Anonymous vs. Westboro

[Nihilianth]

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.

You should see the various interviews they have had. They are all over Youtube. Yes, they, and by that I mean Shirley, is incredibly rude and obnoxious when someone is trying to ask her a question, or respond to one.

In any case, standing outside no matter how "peacefully" you remain with signs that say "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" and so forth, is not an action of "peace." It is purposely meant to provoke. It is rude and disrespectful in the extreme.

 

[Nihilianth]

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.

The bolded is in direct contradiction of what Mr. Snyder has claimed. He said he had to lean over to keep his wife and daughter from seeing those people. The Phelps were only 300 feet away, which was within the legal limit set up by the local/state regulations.

And how is "stalking and harassment" different from a child who lost a parent, from a family who lost a son?

And this:

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.

The Phelps' broke no law. Therefore, the SC Justices were probably obligated to rule in favor of Phelps.

 

[Dorian Gray]

JREF is controlled by the Government?

No, Captain Strawman. JREF does not allow you to exercise total freedom of speech, yet it allows you to express any idea given certain parameters.

Are you going to say JREF is unconstitutional, or are you going to admit I am right about there being more than two choices?

 

[blutoski]

The bolded is in direct contradiction of what Mr. Snyder has claimed. He said he had to lean over to keep his wife and daughter from seeing those people.

When driving on a public road?

The Phelps were only 300 feet away, which was within the legal limit set up by the local/state regulations.

I'm still not convinced this means WBC's freedom of speech can be nullified. Sounds like they were obeying the law.

Are you saying that yes they were obeying the law, but 300' is not far enough and the law should change? I think that's a reasonable argument, but it does carry some risk. An obvious example is that it seems to endorse the increasing popularity of 'protest zones' - you can't protest in front of the politicians, but you can have a protest three miles away. Because, well, it gives them emotional distress.

And how is "stalking and harassment" different from a child who lost a parent, from a family who lost a son?

I don't understand the question. Maybe it's the way it was worded.

Are you asking why being opinionated 300' away is not the same as harassment? It makes sense to me. PhantomWolf has a good primer in a previous post.

Again: what happens when we're on the other side of the fence? CFI and AA pay for billboards and transit ads that announce there's no heaven and when you're dead you're dead. It's offensive and even traumatizing for people who just lost a loved one. Maybe they're driving to or from a funeral. Can they sue us for emotional distress?

 

[Nihilianth]

When driving on a public road?

Yes, they were driving along a public road. You can see out the car's windows while driving along a public road, can you not? (Sorry for the sarcasm. )

I'm still not convinced this means WBC's freedom of speech can be nullified. Sounds like they were obeying the law.

Yes. They were. Which is why the ruling is correct, and the SC could not have ruled in any other fashion.

Are you saying that yes they were obeying the law, but 300' is not far enough and the law should change? I think that's a reasonable argument, but it does carry some risk.

Yeah, that is pretty much what I was kind of driving at. Although I do recognize some difficulties in instituting a stricter policy than is currently on the books in many places.

An obvious example is that it seems to endorse the increasing popularity of 'protest zones' - you can't protest in front of the politicians, but you can have a protest three miles away. Because, well, it gives them emotional distress.

No. I don't think this would have any affect whatsoever on political protesters, beyond the slippery slope problem. For one, the First Amendment was arguably written specifically for the purpose of allowing political dissent.

I don't understand the question. Maybe it's the way it was worded.

Are you asking why being opinionated 300' away is not the same as harassment? It makes sense to me. PhantomWolf has a good primer in a previous post.

Yes. That is what I was asking. What the difference between 300 feet away, and directly in front of someone. Clearly, I don't think the distance of a message really makes much a difference on the mental state of the person receiving said message. I could be wrong, though.

Do you know which post? I suppose I could go back and root around for a bit at some point.

Again: what happens when we're on the other side of the fence? CFI and AA pay for billboards and transit ads that announce there's no heaven and when you're dead you're dead. It's offensive and even traumatizing for people who just lost a loved one. Maybe they're driving to or from a funeral. Can they sue us for emotional distress?

I think this is quite a bit different of a scenario. For one, the billboards are directed not any one person in particular. It would be very hard to argue that it was. If not, it would be impossible.

