• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

Hackers Release Information on Westboro Baptist Church Members After CT Threat

Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Have the hackers crossed the ethical boundary?

  • Total voters
    34
Scholar23 said:
But, is it really not against any laws? Could a group of say Browns fans gather in front of a certain head coach's house and protest his lack of quality play calling? I don't mean an angry mob either. I mean an orderly peaceful demonstration against incompetence. Is that okay? Don't you think the protesters will find themselves chased off by the local police even though it is just a peaceful assembly?
Click to expand...



Your home is private property though. I would imagine there are different laws when private property is involved.
 
When dealing with the Westboro Baptist Church fortunately in this case ethics aren't really much of a factor. Those people are true scum and hopefully karma takes care of them for all of the callous insensitive bullshit protests and things they've done in the past.
 
BigMar Lion said:
What did James Hetfield from Metically say again? Ah, yes - Fight fire with fire!
Click to expand...

James Hetfield also said I've fucked a sheep, I've fucked a goat. I rammed my cock right down his throat.
 
Scholar23 said:
But, is it really not against any laws? Could a group of say Browns fans gather in front of a certain head coach's house and protest his lack of quality play calling? I don't mean an angry mob either. I mean an orderly peaceful demonstration against incompetence. Is that okay? Don't you think the protesters will find themselves chased off by the local police even though it is just a peaceful assembly?
Click to expand...

As I said before, these people obviously aren't breaking any laws. Do you honestly think most police wouldn't be completely gung-ho to arrest these assholes for protesting near a funeral if they had the legal recourse to do so? These people have clearly done their homework and know exactly what the laws state and make sure not to break them.

As far as protesting the Browns' coach, well, I'm pretty sure that could be done so long as fans didn't actually go onto his property.
 
BigMar Lion said:
We need to be able to define the difference between good and bad. Why do people want to make it such a gray area for such terrible things like protesting at a funeral? lol I really don't get it.
Click to expand...

Is hacking good or bad?
 
Jack Brickman said:
As I said before, these people obviously aren't breaking any laws. Do you honestly think most police wouldn't be completely gung-ho to arrest these assholes for protesting near a funeral if they had the legal recourse to do so? These people have clearly done their homework and know exactly what the laws state and make sure not to break them.

As far as protesting the Browns' coach, well, I'm pretty sure that could be done so long as fans didn't actually go onto his property.
Click to expand...

If I recall, Fred Phelps was a lawyer before he got disbarred.

As I said before, these people are basically running a giant scam. By acknowledging them, they are getting exactly what they want.
 
Yes the hackers crossed an ethical line. Also a legal one.

Do I agree with these scumbags? No, nobody does. Does that mean that someone should post their personal information online so other's can do whatever they want with it, and you know damn well someone is going to get their property or person harmed from this information.

What if you were a member of a group that wasn't so popular and they decided to spout out your information. You have to think about that slippery slope because that's where it will all travel. Even though these guys are shitheads, the hackers violated their privacy rights and I'm not cool with that.

Now someone go murder a few of them anyway and we can protest their funeral
 
I recently did a presentation on the Supreme Court Case Snyder V Phelps. Snyder, the father of a soldier who was killed in Iraq by a roadside bomb, sued the WBC for picketing his son's funeral. The Court ruled 8-1 in favor of the WBC citing the first amendment. as justification.

Here is an excerpt from Chief Justice Roberts opinion on the case:

Westboro believes that America is morally flawed; many Americans might feel the same about Westboro. Westboro's funeral picketing is certainly hurtful and its contribution to public discourse may be negligible. But Westboro addressed matters of public import on public property, in a peaceful manner, in full compliance with the guidance of local officials. The speech was indeed planned to coincide with Matthew Snyder's funeral, but did not itself disrupt that funeral, and Westboro's choice to conduct its picketing at that time and place did not alter the nature of its speech.
Click to expand...

Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and - as it did here - inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a Nation we have chosen a different course - to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate. That choice requires that we shield Westboro from tort liability for its picketing in this case.
Click to expand...

Hard to argue with what Roberts says. That whole family may be cunts, but they are protected by the first amendment. To deny them that right...well that's the whole slippery slope scenario.
 
