4 ms·

Westboro is obnoxious and vile, but they work within the law. Anonymous has declared war on free speech.

by bugsy 16y ago

chris_j 16y ago
This saying is (probably incorrectly) attributed to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." The question is, would I defend to the death your right to turn up at someone's funeral and deliberately cause distress to their grieving relatives? Probably not. There's free speech and then there's harassing people. If Anonymous want to hack into these people's website in order to prevent them speaking then I can't approve. I still can't describe picketing funerals as free speech.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
t3chg1rl 16y ago
Eh, I don't know if this is really happening or not. If you go over to the actual "press release" on anonops and look at the comments, there's quite a discussion on if this should fly or not. Sure, there's some people calling on doing it for the lulz. But there are quite a few saying no, they will not participate, as much as they dislike Westboro. A few are calling for not silencing them, but doing some "investigation" and trying to dig up any dirty laundry to get rid of them that way. But being that some of anon's strength lies in numbers, the disagreement and discussion is a good thing, I think. Even if some people go for it and disregard the argument that silencing free speech they disagree with is bad, the chances that they can do much damage are smaller. Link to anonnews press release's comments: http://anonnews.org/?p=comments&c=press&i=449 http://anonnews.org/?p=comments&c=press&i=449
fletchowns 16y ago
Did you even read the statement? This is most definitely not a war on free speech. We, the collective super-consciousness known as ANONYMOUS - the Voice of Free Speech & the Advocate of the People... Being such aggressive proponents for the Freedom of Speech & Freedom of Information as we are... Look, I'm all for free speech. It is an absolute necessity. It should be protected at all costs. ...Except for when you have a group that is so deranged and have abused this right to free speech that we hold so dearly that it is barely recognizable. As far as I'm concerned, we can make this one exception, and the world will be a better place. Throw them in the "yelling FIRE! in a crowded theater" category.
- bugsy 16y ago
  So basically you are for free speech except when you don't like it. That's not free speech though.
portman 16y ago
No, if anything they have declared war on a very specific tactic: protesting at funerals. There are well established limits on free speech, such as yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater (Schenck v. US, 1919). Pretend for a moment that we live in a world where the Schenck case never happened. A group (call them the "Eastboro Baptist Church") has started using the tactic of running into movie theaters and yelling "FIRE!". After all the commotion, they spread their anti-gay message. This "fire" ruse is starting to get on some people's nerves, so an online group (call them "NAMED") says that they are going to protest the Eastboro Baptist Church. That's not a "declaration of war on free speech", it's an argument that shouting fire in a crowded theater does not deserve protection under the First Amendment. Also, for anyone who isn't aware, the Supreme Court has already heard oral arguments (Snyder v Phelps) about whether these funeral protests are protected speech, and will issue an opinion at end of term in a few months. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyder_v._Phelps http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyder_v._Phelps
- bugsy 16y ago
  Schenck is an abomination of a case and clearly was decided on the side of fascism and repression of utterly harmless free speech. The problem is that no one shouts fire in a crowded theatre, and anyone who did would rightly be indicted on a number of charges not pertaining to speech. The Schenck case had nothing whatsoever to do with theatres or people wrongly alerting theatre goers to a fire. The metaphor was used by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., who was an embarrassment to the country, to stop people from criticizing US involvement in WWI, claiming that criticism of US imperialism was identical to shouting fire, and was a clear and present danger, which is obvious bunk to everyone as it is not the same thing at all. And here we are again. Someone is saying unpopular things and the reaction is to claim censorship is justified because there is a theatre that is not on fire somewhere. Let me be very clear. There is no theatre. There is no fire. There is no one shouting fire in a theatre. And if there was someone shouting fire in a fireless theatre the result would be that the other patrons would tell the person yelling to shut up and sit down. It is time to stop defending the abomination that is the Schenck decision and the lunatic that was Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. "It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes." - Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., in Buck vs Bell, ruling that the government has a right to sterilize women against their will for the same reason the government has a right to vaccinate people against their will. The decision upheld Laughlin's Model Law, which was then used as a model document for the Law for Protection Against Genetically Defective Offspring, passed in 1933 in the German Republic, allowing forced sterilizations of those thought defective there as well.

