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.

Comments

SJW

[Anonymous Coward]

You can say whatever you want as long I agree with it.

Re:SJW

[dunkindave]

If you stand on someone's private property (including their online property) and spout hatred toward them there is nothing in the law to keep them from kicking you out.

Unfortunately in your example, invoking the use of verbally spouting hatred is a red hearing. If you are standing on THEIR PROPERTY, they can kick you out no matter what you are doing or saying, or not doing or saying.

The issues do however get more complex if the property is intended to be publicly accessible, like a store or restaurant, and the reason for kicking the person out is their inclusion in a legally protected group (race, ethnicity, religion, gender, handicapped, etc), but what they are saying isn't in any of those categories (though people often try to spin it into such a claim, like saying they were denouncing police harassment of [pick some group] and their being ejected is because they are part of that group, not because they were being loud, annoying, harassing, blocking aisles, not buying anything, etc).

Re: SJW

[ShanghaiBill]

Try saying things like supporting the Constitution, rule of law, personal responsibility, or quoting people like Virgil, Thomas Jefferson, or MLK in support of your arguments.

I have done all of those things, I have never been silenced by a SJW, and I get modded up far more often than I get modded down. You may not agree with everything the SJWs say, but they have a right to say it. Stop whining.

Re:SJW

[ArmoredDragon]

There is actually one particular group that is being "come for", which are white males. A rather blatant example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

If you ever peruse news comments, twitter, whatever, it becomes obvious after a while that it is in fact politically correct and in most cases generally acceptable to attack white males in ways that are considered "racist" against any other group. I myself (a white male) don't feel particularly oppressed (if they give me shit I'll give them shit back,) but that *may* not be the case for all:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11...

Pathetic

[liqu1d]

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.

Re:If you say your Christian, you are Christian...

[Gravis Zero]

(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.

Vigilantees not the best justicae system?

[Actually, I do RTFA]

I am shocked, shocked that vigilantism has problems.

Re:Vigilantees not the best justicae system?

[Antique Geekmeister]

> It gets funny when you realize that vigilantes are what appears when the government is not doing its job.

It appears when government is not doing the job that at least some people want. This also includes government agents operating outside the law, the KKK, and corporations hiring private security to beat union protesters. Vigilantism occurs when the government is unwilling to follow someone's policy, whether that policy is law or not.

It also includes most terrorists. The Taliban and ISIS themselves want Sharia law applied universally, and have killed many who refuse this religious law, despite the local government's clear rejection of murdering people for adultery or murdering women for speaking out for women's rights.

It's almost like vigilantism is a bad thing?

[argStyopa]

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.