Anonymous vs. Westboro

arthwollipot said:
Also notice that the Supreme Court recently ruled in favour of WBC's right to free speech.

Thing is, Fred Phelps is a lawyer. If he weren't such a nutjob he'd be a fantastic ACLU lawyer. He knows exactly how far he can push it, and he goes right up to the line. But never over it. Never.

Anonymous, on the other hand, if this is even them, if 'them' even has a true meaning when dealing with an amorphous anarchic collective, are breaking the law. Furthermore, they are (as someone already pointed out) attempting to deny the WBC their right to free speech, which seems to be completely opposed to Anonymous' stated philosophy.

Anyway, it isn't them. It's The Jester, or whatever it is he calls himself. I hear that he and Anonymous aren't exactly friends.
Click to expand...

Fred Phelps cannot practice law in any state. When he practiced law in Kansas, he was known for ripping off his clients more than his prowess as a lawyer. His daughter, Shirley, is the best lawyer in the family.
 
ksbluesfan said:
Fred Phelps cannot practice law in any state. When he practiced law in Kansas, he was known for ripping off his clients more than his prowess as a lawyer. His daughter, Shirley, is the best lawyer in the family.
Click to expand...

What's her name?

[Shirley shome mishtake - Ed]
 
Time for a contrarian argument:

Westboro is good for America, I'm glad they're around.

1) They force us to commit unapologetically to freedom of speech. This is good.
2) They make us laugh. This is good.
3) They don't actually cause any harm, save for the funeral stuff, but that was adequately handled by private citizens. Another good.
4) They're like the obnoixious prick on a reality show: they help everyone else get along better by providing a common enemy. Dems and Republicans, Conservatives and Liberals, we all agree these people are jackoffs. Unity=good.

No group with less actual power that causes less actual damage is given so much consideration. Laugh at them, move on. They don't need to be destroyed by internet hackers.
 
TraneWreck said:
Time for a contrarian argument:

Westboro is good for America, I'm glad they're around.

1) They force us to commit unapologetically to freedom of speech. This is good.
2) They make us laugh. This is good.
3) They don't actually cause any harm, save for the funeral stuff, but that was adequately handled by private citizens. Another good.
4) They're like the obnoixious prick on a reality show: they help everyone else get along better by providing a common enemy. Dems and Republicans, Conservatives and Liberals, we all agree these people are jackoffs. Unity=good.

No group with less actual power that causes less actual damage is given so much consideration. Laugh at them, move on. They don't need to be destroyed by internet hackers.
Click to expand...

To add to this:

5) they make us all feel better about ourselves. At least we're not them!
 
TraneWreck said:
Time for a contrarian argument:

Westboro is good for America, I'm glad they're around.

1) They force us to commit unapologetically to freedom of speech. This is good.
2) They make us laugh. This is good.
3) They don't actually cause any harm, save for the funeral stuff, but that was adequately handled by private citizens. Another good.
4) They're like the obnoixious prick on a reality show: they help everyone else get along better by providing a common enemy. Dems and Republicans, Conservatives and Liberals, we all agree these people are jackoffs. Unity=good.

No group with less actual power that causes less actual damage is given so much consideration. Laugh at them, move on. They don't need to be destroyed by internet hackers.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
blutoski said:
(Fictional) Thomas More (From A Man For All Seasons):

More: Well . . . I believe, when statesmen forsake their own private conscience for the sake of their public duties . . . they lead their country by a short route to chaos.

Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
Click to expand...

You see this is when you stand in the middle of what remains with lots of guns.

We'll see how well Westboro does when it's total anarchy and everyone is now their enemy.
 
PhantomWolf said:
I have to say I can't support Anonymous, they are nothing more than cyber vigilantes who think that they should be the ones that determine what should be legal and what shouldn't on the net.

They say that they are "the Voice of Free Speech" and yet at the same time they are directly threatening the free speech of other people, this seems rather ironic.

Basically they have taken on the role of judge, jury, and executioner without being given any mandate to do so by anyone, and this is very, very thin ice that they walk on. In my opinion they have already gone to far, and if they don't reverse their direction, then they will become the very thing they claim to be fighting, a tyrannical force that ignores the rights of people and breaks the law to do whatever it wants against anyone they take a disliking to.
Click to expand...
Care to cite an example? The attacks I've seen have been against free speech attackers and against people who have used their power to control the message.

