When Internet hacker Anonymous supposedly threatened to destroy Topeka's gay-hating Westboro Baptist Church online over the weekend, the reaction was mixed at best. Sure, we could get behind protesting Scientology offices in 2008 because of their litigious attitude toward any speech they don't like, and there were good pro-freedom reasons to defend their recent attacks on Visa and MasterCard. Taking down a church's website because you don't like what they say? (A) Even if they're total dicks, you don't get to police free speech, and (B) as if WBC would give a shit if its websites went down for a few days as long as everyone heard about it.
Well, now Anonymous has an open letter saying there was never any intention to attack Kansas' most famous congregation.
Here's a bit of the open letter to Westboro that started it all:
ANONYMOUS cannot abide this behavior any longer. The time for us to be idle spectators in your inhumane treatment of fellow Man has reached its apex, and we shall now be moved to action. Thus, we give you a warning: Cease & desist your protest campaign in the year 2011, return to your homes in Kansas & close your public Web sites.Should you ignore this warning, you will meet with the vicious retaliatory arm of ANONYMOUS: We will target your public Websites, and the propaganda & detestable doctrine that you promote will be eradicated; the damage incurred will be irreversible, and neither your institution nor your congregation will ever be able to fully recover. It is in your best interest to comply now, while the option to do so is still being offered, because we will not relent until you cease the conduction & promotion of all your bigoted operations & doctrines. This warning has been given. What happens from here shall be determined by you.
A puddle of pimple-faced nerds organized under the cowardly banned of "Anonymous" claim they plan to hack Westboro's Websites, including www.GodHatesFags.com & www.GodHatesTheMedia.com, because they hate Westboro's Bible preachments. They mistakenly suppose because of pseudo-success with ruined-and-doomed-USA's government or financial Websites that they can take on the servants of the Living God.Bad miscalculations, girls!Let us tell you how this will go: rebels will build a full head of steam based on false hope; the media will predictably do much breathless anticipating while giving another tsunami of coverage to Westboro's message; God will defeat your council; your effots will fail.
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.
Showing 1-30 of 30
This Westboro Baptist Church says they hate the Gay-Community.
But, they also hate African Americans, Dr. & Mrs. King, Canada, Sweden, the
Fire Department of N.Y., victims of 911, other Christian churches, the pope,
Judaism, America, our American troops and the list goes on and on. Many of the
groups they despise are specifically named on their hate propaganda, picket
signs and their many websites. They not only hate, but wish death on all whom
they abhor.
This so-called “church” spreads its hate through picketing in
our streets, provoking attacks, with abusive language and flag desecration,
attempting to create a confrontation. This is not about protesting, this is
about a life of hate. They are in it for the money and the press. They are not a "church." They go
after any thing that can get them in the news. This group will protest anything
to get its face on TV or in the news. This group is lost in the darkness of
hate, and will put there children in danger to shield themselves.
These people protest at the funerals of our troops. Do we have a
real need to protest at any funeral? Is that a real freedom?
The city of Topeka, the state of Kansas and the U.S. at large,
its citizens and their churches, schools and events are all held hostage by
this "hate group."-always at the tax payer's expense.
For some reason christians think that if "god" is on their side then certain rules do not apply to them or they are justified to do things that they criticize others for. Blind faith comes to mind. From Corporate fucks down to white trash midwest use christianity to hide behind. I cannot wait to move to a different part of the country where people don't push religion down my fucking throat.
hate and violence doesn't seem like a very christian thing to do. fucking bigots and hypocrites. religion causes more problems than it solves. Oh wait, it doesn't solve anything. nevermind.
It would be a lot cooler if you change the axis of rotation or add multiple axises of rotation.
No they (Anonymous) are simply exercising there free speech rights. You can't have it both ways dude. you can;t say a Hate group has the right to post hate but anti hate groups do not have a right to respond in kind.
New Editor new image... Can't wait for Pete to give ole Freddie Phelps his humanitarian of the year award. So Pete is Shirley Roper Phelps any good in bed?
'...These things are illegal because they're wrong.'
No these things are NOT illegal because they are 'wrong'. The legality of the things mentioned does NOT have anything to do with morality and/or any sense of 'right and wrong'. They are illegal because engaging in any of the listed acts infringes upon the rights of other citizens. Take the yelling 'fire!' in a movie theater, this is illegal because doing so would cause panic and the potential for harm to come to the persons occupying the theater could/would be harmed by the chaos that would ensue as patrons rushed to exit the theater. Therefore, the person who caused the harm would be the person who yelled in the first place and he does not have the right to intentionally do something to knowingly cause direct harm to another person and that other person has the right to protection from others causing or inciting direct harm against them, physical or otherwise.
So to say that the funeral protests should be illegal by the same right as yelling 'Fire!' in a theater is a fallacy. No matter how disgusting, disrespectful (the list goes on) these protests are to some, most, damn near all possibly, (me to be certain) they are not and should not be in the same category of knowingly causing harm to another person. Again, nothing can be outlawed on the simple basis of morality, which stem from differing systems of belief for everyone, or there would be a fundamental breakdown of the constitution and the rights it affords all US citizens equally.
