A Letter from Anonymous

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Section31

 

i agree with you on that as well. they can exercise their free speech but not at the expense of everyone else, otherwise, it's like spitting into the wind.

Ah... So, Anonymous does not represent the freedom of speech for all in which this letter reflects. As Anonymous attacks Amazon.com, PayPal.com, and everyone else, they are interfering with both the company's rights and the rights of those who want to purchase something. Anonymous is not only interfering with a company's freedom of speech, but they are also interfering with innocent people's right to pursue happiness (those caught in the crossfire).

(Where this conversation started: CLICK HERE & HERE & HERE & HERE.)

well now that i think about it, that's not right either. let me rephrase my above statement.
i agree with you on that, and for the same reasons : the bill of rights is really a very good document. but it has more than "Freedom of speech" on it.

reply to post by Prince Of Darkness

Hello World. We are Anonymous...

heh, so touchingly none of the corpies & gov's would kill Internet because this tool gives'em more bonuses than losses, Internet has given the false feeling of Freedom, Power & Anonimity/Privateness to people

Originally posted by undo
well now that i think about it, that's not right either. let me rephrase my above statement.
i agree with you on that, and for the same reasons : the bill of rights is really a very good document. but it has more than "Freedom of speech" on it.

Interesting isn't it. Even though Anonymous says they represent one freedom, they dismiss the other freedoms in which the Constitution and Bill of Rights grants 'United States' citizens.

Remember, Assange is not a United States citizen.

It is not as black and white as it seems.

(Where this conversation started: CLICK HERE & HERE & HERE & HERE & HERE.)

reply to post by Section31


egads you're right. i didn't even think of that. i was too busy thinking about how anyone, anywhere, could upload anything to wiki leaks
and hurt people based on hearsay, grudge matches, and pot kettle black syndrome (which goes around and around in circles, most of the time). i was listening to a radio program about the whole lamo/manning incident, and it sounds absolutely crazy. like lamo supposedly hacked the new york times, put his name on stories, falsified information on reuters, etc, this is serious stuff here.
www.pidradio.com...

i dunno. i agree with their right to free speech but you are correct, that stifling someone else's free speech is not the answer either.

reply to post by undo


Truth cannot kill or endanger, how people use or manipulate the truth is where we find the evil. I understand the fear of pandoras box in releasing information, but that fear of information can be much more dangerous then what is being said. Ignorance is bliss but it also makes you vulnerable.

I do understand your points, but in the end I think what anonymous and wiki are doing is a worth while fight, and again a bloodless fight. If someone spills blood out fear or disagreement of that info, that act is their responsibility, not that of the group or individual producing the data, unless that group or person is calling for blood.

Remember, pay pal takes donations for the KKK, if they are willing to carry out those transactions, wikileaks donations should not be an issue!

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Section31

 

I dunno. i agree with their right to free speech but you are correct, that stifling someone else's free speech is not the answer either.

Exactly.

On another related note, when it comes to the rights of the United States government, do they have a right to protect their citizens from certain psychological and physical stressors? Such as events and conversations in which take place behind closed doors (or within cables)?

Second related note, are countries allowed to keep military operations, technologies, and conversations a secret for the safety of their citizens (and foreign citizens), so they can maintain a certain leverage over a possible future enemy?

(Where this conversation started: CLICK HERE & HERE & HERE & HERE & HERE & HERE.)

In an age where the MSM controls your consciousness, the internet is needed. It is the last voice of the people, it is our freedom and we have been lucky enough to live in a country that allowed for unrestricted internet access.

Until recently that is.

Wikileaks has pushed the idea of net neutrality to the forefront of free speech at least here in America. In many other countries, net neutrality has already been decided upon.

Here is the US, Homeland Security recently seized several torrent sites and shut down their sites "for copywrite infringement." These were sites that actively distributed the WL files. I noticed today that ThePirateBay is down. Coincidence? Maybe.

What is great about Anonymous is that they are doing the exact same thing, only in reverse. They are protecting the voice of the internet consumers and contributors. This is in stark contrast to the corporations Anonymous is attacking (nonviolently I might add) who have decided that they should work with the governments to limit our access to information.

We are in the information age and information is all we have. Once our access to information is restricted by legislation, we will have a voice no longer.

It is time to think about where you stand on the topic. Every keystroke and telephone call is already monitored by the NSA here in the US. Do you want you your websites approved by the government too?

