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
They aren't a terror group, for they haven't done anything to terrorize people who don't deserve it (WBC and Church of Scientology for example) and the only illegal things they do as of this day and age is hacking.
There are several things that are illegal but harmless and aren't bad in anyway. I support them because they so far, only targetted people who deserved it.
I would like to know what you define as Terror? What did they do exactly that was on purpose, that is provable, that isn't media propaganda to demonize a group that staunchly supports people hated by the U.S government (Julian Assange) and use hacking to get their point across among the old fashioned protesting on the streets?
They complied with an order from the US government. Amazon and the credit card companies did nothing wrong. They were attacked out of pure, retaliatory spite.
Anonymous has a lot of iffy targeting in its history. In some ways, they're lashing out at random entities to make a point, just like the WBC lashes out at soldiers and people like Christina Green, the 9 year-old who was killed in the recent Tucson, AZ shooting, to make their point.
So every point made is equal? I can't get this impression out of my head from you that all points made are equal in justification and are equal in realistic reasoning and are equal in intentions and are equal in every sense.
It seems to me that whatever WBC does they are equal to anyone else who protests. So Martin Luther King is as bad as WBC because he was just "making a point" with his protests?
Forgive me if I misunderstood your intentions, because not every point made by every group is equally justifiable by realistic and reasonable means.
When you're talking about Constitutional rights, yes, it has to remain absolute. You can come up with certain limitations, such as freedom of speech not being used to incite criminal activity. Then, whatever limitations we decide are necessary have to be applied to everyone equally. You can't single out individuals that you don't like and take away their rights.
If Martin Luther King was breaking laws with his protests, then yes, he should have been arrested. If I'm not mistaken, he was arrested several times. If the laws used to arrest him were violating his right to freedom of speech, then the courts will overturn the laws, if the system is working correctly.
Which is my problem. The System doesn't exactly measure if one particular group is abusing their rights. And of course it's not about who we like or don't like. It's about who is and who is not a danger to society and such an answer would have to be proven by Science to indeed be dangerous, whether it be physical, psychological or long-term.
No system is perfect, and ours is such that freedom (that term should be put with a grain of salt) outweighs everything else.
Yeah, the government isn't good at making moral decisions. On the whole, I don't think it should be allowed to. We have to do that with other aspects of our society.
The best we can do is try to patch the system. Like I said ... somewhere ... on one of these pages of comments ... holy crap, we're up to 6 pages, now? :-D
Anyway, like I said, the best way to do it is approach it from the perspective of the activity you're trying to protect ... in this case, funerals. You can then figure out which limits you may need, such as the one about incitement of crime. Even then, you have to be really damned careful how you go about it.
If you ask a serious Christian, saving someone's soul is far more important than saving their life. The fact that we realize they're delusional doesn't matter. The fact that we realize they're delusional is part of the problem.
We're in a significant minority, in this country. If you want to start a fight over taking away people's rights, because we don't agree with their view of how the universe works ... we ... will ... lose. If we win the battle and take away the Constitutional rights of the WBC, we'll hand the fundamentalists the weapon they need to win the war against us.
Yeah, we've been replying so much that the reply button disappears due to lack of room on the webpage :P.
It's 4:30 am where I live and I'm still posting. Temporary Imsomnia is pretty sweet (sarcasm)
But on the subject. I'm a naive 20 year old. I believe that if you just explain something well enough and prove it well enough, people will accept it. So I have the unrealistic hopes that one day, morality will be based on a reasonable, tangible set of rules agreed to by Society.
But who knows. The future hasn't happened yet.
Heh, yup, maximum nesting depth is always fun. I so often run up against it, in my discussions.
Christ, I hadn't even been looking at the clock. Heh. I'm a couple states above you, in the same time zone. I'd be up this late, anyway, just working. I haven't been getting much work done for the past couple of hours, for some reason. :-P
Eh, and I don't think age has a whole lot to do with it. I know some teenagers who are just as sharp as anyone else, and I know some people in their 50's and 60's who couldn't debate their way through a knock-knock joke.
You've just somehow made it to 20 with your moral idealism intact. Just start following politics a bit more, and we'll get that knocked out of you pretty quickly. :-D