The westboro babtist is not a "church", it is a hate group. They are in it for the money and the press. Most of the members of this "church" are attorneys, so they get away with this. Any one can say they are a "church", that is not going to make you a Church! This is not about freedom, it is about being human. There hate is a way for them to make money, by bringing a Lawsuit against people THEY have provoked. They are running a “church” scam. But, add a bit of crazy on the side just for show.
Some people of Anon think it was WBC that posted the first letter in order to incite Anon to DDoS so that WBC can attempt to sue.
What's funny is that WBC thinks all the publicity they get is shoring up their cause, but it does nothing more than bring attention to what raving lunatics they are. The church is really just one huge incestuous family, and nobody outside of this twisted family respects anything they say or do.
the point of anonymous is that no one is the leader or spokes person and you are all being trolled for actually believing anything put out by someone claiming to be "anonymous"
This is one of the most well constructed replies I have seen online in a long while. The right to free speech applies to government intervention. As long as I'm not breaking the law myself WBC, "... you had it coming"
"And if they beat the holy shit out of you, you had it coming."
This is where the 1st amendment angle of your criticism breaks down. The 1st amendment says that government can't infringe on free speech. However, at a certain point, each individual can make the decision that something needs to be done. The government doesn't sanction it and will even charge the individual should they go too far. In this example, you talk about beating the shit out of the person for going too far. Anonymous would simply be engaged in the internet version of the exact same thing; individuals, without government consent, going outside the bounds of the law to react to what they see as a misuse of the 1st amendment. I don't think screwing with the WBC is LEGALLY right, but I do support it. Not sure why you are drawing a distinction.
The anonymous reply is missing the part where they said they believe WBC was behind the original anonymous message.
LOL, those idiots of Westboro are just looking for some free publicity!
www.complete-privacy.tk
Guys, quit the 'America' centric point of view.
WBC by extension attacks all people who have died in this conflict and all Gay people world wide.
Anon is international and clearly they are stating that this behaviour is unacceptable, whether these people hide behind freedom of speech or not.
Have you seen how the guys over the water in the UK class these guys?... They are not even allowed to enter the country.
Anonymous is a GROUP of people spread around the world...it's not one person. And the vast majority of people agree that protesting funerals is wrong. Not all speech is protected by the First Amendment, you cannot slander, you cannot incite riots, you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater. These things are illegal because they're wrong. I don't want to limit WBC's free speech, they can continue to post on the internet, have protests, send out faxes, etcetera. It's protesting at FUNERALS that has to be stopped. It is, basically, hate speech that has in the past incited riots. So, therefore, the funeral protests must be stopped. IMHO.
"The point of the First Amendment is defending unpopular speech, right?"
Well, no, not really. For one thing, the First Amendment would not apply to this situation because Anonymous is not a branch of the government of the United States. The government wasn't threatening to shut Westboro down. A private citizen, who apparently didn't even have the authority to release this statement, was the one who made a threat. Their attacks would be illegal but it isn't an attack on freedom of speech. The Westboro Church would still have the constitutional right to go protest military funerals because, "God Hates Fags!" or whatever their reasoning is. The First Amendment may give you a right to act like an asshole, however, the First Amendment also gives me the right to call you out on your assholish behavior. That is basically what Anonymous is doing right now (assuming they don't go after the Westboro Church website). No one is policing freedom of speech here.
I understand that it becomes a tricky subject when you want to take away the right to speech from one group but not another. But at some point we have to drop the litigation and realize when people have worn out their rights. If you've spent a decade telling people "God hates fags" and how their loved ones dying is a good thing, then you've lost the right for free speech. I can't think of any other person/group that should be censored, but I do know the WBC should have been by now. The problem is the courts and lawyers will always make it snowball into a big mess of "who gets to talk and who doesn't" if you tell the WBC they can't talk anymore, but I don't see how you could say they should have their rights to free speech.
Well think of an example you actually mean Abe!
I absolutely agree with you that going to a funeral to picket is disgusting. I am in 100 percent with you on that. But I'm not comfortable with a faceless group of internet hackers attacking anyone they don't agree with. The point of the First Amendment is defending unpopular speech, right? If I start saying someone should be censored now, why would I be able to argue for free speech later just because I like the message or the people better?
I do think this is a valid discussion though, because god knows no one should have to put up with anyone picketing their loved one's funeral service. How would you propose limiting free speech in this case without essentially limiting it for anyone else the majority thinks is rude or crass or just assholes? If you have any thoughts on how to do it, Abe, I really am interested in hearing them. What do you think?
I can't believe the Pitch would employ someone who thinks the WBC should be allowed to picket funerals and spread hate speech.
" Even if they're total dicks, you don't get to police free speech "
What a surprise, Peter Rugg thinks the WBC hate speech should be covered under the first amendment. It's idiots like you that give the left thinking people a bad name. Would you defend my "free speech right" if I went to African-American funerals and said "God Hates N____s"?
like
dislike