Bravo, Anonymous. Bravo.

reply to post by Section31


that's a hard question. if the planet was a safe place, then of course, it should all be laid on the table right now. but it isn't a safe place, and this lack of safety is what allows all this craziness to continue.

reply to post by coloredrug


that goes for them as well, though. they can't be censoring what other people read, where they surf, how they transact their business, when they transact their business, etc, and claim high moral ground at the same time. it's not high moral ground if you're curbing someone else's freedoms to do so. they need to find a better application for their desire to encourage freedom of speech and etc. right now, it's making them look like the bad guys to people who are just trying to survive and go about their necessities in life.

dropping the word "corporation" at every juncture, is starting to get a bit obnoxious. businesses exist. so? what's wrong with that? the difference between kkk (freedom) and data meant to harm the government is a no brainer. one is not illegal, and the other is illegal.

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Section31

 

that's a hard question. if the planet was a safe place, then of course, it should all be laid on the table right now. but it isn't a safe place, and this lack of safety is what allows all this craziness to continue.

I agree. Exactly.

So, what does this say about what Assange and Anonymous have done?

See the conundrum? In order for Assange and Anonymous to do what they do, United States government and its citizens have to compromise their freedoms and national security. Get it?

(Where this conversation started:
CLICK HERE & HERE & HERE & HERE & HERE & HERE & HERE.)

reply to post by gringoboy


You seem to be operating from a place of fear by saying what " will happen if too much info gets out?". That we could see the rise of another 3rd Reich or something of that nature. That to me is like saying if I leave the house today I may get hit by a car. It's true you might, but the risk of that possibility certainly out weighs the alternative of being house bound possibly for the rest of your life.

In my opinion the NWO v the governments of the world is a fantasy. Governments are the global order and they will act globally or locally based on one motivation. Their own self interests and survival. This idea that we should allow our governments to do as they please behind closed doors, as to not to disrupt the status que is the kind of attitude they depend on, better the devil you know than the devil you don't.

I am assuming you are a US citizen, if so you should remember that it is the attitude of an empowered individual, and a non static governing body that the US was built on. Imagin of those founding fathers said " what if someone worse that the king takes control?" the american experiment never would have been born.

reply to post by Section31

When it comes to the right of the United States government, do they have a right to protect their citizens from certain psychological and physical stressors?

nice Joke first & most fear, may be said more exactly, worst Nightmare of gov Always & Ever been to not expose 'ir funny affairs to Public

Originally posted by SarK0Y
reply to post by Section31

 

When it comes to the right of the United States government, do they have a right to protect their citizens from certain psychological and physical stressors?

nice Joke

first & most fear, may be said more exactly, worst Nightmare of gov Always & Ever been to not expose 'ir funny affairs to Public

Within the United States as a whole, you can change the government itself (voting, protesting, participating, etc..). When it comes to foreign countries, its harder to change the mind of an impending enemy. I didn't say 'potential' enemy.

reply to post by Section31

Within the United States as a whole, you can change the government itself.

you believe it, really?

Originally posted by SarK0Y
reply to post by Section31

 

Within the United States as a whole, you can change the government itself.

you believe it, really?

Who are the Tea-Party?

It was and still is a political movement, which changed how an entire political party functions. After they take office in January, they will be able to enforce constitutional law to protect United States citizens.

While everyone was stomping on the movement, they missed the start of a serious revolution.

okay, reality check:

world governments do bad things to protect themselves.

if you're in charge of a country, you're gonna get in the habit of doing bad things to respond to bad things (this is why anon needs to consider their response, as two wrongs will never ever ever (did i mention ever?) make a right, and i'm presuming a right is what they want.

you're going to get use to creating technologies that you don't discuss openly, to give your country, the edge in protecting itself.

you're going to get use to doing all manner of less than honest things, in an attempt to survive. being the leaders of a nation, almost guarantees you'll be a huge liar because your nation will not survive the rest of the planet, if you're not.

i'm sorry to have to tell you these facts, but there's not a single government on this planet, this isn't corrupt for the same reason: protecting themselves. it just goes with the territory. not saying it's right, but it's an artifact of nature

Originally posted by undo
World governments do bad things to protect themselves.

Not all world governments.

Are governments allowed to spy on their counterparts, so they can devise a means to win them over for peace? or, to find a means for compromising? Is that a bad thing to do?

Have you ever heard of the phrase 'know they enemy'?
Have you ever played the game of Chess?

reply to post by Section31


um, spying...doesn't that require lying?
see what i mean? it's not like we're talking about telling our kids there's a santa claus.

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Section31

 

um, spying...doesn't that require lying?

Spying = Lying? When does gathering intelligence on a potential ally become lying? Would you not want to know if another person's government is corrupt? How do we find that information? Time Magazine?