Slashdot Mirror
When Hacking Vigilantism Infringes On Free Speech (betanews.com)
An anonymous reader writes: I'm inclined to agree with the suggestion people make that the web is like the Wild West, but that's not to say we have reached the same conclusion for the same reasons. For me, the web — like the Wild West — is not a world filled with danger, but one occupied by vigilantes. As a proponent of free speech, I find this concerning. One of the most highly-lauded of vigilantes is the disparate group marching under the ragged banner of Anonymous.
One of its taglines is 'We Are Anonymous', a phrase that can be uttered by anyone, as there is no membership process — if you say you are part of Anonymous, you are part of Anonymous. The group is not, for the most part, organized. Individuals and factions can fight for or against whatever cause they want, just like real-world vigilante groups. But Anonymous is not alone. There are hacking collectives and other online crusaders who see fit to take the law into their own hands. This is might sound wonderful, but it's not necessarily a good thing. As New World Hackers demonstrate, attacks can target the wrong people and restrict free speech.
One of its taglines is 'We Are Anonymous', a phrase that can be uttered by anyone, as there is no membership process — if you say you are part of Anonymous, you are part of Anonymous. The group is not, for the most part, organized. Individuals and factions can fight for or against whatever cause they want, just like real-world vigilante groups. But Anonymous is not alone. There are hacking collectives and other online crusaders who see fit to take the law into their own hands. This is might sound wonderful, but it's not necessarily a good thing. As New World Hackers demonstrate, attacks can target the wrong people and restrict free speech.
You can say whatever you want as long I agree with it.
when people disagree to an extreme and those in authority do nothing, you wind up with vigilantes. this is nothing new, it's simply "with a computer" which like with patents, doesn't make it novel.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
It's beautifully ironic that free speech is fine as long as you say what people want to hear. I don't like trump but he has every right to spew what he wants. You can't have a claim to free speech whilst simultaneously stifling someone else's.
(Note to detractors about using Christianity as an example, find a single thing that is common among Christians without counter example - I can think of only one: people are/were involved).
all divisions of Christianity believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
I am shocked, shocked that vigilantism has problems.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Although I'm not a fan of everything they do, I respect their political activism. I follow the "YourAnonNews" twitter feed and I find many stories of interest that do not show up in the mainstream media. Just as in the normal population, there are bad people among them. One thing's for sure though; no matter whose side you're on, it always makes for good entertainment.
By using the term "SJW", you have outed yourself as someone who has had to deal with annoying, attention-seeking, dishonest, power-hungry, hypocritcal SJWs.
It is might sound confusions, but does try of connotations can vaguely the meaningness.
Vigilantes exist because the law (both legislative and executive) has failed or is even used as a shield for crime. The internet is faced with huge amounts of corruption. Network providers inject data, record data, throttle data. They sell out their customers at any opportunity, and the law doesn't just fail to do anything about it, it even encourages that kind of behavior. Copyright monopolies are extended indefinitely, even though copying is the natural activity in a digital world. The government snoops on everybody, in violation of the law that it is supposed to uphold. It'll be a long time before we don't need vigilantes anymore.
I use it as I believe in the original context as to state we have no proof either way thus cannot conclude fact or fiction. Must admit I am ignorant as to how the other definition came to be.
The squeaky wheel gets the grease. If the SJWs keep lamenting and complaining while everyone else just keeps quiet, who will get their way?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
That is definitely the correct usage. Literally from the Greek:
a-1 + Gnostic.
(American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition)
First attested in 1870; coined by Thomas Huxley. Either from Ancient Greek (agnstos, "ignorant, not knowing") or from a- + Gnostic. Deriving (either way) from Ancient Greek - (a-, "not") + (gignsk, "I know"). (Wiktionary)
I suspect the idea of a middle ground came from the idea of it not being committing fully to disbelief or to belief.
"All . . . will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect and to violate would be oppression." - Thomas Jefferson
Look, we all understand the desire to do something good.
Particularly in the case of some perceived injustice - a rape victim is disregarded, for example.
The problem is firstly that we don't have a universal definition of good.
Missionaries bringing Christianity to the 'heathens' in Darkest Africa thought they were GENUINELY doing good - saving these people's souls, bringing them education, clothes, technology. The next time you start getting all righteous about doing something for someone else's best interest, understand that morally you are PRECISELY in the same position as that Missionary.
The second problem of course is one of information. PARTICULARLY in the age of the internet, we tend to judge in the first few seconds, and then everything else we hear either validates that gut-judgement, or is discarded as "biased".
That rape victim? What if she was, in fact, lying?
