13
   

"Anonymous" shuts down Westboro Church websites

 
 
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 07:28 pm
The interview between these two is hilarious.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2011/02/25/westboro_baptist_church_anonymous_website/index.html?source=rss&aim=%2Fnews%2Ffeature

Anonymous shuts down Westboro Baptist Church site -- during a live interview

Less than a week ago, a rumor spread that the vigilante hacker organization Anonymous had declared war on the Westboro Baptist Church. Though quickly dismissed as a hoax, the headline-grabbing possibility spread through the media faster than an offensive Kanye West tweet. Given the clandestine nature of Anonymous -- as the name implies, all of the member of the group are, in fact, anonymous -- the truth proved elusive. Regardless, the Westboro Baptist Church started a smear campaign against Anonymous and insisted that their message could not be silenced. In the words of WBC: "Bring it."

Hoping to clear the air, radio talk show host David Pakman invited Shirley Phelps-Roper, spokesperson from the Westboro Baptist Church, and an (anonymous) member of Anonymous onto his show for a live web chat. Pakman moderated the conversation, and the banter started out almost cordial. However despite Anonymous' continued denial of a war or plans of an attack, Phelps-Roper persistently insulted the group and its representative. After Phelps-Roper tells the Anonymous representative he's going to Hell, Anonymous says, "I have a surprise for you."

Anonymous unleashed an attack during the insults and directed the audience towards downloads.westborobaptistchurch.com with a notice from Anonymous:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2011/02/25/westboro_baptist_church_anonymous_website/380260.jpeg

Watch the full interview here. The attack happens around the 9:00 mark:

 
boomerang
 
  4  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 07:43 pm
Hilarious!

Even Stephan Colbert paid homage to Anonymous on his show the other day by having the Guy Fawkes mask superimposed on his face for a fraction of a second.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  2  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 08:56 pm
Chuckle. Some friends of mine are cheering Anonymous on.
0 Replies
 
Diane
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 10:08 pm
To me, this is horrendous. Vigilantes in cyberspace who can control any site they might object to.

What about other religious sites, what about altering political messages ala Fox News, about anything that is posted except for illegal material?

They are taking away freedom of speech from the internet, the one last place where there is some modicum of freedom of speech, until Rupert Murdoch buys it all up.

This is the worst kind of liberalism, as knee jerk as the most radical Republican.

plainoldme
 
  2  
Reply Thu 3 Mar, 2011 07:36 am
Written by one of the wisest people I know:

"This is a tough one. Surely the Phelps clan are just about the most hateful & wretched group of people imaginable. They are deliberately incendiary. In fact, that's the racket. They're all lawyers, save for Papa Fred who has been disbarred.

They get as close to the line, legally speaking, as they can just so someone else can cross it and they can sue and collect millions in civil court for the assault they provoke upon themselves. Their actions are terribly heinous and if there is a Hell as they proclaim, they most assuredly are going to it's deepest depths by the metric of anyone's moral standard.

However, this ruling by SCOTUS is the right one. Not just from a purely legalistic, by-the-letter interpretation of the Constitution but by it's spirit. If you have any faith or trust in the wisdom of Jefferson and the rest of the founding fathers, of the idea of what it is to truly have American values, you have to support this ruling. The core American value, the most central to what is the possibly lost, most noble American idea demands these virulent little people be allowed to continue to spread their message. "I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write." That sentiment was first made by the French, all the best ideas are stolen anyway.

If we do not allow Westborough Baptist Church to screed as they do, then when we need to say something true that is nonetheless unpopular or unpleasant, something the populace at large doesn't want to hear but needs to, we will be silenced.

And those who would silence us would merely need to point to case of the Phelps clan, and say that from where they stand things are no different. And we would have no ethical leg to stand on. The reason our much vaunted freedoms are so sacred is because they apply even here, even to people like this. This is what being an open & free society is about, taking to good with the bad, recognizing it's all here and all deserve the right to those freedoms.

I think what many people are getting caught up in is this mythical right not to be offended that seems to have caught on lately. Everyone knows the cliché "Your right to swing your arms ends at my nose". I've heard that argument almost every time the WBC makes the news. But they seem to forget the even older adage "sticks & stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me". The pickets, while full of bigotry and hate, are not the same as yelling fire in a crowded theatre. They are not the same as fraud or libel. They are the carefully construed campaign of a backwoods clan of lawyer-zealots who have found a cash crop made by pushing people's buttons. It's the same psycho minds games played by bullies on every schoolyard across the globe, being played by unscrupulous yet sophisticated adults. Stop giving them the attention they crave, stop with the knee-jerk I-hope-they-get-silenced-editorial publicity. It's what they want, it's playing their game by their rules, even though you think you're fighting them.

