Anonymous vs. Westboro

PhantomWolf said:
So you are of the belief that freedom of speech should only include that speech you approve of?
Click to expand...

Read closer into it, they stated they didn't send the message and they didn't care about the WBC. It was only when Shirley said they couldn't do anything against the WBC they posted a message on one of their sites, just to show that they could.
 
Mycroft said:
A couple nights ago the wife and I got to go see the local premier of "Red State" which involves a cult/church loosely based on the WBC. The director, Kevin Smith (Silent Bob of Jay and Silent Bob fame) was there, and he had invited the WBC to come to both protest and to watch the movie, which they did. One of their representatives was supposed to review the movie for the audience afterward, but apparently they left 15 minutes into the movie saying it was too dirty, and instead the after-show discussion was mostly with a couple family members who had left the church, which was probably more interesting anyway.

But the tie-in to this thread and to your statement on freedom of speech is the part where Kevin Smith congratulated the Phelps family on their recent victory at the Supreme Court. He said something to the effect that even though he didn't like what the Phelps message was, that their victory to say what they say also protects his own freedom to do what he does, and everyone is better for it.

And he's right. When it comes to freedom of speech, the victories that count are the victories don't leave us feeling good about them. The speech that needs protecting is the unpopular speech. While it's tempting to make an exception for the Phelps, if we do then it's just a short step to broaden that exception to the Nazis, the Truthers, and then the communists, and then the Chomsky's, and so on.

Having said that, if Anon decides to pay some attention to the WBC, I won't be upset by it. ;)
Click to expand...

That sounds like a slippery slope to me. Just sayin. Although, I do agree with this, as sickened a I am by these creeps.

I also will say that they deserve whatever backlash they receive from people. Harassing people the way they do....I do fear for the safety of there children. I feel so damned bad for those kids, being raised they way they are. :(
 
Kev The Green said:
I'm not entirely convinced by the "slippery slope" argument for allowing the WBC first amendment protection. It seems like there should be some way of carving out a special exemption for them based on their intentional harassment. But, Phelps is indeed adept at making sure he goes right up to the line without crossing it.

I prefer a more direct argument in favor of allowing bigots to speak. Sunlight tends to be the best disinfectant. I'd rather see views like this expressed openly than allowed to fester behind closed doors.

In Phelps' case, his over-the-top antics have forced people like Fox news to denounce him. He's actually giving gay-bashing a bad name. Silencing him makes him a martyr. Letting him speak continues to damage the cause he's championing.

Kev

"Even if you've eliminated all the rational explanations you can think of, the first irrational one you think of isn't necessarily true."
Click to expand...

Heh, not just Fox News. But even Neo Nazis are sickened by these freak!

If anything, the WBC does bring this country closer together. In mutual hate of one particular small group. So in a strange sort of way, you could say they bring SOME kind of positive outcome to society. :D

BTW, Mr. Snyder could have brought a libel/slander argument to the table as well. The WBC brought "God Hates Fags!" signs to his funeral. When clearly he was not a "fag." Even if he was, they have no right to smear the kid's good name. I personally know one of Matthew Snyder's teachers from high school, and his next door neighbor. He said the kid was a damn fine person. Got good grades, and knew exactly what he wanted to do with his life since he was at least a freshman. Had a perfect attendance record, a multi-sport athlete. So I think they could have argued "slander/libel" as well. But I ain't no lawyer, so....
 
chipmunk stew said:
I agree with this.

Effective "human shield" type counter-protesting, cheerful leveraging of their demonstrations for pro-gay/pro-military/pro-whatever-it-is-they-are-against causes, and general mockery are the best ways to remove their sting.

Laughing them off as just another part of the American Sideshow is the only way to make them impotent. ETA: Taking them seriously enough to confront them head-on is precisely the response they are after.
Click to expand...

Some of the most amazing videos that makes me proud of this great nation, was caused directly by the WBC. You should see that one motorcycle gang, forget what they're called, who come roaring in with thousands of bikes, each with a large American flag on the tail. They stand quietly and peacefully along the funeral rout, everyone with a large American flag. It shows the families who are being targeted, just how much support they are given from the American people. How united we truly are. And the outrage against the WBC from other countries is also quite heart-warming as well.
 
Mycroft said:
Having said that, if Anon decides to pay some attention to the WBC, I won't be upset by it. ;)
Click to expand...

It also means if other American Citizens decide to subject WBC to some "speech" ALL power to them!
 
Nihilianth said:
I rather think the Westboro scum deserve whatever comes to them. I honestly do. I don't think the framers of the Constitution had it mind that people can just go around and treat people with such hated disrespect. Poor argument on my part, I know. But there is legislation against incitement to riot.
Click to expand...

I am sure the founders of the US Constitution didn't have a lot of things in mind when they wrote parts of it. The fact is however, that if you want freedom of speech to say whatever you want to say, then everyone else has to get it too, this is how rights work. As soon as you start removing rights from some people, regardless of how horrible their speach is, then you start opening the door to people removing your right to say things that they find offensive. For instance, more people in the US believe in some form of god than don't. How would you like it if they had pushed through that stating that there is no god, gods, goddeses, or divinities, was to be banned, and anyone critising religion should be locked up because it is offensive to them?

In the end, having the right to have free speach means having to put up with some people using it in a manner that can be offensive to us, the alternative doesn't bare thinking about, and already too many western countries have allowed PCness to undermine that very right because their societies haven't thought the consequences through.

On the point of incitement to riot, saying something to a group of people that results in them attacking you is not illegal, however attacking someone because you found what they said offensive is.
 