With the WBC, it is quite obvious they are purposely targeting individual people for their messages of hate and harassment. They actually freely admit to looking through obituaries. They go so far as to buy plane tickets to travel halfway across the country for their little stunts to the exact funeral route of a dead person. Not only is that creepy in a very stalkerish-type manner, but it is very troubling that a group would go to such extremes. Not even the neonazis would do such a thing. Not that I have ever heard of.

Heh, in fact, speaking of neonazis, I saw this one video which I got a bit of a kick out of. They had this one complete redneck skinhead being interviewed about his views of the WBC. His response: "They are sick freaks who go far and beyond anything even I can imagine doing to another human being!"

I suppose the good that comes out of this, is that it makes even neo-fascists look like moderates who are of the same mind as blacks and other minorities.

 

[Nosi]

When driving on a public road?






I'm still not convinced this means WBC's freedom of speech can be nullified. Sounds like they were obeying the law.

Are you saying that yes they were obeying the law, but 300' is not far enough and the law should change? I think that's a reasonable argument, but it does carry some risk. An obvious example is that it seems to endorse the increasing popularity of 'protest zones' - you can't protest in front of the politicians, but you can have a protest three miles away. Because, well, it gives them emotional distress.

I don't understand the question. Maybe it's the way it was worded.

Are you asking why being opinionated 300' away is not the same as harassment? It makes sense to me. PhantomWolf has a good primer in a previous post.

Again: what happens when we're on the other side of the fence? CFI and AA pay for billboards and transit ads that announce there's no heaven and when you're dead you're dead. It's offensive and even traumatizing for people who just lost a loved one. Maybe they're driving to or from a funeral. Can they sue us for emotional distress?

In the highlighted case and in the case of the WBC: Those who are offended cannot sue, they can however retaliate by starting a sign war by firing their free speech guns right back. They can pay for billboards saying "when your dead you go to heaven" or whatever they see fit, providing there's not one of the seven deadly words I believe. Or specifically for the WBC, gather opposite minded folk to counter protest or block WBC protests. One of the classics was when the WBC was taken on by San Diego's Comic-Con.

 

[PhantomWolf]

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

I'm actually going to start here, simply because I don't have to conform to your moral view of the world, and for you to even suggest it shows how out of touch with reality you are.

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.

The issue is not the leaking of the information; it's in how the information was obtained.

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

I have answered; you just refuse to accept the answer. Not my fault.

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.

You are the one bring morality into this; I never said anything about it. My position is simple, if you legally have access to information that the law is being broken and you decide to leak that information be it publically or to the authorities, then I have few problems with it. If you break the law to obtain information you don't legally have access to based on a belief that they are breaking the law, then you are taking the law into your own hands and are just a vigilante. Now that I do have a problem with.

You also managed to totally miss the point of the analogy too. One is a legal killing, one is illegal, but there is a fine line between them. In the same way, there is a fine line between legally obtaining information, and illegally obtaining it. The release of that information is irrelevant.

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?

If they believe that they found evidence of illegal activity then here they'd have a legal obligation to report it.

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.

I agree that certainly can charge him with breeching confidentially. Here it'd be harder due to our whistle blower protection laws.

It sounds like you'd like what both of these guys did to be legal.

It would be here.

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?

You're still mixing up two parts; you are focusing on the release of documents. I'm more concerned in how those documents were obtained.

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

Wow, talk about stretching a long bow. No one has a right to the use of media. Can you imagine a world where anyone could get their insanity advertised on TV? Would you really want the Government paying for 9/11 Truthers, Reptilian believers, Autism caused by inoculations, and homeopathic medicines to all be getting equal air time as Coca Cola and Geico?

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

From The Paladin's Virtues printed in A Grand Tour of the Realms

• People rule, laws help.

 

[JFrankA]

Wow, talk about stretching a long bow. No one has a right to the use of media. Can you imagine a world where anyone could get their insanity advertised on TV?

...television, no. The internet...well.....

 

[JFrankA]

To answer the whole question of

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?

You don't give enough circumstances. Perhaps I was just being mean, but then again, perhaps the child's mother killed my wife or perhaps the child was being brat, or perhaps the child didn't like his mother, how old is the child, was the father there, on and on and on and on we can go with different circumstances that change the perception of how this is played out, including who is the "bad guy" and who is the "good guy". Bottom line here is that free speech is nothing but a "thing", something that is used in each and every situation that we can come up with.

So of course I have a right. Just as they have a right to yell back whatever they wished.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Coincidence?

Can anyone get onto Phred's site? It doesn't work from here.

http://www.godhatesfags.com/

Now, that could just be our famous good taste in Hong Kong, but it could also mean that the Hairy Thunderer wouldn't protect their site. Does God Hate Bigoted Turds?

 

[Nihilianth]

To answer the whole question of



You don't give enough circumstances. Perhaps I was just being mean, but then again, perhaps the child's mother killed my wife or perhaps the child was being brat, or perhaps the child didn't like his mother, how old is the child, was the father there, on and on and on and on we can go with different circumstances that change the perception of how this is played out, including who is the "bad guy" and who is the "good guy". Bottom line here is that free speech is nothing but a "thing", something that is used in each and every situation that we can come up with.

So of course I have a right. Just as they have a right to yell back whatever they wished.

Considering I had asked that question in the context of the discussion about the Snyder case, and just for the fun of it:

The child did nothing to deserve any ridicule. The child doesn't even know you, but has heard of you before. And the child is in great pain over the loss of a parent. It doesn't matter what age the child is. If you have no right to do something to one person, that applies universally. But just for giggles, let's say under the age of 12.

Do you have the right to walk up to a child, or stand 300 feet away, and yell obscenities, and making fun of the child for losing their parent?

What would you do if your wife (or husband?) were killed in a car crash, and you were left alone with a young child? What would you do if you noticed someone, an adult, doing such behavior towards your child? I would like you to be honest as well, though I know you probably were not placed in such a situation, so any answer you give would probably be pure speculation. It isn't something you would know what you would do if you have never been in such a situation.

But I think I can accurately speculate on what I would do myself. I think I could speculate on what most parents would do. (Hint: I don't think you would be terribly rational in the moment.)

 

[JFrankA]

Considering I had asked that question in the context of the discussion about the Snyder case, and just for the fun of it:

The child did nothing to deserve any ridicule. The child doesn't even know you, but has heard of you before. And the child is in great pain over the loss of a parent. It doesn't matter what age the child is. If you have no right to do something to one person, that applies universally. But just for giggles, let's say under the age of 12.

Do you have the right to walk up to a child, or stand 300 feet away, and yell obscenities, and making fun of the child for losing their parent?

Yes. I have the right. I maybe a douche bag for using that right under those circumstances, but I still have that right. However, I also have to deal with the people around him using their rights to free speech too.

What would you do if your wife (or husband?) were killed in a car crash, and you were left alone with a young child? What would you do if you noticed someone, an adult, doing such behavior towards your child? I would like you to be honest as well, though I know you probably were not placed in such a situation, so any answer you give would probably be pure speculation. It isn't something you would know what you would do if you have never been in such a situation.

But I think I can accurately speculate on what I would do myself. I think I could speculate on what most parents would do. (Hint: I don't think you would be terribly rational in the moment.)

Appealing to emotion are we? How I would react does not change the fact that we all have the right to free speech.

Personally, I would just ignore someone like that. They were clearly looking for me to play their game, and I don't play other people's game. And really, your hint doesn't matter. You really don't know me.

 

[JFrankA]

Can anyone get onto Phred's site? It doesn't work from here.

http://www.godhatesfags.com/

Now, that could just be our famous good taste in Hong Kong, but it could also mean that the Hairy Thunderer wouldn't protect their site. Does God Hate Bigoted Turds?

For the record, I can't get on it either.

 

[Nihilianth]

Yes. I have the right. I maybe a douche bag for using that right, but I have that right. However, I also have to deal with the people around him using their rights to free speech too.




Appealing to emotion are we? How I would react does not change the fact that we all have the right to free speech.

Personally, I would just ignore someone like that. They were clearly looking for me to play their game, and I don't play other people's game. And really, your hint doesn't matter. You really don't know me.

Heh, that would be wrong. You have no right to such speech that could reasonably cause someone to act out in violence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words

This was an argument that was used that could very well have made the SC Justices decide the other way. In the end, it was decided that limiting the WBC their rights in this case could possibly do more harm to society. But they did take serious consideration of the Chaplinsky case of 1942.

There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting words" those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.

– Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942

As others have said in this thread, the Phelps know how to come right up to the edge, without crossing the line. Their actions are damned close though. They were standing right at the precipice.

