Anonymous vs Westboro baptist Church

Originally posted by Skippy1138
Let me try again- if you believe in protecting freedom of speech (regardless of what country you live in), then you have to be prepared to protect ALL speech, even the unpopular, disgusting, or kooky stuff....

Agreed. I'm all for people using LEGAL means to stop these idiots, or make their mission more difficult and uncomfortable for them, but I cannot support someone taking the law into their own hands to illegally silence someone.

Support for Free Speech means just that. It doesn't mean support for the just the speech you agree with.

It all comes down to this: Do people what to live in a Free Society or not?

reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman


ANON is not a wing of The CIA, quit with this lie and distraction attempt spewed courtesy of the uber right in order to demonize this group of true patriots.

I wonder if the families could, in retaliation, get a permit for a *private* service, thereby deciding who might attend, consequently being empowered with having interlopers removed from the premises?

We are after all, allowed to protect ourselves from harm, albeit emotional and psychological.

If some legal solution is not found, eventually a relative will go armed to a funeral, and murder will occur.
This is my prediction.

reply to post by blupblup

I don't care what your link is.... back up your claims with verifiable links, not links to 4chan or some other site.

Where did I post a link to 4chan? I know you like to think anon are the best thing since sliced bread but in reality they are just trolls and I linked to a site with screen grabs and your still saying it dosen't count as proof so anything that I post that shows anon as they really are will be met with need proof.

you are even ignoring it from the horses mouth (thepartyvan) oh yeah you wont visit "random sites" and will only rely on msm news reports

Okay, so it looks like when they do actually break the law, they are dealt with, and not given a "pass" as a certain uninformed poster thinks;

In 1995, Phelps Sr.'s eldest grandson, Benjamin Phelps, was convicted of assault and disorderly conduct after spitting into the face of a passerby during a picket

In 2004, Margie Phelps and her son Jacob were arrested for trespassing, disorderly conduct and failure to obey after disregarding a police officer's order during an attempted protest.

In June 2007 Shirley Phelps-Roper was arrested in Nebraska and charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor. The arrest resulted from her allowing her eight-year-old son to step on the American flag during the demonstration, which is illegal under Nebraska law.

n response to the protests conducted by Westboro members at Indiana funerals, a bill was introduced in the Indiana General Assembly that would make it a felony to protest within 500 feet (150 m) of a funeral. The bill provides penalties of up to three years in prison and a $10,000 fine for those found to be in violation of the law. Shortly before this bill was signed members of the church had threatened to protest in Kokomo, Indiana, at a funeral service that was being held for a soldier who was killed in Iraq. On January 11, 2006, the bill unanimously (11–0) passed a committee vote,[77] and while members of the church had traveled to Kokomo to protest, they were not seen during or after the funeral service. South Dakota adopted similar legislation. WBC has expressed its intention to contest such laws, and if victorious collect damages while the Phelps Chartered law firm collects attorney's fees under the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Award Act of 1976. On May 23, 2006, the state of Michigan banned any intentional disruption of funerals within 500 feet (150 m) of the ceremony. Violating the statute would be a felony, punishable by up to two years in prison and a $5,000 fine for the first offense and up to four years in prison and a $10,000 fine for a subsequent offense.[78] On May 17, 2006, the state of Illinois enacted Senate Bill 1144, the "Let Them Rest In Peace Act", to shield grieving military families from protests during funerals and memorial services of fallen soldiers. A first-time violation of the Act is a Class C misdemeanor, punishable by up to 30 days in jail and a $1,500 fine and a Class 4 felony for a second or subsequent offense, which is punishable by one to three years in state prison and a fine of up to $25,000.[79] On May 29, 2006, President George W. Bush signed into law the Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act (Pub.L. 109-228), prohibiting protests within 300 feet (91 m) of the entrance of any cemetery under control of the National Cemetery Administration from 60 minutes before to 60 minutes after a funeral.[80] Penalties for violating the act are up to $100,000 in fines and up to one year imprisonment.[80] The bill garnered overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress with a 408–3 vote in the House, with 21 not voting, and a unanimous vote in the Senate.[80] On January 11, 2011, the state of Arizona held an emergency legislative session to pass a law barring protests within 300 feet of a funeral and within an hour from its beginning or end. The law was swiftly signed into law ahead of the January 12th funeral of those killed in the 2011 Tucson shooting

en.wikipedia.org...

I've read a couple of announcements like this from annonymous and I think they're a little overly theatrical. Anonymous is cool but they need better speeches.

reply to post by aivlas



I don't know or care about the partyvan site....

As I've said, I don't care about anonymous... couldn't give a toss.... I just like to see the godhatesfags group being threatened.

That to me is good.