Khan said:
Read closer into it, they stated they didn't send the message and they didn't care about the WBC. It was only when Shirley said they couldn't do anything against the WBC they posted a message on one of their sites, just to show that they could.
Click to expand...

That wasn't the point I was responding to. However, even with tauting, hacking into a site and modifying it is actually illegal.
 
PhantomWolf said:
I am sure the founders of the US Constitution didn't have a lot of things in mind when they wrote parts of it. The fact is however, that if you want freedom of speech to say whatever you want to say, then everyone else has to get it too, this is how rights work. As soon as you start removing rights from some people, regardless of how horrible their speach is, then you start opening the door to people removing your right to say things that they find offensive. For instance, more people in the US believe in some form of god than don't. How would you like it if they had pushed through that stating that there is no god, gods, goddeses, or divinities, was to be banned, and anyone critising religion should be locked up because it is offensive to them?

In the end, having the right to have free speach means having to put up with some people using it in a manner that can be offensive to us, the alternative doesn't bare thinking about, and already too many western countries have allowed PCness to undermine that very right because their societies haven't thought the consequences through.

On the point of incitement to riot, saying something to a group of people that results in them attacking you is not illegal, however attacking someone because you found what they said offensive is.
Click to expand...

Well, I did say it was a poor argument on my part. And I think you are erring on the side of a slippery slope here as well. So, yea know....
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
False dichotomy.
Click to expand...

Sorry it's not, there is no third option, you either support freedom of speech or you support freedom of speech you like and want that you don't banned.

The having of rights is a boolean value, either free speech is true, or it's false. It can't "sort of be true" because as soon as aspects of speech are banned, then speech is no longer truely free.

This is what has been happening in Austria, Germany, Australia, the UK, France and other countries, and it's insideous and removing people's right to express themselves when what they would say is unpopular. This is wrong.
 
Nihilianth said:
Well, I did say it was a poor argument on my part. And I think you are erring on the side of a slippery slope here as well. So, yea know....
Click to expand...

The problem is that we are seeing the slippery slope occuring in countries that have started banning certain speech and actions, to the point where in England it is essentially now illegal to burn a piece of paper if that upsets someone.
 
PhantomWolf said:
Sorry it's not, there is no third option, you either support freedom of speech or you support freedom of speech you like and want that you don't banned.

The having of rights is a boolean value, either free speech is true, or it's false. It can't "sort of be true" because as soon as aspects of speech are banned, then speech is no longer truely free.

This is what has been happening in Austria, Germany, Australia, the UK, France and other countries, and it's insideous and removing people's right to express themselves when what they would say is unpopular. This is wrong.
Click to expand...

Actually, there are many forms of speech that is quite illegal. Threats, especially of the death kind, slander/libel, harassment, endangerment (yelling FIRE! in a crowded theater,) and incitement to riot, just to name a few.

The WBC could technically fall under the incitement to riot, and harassment categories.
 
PhantomWolf said:
The problem is that we are seeing the slippery slope occuring in countries that have started banning certain speech and actions, to the point where in England it is essentially now illegal to burn a piece of paper if that upsets someone.
Click to expand...

Huh, well, I've haven;t heard of this. Of course, I am not British.

But then, the British do not have a piece of document which spells out, specifically, the rights of the people in plain English. They have the Magna Carta, and several centuries worth of other such documents. But nothing that they hold as dearly as Americans hold the Constitution.
 
PhantomWolf said:
That wasn't the point I was responding to. However, even with tauting, hacking into a site and modifying it is actually illegal.
Click to expand...
How do you balance "legal" with things like Daniel Ellsberg whistle blowing because the government was lying to the public about the Vietnam War?
 
Last edited:
chipmunk stew said:
But according to SCOTUS, they don't. (Technically.)
Click to expand...

Oh, I know that. But it can still certainly be argued that they do. The "fighting words" part of the transcript of the trial was a legitimate argument. One that seemed to almost tip the trial in favor of Mr. Snyder.
 
PhantomWolf said:
Sorry it's not, there is no third option, you either support freedom of speech or you support freedom of speech you like and want that you don't banned.

The having of rights is a boolean value, either free speech is true, or it's false. It can't "sort of be true" because as soon as aspects of speech are banned, then speech is no longer truely free.

This is what has been happening in Austria, Germany, Australia, the UK, France and other countries, and it's insideous and removing people's right to express themselves when what they would say is unpopular. This is wrong.
Click to expand...
Sounds a bit dogmatic, you know what is right with certainty.

There is a third option, one can believe Anonymous and WBC both were practicing their right to free speech.
 
Nihilianth said:
Oh, I know that. But it can still certainly be argued that they do. The "fighting words" part of the transcript of the trial was a legitimate argument. One that seemed to almost tip the trial in favor of Mr. Snyder.
Click to expand...

Yeah, there's certainly a line demarcating limitations on the right to free speech. I'd rather err on the side of too few limitations than too many, so I'm glad SCOTUS ruled the way it did (and so decisively). But I agree with your point that free speech is not a "boolean" right. It is a well-defined right (in the US at least, and even more so after the WBC decision) but not an absolute one. And I disagree with the idea that any limitation on speech is a slippery slope (again in the US at least, where the constitutional lines of demarcation are brightly drawn.)
 
A Laughing Baby said:
I always take that with a grain of salt. Anonymous, by definition, is an amalgamation. It's just a bunch of people with no clear leaders or anything like that. It's posters from a forum. As a result, all it takes is one idiot with a text-to-speech program and a youtube account to "make an official statement from anonymous." So I guess, now that I've thought about it, I just discredited my original eye-rolling.
Click to expand...

The other was done by a hack-activist named Jester. Jester =/= Anon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom