Anonymous vs. Westboro

[Dorian Gray]

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.

Wrong. You're on a site that demonstrates a third possibility, totally negating your boolean value nonsense. At no time in the history of America has there been total free speech, for reasons ranging from the practical to the societal to the classified.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Wrong. You're on a site that demonstrates a third possibility, totally negating your boolean value nonsense. At no time in the history of America has there been total free speech, for reasons ranging from the practical to the societal to the classified.

JREF is controlled by the Government?

 

[PhantomWolf]

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.

Let's have a look at these.

Threats need to be shown to be intended the threat to be taken seriously, to intimidate or strike fear into the recipient. The manner in which they were used, and the person to whom they were directed would has to convey a threat to a reasonable person. If they don't meet this standard, they are not illegal.

Deformation is not illegal in the US, but rather the law allows for those being defamed to seek redress. You won't get locked up for lying about people.

Harassment, and here we need to specify what sort of harrassment as there is a difference between that sort that makes a workplace unsafe and public harrassment. Verbal Harrassment in public is not illegal by itself. If you follow someone around and add threats and such to that behaviour, then they may be able to do you for stalking.

Endangerment only counts if there is an immediate and serious danger of what you say causing harm. You can shout "fire" in a crowded theatre if there really is a fire, or because you are on stage, or if it's obvious that no one is going to take you seriously and panic causing un-nessecary injury to people.

Incitement to riot again only if your actions and words urge to people riot. basically you have to tell them to go on a rampage, it's not a case of just making them angry at you or even telling them to riot when there is no likelihood of them listening to you and doing so.

Clearly none of these things are illegal unless they are accompanied by some other action or situation.

The WBC could technically fall under the incitement to riot, and harassment categories.

No they wouldn't. No unless you are going to claim that WBC urge people to go on a riot and there is a likelihood of them doing so, or that they follow people about and go into the workplace to make it an unsafe enviroment.

 

[PhantomWolf]

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.

Check out the thread about the poppy burning incident, I'm pretty sure it's in this forum or the Non-US Politics one.

ETA here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=202853

 

[PhantomWolf]

How do you balance "legal" with things like Daniel Ellsworth whistle blowing because the government was lying to the public about the Vietnam War?

I think that you mean Daniel Ellsberg...

He had legal access to the papers that he released. This is similar to the ones released on Wikileaks, Private Manning had legal access to them. This is quite different to where documents are gained via illegal access and then released publically. Breaking into a company or university's e-mail server and taking their e-mails is no better than breaking into someone's house and taking their letters from their safe, and should be dealt with in the same manner.

If Law Enforcement wants access to these things they would require a search warrant or a subpoena to get them. Members of the public hiding behind a mask and then committing illegal acts in the name if vigilantism are no better than cyber thugs.

 

[PhantomWolf]

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.

I have no problem with both sides exercising free speech as long as neither use their rights to over-ride the other's.

 

[Nihilianth]

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.)

I was actually personally perfectly split on the decision myself. Thank God I am not a judge. I would have sat there wondering how I would have ruled. lol. But yeah, I guess int he end, I am grudgingly glad the judges ruled the way they did. It truly does seem the safer way to go in regards to the law, even though I don't believe in the slippery slope concept in regards to US law.

The biggest reason why I am glad of the ruling, is simply to display just how serious we take our Constitutional rights, especially the First Amendment, and how tolerant we are as a nation of even the most hate-filled speech any evil mind could possibly devise.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think that you mean Daniel Ellsberg...

Yeah, I edited my error. Those brain lapses are more common every day.

He had legal access to the papers that he released. This is similar to the ones released on Wikileaks, Private Manning had legal access to them. This is quite different to where documents are gained via illegal access and then released publically. Breaking into a company or university's e-mail server and taking their e-mails is no better than breaking into someone's house and taking their letters from their safe, and should be dealt with in the same manner.

If Law Enforcement wants access to these things they would require a search warrant or a subpoena to get them. Members of the public hiding behind a mask and then committing illegal acts in the name if vigilantism are no better than cyber thugs.

Kind of a fine line you are drawing here. I have legal access to all kinds of confidential medical information. That doesn't make it legal for me to disclose that information.

