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: 13
68
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 06:25 PM
link   
According to the Freedom Forum Organization, legal systems, and society at large, recognize limits on the freedom of speech, particularly when freedom of speech conflicts with other values or rights. Limitations to freedom of speech may follow the "harm principle" or the "offense principle", for example in the case of pornography or hate speech. Limitations to freedom of speech may occur through legal sanction or social disapprobation, or both.

In "On Liberty" (1859) John Stuart Mill argued that "...there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered." Mill argues that the fullest liberty of expression is required to push arguments to their logical limits, rather than the limits of social embarrassment. However, Mill also introduced what is known as the harm principle, in placing the following limitation on free expression: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

In 1985 Joel Feinberg introduced what is known as the "offense principle", arguing that Mill's harm principle does not provide sufficient protection against the wrongful behaviors of others. Feinberg wrote "It is always a good reason in support of a proposed criminal prohibition that it would probably be an effective way of preventing serious offense (as opposed to injury or harm) to persons other than the actor, and that it is probably a necessary means to that end." Hence, Feinberg argues that the harm principle sets the bar too high and that some forms of expression can be legitimately prohibited by law because they are very offensive. But, as offending someone is less serious than harming someone, the penalties imposed should be higher for causing harm. In contrast Mill does not support legal penalties unless they are based on the harm principle. Because the degree to which people may take offense varies, or may be the result of unjustified prejudice, Feinberg suggests that a number of factors need to be taken into account when applying the offense principle, including: the extent, duration and social value of the speech, the ease with which it can be avoided, the motives of the speaker, the number of people offended, the intensity of the offense, and the general interest of the community at large.

p.s Members of Westboro Baptist Church have been specifically banned from entering Canada for hate speech.
edit on 20-2-2011 by notofdahsheeple because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 06:27 PM
link   
"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."


.... and so you become like them !!!.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by mr-lizard
 

I just don't understand. _javascript:icon('
') These soldiers perform a patriotic duty, and base there duties upon the intelligence gathered by supposed leaders in this country. When I was 19 years old I'm sure I thought I "knew it all"...but I would never have said I understood the intimate relationships between countries and the myriad of complexities that must involve. What I intend to say is...why does this "church" pick on soldiers/families when the only logical conclusion would be to picket the White House each time one of these unfortunate funerals must be performed? Honestly- are they trying to convince the dead man in the box he was wrong? This seems like nothing less than a satanic ritual rather than a thing of love to me, personally...to attack well-meaning good folk when they are at there greatest weakness, grieving a loss no man can ever fill. I'm appalled at such candor. There is a difference in free speech and sheer terrorism. There is a time and a place for everything under the sun...and a funeral is NOT that time nor place. This needs to be stopped! Anyone with me on this or will you throw me under the bus? Just saying...



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by TribWarrior777
 


The "reasoning" behind WBC protesting soldier's funerals is that soldiers represent America, the same America that legally allows divorces and abortions and are becoming tolerant/accepting of homosexuality at a societal level. So when a soldier is killed in battle, the WBC view it as God punishing that soldier for fighting on the side of a "sinful" country and is God publically denouncing America.

They shouldn't even be considered a religious group or church, they don't even deserve the denomination of cult.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Epiphron
Whether you like Anonymous or not, you have to respect them and what they do.

They stand up to the bad guys when nobody else is willing to. Westboro Baptist Church has long been spewing their hate speech towards good men and women, and our government hasn't done anything to stop them. Finally, someone is taking a stand against them.

I'm looking forward to seeing what comes of this.


See, here's the thing: the gov't CAN'T do anything without violating the First Amendment.

Anonymous is NOT the gov't, so they can. Anon is not bound to observe that Amendment any more than WBC is bound to allow people to have lives of their own, liberty, and pursue happiness.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are there to limit the government, not to limit the people. Ergo, I can slap down WBC, you can, or Anonymous can - but the gov't can't.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 06:54 PM
link   
This thread sure took and entertaining little turn, didn't it.

A handful of us tried to say that you cannot fly the flag of the protectors of free speech and then attack someone else over a speech issue. Anon fanboys went nuts and accused us of defending the Phelps and being stupid and all manner of nonsense for PAGES AND PAGES.

Anonymous release a statement saying this was not them because they actually are for free speech and would not do something like this.

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.

And all the fanboys go silent.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


lol I didn't go silent.

I was one of the first to mention this interesting turn of events, so chill your boots sir.



Any more news on the situation?



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by mr-lizard
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


lol I didn't go silent.


Whatever you say. Your last post two pages back was

Originally posted by mr-lizard
Seems like it was a trap.

anonnews.org...

A bait by the Westboro baptist lot.


Then nothing. No, "gosh it looks like maybe some of the people calling them hypocrites for what was the fake attack had a point." No, "Sorry I jumped on this bandwagon whole hog without thinking it through." No, "I am sorry, it looks like you guys had a point because even Anon confirms what you were all stating."

Yeah, I am seeing two pagees of nothing from you on that but good job in standing up to point out you are still here. Cuz that counts for something.




I was one of the first to mention this interesting turn of events, so chill your boots sir.



Any more news on the situation?


Then you went silent, just like I said. Please do not argue just to argue. Have a point.
Sinnthia really sound like a "sir?"
edit on 20-2-2011 by Sinnthia because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Well, the WBC website, WBC isn't loading properly. Hmmm.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinnthia

Originally posted by mr-lizard
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


lol I didn't go silent.


