording you mention, restrictions to speech on the basis of content probably wouldn't even come up. And that's what this whole discussion is about. We want to exclude this group from the area around a funeral not because they are actively disrupting the event from happening, but because the content of their speech is disturbing to those attending the event.
In any case, I'm done with this debate. Come back when you actually have something substantive to say with pertinent examples instead of ones that are not legally relevant.
Look, I didn't object to anything about your post initially. As I tried to explain, I posted an additional bit of information that I think is relevant to someone evaluating the quality of your information.
Oh, sorry. People have been insulting me a lot today, so I misread your post. Apologies.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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.
So long as you outlaw ALL yelling, and not just yelling that you disagree with, this is what we would call a noise ordinance.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
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.
Freedom of Speech cannot
It can't? It can if the laws say so!
That said, your comment should not be allowed under the banner of free speech; it offends me.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
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!
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!
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
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
One should be careful when making statements of such magnitude whose veracity can actually be tested. A record of what sermons the church has given in the past 5 or 6 years can be examined, and ones which address issues that are considered hate speech isolated. The percentage of those could be then correlated with the donation levels of the church near those times, and if there is a statistically significant positive correlation then you've established some credibility for the position.
If, however, there is no statistically significant correlation between the occasions that the church does preach these issues and its income as determined by donations, then I might suggest that such a statement could constitute slander or libel.
The church's statements are immune to this sort of examination because they are not actually testable in court. You would be much better off with signs that suggest or even state outright that God hates that particular church.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Easier found through this link.
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.
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... :(
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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!
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!
Really makes you wonder what Fred Phelps funeral will be like. Will it be behind 3 or 4 brick walls in a compound surrounded by CCTV and posted signs or will he go for one last cash grab?
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/
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
Not everyone agrees on where the exact line between reasonable and unreasonable lies, but certainly there are times when most people agree it is unreasonable (in the middle of the night with a bull-horn in a residential neighborhood when everyone is sleeping counts as unreasonable; telling the victims' families that god hates them and their children are in hell during the funeral counts as unreasonable).
Neither of those are unreasonable. "with a bull horn, in the middle of the night" is probably against most cities noise ordinances, and has nothing to do with speech. And saying god hates them is unreasonable? It probably goes against everything the bible says, but now you are talking about religious interpretations.
Saying it at the funeral? It isn't so much as what as being said, as general disrupting the peace, and why many states including the federal government passed laws to keep people several hundred feet from a funeral.
In other words, you can limit the way people express themselves. Speech can be limited by time and place.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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?
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
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.
"Criticism of anonymity is perfectly valid"
so sign up for an account, coward.
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.