Ellsberg was convicted. He only avoided jail time because a mistrial was later declared and the feds declined to retry the case.

And clearly they are going to prosecute Manning. It's shameful. You'd think this was a totalitarian state, but I digress.

Both men have technically committed a crime. Care to answer again?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I have no problem with both sides exercising free speech as long as neither use their rights to over-ride the other's.

How specifically does a temporary takeover of a web page differ from say, holding your sign saying Fox News Lies in front of the Fox News cameras in Wisconsin?

There's a gray area here. It's not as black and white as you want to paint it.

If one person has millions and produces slick TV commercials, is their free speech equal to the dozen poor people on the corner with a megaphone? No. You can pretend it's all about some moral right or principle, but in practice the world is not so neatly formed.

 

[Johny2x4]

Around here, it´s customary to punch people int the face if they say really bad things, hence people here try to avoid saying really bad things because they will get punched in the face if said so. For example if I go to a neighorthood were there´s a large ammount of black persons and I say "blacks suck!" I will be exercising my free speech, but I will also get punched in the face (if I´m lucky.. I could get stabbed or shot. depending on who I come across).

I like our system better. Freedom of speech has consequences.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Kind of a fine line you are drawing here.

Everything has a fine line drawn somewhere. If a guy attacks me with a knife and I shoot him twice and and kill him, it's legal, if I shoot him once, he drops the knife, and I shoot him again and kill him, it's murder.

I have legal access to all kinds of confidential medical information. That doesn't make it legal for me to disclose that information.

Depends on why you did it, and how. If you released information that showed that patients weren't being treated properly and were being fleeced for everything the hospital could get before they died, without breaching the patient's privacy by naming them as specific cases then I think you should be able to do so.

Ellsberg was convicted. He only avoided jail time because a mistrial was later declared and the feds declined to retry the case.

And clearly they are going to prosecute Manning. It's shameful. You'd think this was a totalitarian state, but I digress.

There is always the question of did they break other laws. If they signed non-disclosure agreements on pain of being tossed in jail, etc, then obviously there is a case. Personally I think the case they are bringing against Manning is wrong and I think they will be hard pressed to provide evidence that the leaks adided the enemy, or that he intended the released information to do so.

Both men have technically committed a crime. Care to answer again?

I don't see any point to amend what I have already stated. Releasing information you have legal access to, even if releasing it is illegal is different to illegally obtaining and then illegally releasing information.

 

[PhantomWolf]

How specifically does a temporary takeover of a web page differ from say, holding your sign saying Fox News Lies in front of the Fox News cameras in Wisconsin?

Unless the camera is FOX's Studio and you broke in to hold the sign there, then there is a great deal of difference. There is no law preventing a person standing or holding a sign in a public place, even if they do so rather rudely. There is a law about hacking into a website that isn't yours.

There's a gray area here. It's not as black and white as you want to paint it.

Sorry disagree, hacking a website is illegal, plain and simple.

If one person has millions and produces slick TV commercials, is their free speech equal to the dozen poor people on the corner with a megaphone? No. You can pretend it's all about some moral right or principle, but in practice the world is not so neatly formed.

Of course it is equal. Is it able to reach more people yes, but that doesn't mean it has more value or right to be heard. Everyone has exactly the same right to say what they think and express themselves, even if they don't have equal ability to spread that message. You don't have a right to the use of media, you have a right to free speech and expression, try not to confuse the two.

 

[Mycroft]

So you are of the belief that freedom of speech should only include that speech you approve of?

Anonymous really doesn't have the power to stop their speech. At best they can vandalize their websites for a short time and harass them in other ways. As has been pointed out earlier, if they did this, it would only draw more attention to WBC.

 

[Mycroft]

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.

Their message is obnoxious and bigoted, but the Phelps themselves are pretty polite while delivering it. I don't think attacking them in any way accomplishes anything except to give them more publicity, which is what they want.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Everything has a fine line drawn somewhere. If a guy attacks me with a knife and I shoot him twice and and kill him, it's legal, if I shoot him once, he drops the knife, and I shoot him again and kill him, it's murder.

