Cease and desist from Anonymous to Westboro Baptist Church

I'm not how sure how legitimate this is, but it looks like Anonymous is going to target Westboro Baptist Church if they don't stop their hate campaigns.

I'm torn on this issue. I stand with Westboro in that they deserve their right to Free Speech as much as anyone else. But they are clearly evil, and a force for bigotry and nearly everything I stand against.

Is cheering on Anonymous hypocritical? I haven't made my mind up, so let's talk about it.

 

 

UPDATE - ANONYMOUS NOT GOING AFTER WBC AFTER ALL

 

Views: 7

Replies to This Discussion

They are not destroying anything. It's a DDoS. There's a difference between a DDoS and destroying someone's property. They made no threats to destroy their property in terms of things owned 100% by them.

A DDoS attack can tally up huge numbers to the site's bandwidth allotment and cost quite a bit in ISP fees.

 

And you're missing a more basic point.  A website IS PROPERTY.  If you take down someone's website, you're damaging their property and depriving them access to their resources.  That's criminal activity.

"Heh, you're probably right.  It's from looking at things from different angles, and then you just bicker your way through it and figure out why you're seeing it differently.  That's why I'm not sure I agree with your statement about it being a waste of time.  It made us think through the subject a good bit ... and at the very least, I enjoy a good squabble, from time to time.  :-D

 

Yeah, I tend to go straight to the practical.  I generally look at a solution and think to myself, "Okay, now how is this going to go horribly wrong, when we do it?"  Because things so often go completely wrong.  I find it better to be a pessimist, because I'm surprised much less frequently."

 

Which is why when someone calls me a pessimist, I respond with "Nah, I just don't like surprises...I detest them."

And yes, arguments like these that start off heated, then get to a "holy shit" kind of realization/end, or something good enough, are quite fun. When you put it that way, it isn't a waste of time.

 

I have got to stop with philosophical thinking and go to more practical thinking. But sometimes it's hard.

Yup, exactly.  And as a pessimist, when you get surprises, they're nice surprises.

Anonymous is merely taking down their sites (which includes all information in them) They aren't destroying anything and they aren't even censoring as the WBC will still protest and picket, since they aren't doing anything else other than a DDoS, which refers to internet websites.

Internet resources are real resources.  Ask any major corporation how seriously they consider their web presence.  Saying that taking something like that down isn't destroying anything is completely false.

Then I stand corrected, Anonymous does resort to criminal activity to attempt to shutdown websites they perceive as harmful or censorship.

 

I'll admit, if your information on DDoS is accurate (which I'll assume it is in this case) then they do resort to destroying the intellectual property of their hacking victims. My point is the intentions behind anonymous. It'll be a MUCH different story if they were intentionally doing this damage to random people and stealing their money instead of the Church of Scientology and those who they perceive as trying to censor or taking away other's liberties who aren't abusing them.

 

 

 

Just a note. You should mull that over a bit yourself. There is a big difference between not liking something, and it being harmful.

 

 

It has nothing to do with what I like or don't like. What I like or want is completely and utterly irrelevant. Somethings are just demonstrably harmful, that as such, opinions do not matter.

 

Please consider all the possibilities of the situation that you possibly can before asking someone to think something over. Because this subject isn't easily settled by someone with a black and white point of view who says "If it is legal it's good, if it is illegal it's bad, regardless of the many different variables and factors in the given situation where it makes it far more complicated to use good and bad reasoning which is what you seem to be doing. (Just an assumption, which probably is incorrect, but just like everyone, is based off a perception)

  • I don't like a serial killer killing, so I don't think it's okay to destroy the serial killers internet virtual property because I don't like his killing, which is my way of protesting him and for him to stop it.

But you don't have to go all vigilante on his website.  Being a serial killer is illegal.  Having a website promoting serial killing is illegal.  You can get the website taken down legally.

 

If something is harmful, we tend to make it illegal.  You just have to make sure that it's objectively harmful, or you get people passing laws making things like homosexuality and atheism illegal, because it's harmful to society.

Now why did you reply to that? I editted that because it came out wrong. :P

Heh, oops.

 

Yeah, I have to start watching the same thing, when I get into rapid fire responses, like this.  I normally hit the 'Add Reply' button the moment I get to the end of my thoughts.  Then, I go back through and edit my grammar and fix up my thoughts, making use of the Edit controls.  I have to make myself stop and go back through it, before hitting 'Add Reply' ... and I still miss stuff and have to go back with Edit.

I don't consider the WBC victims at all, even if it will cause them financial harm. Considering their actions, it is only fair in fact.

 

Well, there you go again with this same drivel.  Whether someone deserves punishment is completely irrelevant to whether or not they are a victim of a crime.  What you are arguing for is the Batman model of justice.  Citizen decides person X is doing something that should be stopped, so he can break the law to stop person X. 

 

That's a lack of rule of law.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

Latest Activity

Loren Miller replied to James M. Martin's discussion Officer Who Shot Brown in Ferguson Might Not Be Playing With Full Deck, Saying He Was Assaulted by "Demon"
10 minutes ago
Plinius replied to Randall Smith's discussion Finding Your Roots in the group Hang With Friends
20 minutes ago
Michael Penn replied to James M. Martin's discussion Officer Who Shot Brown in Ferguson Might Not Be Playing With Full Deck, Saying He Was Assaulted by "Demon"
21 minutes ago
booklover replied to James M. Martin's discussion Officer Who Shot Brown in Ferguson Might Not Be Playing With Full Deck, Saying He Was Assaulted by "Demon"
27 minutes ago
booklover commented on Ruth Anthony-Gardner's group Hang With Friends
30 minutes ago
Plinius replied to Dr. Terence Meaden's discussion This is the 1000th thread in the ORIGINS GROUP. Thank you everybody. in the group ORIGINS: UNIVERSE, LIFE, HUMANKIND, AND DARWIN
31 minutes ago
Gail C. Rendle replied to scott martins's discussion IS EVERYBODY 100% POSITIVE THERE IS NO GOD?
40 minutes ago
Idaho Spud commented on Ermias Asfaw's blog post Another thought bubble ...
43 minutes ago
Nick Bottom replied to Randall Smith's discussion Finding Your Roots in the group Hang With Friends
1 hour ago
Idaho Spud replied to Tom Sarbeck's discussion Wandering Words in the group LINGUAPHILES & SESQUIPEDALIANS
1 hour ago
Idaho Spud liked Tom Sarbeck's discussion Wandering Words
1 hour ago
Idaho Spud replied to Randall Smith's discussion Finding Your Roots in the group Hang With Friends
1 hour ago

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service