 

[Nihilianth]

For the record, I can't get on it either.

lol. I can't either. I wouldn't be surprised if this makes the news next.

 

[JFrankA]

Heh, that would be wrong. You have no right to such speech that could reasonably cause someone to act out in violence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words

This was an argument that was used that could very well have made the SC Justices decide the other way. In the end, it was decided that limiting the WBC their rights in this case could possibly do more harm to society. But they did take serious consideration of the Chaplinsky case of 1942.

...and that has been in dispute ever since that decision.

Tellingly, despite continued reaffirmation of the fighting-words doctrine, the Supreme Court has declined to uphold any convictions for fighting words since Chaplinsky.

http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=13718

As others have said in this thread, the Phelps know how to come right up to the edge, without crossing the line. Their actions are damned close though. They were standing right at the precipice.

And at what point does what he say become "fighting words"? If he protests a funeral I'm at where someone important to me died, and I ignored him, his words fall flat.

If I come back with a funny counter protest, for example, signs that say "Fags hate god because he doesn't smoke", "Death to which America? North America or South America?", "Of course I'm going to Hell. I live in Hell, Michigan!", "Don't Pray for the USA - do something MORE useful", "How can god hate me if he doesn't exist?" his message again, means nothing.

If I come back with the same venom and argue with them, then his words do become fighting words because I chose to play his game.

And in all of this freedom of speech is a tool, a thing.

Maybe I have it wrong, but he may have the freedom to stand on the precipice, but I have the freedom to not try to push him over, and walk away to leave him dangling.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm actually going to start here, simply because I don't have to conform to your moral view of the world, and for you to even suggest it shows how out of touch with reality you are.

Good Grief, who said you had to conform to my moral view? I was pointing out that since we are operating on different underlying premises (or principles in this case) then we were never going to agree in our conclusions drawn from the same the facts.

In other words I agree to disagree with you. And since no individual has the true one right view of the Universe, I'm not too bothered that my view of reality is "out of touch" with yours.

The issue is not the leaking of the information; it's in how the information was obtained.

So it's OK to break the law when you leak information as long as you don't break the law when you obtain the information?

No matter how you try to spin this, if your premise is one is never justified breaking the law, you cannot cherry pick which laws you apply that too. You can, of course, tell us some other underlying principle why it is preventing free speech to temporarily interfere with someone's web page. Or, you could come up with something more substantial than an arbitrary distinction between two laws. It's OK to leak secret or confidential documents that reveal a crime, or reveal government deceiving the public, but it's not OK to leak documents for personal gain or to truly aid the enemy.

But to just say, it's OK to leak documents you legally obtained, is saying confidentiality and secrecy laws are all bad laws and can be ignored.

I have answered; you just refuse to accept the answer. Not my fault.

So is your answer then, it's OK to leak secret or confidential documents as long as you obtained them legally?

I accept your answer, I'm just calling attention to the flaw in your logic that your distinction is whether something is legal or not.

You are the one bring morality into this; I never said anything about it. My position is simple, if you legally have access to information that the law is being broken and you decide to leak that information be it publically or to the authorities, then I have few problems with it. If you break the law to obtain information you don't legally have access to based on a belief that they are breaking the law, then you are taking the law into your own hands and are just a vigilante. Now that I do have a problem with.

(emphasis mine)

OK, this is a tad different. You've added the distinction of if/when the information you came upon legally involves evidence someone is breaking the law. Manning leaked all kinds of State Department cables that didn't involve exposing breaking any law. The video of the accidental shooting of Iraqi civillians wasn't a video of soldiers breaking the law, it was a video of something the military was embarrassed to tell the public.

Those leaks all involved exposing politicians putting on one face to the public and a different face in private. I'm not aware any of the hidden-from-the-public information was illegal to have hidden.

So your distinction based strictly on 'the law' is getting muddied. And that is all I'm trying to point out to you. You've made a hasty dogmatic statement that something is wrong because of a black and white 'moral' rule. Your asserting of what is right and what is wrong is a moral assertion. It is not an assertion of an evidence based conclusion like evolution theory is valid.

You also managed to totally miss the point of the analogy too. One is a legal killing, one is illegal, but there is a fine line between them. In the same way, there is a fine line between legally obtaining information, and illegally obtaining it. The release of that information is irrelevant.