Depends on why you did it, and how. If you released information that showed that patients weren't being treated properly and were being fleeced for everything the hospital could get before they died, without breaching the patient's privacy by naming them as specific cases then I think you should be able to do so.

Ellsberg and Manning both felt they had a moral reason for disclosing confidential information. There still was no legally defined circumstance where breaching confidentiality was LEGAL. That is not analogous to two different legal definitions of killing, self defense and murder.

You are dodging the question. Ellsberg and Manning broke the law. Were they right or wrong to do so?

Unless the camera is FOX's Studio and you broke in to hold the sign there, then there is a great deal of difference. There is no law preventing a person standing or holding a sign in a public place, even if they do so rather rudely. There is a law about hacking into a website that isn't yours.


Sorry disagree, hacking a website is illegal, plain and simple.

Compare your answers here. You cite a false analogy using an example of two DIFFERENT LEGAL DEFINITIONS and dodge the question of breaking the law for moral reasons. Then you repeat your dogmatic assertion that the legality of the action determines the morality of the action. Your dogmatic assertion ignores the reality one is sometimes faced with. Laws are not always just.

There is always the question of did they break other laws. If they signed non-disclosure agreements on pain of being tossed in jail, etc, then obviously there is a case. Personally I think the case they are bringing against Manning is wrong and I think they will be hard pressed to provide evidence that the leaks adided the enemy, or that he intended the released information to do so.

Sign agreements? Manning was in the military and Ellsberg was a military analyst. Where have you gotten the idea they had any legal right to disclose secret documents?

The Pentagon Papers were classified. If there was a "non-disclosure agreement" or not, classified means you cannot disclose those papers. Manning was in the Army. Maybe they can or can't charge him with aiding the enemy. But they can certainly charge him with disclosing confidential documents.

It sounds like you'd like what both of these guys did to be legal. But it wasn't. So it's not as black and white as you claim, legal OK, not legal, not OK. Does the legislature never make a bad law? Is every law perfectly applicable to every situation?

Of course it is equal. Is it able to reach more people yes, but that doesn't mean it has more value or right to be heard. Everyone has exactly the same right to say what they think and express themselves, even if they don't have equal ability to spread that message. You don't have a right to the use of media, you have a right to free speech and expression, try not to confuse the two.

So the rich rule the world and tough luck if you're poor. Poor people have no right to a level playing field.

I don't see any point to amend what I have already stated. Releasing information you have legal access to, even if releasing it is illegal is different to illegally obtaining and then illegally releasing information.

Which is it? Breaking the law is OK or breaking the law is not OK?



I don't think your answers fit with my moral view of the world.

 

[JFrankA]

I think it depends on the circumstances. After all, the decision that Phelps has the right to protest was based upon how that protest was carried out.

Free speech everyone has a right to have provided two things don't occur: I do not interfere with others rights to free speech and I don't use that right to break the law.

For example, one can scream "Blacks suck" (to use Johny2x4's example) anywhere. However, that can be taken in a myriad of different ways with a whole slew of different consequences depending where, when, how, why, etc.

If one is in a predominately black neighborhood and screams it, that will convey a completely different consequence if I was fixing a copier machine and spilled toner on my clothes or on stage playing a racist character.

The thing is that free speech does not have a "fine line" or a "gray area". Free speech is there. Period. Free speech is a thing, like owning a toaster.
The conditions it's used, the circumstances, the resulting consequences makes the difference.

 

[Nihilianth]

Their message is obnoxious and bigoted, but the Phelps themselves are pretty polite while delivering it. I don't think attacking them in any way accomplishes anything except to give them more publicity, which is what they want.

I see your point.

Although, I will say, I would HARDLY call what the Phelps's are doing to be anything close to "polite." They may act calmly once in a while, though, I have seen plenty of videos where they are less than calm. They shout down people, use megaphones, and their behavior is just plain RUDE. You should see the bitch Phelps woman being interviewed by Hannity or someone like that on Fox News a while back before the trial. She would not shut her stupid little trap to allow Hannity or anyone else to speak. Even though Fox News itself uses the same dirty, low-down tactics on a regular basis as well.

