Westboro Vs Anonymous
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-02-2011, 05:12 AM
RE: Westboro Vs Anonymous
I happened upon this news yesterday but there was already a letter sent by 20 people at the same time refuting the argument and stating that they believe in free speech. It's relatively clear that the group didn't actually plan this. I don't really feel the hacker group does much good, but I felt like showing this since people were arguing about the hoax. Westboro was hoping to get IPs flooding their networks which they could sue.

This is the letter
Dear Phred Phelps and WBC Phriends,
So we've been hearing a lot about some letter that we supposedly sent you this morning. Problem is,
we're a bit groggy and don't remember sending it. Our best guess is that you heard about us on that
newfangled TV of yours and thought we might be some good money for your little church.
You thought you could play with Anonymous. You observed our rising notoriety and thought you
would exploit our paradigm for your own gain. And then, you thought you could lure some idiots into a
honeypot for more IPs to sue.
This is not so foreign to us; as you may have heard, we trade in Lulz. You just do not have enough to
offer right now.
While Anonymous thanks you for your interest, and would certainly like to take a break and have some
fun with you guys, we have more pressing matters to deal with at the moment.
But, we will keep this application on file, and will certainly contact you if any openings become
available in future.
Next time, don't call us. We'll call you.
Additionally, as your "Press Release" failed to understand: When Anonymous says we support free
speech, we mean it. We count Beatrice Hall among our Anonymous forebears: "I disapprove of what
you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Do some among our number hate you and your cynical exploitation of your human rights for monetary
gain? Of course. But the MoralFags are also the first to admit that they are, in fact, your rights to
exploit.
In closing, let us assure you: We are not BAWWWING sissies, nor are we afraid of your false god;
we're just really busy. Stay tuned, and we'll come back to play another day.
We promise.
To the Media: Just because it was posted on AnonNews doesn't mean every single Anon is in
agreement, in fact in this case it doesn't even mean a single Anon is in agreement. Next time, if you
could give us a few minutes to put all our paperwork in order, we'll be sure to let you know what we're
up to. (LOL)
To Anonymous: It's a trap. They've got their ports wide open to harvest IPs to sue. Don't DDoS, and
boycott Operation Westboro. If you really want to continue messing with them, just send them a few
male prostitutes and faxes of goatse. Nothing more.
(Note: This letter was written by more than 20 Anons, at the same time, and none of them were inbred
family members. Unlike that other, shitty "Press Release".)
We are Anonymous.
We are legion.
We do not forgive.
We do not forget.
Expect us.

And here's a link to the anonnews article which shows it in letter form.
http://anonnews.org/?p=press&a=item&i=494

I'm not a non believer, I believe in the possibility of anything. I just don't let the actuality of something be determined by a 3rd party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2011, 11:09 AM
RE: Westboro Vs Anonymous
As despicable and utterly disgusting as the Phelps clan and his ignorant brainwashed congregation are, they seem to be within their constitutional rights to do the things they do. If we truly value free speech, I don't see how we (anybody, not just our group here) can truly support an effort to wipe out something just because we don't like it. I believe the WBC has court rulings in their favor as well. That's not to say that the public cannot hold people accountable for their words and actions. But I am glad to hear that it appears to be fake or a non-issue, because to threaten a group, any group, even an almost universally loathed group such as this, ultimately doesn't do any good. It gives them even more media attention (exactly what they want) and could set a dangerous precedent.

What happens if a group like Anonymous decides they don't like what a secular group is saying or doing?

Our brains deceive us on a regular basis, so we have to find ways to fight back.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-02-2011, 01:37 AM
RE: Westboro Vs Anonymous
(22-02-2011 11:09 AM)TheSixthGlass Wrote:  What happens if a group like Anonymous decides they don't like what a secular group is saying or doing?

That is the problem with setting limits to free speech. Who is doing the setting and who is doing the policing? If there was a trustable group to do the policing and limit setting, it would work. Trustable groups are in very short supply, though.

When I find myself in times of trouble, Richard Dawkins comes to me, speaking words of reason, now I see, now I see.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-02-2011, 03:39 AM
RE: Westboro Vs Anonymous
(21-02-2011 07:38 PM)No J. Wrote:  -When free speech crosses the line into something that becomes destructive, is it still worth protecting?
-What about the problems and emotional damaged caused by idiots like the WBC?
-Should people be allowed to say anything they want to, no matter how damaging or hurtful?
-Would it not be better to have a line that once crossed makes people accountable.
-Maybe we should all be accountable for everything we say.
-Shouldn't free speech come WITH responsibility?
-Does free speech mean that it is OK to create any lie you want and pass it off as truth?

