Westboro Baptist Church targeted by Anonymous

[KichigaiNeko]

I don't think that Anonymous want to take WBC sites DOWN per se. You have to look at this from a LEGAL perspective ..this is a Family who make their money from litigation !!! They do not work per se. How could they if they are at the sites of funerals and gay activist meetings ad nauseum.

To be honest I don't think that Anonymous were going to do ANYTHING to the WBC family...just their (WBC) paranoia and of course... they (WBC) get in first with a "victim' stance then hopefully get a favourable outcome in a court of law.

Anonymous just make things very uncomfortable for them for a while ....maybe....then again maybe not.

Quite frankly V0ID I have been listening to the info that Zen has found on this phelps animal and I am gaining the opinion that Attila the Hun was a pussy saint by comparison.....seriously!

[theVOID]

So their sites being off-line after the Anoynomous threat are a coincidence?

They deliberately took them off-line to silence and enrage - That's not something I could support any more than I could support governments trying to take Wikileaks down, I am against censorship be it brought on by government or private parties like Anoynomous.

Also, how is an illegal attack on their site going to prevent them from making money through litigation? It will have the complete opposite effect, they've given the Phelps shitheads more ammo.

Btw, the sane Atheist Phelps, Nate, Is going to be on the non-prophets soon! THAT will be a good and legal way to piss off the nutjobs - No hypocrisy needed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JW2JgPMQdVc

[Zen Badger]

That's what Anonymous is doing, are you in favour of their taking the sites down?

Interesting question, answer...I don't know.

Technically speaking freedom of speech is freedom to say ANYTHING.

But does that allow slander? Death threats, insults? Afterall incitement to hate is an offence in some places, and WBC is nothing BUT incitement to hatred of anything that Phelps doesn't like. And that includes just about everything.

OK, it would be wrong for anonymous to bring down the WBC, but I wouldn't be able to suppress a little shiver of pleasure at the knowledge that a turd like Phelps had been inconvenienced and pissed off.

[KichigaiNeko]

So their sites being off-line after the Anonymous threat are a coincidence?



They deliberately took them off-line to silence and enrage - That's not something I could support any more than I could support governments trying to take Wikileaks down, I am against censorship be it brought on by government or private parties like Anonymous

I don't think they did V0ID. I am to understand that WBC did that themselves.

Also, how is an illegal attack on their site going to prevent them from making money through litigation? It will have the complete opposite effect, they've given the Phelps shitheads more ammo.

He has to FIND the face that is Anonymous..THEN litigation can commence. ATM there is NO face or persons to bring charges against...Phelps may as well say that goddidit and take that to court in regards to Anonymous. For any of the protests that they get persecuted about there is cause for complaint and perhaps this is where they get their funds. I am not up on the legalities of the American system.

Btw, the sane Atheist Phelps, Nate, Is going to be on the non-prophets soon! THAT will be a good and legal way to piss off the nutjobs - No hypocrisy needed.

This is so ....

[Violet]

That's what Anonymous is doing, are you in favour of their taking the sites down?

I'm not... but i would be lying to say i don't find it mildly funny.

---

That's what Anonymous is doing, are you in favour of their taking the sites down?

Interesting question, answer...I don't know.

Technically speaking freedom of speech is freedom to say ANYTHING.

But does that allow slander? Death threats, insults? Afterall incitement to hate is an offence in some places, and WBC is nothing BUT incitement to hatred of anything that Phelps doesn't like. And that includes just about everything.

I'm in favor of all of this.

Would you honestly rather I didn't make my threat known to you, giving you a chance to do something about it? Granted, i'm the kind of girl that would kill you without ever hinting at it, so i'm not your problem. But plenty of non-intelligent people give threats and mean them. Insults are fine, i actually take them much better than i do praise. Slander is kosher, if people agree with your slander they are either idiots or your slander is justified (or both). "Incitement to hate" is ridiculous if it is judged as a crime.

