Live data from Hacker News

Anonymous has chosen a new target

politics.slashdot.org

31–36 of 36 posts

Re: Anonymous has chosen a new target

#31
post #27
post #10

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

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…

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.

Re: Anonymous has chosen a new target

#33
post #23
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

You're right that there is no need to exaggerate. The raft of state legislation in 2007/2008 setting up perimeters (300 - 500 feet, depending on the state) was in direct response to the stepped-up funeral protests of 2006 which were in extremely close , personal proximity to the mourners. Now, they are 300-500 feet away, but only due to specific state laws.

Sure, but in the vast majority of (if not all) events the Phelpers are kept far enough away that the people at the events don't even see them.

Re: Anonymous has chosen a new target

#35
post #17

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.

I don't know if the goal is to make money or what, but it seems very obvious to me that they are coming up with the most vile things they can think of for the sake of getting a rise out of people.

I don't know why anyone would waste time arguing with them when they are clearly just looking for attention and may not even believe everything they're saying.

Post reply on HN