Maximus said:
Is hacking good or bad?
Click to expand...

If freedom of assembly gives this "church" the right to protest funerals of murdered kids, doesn't freedom of speech give anonymous the right to post the info they posted?

How do we know for certain that hacking was involved to compile the list they posted? It's possible there was, but it's possible to compile at least most of the info without hacking. We have run into cases where customers ordered online but because of some sort of glitch we did't get any sort of address or contact info. In many cases, we've managed to track down the info we needed to contact them and ship their order by searching the internet.
 
BigMar Lion said:
Chris. Answer this question.

Do you think it should be illegal to protest a funeral? Yes or No. And if you really have to put qualifications on that......therein lies the problem with you and me (in our ideology).
Click to expand...

Alright I'll be the one to say it:

It should not be illegal to protest a funeral. Or for that matter, a bar mitsvah, a christian christmas play put on by kids, a gay pride parade, a gun show, or a wedding. People have the right to their opinions and the right to express those opinions in peaceful ways, even if that pisses you off. These people are expressing their religious views, and while I'm openly an athiest and think all religions are crazy, i fully support everyone's right to believe what they want to believe and express that belief.

For the record i would protest a funeral if i was really opposed to the person. Say the lockerbie bomber who got the bullshit compassionate release despite killing hundreds of people. I would protest that. Maybe I'm an asshole for it, but that's my right, just like its your right to call me an asshole.

You can claim that your legal system would be result in a better society because it would prevent extreme assholes, but aside from the easy to make slippery-slope argument, I think you have already detracted from society by making these assholes illegal. Your public discourse is no longer real because you have made some opinions illegal, or at least the peaceful expression of those opinions. Your society would never have the opportunity to band together against these guys like the motorcycle gangs who drown them out, or the groups who hold hands to block them.

Making speech illegal because it offends you is not only a weak way to avoid the issue, but it conveys fear of the speech (not saying you personally are afraid, but the laws would make the government look it). If the speech is so illogical, then beat it fair and square with discourse. Your ideology leads you to drawing a subjective line to decide what you personally consider too offensive, and that your shared government should intervene with force to prevent those people from offending your ears any longer. That, in my opinion, is immoral.
 
KI4MVP said:
If freedom of assembly gives this "church" the right to protest funerals of murdered kids, doesn't freedom of speech give anonymous the right to post the info they posted?
Click to expand...

I asked if hacking was good or bad...what does that have to do with Freedom of Speech?

How do we know for certain that hacking was involved to compile the list they posted? It's possible there was, but it's possible to compile at least most of the info without hacking. We have run into cases where customers ordered online but because of some sort of glitch we did't get any sort of address or contact info. In many cases, we've managed to track down the info we needed to contact them and ship their order by searching the internet.
Click to expand...

I doubt Anonymous used google search to find their info, but if they did, that's fine. My understanding is that they have admitted that it was obtained by hacking, they posted server and "port"(?) info on how they got in.

My question of whether hacking was good or bad was really directed at this comment by BigMar - "We need to be able to define the difference between good and bad. Why do people want to make it such a gray area for such terrible things like protesting at a funeral? lol I really don't get it."
 
Maximus said:
I asked if hacking was good or bad...what does that have to do with Freedom of Speech?



I doubt Anonymous used google search to find their info, but if they did, that's fine. My understanding is that they have admitted that it was obtained by hacking, they posted server and "port"(?) info on how they got in.

My question of whether hacking was good or bad was really directed at this comment by BigMar - "We need to be able to define the difference between good and bad. Why do people want to make it such a gray area for such terrible things like protesting at a funeral? lol I really don't get it."
Click to expand...

I have liked the idea in the past of volunteers creating a human wall to block the protestors and keep them from getting too close. Fight fire with fire. Both actions are legal, only the latter is moral though.
 
For the record, WBC has been taken to court over these issues, and they have lost, and legislation has been passed in some states preventing much of the harm they cause.

Free speach is a right but it still has limitations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-14: "Time for Playoff Vengeance on Mickey"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:14: " Time for Playoff Vengeance on Mickey."
Top