But yeah, even if they were "peaceful" and calm all of the time, their signs and message is rude, and obnoxious. I hardly call that "polite behavior." Especially showing up at funerals with such garbage!

I will also make something clear: I don't think that attacking them is the right way to go at all. But I do think maybe there needs to be some sort of stricter limitations of public speech during a funeral, along the funeral route. It is a rather private affair, though they use public streets. It also happens to be an extremely emotional time. Which can very easily constitute as harassment, and emotional distress.

 

[Nihilianth]

I think it depends on the circumstances. After all, the decision that Phelps has the right to protest was based upon how that protest was carried out.

Free speech everyone has a right to have provided two things don't occur: I do not interfere with others rights to free speech and I don't use that right to break the law.

For example, one can scream "Blacks suck" (to use Johny2x4's example) anywhere. However, that can be taken in a myriad of different ways with a whole slew of different consequences depending where, when, how, why, etc.

If one is in a predominately black neighborhood and screams it, that will convey a completely different consequence if I was fixing a copier machine and spilled toner on my clothes or on stage playing a racist character.

The thing is that free speech does not have a "fine line" or a "gray area". Free speech is there. Period. Free speech is a thing, like owning a toaster.
The conditions it's used, the circumstances, the resulting consequences makes the difference.

Huh, if only I had used this argument in the circumcision thread.....

In any case, you are correct. The Phelps' broke no law. Therefore, the SC Justices were probably obligated to rule in favor of Phelps.

But does that still mean they have a right to cause someone such emotional distress? Apparently, the SC thinks so, and that's what matters.

What if you had walked up to a child whom you knew lost their mother, and started making fun of that child to their face about their dead mother? And you only did it once, and didn't get too close to the child? There is no law against it, yet, do you think you have the right to do this?

 

[blutoski]

Huh, if only I had used this argument in the circumcision thread.....

In any case, you are correct. The Phelps' broke no law. Therefore, the SC Justices were probably obligated to rule in favor of Phelps.

But does that still mean they have a right to cause someone such emotional distress? Apparently, the SC thinks so, and that's what matters.

What if you had walked up to a child whom you knew lost their mother, and started making fun of that child to their face about their dead mother? And you only did it once, and didn't get too close to the child? There is no law against it, yet, do you think you have the right to do this?

No, and that's been brought up above. This is stalking and harassment, and the recipient can press charges.

This situation was different - the family did not even see the WBC demonstration. They might as well have been in Canada.

As a skeptic whose essays and blogs and interviews who inevitably causes 'emotional distress' in a significant part of my audience, but would never harass somebody, I think this is one of the most valuable things about living in a free society.

 

[Mycroft]

I see your point.

Although, I will say, I would HARDLY call what the Phelps's are doing to be anything close to "polite." They may act calmly once in a while, though, I have seen plenty of videos where they are less than calm. They shout down people, use megaphones, and their behavior is just plain RUDE. You should see the bitch Phelps woman being interviewed by Hannity or someone like that on Fox News a while back before the trial. She would not shut her stupid little trap to allow Hannity or anyone else to speak. Even though Fox News itself uses the same dirty, low-down tactics on a regular basis as well.

But yeah, even if they were "peaceful" and calm all of the time, their signs and message is rude, and obnoxious. I hardly call that "polite behavior." Especially showing up at funerals with such garbage!

I will also make something clear: I don't think that attacking them is the right way to go at all. But I do think maybe there needs to be some sort of stricter limitations of public speech during a funeral, along the funeral route. It is a rather private affair, though they use public streets. It also happens to be an extremely emotional time. Which can very easily constitute as harassment, and emotional distress.

Sometimes our agreement or disagreement with the message itself will influence our perception of how the message is delivered. If you've seen videos of the Phelps's shouting people down, then perhaps you have more evidence than I do, but what I witnessed last Saturday were people shouting at the WBCers, and the WBCers maintaining their cool. Their message itself is hateful and their signs are inflammatory, but what I saw was the people doing the shouting were the people shouting at them.

For myself, I was able to walk down the line and take about a half-dozen photos of the Church members with their signs, one of the ladies was kind enough to warn me not to step in some horse poo that had been left on the street as I focused my attention on them.