It's simple.


You can't back up what you said with news articles..... that's fine.
Stop replying to me with crap about anon and s*** like that.... I don't care about them, am not a fan or member... but ANYONE who gives the WBC grief, IMO, Is dong the world a favour.


If you want to make a thread about anon and all these dead kids they've insulted then go and do it.... but don't forget the LINKS

I doubt that the founding fathers intended the first ammendment to protect hate speech inciting violence and bigotry towards a certain demographic. Had you lived in world war II era germany, would you have stepped aside and allowed the hatred of the Nazi Party to take root?

reply to post by blupblup

You can't back up what you said with news articles..... that's fine.
Stop replying to me with crap about anon and s*** like that.... I don't care about them, am not a fan or member... but ANYONE who gives the WBC grief, IMO, Is dong the world a favour.

I've given you multiple links if you don't want to read them that's fine, it's also fine if you don't want to do even basic research but you may want to get your history sorted before supporting something and defiantly before making the below statements.

I also agree with Mr Lizard about the whole free speech thing and just allowing groups like this to go around insulting the dead and any and every group they choose.

That for me isn't free speech.... it's about humanity and believe me.... a group like this would not last long in the UK.

Also the WBC is founded on hate.... their mission is to be as offensive and abusive as they can while supposedly doing god's work.

Free speech stops being free speech and becomes hate speech when you start insulting others, mocking the dead and targeting homosexuals and abortion doctors and so on....


I don't believe in freedom of speech at all costs.... It has to be used responsibly.

Have another link you can ignore
www.religiousfreedomwatch.org...
and a wired article on the epilepsy raid for you to ignore
www.wired.com...


Wow google is useful.

This country is about freedom. Remove the freedom of another and you remove your own. No matter how wrong a person is, if they are not by immediate, short term or long term, stopping or limiting one from exercising their freedom, you let them say or do what they want. The family at Westboro are all educated and the mother is a lawyer. So continue to be a thug in the name of freedom and see where it gets you. You're nothing more than hypocritical, self righteous thugs.

reply to post by Enclave


People are under the false impression that the 1st Amendment protects someone from spewing hate rhetoric when in reality the amendment is designed to exclusively protect Anti Governmental speech and that is it. A bunch of racist azzhats have spun it to use it as a "scapegoat" to protect hate speech.

Put it like this, if the Founding Fathers wanted to protect racist speech then it would've been included but since it is not the 1st does not protect you from spewing hate speech as that goes totally against the premise "To form a more perfect union" from the Preamble.

Yes, it is true a couple of members of the 1st Congress (Continental Congress) were racists but were told unequivocally that the 1st does not protect hate speech.

It is illegal to use the doc itself to protect hate speech as that would mean we've gone like 5 steps backwards instead of forwards.

reply to post by DragonTattooz


Your son isn't protecting any thing but the interests of corrupt politician's. Our freedom was never under attack and if you bothered to do any research, our enemy is inside the country. If the fed would stop playing world police, working to help bring a new world order and all the other evil it does in the name of good, we wouldn't be in the financial mess we're in. You make your bed, you lay in it! You reap what you sow!

Originally posted by aivlas
reply to post by Illuminizard

 

A loosley connected group of people who follow what is posted by apparently random anons (all just happen to use the exact same wording and format and who like to remind people they don't lead)

Where did anon start?
Why should we ignore what the group has done in the past?
If anon want to distance themselves then they need to seperate and start anew

edit on 20-2-2011 by aivlas because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-2-2011 by aivlas because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-2-2011 by aivlas because: (no reason given)

It's a generic name. There's no want or need to separate, because it is just as the name states "anonymous". Let's say you are angry about something, and are a member of a frequent Anon hangout. You rant and rave with other anons about it, maybe even check out other places to see how they feel, put together a flier, release it, and wait for other Anons to join. More often than not, no one will join at all.

There's not a staff meeting or a central figurehead. A single anon may be some random guy who was hurt by WBC and wants a hand in some form of revenge. Another anon may be one of those guys who gets involved in EVERY cause, or maybe only hangs around for a few hours, then gets bored and moves on to something he finds more exciting.

The structure, or lack of structure, is also why it's important for members to remain "cowardly" and hidden. Why would you want to become the face of hundreds of thousands of people all shifting back and forth between hundreds or thousands of different activities that you are in no way associated?

So there's really no need to distance themselves from their past, because their past is not "their past", and since the intent is to stay hidden, what better way than to blend in and fly the same flag as thousands and thousands of others with the same intent ( "... you can't stop us all.")?

That's how I see the group anyway, I could be wrong .