OK, it would be wrong for anonymous to bring down the WBC, but I wouldn't be able to suppress a little shiver of pleasure at the knowledge that a turd like Phelps had been inconvenienced and pissed off.

It would be hypocritical of them, yes. Wrong? Here i thought might made "right" >_>

[theVOID]

That's what Anonymous is doing, are you in favour of their taking the sites down?

Interesting question, answer...I don't know.

Technically speaking freedom of speech is freedom to say ANYTHING.

But does that allow slander? Death threats, insults? Afterall incitement to hate is an offence in some places, and WBC is nothing BUT incitement to hatred of anything that Phelps doesn't like. And that includes just about everything.

I know the line of reasoning, you can't yell bomb on an airplane etc, but this is a slightly different issue with their websites, these are not invasive and direct attacks towards individuals like say calling abuse at a funeral or using lawsuits to entice fear, someone would have to willingly visit these websites as far as these kinds of websites go the WBC probably aren't even near the worst - It becomes an issue of:

1) Do we take down these websites because they offend people?
2) Do we take down these websites because of their relationship to an organisation who uses hate speech?
3) Do we allow the websites to remain but condemn them when they directly attack people?

And if we are going to be okay with websites like WBC being taken down where do we draw the line? Is it okay to take down the websites of homophobic churches? White power affiliates? An old racist white man with a blog full of hate speech?

There is also the question of: Who are we to determine what messages are to be allowed and denied to people who themselves are in charge of the content they see on this medium?

It's a rather slippery slope, and for that reason I think it's best to stay clear. Websites and magazines being indirect should be allowed, lest we become an authoritarian cesspool censoring the web.

OK, it would be wrong for anonymous to bring down the WBC, but I wouldn't be able to suppress a little shiver of pleasure at the knowledge that a turd like Phelps had been inconvenienced and pissed off.

Glad we agree, but I can't say I find it amusing, Phelps is going to milk it and come out better of and with more rabid supporters.

Anyhow, what about the mechanic who refused to serve him after his tyres were slashed? That's something that would have inconvenienced and pissed him off too, would you also get a shiver of pleasure from that?

---

He has to FIND the face that is Anonymous..THEN litigation can commence. ATM there is NO face or persons to bring charges against...Phelps may as well say that goddidit and take that to court in regards to Anonymous. For any of the protests that they get persecuted about there is cause for complaint and perhaps this is where they get their funds. I am not up on the legalities of the American system.

I didn't mean ammo in terms of litigation, I meant in terms of the vigour of his supporters. He's clearly good at milking the spotlight, he's one of those strange creatures who is best left in a dark corner and ignored.

[KichigaiNeko]

---

That's what Anonymous is doing, are you in favour of their taking the sites down?

Interesting question, answer...I don't know.

Technically speaking freedom of speech is freedom to say ANYTHING.

But does that allow slander? Death threats, insults? Afterall incitement to hate is an offence in some places, and WBC is nothing BUT incitement to hatred of anything that Phelps doesn't like. And that includes just about everything.

I know the line of reasoning, you can't yell bomb on an airplane etc, but this is a slightly different issue with their websites, these are not invasive and direct attacks towards individuals like say calling abuse at a funeral or using lawsuits to entice fear, someone would have to willingly visit these websites as far as these kinds of websites go the WBC probably aren't even near the worst - It becomes an issue of:

1) Do we take down these websites because they offend people?
2) Do we take down these websites because of their relationship to an organisation who uses hate speech?
3) Do we allow the websites to remain but condemn them when they directly attack people?

And if we are going to be okay with websites like WBC being taken down where do we draw the line? Is it okay to take down the websites of homophobic churches? White power affiliates? An old racist white man with a blog full of hate speech?

There is also the question of: Who are we to determine what messages are to be allowed and denied to people who themselves are in charge of the content they see on this medium?

It's a rather slippery slope, and for that reason I think it's best to stay clear. Websites and magazines being indirect should be allowed, lest we become an authoritarian cesspool censoring the web.

OK, it would be wrong for anonymous to bring down the WBC, but I wouldn't be able to suppress a little shiver of pleasure at the knowledge that a turd like Phelps had been inconvenienced and pissed off.

Glad we agree, but I can't say I find it amusing, Phelps is going to milk it and come out better of and with more rabid supporters.

Anyhow, what about the mechanic who refused to serve him after his tyres were slashed? That's something that would have inconvenienced and pissed him off too, would you also get a shiver of pleasure from that?

---

He has to FIND the face that is Anonymous..THEN litigation can commence. ATM there is NO face or persons to bring charges against...Phelps may as well say that goddidit and take that to court in regards to Anonymous. For any of the protests that they get persecuted about there is cause for complaint and perhaps this is where they get their funds. I am not up on the legalities of the American system.

---

I didn't mean ammo in terms of litigation, I meant in terms of the vigour of his supporters. He's clearly good at milking the spotlight, he's one of those strange creatures who is best left in a dark corner and ignored.

If there was a person or persons who have refused service to this phelps then i don't think he is going to "milk" anything ...bit like Irksome Ibby...he will become known as a whinging victim conciousness person and a looser. I don't see the other "hate" organisations doing so well either...people are rather bored with it all and just want to be able to get to work and come home on time.

How are the religious organisations doing in NZ?? I know only of one "Ratana Church" and then there is the Maori culture but they are mainly on the North Isalnd ...Yes??

[theVOID]

Sure, but censoring them?

As for religion fuck knows, they're all but dead, relegated to the odd family values type people and the elderly. We'd easily be Majority non-theists by now I'd say, if not very close.

I love how many churches were ruined by the quake, maybe that'll shake some sense into the fuckers.

[KichigaiNeko]

Sure, but censoring them?

I don't think anybody is going to censor anybody else ...least of all WBC or Anonymous

As for religion fuck knows, they're all but dead, relegated to the odd family values type people and the elderly. We'd easily be Majority non-theists by now I'd say, if not very close.

So I am to understand...such a wonderful and progressive country is Aotearoa. Pity about the faultlines though

I love how many churches were ruined by the quake, maybe that'll shake some sense into the fuckers.

It certainly will prove that their skydaddy was not happy. There was a report that some woman was dragged from the PGG?? building after 25 hours of being trapped ...."and then god made the sun came out". So I won't hold out any hopes there V0ID.

Pity that the architecture is destroyed...I wonder if they will put up some highrise affordable housing there?? Maybe not eh?? Should be worth a mint that site...right in town like that.

[Autumnlicious]

Response to theVoid:

Anonymous doesn't attack an entity unless it takes action to silence others, which incurs the same fate.

Wouldn't you not want to silence someone who does naught but silence others? They have no right to do so, yet they insist on doing so, much like criminals insist on crime. Might I also point out the line of thought with justifiable homicide in self defense? There we see aggressor(s) attempt to infringe on the right of life of another - normally it is a no-no to kill, but like silencing the aggressor, it is a special case.

All Anonymous is merely an entity that has a tendency of bloodying noses, and has taken up fighting censorship.

Now you may say using censorship to fight censorship is flawed, but then again, a great many things we know of use "fire to fight fire" (ironically, that also happens with actual IRL firefighting).

I knew this anti-WBC thing was fake as it didn't fit with Anonymous' modus operandi.

Anonymous knocked out Mastercard for attempting to knock out WikiLeaks. Anonymous knocked out the Church of Scientology on numerous occasions, with the final goal of spreading it's dogma everywhere enough to expose it to critical analysis and review without fear of censorship, losing the information, etc,.

Anonymous supported Mark Bunker and other Scientology critics when they were tailed, harassed and haragued, and, with poetic justice, turned the same unto Scientology.

There is little to see here but the Golden Rule being applied in reverse - "Be treated by others as you've treated them."