Let them pout in the corner, stop letting them egg you on. The law suits will stop, their income will dry up, their game will be over. You will have the moral & ethical high ground, and you'll win. But you have to be mature about, not be reactionary. You have to act like the parent of a naughty child, and I know that's hard, but you know it's the right thing to do.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  3  
Reply Thu 3 Mar, 2011 11:49 am
@Diane,
Diane wrote:

This is the worst kind of liberalism, as knee jerk as the most radical Republican.

Why do you associate cyber hacking with liberalism? Seems more like anarchists to me. If someone attacks a radical religious site does that automatically imply they are liberal?
0 Replies
 
PUNKEY
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Mar, 2011 12:14 pm
It's a sad fact that our Constitution protects a lot of assholes and their actions.

But I, too, am concerned with cyber censoring.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Mar, 2011 12:21 pm
@Diane,
Diane wrote:

To me, this is horrendous. Vigilantes in cyberspace who can control any site they might object to.

What about other religious sites, what about altering political messages ala Fox News, about anything that is posted except for illegal material?

They are taking away freedom of speech from the internet, the one last place where there is some modicum of freedom of speech, until Rupert Murdoch buys it all up.

This is the worst kind of liberalism, as knee jerk as the most radical Republican.




Hey Di,

This is neither Liberal nor Conservative. It's wrong to try and jam Anonymous into a box like that.

Instead, it represents a new force - a new locus of control within our society. One which is not beholden to political donations or corporate causes. You can see why it leads to panic amongst the elite classes.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
PUNKEY
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Mar, 2011 01:31 pm
So now "Anonymous" is the judge?

Can't you see the slippery slope, here?
Green Witch
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Mar, 2011 02:00 pm
It's important for crazy, evil, wackos to have a voice in society. It's the best way to know what they're up to. I would have preferred if someone T.P.'d their church.
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  2  
Reply Thu 3 Mar, 2011 02:07 pm
Personally, I don't see crashing someone's web site being equal to hindering their Constitutional right to speak freely.

When my service goes out I don't see it as a violation of my Constitutional rights.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Mar, 2011 02:17 pm
@PUNKEY,
PUNKEY wrote:

So now "Anonymous" is the judge?

Can't you see the slippery slope, here?



It's not a slippery slope, it's a warning. The systems that we have come to rely upon aren't protected in the slightest, and a new group of people has much greater control over these systems than anyone realizes.

We are fortunate in a lot of ways that these guys don't have criminal intentions. Rather, they seem dedicated to the old motto for Sneakers:

No more secrets.


And I totally support that. For too long, certain people have felt free to manipulate and destroy our economy and social situation for their own private gain. Anonymous directly threatens their future ability to do this. What's so wrong with that?

Cycloptichorn
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Mar, 2011 03:58 pm
@boomerang,
In this case, it was the Westboro Church who was fabricating lies about Anonymous, blaming them for an earlier website failure and using it for publicity. No matter what Anonymous said in denial, the Westboro Church people kept accusing them. The interview was arranged to discuss it publicly. Anonymous finally took a swipe at their website during the interview when the woman from Westboro kept relentlessly accusing them of doing the earlier one.

Anonymous has since moved on to the websites of the Koch brothers, their companies and organizations.
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Mar, 2011 04:06 pm
@Butrflynet,
Yes, I know that.

My post was directed at people who think shutting down a website infringes on a person's right to speak freely.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Mar, 2011 09:24 am
For those who have seen the horrid woman Shirley Phelps Roper on the David Pakman Show:

She argued on behalf of the Westboro Church before the Supreme Court. The whole thing is an act.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Sun 6 Mar, 2011 10:38 am
@Cycloptichorn,
[/quote]

For too long, certain people have felt free to manipulate and destroy our economy and social situation for their own private gain. Anonymous directly threatens their future ability to do this. What's so wrong with that?

Cycloptichorn
[/quote]

Total agreement.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » "Anonymous" shuts down Westboro Church websites
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/29/2020 at 03:26:57