Edit update: OK, there are political attacks listed on Wiki so let me rephrase that. How does this differ from any other political free speech? The WI voters recently took over their state capitol building. Does that differ from taking over a web page? None of the Anonymous attacks were permanent.
 
Last edited:
Good Lord, can Anonymous possibly make future DDoS or vandalism of websites more dramatic? They always try to make it sound like they're planning the landing at Normandy or something, and it gets a real air of deluding themselves into thinking they're a part of something bigger/more important than it is.

Note that all of that is my opinion, but that's definitely the way it comes off to me.
 
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...
The point was, Anonymous said they wanted nothing to do with WBC for the very reason we should all ignore them, they are publicity whores. They want negative publicity, it gets them in the news.

WBC claimed Anonymous had attacked the WBC web page. Anonymous went on the talk program to say they don't care about WBC, it's not Anonymous' thing. WBC's Shirley argued with the Anon guy and he replied by saying we can attack your web site anytime, go look at it right now and see.

The point he was making was they could have attacked the site but they didn't. WBC creeps were lying.

Do not taunt Anonymous
 
Last edited:
Am I the only one who hears Tyler Durden's voice reading that letter in your head?

I haven't looked into the show on the provided clip, but that thing smelled like BS to me. At the very least, it seemed to me like the show's producers/talent and Anonymous were in cahoots.
 
Mr. Purple said:
Am I the only one who hears Tyler Durden's voice reading that letter in your head?

I haven't looked into the show on the provided clip, but that thing smelled like BS to me. At the very least, it seemed to me like the show's producers/talent and Anonymous were in cahoots.
Click to expand...
The show was obviously sympathetic to Anonymous, but in what way do you mean it was "BS"?
 
A Laughing Baby said:
Good Lord, can Anonymous possibly make future DDoS or vandalism of websites more dramatic? They always try to make it sound like they're planning the landing at Normandy or something, and it gets a real air of deluding themselves into thinking they're a part of something bigger/more important than it is.

Note that all of that is my opinion, but that's definitely the way it comes off to me.
Click to expand...
Well Anonymous says they didn't write the one in the OP.
 
chipmunk stew said:
The show was obviously sympathetic to Anonymous, but in what way do you mean it was "BS"?
Click to expand...

Meh, "BS" was my communicatively lazy way of saying what you said. It just didn't feel like it was 100% objective journalism. Sure, I side with Anonymous vs. Westboro (in general), but I dislike seeing "my" side being catered to in this type of format. If anything, I want the side I am on to withstand everything that can be thrown at it.

I am sure though, that it is hard to appear/be objective when one of the parties is raving lunatics from Westboro.
 
chipmunk stew said:
Well Anonymous says they didn't write the one in the OP.
Click to expand...

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.
 
PhantomWolf said:
I have to say I can't support Anonymous, they are nothing more than cyber vigilantes who think that they should be the ones that determine what should be legal and what shouldn't on the net.

They say that they are "the Voice of Free Speech" and yet at the same time they are directly threatening the free speech of other people, this seems rather ironic.

Basically they have taken on the role of judge, jury, and executioner without being given any mandate to do so by anyone, and this is very, very thin ice that they walk on. In my opinion they have already gone to far, and if they don't reverse their direction, then they will become the very thing they claim to be fighting, a tyrannical force that ignores the rights of people and breaks the law to do whatever it wants against anyone they take a disliking to.
Click to expand...

In the case of WestBoro, I side with anon, deal with it.
 
PhantomWolf said:
I have to say I can't support Anonymous, they are nothing more than cyber vigilantes who think that they should be the ones that determine what should be legal and what shouldn't on the net.

They say that they are "the Voice of Free Speech" and yet at the same time they are directly threatening the free speech of other people, this seems rather ironic.

Basically they have taken on the role of judge, jury, and executioner without being given any mandate to do so by anyone, and this is very, very thin ice that they walk on. In my opinion they have already gone to far, and if they don't reverse their direction, then they will become the very thing they claim to be fighting, a tyrannical force that ignores the rights of people and breaks the law to do whatever it wants against anyone they take a disliking to.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom