Cease and desist from Anonymous to Westboro Baptist Church

I'm not how sure how legitimate this is, but it looks like Anonymous is going to target Westboro Baptist Church if they don't stop their hate campaigns.

I'm torn on this issue. I stand with Westboro in that they deserve their right to Free Speech as much as anyone else. But they are clearly evil, and a force for bigotry and nearly everything I stand against.

Is cheering on Anonymous hypocritical? I haven't made my mind up, so let's talk about it.





Views: 122

Replies to This Discussion

True enough Stephan. What I was arguing for is Vigilantism. Personally, it wasn't about opinion, or the law, it was to be willing to make a sacrifice to do what is right. I'm using the word victim because of a lack of a synonym without the connotation of it being not of moral action but of the rule decided upon by the government.

I need to start reading a Thesaurus more.
Well, technically your usage of the word victim was an accurate one, just not one that I find applicable to the discussion.  I've still got nothing, in terms of an alternative that will be more specific ... and I'm the one who fancies himself a writer.

But the problem is, everyone agrees that when say the Joker kills a bunch of people for fun, he's a criminal.  Batman is a vigilante for bringing him in, but he is bringing in a known criminal.


WBC is not a criminal organization.  They are just a vile, evil one.  If you can commit vigilante actions against a law-abiding group, then anyone can be attacked for anything as near as I can tell it, for someone will always have a different moral system from you or I, and they could see us as evil.

You've listened to this week's Non-Prophets, haven't you?  :-D

I must say I am torn. I believe that we must uphold the Constitution as sacrosanct, although perhaps not an appropriate word fo an atheist to use. But the first amendment must be upheld regardless of the content. But, I find every word that Fred Phelps and friends spew to be morally repugnant.


On the other hand the first amendment addresses what congress can and cannot do in respect to free speech and religious freedom...so as long as they aren't involved we might be able to get some smug satisfaction out of their being targeted by Anonymous.

Yeah, but not pursing people who flagrantly break the law like that counts as endorsement.

I would love the police to try and capture an unknown number of unknown individuals who only do illegal DDoS attacks on the internet.


In fact, the majority of anonymous probably doesn't engage in the hacking. It's a leaderless organization in which each individual has their own goals.


It's quite impossible to find an unknown number of unknown individuals who are better at hiding their identity than criminals that took years to capture when they worked alone and had much more easier to track crimes such as murder, and THEN find the hackers among said unknown people and then provide the evidence to persecute the hackers among them.


I'm skeptical of the U.S' law enforcement to carry out such a task.

They can and do capture large numbers of them.  Nothing is truly anonymous, online, if you have someone good enough to track them down.

So long as the internet exists and people can remain anonymous, it won't stop. Anonymous doesn't just exist in the U.S. It's anyone who wishes to protest while remaining unknown.

You seem to be missing a key point of what I said.  People CAN'T remain anonymous.  Every post you make to this board has fingerprints all over it, from the packets used to send the information between your computer and the website.


I'm reminded of an episode of Non-Prophets Radio where some idiot hacked their website to take down their stream during the show or take down their website or something.  Matt traced it back to the person who did it and got them dropped by their ISP.  He could have probably had legal charges brought, too, but I don't think he did that.


The hackers who are threatening the WBC are better than the idiot who hacked Non-Prophets radio, I imagine, but when they're fucking with someone who has more resources and more skilled security people available, it's possible to catch them, too.  It's just a matter of what the government decides to spend their resources doing.

And you seem to be missing my point that they are spread globally, making it extremely unlikely to catch all of them, because the ones outside the U.S are outside of the U.S Law enforcements jurisdiction. Other nations might not have the security.


As I said in my previous reply, if it was ANY other group that isn't at the level of hate the WBC has, and the level of grief they throw onto people who don't deserve it, I would totally agree with you. But it makes me cringe allowing them to continue on.


I could argue that making them unable to protest the funerals (since it is illegal for them to come within 300 to 500 yards within it) the government is taking away their right to protest (although I doubt it) but I won't and don't because they don't contribute to anything. And even if they do, the harm they do is more.


Physical Harm is not the only harm that matters by the way. The harm psychological trauma can do to a person, sometimes exceeds what physical harm can do to them.

The purpose of free speech is to protect the speech we do not like.  What does it matter if they contribute anything or not.



Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2017   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service