Hackers Release Information on Westboro Baptist Church Members After CT Threat

[supergoat52]

So we want to protect the rights of 40 people who spread hate and abuse the constitution. Got it.

An amendment needs to be made. Simple as that. Problem solved.

This is NOT about taking away RIGHTS. Again, this is about ideology.

BigMar you ask for us to answer the specific question you pose, please answer mine with the funeral-from-hell i mentioned above. I am honestly curious about your answer, should that be illegal to peacefully protest from public grounds?

 

[KI4MVP]

It would take a constitutional amendment. Just like flag burning, and other extreme acts still covered under free speech. Its a slippery slope.

So no, it should not.

The biggest problem I have is that we shouldnt have a need for this conversation. It is only an utter disgrace of a human being that would even think to do this though.

pass a federal law. That should stop them for years while they challenge the constitutionality of the law. If they win the challenge, which isn't clear, amend the constitution.

And I think everyone agrees with the bolded part.

 

[Jack Brickman]

So we want to protect the rights of 40 people who spread hate and abuse the constitution. Got it.

An amendment needs to be made. Simple as that. Problem solved.

This is NOT about taking away RIGHTS. Again, this is about ideology and fixing our problems.

You should have the RIGHT to bare arms....NOBODY should have the RIGHT to protest a funeral.

This is where morality needs to win over and the law needs to reflect that.

The thing is, you can't just pick and choose who you allow to have rights. Either everyone has them, or no one has them. If the government wants to make an amendment, fine, but until then, rights are rights. Just because you disagree with how a certain group is using them doesn't make them less valid than your own rights.

Aside from that, someone could easily argue that no human being should have the right to bear arms. Guns are dangerous and were designed almost entirely to kill other human beings. Why should it be a god-given right to possess a weapon that has a sole purpose: to take life? Regardless, it's a right that is in the constitution, and unless it is changed, everyone gets the right, not just the people you or I think the right applies to.

 

[Lee]

So we want to protect the rights of 40 people who spread hate and abuse the constitution. Got it.

An amendment needs to be made. Simple as that. Problem solved.

This is NOT about taking away RIGHTS. Again, this is about ideology and fixing our problems.

You should have the RIGHT to bare arms....NOBODY should have the RIGHT to protest a funeral.

This is where morality needs to win over and the law needs to reflect that.

This is just 1 example, as small as it may seem, that is going to end up hurting this country if we keep letting it.

You let passion confuse logic often. I respect your passion, but no one here wants to protect their rights. We want to uphold the constitution. There is a bigger need there. That is all. It is way to minor of an issue for a constitutional amendment. Amendments freed the slaves, gave woman the rights to vote, made alcohol illegal then legalized it again. These are huge issues, protesting funerals is way to narrowly focused.

I just wish we lived in a world were this isnt even an issue.

 

[CardiacCavs]

Fred Phelps:

One of his daughters:

[video=youtube;VEGLFJ-Nqq4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEGLFJ-Nqq4[/video]

 

[Maximus]

Hacking by our military or authorities, I'm fine with. I'm doing nothing that would interest them and they are trying to make me safer.

Hacking by private citizens should be illegal in all cases. It's an invasion of privacy and in many cases - theft.
If a skilled hacker wants to help bring down the next Hitler, join the military or law enforcement...or work with them and sell your ability as a contract hacker. If you are skilled at it I am sure it can be a very rewarding job with benefits. Unfortunately, it's mostly done by people making their own rules about who they think is bad and isn't bad. I just read the other day that hackers are now able to access smart tvs and watch you...they already can do it to computers and phones. Someone posted in the WTF thread a bunch of links that showed LIVE video of people in their homes. The first one I clicked on was a grandmother watching TV...i'm assuming their kids put a nanny cam or something in her home so they could monitor her. Some neckbeard hacked into it and now it's being broadcast around the internet. There were dozens of links posted...i was terrified to click another and wish i hadn't clicked the first. If there were dozens of these links being posted in and RCF thread, that means there are 1000's and 1000's and 1000's of people being watched in their homes that don't know it....their KIDS are being watched.
Also, think about how much negative impact hackers are causing our economy with viruses, theft of databases, theft of banking accounts, theft of intellectual property, etc.

Hacking by the public should always be a jailable offense. Period.

These are words from Anonymous -
"We are anonymous
We do not have members or leaders
We are a group of people doing what we want
The President fears us "

I fear them too...

 

[Lee]

pass a federal law. That should stop them for years while they challenge the constitutionality of the law. If they win the challenge, which isn't clear, amend the constitution.

And I think everyone agrees with the bolded part.

Law wont be passed because all the law makers already know its not constitutional. This has been argued before. Like i said look up the Skokie, IL case. You cant tell me a Holocaust survivor shouldn't have the right of having a Schwatzikah paraded up and down his street. There is a bigger freedom at hand here, one that if we start denying for moral reasons gets taken away for abuse reasons. We can never let any amendment or law effect the freedom of speech, even when it morally tells us we should.

