It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Anonymous vs Westboro baptist Church

page: 12
68
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by rriverstone
 


Ah.....I see, so it was just a ruse by Westboro? Then again, I am still a bit confused about how Anonymous can really make blanket statements about...well itself. Isn't the whole point of it being that it is a movement without a central command structure? Can't anyone be "Anonymous"? Could there be a small group of hackers planning to take on Westboro that call themselves "Anonymous" while another group of hackers that don't like the Idea say "no that wasn't really Anonymous, it must have been Westboro themselves".....If Anonymous has no central command structure then how do they know this?...........My brain hurts now.




posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   
After reading through this thread and in particular those that say free speech should be all encompassing, I am left with one question that is close to home for you all. In the interest of fostering civilized discourse and debate, ATS curtails some peoples' definition of free speech by censoring certain posts. By that very act, ATS is not a true bastion unrestricted comment. We post with the knowledge that our opinion is always judged by a forum moderator in whom we trust to make the right call on whether or not our posts conform to rules laid down in terms and conditions. We all accept that our 'free speech' at ATS may be censored. The Westboro Baptist Church has gone beyond the point of reason with its bigoted and outrageous views and yet some say restricting or removing their online mouthpiece violates their right to free speech. Question: if you are happy to be a member of a forum where your freedom of speech is monitored to ensure no racist, bigoted, sexist etc. posts are allowed, then why fight for the right of inflammatory views of a few small minded religious zealots to be broadcast?
edit on 20-2-2011 by LarryLove because: Typo



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   
REMINDER:

The topic is Anonymous vs Westboro baptist Church NOT each other. Keep to the topic. Do not make One Line Posts or Off Topic Posts. If you do, your post will be removed.

Thank you for abiding by ATS Terms & Conditions Of Use from here on out!



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by LarryLove
After reading through this thread and in particular those that say free speech should be all encompassing, I am left with one question that is close to home for you all. In the interest of fostering civilized discourse and debate, ATS curtails some peoples' definition of free speech by censoring certain posts. By that very act, ATS is not a true bastion unrestricted comment. We post with the knowledge that our opinion is always judged by a forum moderator in whom we trust to make the right call on whether or not our posts conform to rules laid down in terms and conditions. We all accept that our 'free speech' at ATS may be censored. The Westboro Baptist Church has gone beyond the point of reason with its bigoted and outrageous views and yet some say restricting or removing their online mouthpiece violates their right to free speech. Question: if you are happy to be a member of a forum where your freedom of speech is monitored to ensure no racist, bigoted, sexist etc. posts are allowed, then why fight for the right of inflammatory views of a few small minded religious zealots to be broadcast?
edit on 20-2-2011 by LarryLove because: Typo


You don't have to follow the ATS TAC's. But if you don't, you will not be allowed posting privileges here.

With WBC, they SHOULD be alowed to say what they want. And, legally they are. However, what Anon is doing is bringing the ramifications of saying what they say.

No where in the Constitution are you guaranteed that you will not have consequences incurred through the exercising of your rights. In fact, those consequences are the actual cost of freedom.

Anon is not a government entity. There is no viable 1st Amendment debate to be had with this.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


My point is really to do with those that accept a degree of censorship to post on ATS, yet decree Westboro Baptist Church should be allowed to continue broadcasting their venom because it is their right to do so. Whether it is posting on ATS or slinging verbal mud at a picket line, you can't swing both ways in regard to freedom of speech.


SMR

posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by SMR
One thing is for damn sure.
These Westboro Baptist Church members have absolutely NO morals.


Who defines morals?

According to them everyone else is immoral. You can not dictate morality.

I'm not saying you have to follow a rule of morals. It simply amazes me that not one of these members feels like crap when they do such things. Perhaps a better word would be conscious.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 04:42 PM
link   


We, the collective super-consciousness known as ANONYMOUS

I lol'd when I read that, and almost spilled my drink. And I don't know anything really about this westboro church group thing, other then they like to protest about things, and annoy some people. But this little spat has the making's for much lol'z, and many pictures of cat's eating cheeseburgers.


And it sounds pretty interesting, so let's see if anything actually happens. And who comes out on top and gets the crown of being known as the most the annoying, of annoying groups. My money, if I was a betting man that is, or if I had money to bet on silly things.
Is on anonymous, it seems like there annoying skills are on another level compared to this church group. Anyways, may the ones who have the best duchebagery skills win.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by SMR

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by SMR
One thing is for damn sure.
These Westboro Baptist Church members have absolutely NO morals.


Who defines morals?

According to them everyone else is immoral. You can not dictate morality.

I'm not saying you have to follow a rule of morals. It simply amazes me that not one of these members feels like crap when they do such things. Perhaps a better word would be conscious.