We have a process for punishing wrongdoers, it's called the Law. It's absolutely not perfect, an in many ways it's outright broken. But THAT is where we need to spend our energy and efforts: fix that, and everything improves.
-Styopa
Hacktivists just annoy people briefly. It's the SJWs getting their brand of censorship baked into the terms of service of popular social media and blogging sites that have me worried. They're the ones who are really going to block freedom of speech by making it so that anyone who exercises their freedom of speech faces the possibility of being effectively blacklisted from ever working again. (See Trump being fired from his own reality TV show for telling the truth about immigration in the US. Now imagine that same thing used against someone without the resources to shrug it off.)
Spot on. Bit of a red flag in the summary:
As New World Hackers demonstrate, attacks can target the wrong people and restrict free speech.
I'd like to give this phrasing the benefit of the doubt, but after seeing countless anti-Gamergate types behave according to the mantra "No bad tactics--only bad targets," I really can't. You're part of the problem if you don't understand that Trump is as much the "wrong" person as the BBC, and those who act to silence him also "restrict free speech."
That would be the subset of Christians called Catholics. Protestants, Baptists, etc don't really care what the Pope says.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
So says the AC.
Speak against the groupthink, and they will track down your employers and family and harass them. Make sure you lose your job, are estranged from your family. The SJW battle is not over until you commit suicide.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
> what is meant when we say we are guaranteed to a right of free speech is limited to being *mostly* guaranteed that the government is not supposed to interfere with our right to free speech.
You accurately described th first amendment, but not th right of free speech. The FIRST AMENDMENT says that the government may not infringe the right of free speech. Note it says "THE right of free speech, not "A new right of free speech", just as you said "our right of free speech" must not be interfered with. This is because the right of free speech was recognized at least 40 years before the first amendment was written.
You say government is prohibited from infringing your right to free speech. Government can't be prohibited from taking back something if THEY GAVE IT TO YOU. Since government is prohibited from taking them, your rights must have come from somewhere else.
The first amendment protects the right of free speech, it did not create the right. (You'll notice the wording of the Constitution doesn't ever claim to create a right. Rather it enjoins the government from infringing the rights of the people.)
This makes perfect sense if you think about the definition of a "right". Is the right of free speech mean that you can say whatever the majority approves of? The essence of a right is you can do certain things regardless of what the majority thinks! That's that's the defining characteristic of a right, the fact that it exists and the majority can't vote it out of existence (though they could -infringe- your rights) . Hmm, if your neighbors can't legitimately vote your rights away, that must mean they didn't give them to you in the first place. If rights came from the government, or from the Convention, whoever gave you those rights would be could legitimately take them away at any time. The fact that no government document can legitimately eliminate rights means that they cannot have been created by a government document. Rather, certain rights must be part of the dignity of mankind; you are Barak Obama must have the same right to speak your mind based on being human beings.
Anonymous threatens free speech? How about massively popular social media platforms like Facebook that censor comments and images while offering very little recourse to the subjects of censorship? Facebook, Twitter and other such media have become so pervasive that the old "if you don't like it, don't use it" defense doesn't really apply anymore.
And how about the chilling effect of forcing people to use their real names if they're going to participate in discussions on-line? What happens to your job if your employer finds out your religion (or lack of it), sexuality, or political opinion differs significantly from theirs?
Let's not forget the police and letter agencies, either. We're now at a point where one's location, travel history, and other metadata, financial records and literally everything said or done, or even looked at on-line is subject to their examination with little or no oversight. Think that might prevent people from speaking freely? (I mean "speak" in the broadest possible sense of the word, by the way).
And how about the thuggish actions of various police forces during legal demonstrations over the last few years? Who can chance raising one's voice in public protest when the consequences might very well be employment-threatening injuries and perhaps a place on the No Fly List?
Claiming Anonymous is a significant threat to free speech in an age when these and other more serious threats exist is like complaining about a pea-shooter during a firefight.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said, "Stop! Don't do it!" "Why shouldn't I?" he said. I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!" He said, "Like what?" I said, "Well, are you religious or atheist?" He said, "Religious." I said, "Me too! Are your Christian or Buddhist?" He said, "Christian." I said, "Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?" He said, "Protestant." I said, Me too! Are your Episcopalian or Baptist? He said, "Baptist!" I said, "Wow! Me too! Are your Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord? He said, Baptist Church of God!" I said, "Me too! Are your Original Baptist Church of God or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?" He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God!" I said, "Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915?" He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915!" I said, "Die, heretic scum!" and pushed him off.
There is an old History professor's joke about the Anarchist Brigades during the Spanish Civil War.
"They were great fighters, but suffered from a lack of organization."
Tracy Johnson
Old fashioned text games hosted below:
http://empire.openmpe.com/
BT