I do believe in free speech, but I also believe in responsibility. Free speech without responsibility can be just as destructive as squashing free speech. There needs to be a realistic middle ground.

I had an entire response written out in my head until I got to this post. This sums up my opinion better than I could have so I will let it speak again.

Free speech should be protected at all costs but there also needs to be responsibility within that free speech. It doesn't go for those that I disagree with either. Any organization who speaks out should have to adhere to a certain level of responsibility and respect, whether it be a christian organization or an atheist organization.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2011, 12:14 PM
RE: Westboro Vs Anonymous
Who sets those standards? Who decides when the "respect" requirement has been breached? Is it the majority? A majority of Muslims were pretty angry at the cartoons made about their prophet a few years ago, so who's side do we take in that argument? Is it enough to be angry or do we judge on a majority opinion? And, from where do we determine the majority? Muslims are a majority in a great many countries so does that rule the day? Or do we decide it's wrong only in countries where they are a minority? And, who protects us from the tyranny of the majority?

Probably 70% of the world's population professes some type of belief in a deity. Is this site disrespectful to their beliefs? Are we being irresponsible by promoting the idea of atheism when a minimum of 70% of the world believes in some type of theism? Should we be shut down because we may taint the beliefs of the children of the faithful?

Freedom of speech is about protecting the ugly, the vile, the hateful, the extreme and the contrary. All of those adjectives can be, and have been, used to describe atheism. Who here is willing to give up their rights to be heard in the name of truth and respect? I'm certainly not.

Given the choice between having the Westboro morons protesting the funerals of my parents, my wife, my children and having their right to be heard curtailed, I'll take the protests every time. If you want to live in a free society, you need to accept that some times people will exercise their right to be douchebags. If you want to live in a place that does not have these freedoms, there are plenty of places you can live, including China, Iran, Pakistan, etc.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2011, 01:13 PM (This post was last modified: 25-02-2011 01:16 PM by sosa.)
RE: Westboro Vs Anonymous
"If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like. Goebbels was in favor of freedom of speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're in favor of freedom of speech, that means you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise." - Noam Chomsky
i completely agree with you BnW. The problem arises with who is making those standards and who is enforcing them. That becomes problematic.

"Liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality." Mikhail Bakunin
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2011, 04:48 PM
RE: Westboro Vs Anonymous
Every possible solution has massive loopholes. That is the problem. I know it can't be solved because there are too many &%^$#heads in the world. So Total Freedom of Speech is the safest alternative because it doesn't give power to anyone to supress others. However it does give freedom for some to oppress others as long as they stay within the legal allowances.

When I find myself in times of trouble, Richard Dawkins comes to me, speaking words of reason, now I see, now I see.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2011, 06:29 PM
RE: Westboro Vs Anonymous
If you're interested (I posted this somewhere else also , because I couldn't find this thread) , during a live radio talk , anon hacked WBC.
It - was - awesome Big Grin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZJwSjor4hM

Atheism is a religion like OFF is a TV channel !!!

Proud of my genetic relatives Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2011, 10:44 PM
RE: Westboro Vs Anonymous
(25-02-2011 06:29 PM)gaglamesh731 Wrote:  If you're interested (I posted this somewhere else also , because I couldn't find this thread) , during a live radio talk , anon hacked WBC.
It - was - awesome Big Grin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZJwSjor4hM

HA!

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/02/25/ano...-websites/

My reason for being is to serve as a cat cushion. That is good enough for me. Wink
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2011, 01:30 PM
RE: Westboro Vs Anonymous
Lilith Wrote:This is the letter
Dear Phred Phelps and WBC Phriends,
So we've been hearing a lot about some letter that we supposedly sent you this morning. Problem is,
we're a bit groggy and don't remember sending it. Our best guess is that you heard about us on that
newfangled TV of yours and thought we might be some good money for your little church.
You thought you could play with Anonymous. You observed our rising notoriety and thought you
would exploit our paradigm for your own gain. And then, you thought you could lure some idiots into a
honeypot for more IPs to sue.
This is not so foreign to us; as you may have heard, we trade in Lulz. You just do not have enough to
offer right now...
...Expect us.
This was expectable, it sounds weird that all of anon., or even many of them, would agree with targeting WBC.
trillium Wrote:HA!

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/02/25/ano...-websites/

Btw, rule #14 is: ''Do not argue with trolls — it means that they win.''

Correct me when I'm wrong.
Accept me or go to hell.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: