Anonymous Hacks Westboro Baptist Church 1061
elashish14 writes "The Westboro Baptist Church stated earlier this week that they would be picketing the funerals of the victims of Newtown Connecticut's tragic shooting in an effort to bring awareness to their hate messages. In response, the Anonymous hacker collective has hacked their website and posted the personal information of all of its members."
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
If nothing else..... (Score:1, Insightful)
ignore instead of feed (Score:5, Insightful)
these scum do it because they get the attention they want. ignore them, please!
Streisand Effect (Score:5, Insightful)
God must be dead . . . (Score:4, Insightful)
. . . if they're alive.
lawsuits (Score:3, Insightful)
I think they are horrible but I am glad they won many of their lawsuits.
Even though most people, including me, disagree with their opinions that should still be able to picket and print whatever stuff they want.
Re:If nothing else..... (Score:2, Insightful)
Or a lesson in the fortitude to live up to the harsh strictures of freedom.
To let others be free is to chain yourself.
Re:ignore instead of feed (Score:3, Insightful)
I dunno...
I figure once a few of those members have protesters of their own driving to Westboro, KS and showing up at their homes, schools, and everywhere they go, maybe they'll get the hint and STFU? Once their mailboxes get the Ralsky Treatment [slashdot.org] (Gay pr0n suggested, of course), maybe they'll get the hint and realize that maybe harassment is a bad thing?
Re:Kudos (Score:3, Insightful)
You would destroy all of the freedoms so many have died for you to obtain -- if only because a group is using speech you deem unacceptable. Shame. Shame on you sir.
Re:If nothing else..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Just the opposite, I see it as a test for those who claim to be champions of the freedom of expression.
Re:Kudos (Score:4, Insightful)
Free speech is not just speech you just like. It's any speech.
Re:ignore instead of feed (Score:5, Insightful)
Its been done. They are all lawyers. They provoke people for the sake suing them. They all live comfortably, but they don't work.
The best thing to do with a troll is not to feed it.
Re:Kudos (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullshit. Picketing the funerals of kids is not acceptable.
Re:Kudos (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Kudos (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Slashdot trolls (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Kudos (Score:4, Insightful)
WBC isn't exercising free speech. They're exercising hate speech. Burning a cross on a black man's lawn is free speech, and yet is also a hate crime. WBC is a community of criminals and needs to be stopped.
Re:Kudos (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If nothing else..... (Score:5, Insightful)
What about the rights of the victims' families who don't want to be subject to harassment at a funeral? You have the right to say what you want, but you don't have the right to force me to listen to you by screaming your message outside my house.
WBC's freedom of speech should not be infringed upon. They should not be thrown in jail for their speech, or fined. But "free speech" does not mean "forced listening."
Re:If nothing else..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Westboro Baptist Church is an object lesson in why it's good to have some restrictions on speech, such as limiting it to a reasonable time and place.
I absolutely agree that Westboro Baptist Church's proposed action here is beyond poor taste in this situation -- it is deplorable and disgusting.
However, I also think that limiting speech "to a reasonable time and place" is a really problematic standard as well. Who decides what is "reasonable"?
I think the Bush administration that created "free speech zones" would have argued that they were limiting free speech to places that were "reasonable." The Bush administration did in fact make a similar argument that protestors with a different message and agenda would be disruptive to the purpose of the events that the administration was organizing.
Is the argument about funerals any different? Believe me, I wish the Westboro people wouldn't do this crap. But is there any way we can prohibit peaceful assemblies of people on public property who just happen to have a different message than some other neighboring event, without also condoning crap like "free speech zones"? Or, if we allow families or churches to dictate free speech in surrounding areas on particular occasions, who decides what occasions and what areas? Can corporations take advantage of such protections as well?
I'm not trying to be argumentative here. I'm really wondering if people have good answers about how we can draw a line without also making it a lot easier to trample on free speech rights in a lot of situations that might matter.
Re:Kudos (Score:5, Insightful)
Making your point about your views on the matter on a blog, or in a newspaper/newsletter, in a letter to the editor, or just on the street corner to whoever will listen is free speech. Picketing the funeral of elementary school students is more than just rude, it is disruptive of a privately funded memorial service. This is hardly anything foreign to our free speech protections; you can picket outside of a politician's home, but if you're doing it at 3 AM with a bullhorn, or sitting outside and shining in a strobe so as to disrupt the occupants of the house, you're not so protected.
Re:Kudos (Score:5, Insightful)
All speech is free speech. If you start classifying what is and isn't "hate speech" you only serve to erode away what Free Speech really is.
Do you classify "Hate Speech" by popular opinion? If so, then burning a cross in someone's yard was at one point not considered "Hate Speech." So who's the inevitably curator of what you classify as "Hate Speech"? Is it the government? What if you say that our Electoral College is fucked up and should be replaced... could the Government classify that as "Hate Speech" against America?