Whatever you say. Your last post two pages back was

Originally posted by mr-lizard
Seems like it was a trap.

anonnews.org...

A bait by the Westboro baptist lot.


Then nothing. No, "gosh it looks like maybe some of the people calling them hypocrites for what was the fake attack had a point." No, "Sorry I jumped on this bandwagon whole hog without thinking it through." No, "I am sorry, it looks like you guys had a point because even Anon confirms what you were all stating."

Yeah, I am seeing two pagees of nothing from you on that but good job in standing up to point out you are still here. Cuz that counts for something.




I was one of the first to mention this interesting turn of events, so chill your boots sir.



Any more news on the situation?


Then you went silent, just like I said. Please do not argue just to argue. Have a point.
Sinnthia really sound like a "sir?"
edit on 20-2-2011 by Sinnthia because: (no reason given)



Seriously, get your facts straight. If I wanted to be defensive i simply wouldn't have posted the link! Full stop.

But I did... I'm not a hypocrite. And by all accounts it was a trap. Or something is amiss. I admit it.

Hell, i'm here with you trying to figure it out, so chill a little.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Druid42
Well, the WBC website, WBC isn't loading properly. Hmmm.


Looks like an attack had begun, before anonymous released a statement telling everyone to stop.

Looks like Anon were baited into this one, but pulled the plug at the last second. Interesting turn of events.


SMR

posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dendro
reply to post by TribWarrior777
 


The "reasoning" behind WBC protesting soldier's funerals is that soldiers represent America, the same America that legally allows divorces and abortions and are becoming tolerant/accepting of homosexuality at a societal level. So when a soldier is killed in battle, the WBC view it as God punishing that soldier for fighting on the side of a "sinful" country and is God publically denouncing America.

They shouldn't even be considered a religious group or church, they don't even deserve the denomination of cult.


I have seen them make signs that say 'God Hates America' If they agree with this, then why not just GTFO !!!
Oh that's right, they wont be able to hide behind their Amendment rights given to them by a country they seem to hate so much in another country ... cowards.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 07:13 PM
link   
Or alternatively (to satisfy both corners of the ring)

A rogue Anon member may have:

A) set it up for malicious purposes, but anon are generally not taking it on. Besides a few 'members'.

B) Same as above but with malicious intent (Govt, Church member maybe ? or someone else)

C) It was a genuine trap

D) Anon messed up and backtracked?

I think it's never easy to get a true answer. What do you guys think?>



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by mr-lizard
 



I think it's never easy to get a true answer. What do you guys think?



I think people care way to much about a threat to take down a church's website for a few hours.


Yeah...that would of really shut them up



I actually think the morons finally realized that by pulling this little stunt...they would just be giving WBC publicity and a national platform to speak. It is exactly what the WBC wants...and looks like Anon fell for it...then finally realized how stupid it was.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by SMR
 


Someone yelled in a Youtube video that if they hated America so much they should GTFO and go to Canada. They would hate us even more. We've legalized same-sex marriages and even introduced/passed new legislation to recognize the rights of trangender people as human and for some crimes committed against the community be considered hate crimes. I think someone pointed out earlier in the thread we actually banned members of WBC from coming to Canada and protesting. Go us.


edit on 20-2-2011 by Dendro because: grammar

edit on 20-2-2011 by Dendro because: spellingfail


SMR

posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by MindSpin
 


I have the agree. I think they knew by involving Anonymous that they would get a larger stage. Anonymous fell for it and maybe now realize they should have just made a short post saying it was not them and they are small beans. They gave them a bigger stage than they even deserve just by going back and forth with them.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dendro
reply to post by SMR
 


Someone yelled in a Youtube video that if they hated America so much they should GTFO and go to Canada. They would hate us even more. We've legalized same-sex marriages and even introduced/passed new legislation to recognize the rights of trangender people as human and for some crimes committed against the communit be considered hate crimes. I think someone pointed out earlier in the thread we actually banned members of WBC from coming to Canada and protesting. Go us.


edit on 20-2-2011 by Dendro because: grammar


Personally, I think they should GTFO America and head for Iran. They'd fit in there wonderfully. Lots of shared values and whatnot.

Looks to me like WBC and Iran are on the same side, so why shouldn't they go ahead and shack-up?

A match made in.. er... "heaven".

OR

The place WBC members will be CALLING "heaven"... I'm willing to bet they'll be too proud to own and admit their mistaken identity when they get there....



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 07:55 PM
link   
Serious question: Why doesn't Anon take on China? They are one of the most in-your-face internet-censoring forces out there today.

It would be an interesting skirmish to watch. It could reveal the contours of each side's capabilites quite well.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by silent thunder
Serious question: Why doesn't Anon take on China? They are one of the most in-your-face internet-censoring forces out there today.

It would be an interesting skirmish to watch. It could reveal the contours of each side's capabilites quite well.



LOL.


Someone of you need to stop think of Anon as gods of the internet.

Seriously...taken on a whole country????



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthWizard
Wow, do people really not understand how anon works. there is no legion it is exactly what it's called anonymous which means ONE person wrote this, not anon as a whole because anon as a whole is everyone or anyone. this is written by one person with a bad understanding of how anon works...and he claims to speak for anon as a whole which isn't possible for anyone because that would mean he is speaking for you.
edit on 19-2-2011 by TruthWizard because: typo


I thought the same thing until I read that darknet thread.




top topics



 
68
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in

join