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1


Nope, you are wrong. Who is to say what hate speech is? All speech is protected. How about people grow a pair, and quit fighting each other over stupid things and worry about their own life? Hate speech, discrimination against homosexuals, etc, are nothing more than liberal trash that are one of the thing's destroying this country. The men that founded our nation believed in God. Christian or not, they believed in God and that God is the only way for us to have freedom for all people. Long live the Constitutional Republic. We are NOT a Democracy, never have been.

reply to post by Skippy1138


Yes, they have a few black marks on their permanent record. They deserve more. They are committing hate crimes, they are a hate group, a term that has more recently been replaced by Domestic Terrorism.

But at least you've chosen a side.

reply to post by Illuminizard


I'm sorry but no if you have a group you hold that group up to what they have done in the past if they have acted like complete twats in the past then that must be remembered. If the current anons don't want to be associated with what has gone on in the past then they need to split and start anew, like a lot of people have been saying, Hiding behind the meaning of the word anonymous is sad and is just a good way for them get away with what they do.

they are a hate group

So are anon

The structure, or lack of structure, is also why it's important for members to remain "cowardly" and hidden. Why would you want to become the face of hundreds of thousands of people all shifting back and forth between hundreds or thousands of different activities that you are in no way associated?

That is one of the biggest jokes I've seen recently. They really need to get how to do this on lock down.

Originally posted by aivlas
reply to post by Illuminizard

 

I'm sorry but no if you have a group you hold that group up to what they have done in the past if they have acted like complete twats in the past then that must be remembered. If the current anons don't want to be associated with what has gone on in the past then they need to split and start anew, like a lot of people have been saying, Hiding behind the meaning of the word anonymous is sad and is just a good way for them get away with what they do.

they are a hate group

So are anon

edit on 20-2-2011 by aivlas because: (no reason given)

That's fine. I'm not Anon or a supporter, I'm just telling it how I understand it. I think the intention of leaving it "Anonymous" and their own structure is to have to remove the need for disassociation.

reply to post by Illuminizard


I don't really understand your post.What "side" have I chosen?
I'm on the "side" of people being able to speak freely and express their opinions WITHIN THE LAW.As I've already stated earlier in the thread, if a group is breaking the law, by all means throw the book at them...

Originally posted by soaringhawk
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1

 

Nope, you are wrong. Who is to say what hate speech is? All speech is protected. How about people grow a pair, and quit fighting each other over stupid things and worry about their own life? Hate speech, discrimination against homosexuals, etc, are nothing more than liberal trash that are one of the thing's destroying this country. The men that founded our nation believed in God. Christian or not, they believed in God and that God is the only way for us to have freedom for all people. Long live the Constitutional Republic. We are NOT a Democracy, never have been.

You will always have the lesser intelligent thinking that they can hide behind the Amendment to do whatever the flip they want means that personal accountability goes completely out the window. Using this logic someone can go kill an Arab in cold blood and try to hide behind the doc to get off on murder.

To say that the doc protects hate speech while saying we are not a democracy means you are apart of the problem and not apart of the solution.

Liberal trash huh? You just attacked the nation twice and used this opportunity to continually trash it so who is the real trash here?

Remember the reasons for the Civil War? A bunch of redneck, white trash racists wanting to keep and own slaves while bowing to the likes of The KKK so you see how far hate speech can go if not curtailed?

Tell that to someone who is doing time for attacking someone because the hate in their heart led them to attack someone on nothing more then the colour of their skin.

Learn about the freedoms contained in the Constitution really apply and how they apply before you try to come back at me and attempt to trash the nation again.

Freedom is all about the protection and preservation of "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for All Americans and is not reserved for a select few.

Time for a crash course in The 1st Amendment and how it applies to us today :

1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof - This bans Government from establishing an "Official state Religion" while denying that Govt be allowed to endorse one as its own.
2. Abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press - Speech is only protected in cases whereas and exclusively in matters pertaining to speech said on the internet, in person and during a protest as long as said speech is civil in discourse, origin and intent. IE, this protects you when you say "Govt cares more about say, corporate interests then it does the nation" and Govt cannot touch you.
3. The right of the people peaceably to assemble - This allows for peaceful Americans to protest matters pertaining to the nation.
4. To petition the Government for a redress of grievances.- This allows for an avenue to be continually made availble to the people at the expense of the Govt to provide an avenue whereas if the people are sick of the course of the nation this allows people to participate as long as they remain civil, respectful to the nation, one another and our laws.

Proof, walk up to an African American police officer and call them the "N" word or walk up to a Hispanic American cop and call him the "S" word and see if you aren't placed into cuffs because the way the law is currently written is that both actions will result in your arrest over a something called a "hate crime".

Hehe - I think anon is messing with their site as we speak.

It's acting erratically.