I feel the same. The attitudes and behaviors that some people hold make them seem like aliens to me. I could not for the life of me understand how those people think, and justify their actions. Or, how they came to have so much hate



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 05:09 PM
link   
You can argue the merits and morals of what Anonymous is doing, but the truth is, Anonymous is going to do what they do and all you can do is wait and see what happens.

If someone protests and puts their views on display on the internet, there is equal and fair opportunity to reply back. How it is done is entirely up to that individual or group and if they want to do something that may have consequences, that is their choice. Just as WBC can choose to go protest on the street and have rocks thrown at them. It's one person's expression to another.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by SMR

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by SMR
One thing is for damn sure.
These Westboro Baptist Church members have absolutely NO morals.


Who defines morals?

According to them everyone else is immoral. You can not dictate morality.

I'm not saying you have to follow a rule of morals. It simply amazes me that not one of these members feels like crap when they do such things. Perhaps a better word would be conscious.


But they think they are right. No - I am not supporting them - - - but then I don't support God believers interfering in government either.

They act within the US law. They have as much right to their opinion/belief as you do. They probably think you are wrong.

Someday -- if not this Anonymous group - - maybe someone else will infiltrate in someway - - and if nothing else - - slow them down.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by LarryLove
After reading through this thread and in particular those that say free speech should be all encompassing, I am left with one question that is close to home for you all. In the interest of fostering civilized discourse and debate, ATS curtails some peoples' definition of free speech by censoring certain posts. By that very act, ATS is not a true bastion unrestricted comment. We post with the knowledge that our opinion is always judged by a forum moderator in whom we trust to make the right call on whether or not our posts conform to rules laid down in terms and conditions. We all accept that our 'free speech' at ATS may be censored. The Westboro Baptist Church has gone beyond the point of reason with its bigoted and outrageous views and yet some say restricting or removing their online mouthpiece violates their right to free speech. Question: if you are happy to be a member of a forum where your freedom of speech is monitored to ensure no racist, bigoted, sexist etc. posts are allowed, then why fight for the right of inflammatory views of a few small minded religious zealots to be broadcast?
edit on 20-2-2011 by LarryLove because: Typo


ATS is a privately owned forum much like my home or your's. I don't allow certain things in my home. I don't drink, so when my liquored up brother comes over carrying his "bag" it either stays on the porch or he does. I am not at all impeding on his right as an adult male to legally consume alcohol. He can drink all he likes elsewhere. HE makes the decision if he wants to come in and NOT drink.

Like WE make the decision to post on ATS knowing we have to abide by their T & C's. We are not forced to join, post, read, or stay. So they are not impeding on our right to free speech. Again, WE make the choice.

If you made a comment standing on your front porch about Skeptic Overlord being a reptilian, CIA informant who wears hot pink thongs and the ATS mods came and duct taped you to the wall while revoking your membership..... THAT would infringe on your right to free speech.

Big difference from what we choose to accept and what we are made to accept.
edit on 2/20/2011 by Kangaruex4Ewe because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 


Hey buster how easy it it to find the names of the covert ops crews that are pullin shyt all over the world why dont u ferret that list out and post it good luck!



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 

This is a very interesting thread and an excellent debate. First amendment issues are always controversial. Most of the law that has developed in this area comes from extreme fact situations. Larry Flint and Hustler have one of the leading cases. Pornography led the free speech charge. Not pretty, but you deal with what you have.

Westboro has been out there for years - in your face - guerilla religion. Anti homosexual bigots. Gaining attention by picketing US service member funerals claiming that they died because the US supports gay rights. (In much more graphic and inflamed language). They were sued and lost. The case is now on appeal.

Now we have Wikileaks. US DOJ is trying hard to find a way to charge Assange criminally. They are having a hard time finding something to charge him with.

Now we have this data dump from Anonymous in the HB Gary case. They took them down and distributed of all things a decrypted version of the Stuxnet virus.

If you are interested in how it was done see this article. arstechnica.com...

This is just page three of the article and it describes how the company executives did not follow their own internal security practices with regard to passwords and administrative access to primary server functions. The ultimate access came with a fake email exchange in which anonymous convinced one of two top security users to change not only his password, but his username, giving him total control of the company's system, from a remote location on the internet. Social engineering.

If you want to see what they did to Mr. Barr's twitter account go here:

storify.com...

Obviously this is a nightmare and complete embarrassment for a national computer security firm. They may not survive it.

Over 50,000 emails and all of the company's proprietary software were dumped on the internet.

It is an illustration of the dangers inherent in placing too much reliance on internet based information systems and participating in business use of "free" social networks and online "free" applications. (The company used Google Apps for its email services, I think it is free, not sure.)

