Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Anonymous has chosen a new target

politics.slashdot.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 36 posts

Re: Anonymous has chosen a new target

#11

Post by ryanwaggoner »

FiReaNG3L wrote: post #7
SlyShy wrote: post #6

Ironic that a supposed defender of free speech is doing this. Although I find Phelps abhorring, I still support his right to spout his ideology.

There's free speech, and there's hate speech.

Who decides the difference?

EDIT: It should also be noted that in the United States (where Phelps is based), restrictions on "hate speech" have not fared well in the courts, as they are usually seen as an unconstitutional restriction on free speech.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#United_States

Looks like the Supreme Court is due to rule on a case involving Phelps that may settle some of these questions from a legal perspective:

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/snyder-v-phelps/

Re: Anonymous has chosen a new target

#12

Post by moxiemk1 »

FiReaNG3L wrote: post #7
SlyShy wrote: post #6

Ironic that a supposed defender of free speech is doing this. Although I find Phelps abhorring, I still support his right to spout his ideology.

There's free speech, and there's hate speech.

What's always concerned me is that I don't know how to draw that line. Where do you put it?

Re: Anonymous has chosen a new target

#13

Post by adolph »

FiReaNG3L wrote: post #7
SlyShy wrote: post #6

Ironic that a supposed defender of free speech is doing this. Although I find Phelps abhorring, I still support his right to spout his ideology.

There's free speech, and there's hate speech.

Is there a difference between the two? What's the distinction? Who gets to decide? Does the distinction change over time?

Re: Anonymous has chosen a new target

#14

Post by mathgladiator »

ryanwaggoner wrote: post #11
FiReaNG3L wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's free speech, and there's hate speech.

Who decides the difference? EDIT: It should also be noted that in the United States (where Phelps is based), restrictions on "hate speech" have not fared well in the courts, as they are usually seen as an unconstitutional restriction on free speech. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#United_States Looks like the Supreme Court is due to rule on a case involving Phelps that may settle some of these questions from…

Property owners

Re: Anonymous has chosen a new target

#15

Post by deno »

portman wrote: post #8
SlyShy wrote: post #6

Ironic that a supposed defender of free speech is doing this. Although I find Phelps abhorring, I still support his right to spout his ideology.

At funerals? Screaming at small children, six inches from their faces, that God killed their father on purpose?

> six inches from their faces

That's quite an exaggeration. They are standing far away from the ceremony.

EDIT: To clarify, I don't mean to defend them. I just think what they do is appalling enough on its own, without stretching the facts.

Re: Anonymous has chosen a new target

#17

Post by Vivtek »

What WBC does isn't so much the honest expression of a political viewpoint or even an ideology, as it is a refined business model - get in as many faces as possible over the most emotional possible issues (I mean, protesting at funerals?), and sue everybody for physical harassment if they so much as touch your sleeve.

They make good money at what they do.

Re: Anonymous has chosen a new target

#18

Post by chris_j »

bugsy wrote: post #10

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.

Re: Anonymous has chosen a new target

#19

Post by t3chg1rl »

bugsy wrote: post #10

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

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

Re: Anonymous has chosen a new target

#20

Post by kabuks »

moxiemk1 wrote: post #12
FiReaNG3L wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's free speech, and there's hate speech.

What's always concerned me is that I don't know how to draw that line. Where do you put it?

Not knowing where to put the line, is a poor excuse for not drawing one.

Any boundary will be imperfect, but that does not mean we don't set boundaries.

Who decides what's too much? I do. And you do too. And we keep trying to get better at setting intelligent and fair boundaries.

Post reply on HN