 

[Jack Brickman]

Hacking by our military or authorities, I'm fine with. I'm doing nothing that would interest them and they are trying to make me safer.

For the record, I still don't think hacking by the military is ethical. I feel the same way about military hacking as I do about drone strikes: it's not ethical, but it may make us safer. That's the inevitable question, though, isn't it? Do the ends justify the means?

 

[Lee]

For the record, I still don't think hacking by the military is ethical. I feel the same way about military hacking as I do about drone strikes: it's not ethical, but it may make us safer. That's the inevitable question, though, isn't it? Do the ends justify the means?

That is a very interesting point. I am ok with the military hacking, but since i am taking a hard stance on the WBC, should I be ok with this?

Probably not.

 

[Jack Brickman]

That is a very interesting point. I am ok with the military hacking, but since i am taking a hard stance on the WBC, should I be ok with this?

Probably not.

I can see where you're coming from. It's easier to trust the military because you probably believe, at the end of the day, they have our country's best interests at heart. Whereas with Anonymous, you know that, by and large, they have their own best interests at heart.

That said, unethical is unethical. That doesn't mean you can't accept an unethical act (like how I don't really feel bad for the WBC being hacked because they're a group of bigots), but at the same time you should still be able to recognize it as unethical.

 

[Otsego Mar]

What if it is Fred Phelp's funeral and at the funeral they have publicly announced that they will be doing many anti-gay demonstrations, along with demonstrations of the sins of America by slaughtering baby piglets (in accordance with the law), to show how we "slaughter" unborn babies?

An extreme example obviously (though let's be honest, entirely possible), but i am trying to defend the most extreme example of free speech I know of in this country so its only fair.

Point is, this isn't how the law works, or should work IMO. Its legal to be an asshole and the legislative branch is not in the business of trying to determine just how big of an asshole you are allowed to be. By asshole i mean someone who emotionally taunts, bullies, or offends people without causing actual physical harm.

OK easy....No protesting funerals unless it's your own or you are related to the person, or you have permission.

Problem solved. Things do not have to be as difficult as many are making it out to be.

I am using both logic and passion.

 

[KI4MVP]

Law wont be passed because all the law makers already know its not constitutional. This has been argued before. Like i said look up the Skokie, IL case. You cant tell me a Holocaust survivor shouldn't have the right of having a Schwatzikah paraded up and down his street. There is a bigger freedom at hand here, one that if we start denying for moral reasons gets taken away for abuse reasons. We can never let any amendment or law effect the freedom of speech, even when it morally tells us we should.

not for moral reasons, but rather to protect the rights of others. Pass the law, let them fight it.

 

[KI4MVP]

Hacking by our military or authorities, I'm fine with. I'm doing nothing that would interest them and they are trying to make me safer.

Hacking by private citizens should be illegal in all cases. It's an invasion of privacy and in many cases - theft.
If a skilled hacker wants to help bring down the next Hitler, join the military or law enforcement...or work with them and sell your ability as a contract hacker. If you are skilled at it I am sure it can be a very rewarding job with benefits. Unfortunately, it's mostly done by people making their own rules about who they think is bad and isn't bad. I just read the other day that hackers are now able to access smart tvs and watch you...they already can do it to computers and phones. Someone posted in the WTF thread a bunch of links that showed LIVE video of people in their homes. The first one I clicked on was a grandmother watching TV...i'm assuming their kids put a nanny cam or something in her home so they could monitor her. Some neckbeard hacked into it and now it's being broadcast around the internet. There were dozens of links posted...i was terrified to click another and wish i hadn't clicked the first. If there were dozens of these links being posted in and RCF thread, that means there are 1000's and 1000's and 1000's of people being watched in their homes that don't know it....their KIDS are being watched.
Also, think about how much negative impact hackers are causing our economy with viruses, theft of databases, theft of banking accounts, theft of intellectual property, etc.

Hacking by the public should always be a jailable offense. Period.

These are words from Anonymous -
"We are anonymous
We do not have members or leaders
We are a group of people doing what we want
The President fears us "

I fear them too...

I didn't say it would or should be legal, but rather that the specific example would be ethical. Legality and ethics don't always match up, WBC is a prime example. What they do is completely unethical.

 

[Otsego Mar]

I can see where you're coming from. It's easier to trust the military because you probably believe, at the end of the day, they have our country's best interests at heart. Whereas with Anonymous, you know that, by and large, they have their own best interests at heart.

That said, unethical is unethical. That doesn't mean you can't accept an unethical act (like how I don't really feel bad for the WBC being hacked because they're a group of bigots), but at the same time you should still be able to recognize it as unethical.

Nope...they only have the best interest of this country in their minds. Look at who they target. Again, I'm not saying what they are doing should be legal, but all you have to do is look at who they target.

 

[Jack Brickman]

Nope...they only have the best interest of this country in their minds. Look at who they target. Again, I'm not saying what they are doing should be legal, but all you have to do is look at who they target.

You do realize that they're not all Americans, right? Anonymous does whatever they feel like doing. Sometimes they target people who deserve it. Sometimes they don't. They have their own best interests at heart.