It is also an example of what can happen when employees do not follow and enforce internal security policies and procedures, and the endless possibilities of unintentional consequences in the enthusiastic search for new business, and how seeming unconnected events on the internet and real world, can suddenly be connected with bad results.

Both Wikileaks and Anonymous are dangerous - as they have demonstrated.

But the debate continues on whether or not anyone can stop them, either physically or legally.

Westboro is not dangerous, just obnoxious.

Again, thanks for this thread and the great debate. I actually joined ATS today, just to make a prior reply.

Not a waste of time.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 05:41 PM
link   
The Westbourough scumbags are not a real church. No real Christian acts the way they do. I'm all for Freedom of Speech but these people are disgusting and make me cringe. I'd invite them to my Church so they can see the real deal.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 05:50 PM
link   
This is my first time posting on the forums here. I felt like I should contribute my thoughts to this conversation due to some of the comments about the military and what we fight for. I am a Soldier and have served about 15 years to date, and I am also a big fan of ATS. Those of us who serve do so for many different reasons, and for random people to presume they know why people like me dedicate are lives to being soldiers is beyond me. I for one do not care for the wbc, what they do is hurtful to the families and friends who have lost loved ones in Iraq or Afghanistan or in service to this nation elsewhere. I think it is great that there is a group of people out there who have the ability to shut down the wbc website, and keep them from spreading all the lies and hate messages they present. All the talk about freedom of speech has to be put in perspective, the government is not censoring these people, anonymous is. At what cost can you sit idly by and allow such events to take place and do nothing. At some point people have to decide when it is time to stand up and put an end to stupidity and ignorance. WBC represents those 2 things to many of us and I think what anonymous did was a great thing. I hope to see more of this in the future. There is so much wrong in the world today and it seems to be spinning further and further out of control. I for one, serve in the Army because I believe in this nation and will defend it with my life if need be. I do not always agree with where the elected officials send us and the wars they wage, but that is not for me to decide. I can only do my part in the position I serve in, that is all many of in the military can do. If you think people like me are out there dying in foreign countries so WBC has the right to operate here back home, you are sadly mistaken. I look at the idea of what this nation could be, I think we have yet to see America’s full potential, and until people can take that step in the right direction we will not see these things come to pass. I for one applaud anonymous and what they do…someone has to take a stand or we can all sit idly by and continue to allow such groups like wbc to rot the core of this nation.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   
Anything bad that may happen to those wastes of life is well deserved.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   
I can't really say I like the fact that, X group takes on Y group because THEY think they're doing the "people's" will...that said, the Wesboro church deserves to be burnt to the ground.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 06:08 PM
link   
Those on here who are labeling anonymous as a bunch of script kiddies really don't understand the power they have. Perhaps Google would be your friend here. They are neither inherently good nor bad (depending which side of the battle you're on for any given cause) but rest assured, they are some of the last people you want to get on the wrong side of. Don't let your ignorance provoke a response you don't wish for. Not wishing to offend anybody but you truly don't know your stuff if you think anonymous is a joke or is limited in what it can do.

As for freedom of speech, if the Westboro Baptist Church aren't the very definition of the term "hate speech" then I don't know who or what qualifies. The government allow them to spout hate without consequence. Somebody else is going to ensure there is a consequence.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by groingrinder
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


It is not their free speech that riles most of us. It is their actions. They can talk all the crap they want on their own web page, but when they bring that crap to the funeral of a dead hero, it is a whole new game and it goes beyond free speech.


Unfortunately, that is just not correct. In fact, if you go about 2 or 3 posts above yours, you will see a "press release" from Anonymous agreeing wholeheartedly with ME.



Funny how that worked out.

Free speech in the US is defined by courts. The Phelps Family have been arrested for some of the things they do. They have not been arrested for trolling funerals though. Why is that? Probably because it is still legally protected free speech. Don't like it? Petition the government. Sending them pizzas and faxing vile pictures would stop them from protesting funerals how?

Maybe you need to show me what law you are talking about because it seems that in the ferver of hate for WBC, many of you just started making up new laws about free speech in the US. Oddly, none of you read like a Supreme Court Justice so I am going to say you are wrong.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by LarryLove
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


My point is really to do with those that accept a degree of censorship to post on ATS, yet decree Westboro Baptist Church should be allowed to continue broadcasting their venom because it is their right to do so. Whether it is posting on ATS or slinging verbal mud at a picket line, you can't swing both ways in regard to freedom of speech.


No one can come on ATS and post most of the things the WBC paints on their signs.

However, there are many things I cannot post on ATS that I can stand on the edge of a cemetary and say.




top topics



 
68
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join