Westboro is obnoxious and vile, but they work within the law. Anonymous has declared war on free speech.

by bugsy 16y ago

Westboro is obnoxious and vile, but they work within the law. Anonymous has declared war on free speech.

This saying is (probably incorrectly) attributed to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." The question is, would I defend to the death your right to turn up at someone's funeral and deliberately cause distress to their grieving relatives? Probably not. There's free speech and then there's harassing people. If Anonymous want to hack into these people's website in order to prevent them speaking then I can't approve. I still can't describe picketing funerals as free speech.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

t3chg1rl 16y ago

Eh, I don't know if this is really happening or not. If you go over to the actual "press release" on anonops and look at the comments, there's quite a discussion on if this should fly or not. Sure, there's some people calling on doing it for the lulz. But there are quite a few saying no, they will not participate, as much as they dislike Westboro. A few are calling for not silencing them, but doing some "investigation" and trying to dig up any dirty laundry to get rid of them that way. But being that some of anon's strength lies in numbers, the disagreement and discussion is a good thing, I think. Even if some people go for it and disregard the argument that silencing free speech they disagree with is bad, the chances that they can do much damage are smaller. Link to anonnews press release's comments: http://anonnews.org/?p=comments&c=press&i=449 http://anonnews.org/?p=comments&c=press&i=449

fletchowns 16y ago

Did you even read the statement? This is most definitely not a war on free speech. We, the collective super-consciousness known as ANONYMOUS - the Voice of Free Speech & the Advocate of the People... Being such aggressive proponents for the Freedom of Speech & Freedom of Information as we are... Look, I'm all for free speech. It is an absolute necessity. It should be protected at all costs. ...Except for when you have a group that is so deranged and have abused this right to free speech that we hold so dearly that it is barely recognizable. As far as I'm concerned, we can make this one exception, and the world will be a better place. Throw them in the "yelling FIRE! in a crowded theater" category.

bugsy 16y ago
So basically you are for free speech except when you don't like it. That's not free speech though.

portman 16y ago

No, if anything they have declared war on a very specific tactic: protesting at funerals. There are well established limits on free speech, such as yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater (Schenck v. US, 1919). Pretend for a moment that we live in a world where the Schenck case never happened. A group (call them the "Eastboro Baptist Church") has started using the tactic of running into movie theaters and yelling "FIRE!". After all the commotion, they spread their anti-gay message. This "fire" ruse is starting to get on some people's nerves, so an online group (call them "NAMED") says that they are going to protest the Eastboro Baptist Church. That's not a "declaration of war on free speech", it's an argument that shouting fire in a crowded theater does not deserve protection under the First Amendment. Also, for anyone who isn't aware, the Supreme Court has already heard oral arguments (Snyder v Phelps) about whether these funeral protests are protected speech, and will issue an opinion at end of term in a few months. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyder_v._Phelps http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyder_v._Phelps

bugsy 16y ago
Schenck is an abomination of a case and clearly was decided on the side of fascism and repression of utterly harmless free speech. The problem is that no one shouts fire in a crowded theatre, and anyone who did would rightly be indicted on a number of charges not pertaining to speech. The Schenck case had nothing whatsoever to do with theatres or people wrongly alerting theatre goers to a fire. The metaphor was used by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., who was an embarrassment to the country, to stop people from criticizing US involvement in WWI, claiming that criticism of US imperialism was identical to shouting fire, and was a clear and present danger, which is obvious bunk to everyone as it is not the same thing at all. And here we are again. Someone is saying unpopular things and the reaction is to claim censorship is justified because there is a theatre that is not on fire somewhere. Let me be very clear. There is no theatre. There is no fire. There is no one shouting fire in a theatre. And if there was someone shouting fire in a fireless theatre the result would be that the other patrons would tell the person yelling to shut up and sit down. It is time to stop defending the abomination that is the Schenck decision and the lunatic that was Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. "It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes." - Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., in Buck vs Bell, ruling that the government has a right to sterilize women against their will for the same reason the government has a right to vaccinate people against their will. The decision upheld Laughlin's Model Law, which was then used as a model document for the Law for Protection Against Genetically Defective Offspring, passed in 1933 in the German Republic, allowing forced sterilizations of those thought defective there as well.