I assure you, I didn't miss the point. You seem unaware there are LAWS regarding releasing legally obtained information.

But we can move past this, you added the caveat, leaking information a law was being or had been broken. I've added, no law was revealed as being broken in the Manning releases or in the Pentagon Papers. The documents revealed legal but unethical government actions.



So extrapolating from this for you, because you are not articulating your point very well but I think I have an idea now just which distinctions you are making, (correct me if I am wrong) you are looking at this as breaking the law to call attention to something, and, you are defining that as vigilantism.

So, OK, let's go that direction. Lots of protestors break laws when demonstrating. Martin Luther King did. Many Vietnam war protesters did. And more recently it was illegal when Lt Dan Choi handcuffs self to White House fence to protest military's gay ban.

Wow, talk about stretching a long bow. No one has a right to the use of media. Can you imagine a world where anyone could get their insanity advertised on TV? Would you really want the Government paying for 9/11 Truthers, Reptilian believers, Autism caused by inoculations, and homeopathic medicines to all be getting equal air time as Coca Cola and Geico?

It would take an entire new discussion to get at what I mean and figure out what you mean here. But maybe I can condense it down with a different analogy.

Dan Choi, in my example above, broke the law by handcuffing himself to the White House fence in order to call attention to his issue, one guy against the US government. Ellsberg and Martin Luther King participated in numerous protests, including illegal actions to call attention to their issues. If they had had legal means that were as effective, they would not have needed to break the law to achieve their goals.

Some people have certainly argued (especially during the Vietnam protests) that these illegal means of demonstrating were wrong. People could vote at the ballot box. We are a country of laws, yadda yadda. There is rarely, if ever, a consensus of opinion that breaking the law is OK in any one case. It's always in the eye of the beholder if a cause is just and if an illegal action is just.

You've decided that breaking the law to disclose another crime is just. You've decided vigilantism crosses the line and is not just. You have not weighed in on if it is just to break the law to disclose government secrecy you find morally wrong. That is what Manning and Ellsberg did. The documents they released revealed an unethical but not an illegally acting government.

And you've apparently not thought about how what Anonymous has done was civil disobedience not vigilantism. Vigilantism refers to taking the law into your own hands when you believe the government has failed to do so. Civil disobedience refers to breaking a law in order to draw attention to or influence an issue.

Both vigilantism and civil disobedience can run from minor acts to extreme acts. PETA is known to use serious vandalism in acts in their civil disobedience. Not very many people agree that is right to do. Destruction of property as an act of civil disobedience is much less acceptable to most people.

But how about blocking the entrance to a building or property? Chaining yourself to a tree to prevent its being cut down? Occupying the state capitol building?


It's useful to think things through rather than trying to apply dogmatic moral rules for what is right and what is wrong. The Universe is not in black and white, but it is in multiple shades of grey. Especially if you are going to be quoting, "people rule, laws help".

 

[Checkmite]

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.

That makes more sense to me. Anonymous is like the WBC of the internet in some respects; it made no sense for the former to actually be attacking the latter.

 

[MontagK505]

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.

Free speech means you have the right to speak. It doesn't mean you are not accountable for what you say.

It's incitement to riot if your speech specifically encourages people to riot. Harassment is interfering with others rights to speech or movement.

 

[Nihilianth]

...and that has been in dispute ever since that decision.



http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=13718



And at what point does what he say become "fighting words"? If he protests a funeral I'm at where someone important to me died, and I ignored him, his words fall flat.

If I come back with a funny counter protest, for example, signs that say "Fags hate god because he doesn't smoke", "Death to which America? North America or South America?", "Of course I'm going to Hell. I live in Hell, Michigan!", "Don't Pray for the USA - do something MORE useful", "How can god hate me if he doesn't exist?" his message again, means nothing.

If I come back with the same venom and argue with them, then his words do become fighting words because I chose to play his game.

And in all of this freedom of speech is a tool, a thing.

Maybe I have it wrong, but he may have the freedom to stand on the precipice, but I have the freedom to not try to push him over, and walk away to leave him dangling.

HAH! I like that!

I have nothing to argue against this.

I am just waiting for the time when something serious DOES happen. If one of their children ends up in the crossfire, the Phelp's should end up losing all their kids for negligence IMO. What do you think of a family exposing their children to a potentially volatile situation?