This whole "Hate Speech" movement is really starting to concern me. It's censorship.
Re:Kudos (Score:4, Insightful)
When free speech is something they dont like, they should not be surprised when that free speech is their personal information.
Re:Kudos (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Kudos (Score:1, Insightful)
That's disdain, learn some English.
This is a non-issue, and here's why - Unlike Anonymous, the Westboro Church can and does actually reveal themselves in public every time they pull a stupid stunt like picketing the funerals of dead soldiers (and now, children). The whole point of Westboro is that they're the opposite of Anonymous. They are a gazillion times more offensive in the public meatspace and are brave (and/or stupid) enough to do it all without wearing silly masks.
Not that my opinion matters in the grand scheme of things, but if I could appeal to Anonymous as a whole, I would ask them to keep the moralfaggotry to tracking down animal abusers. We must continue to allow religious people to discredit themselves and religion in general. Allowing the Westboro church to carry on their business is not only good for free speech, but the advancement of society as a whole.
-- Ethanol-fueled
Re:If nothing else..... (Score:4, Insightful)
And yet if someone is harassing you, you can get a restraining order against them, can you not?
Re:ignore instead of feed (Score:5, Insightful)
It's difficult to ignore them as you're walking into the funeral home to say a final goodbye to your child who was just shot in the face at the elementary school they attended.
Re:Kudos (Score:5, Insightful)
If you disagree with that, post your address, and we'll get someone in front of your house with a bullhorn at 2 AM so they can exercise their freedoms.
Re:lawsuits (Score:5, Insightful)
Whatever they want? At what point does it cross over from them exercising their freedom of speech to infringing on others rights not to give a fuck, to feel safe, or not to be harassed? Even with freedoms, there are limits to how far those freedoms extend.
Re: Kudos (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Freedom from gov't consequences not fellow citizen (Score:5, Insightful)
You would destroy all of the freedoms so many have died for you to obtain -- if only because a group is using speech you deem unacceptable. Shame. Shame on you sir.
I think you are confusing the perspective of ACLU lawyers with the perspective of military veterans. As for the combat veterans I have known they seem perfectly fine with the notion that some speech will get you a kick in the ass or a punch in the face from your fellow citizen.
You seem to have made the error that freedom from government consequences somehow implies freedom from consequences from your fellow citizens.
Freedom of Speech protects you from the government (Score:5, Insightful)
The WBC should never be prosecuted by the government. But that doesn't mean that they get to act like a-holes. If they were picketing a kids funeral and the father or uncle went up and punched them in the nose and I was on the jury I would find them not guilty. If I was on a jury of the government trying to put them in jail for hate speech I would side with the WBC.
Re:Kudos (Score:5, Insightful)
By the same measure, discussing out loud in a public place plans to kill and harm people should be "protected" as a human right?
It's not bad because it's a crime, it's a crime because it's bad. When bad things aren't crimes, you should expect some amount of vigilante action, even if you fundamentally believe in civilization.
We as a nation can't find a middle ground between our principles and protecting the populace from hatespeech. When we do, vigilante action will happen less, or at least be less applauded.
Typical american comments I see. (Score:2, Insightful)
Im willing to bet all the hate comments in here towards them are from americans. Americans love to preach freedom and tollerance but they never want to tollerate things they dont like. The only time they preach tollerance is when someone isnt tollerating them, the only time they preach free speech is when they want to be heard.
If you dont like what that group has to say then dont pay attention to them. Its really that easy. But dont be a stupid american jerk when it comes to someone elses thoughts or opinions you dont like.
Do I agree with them? No. But I will never, I mean never tell them they shouldnt be able to print, say, picket or express their opinions. Nor will I ever approve of censoring them. They should be allowed to say what they want and think what they want. Nazis, whatever the black against white people group there is, KKK or whatever I wont agree with them but I always defend their right to say and think what they want to.
If you tolerate something that means you put up with something you dont like. If you dont tolerate that group then youre not tolerant, your just a closed minded moron. If youre a person who think this group is wrong and youre happy anon attacked them or made some kind of hate comment yourself then youre a bad american and the very people who give us all a bad name.
Re:Kudos (Score:4, Insightful)
What does this have to do with free speech? Nobody has been censored, nothing has been covered up. Freedom of speech is not anonymous hate speech.
Re:Kudos (Score:5, Insightful)
I've often made the comment that just because it's right, doesn't mean it's legal. Just because it's legal, doesn't mean it's right.
Westboro (I refuse to align them with a church or religious denomination, and I wish the media would as well) is doing that which is legal, yet not right. In response, Anonymous is doing what is right, yet not legal.
This, too, will be the first time that I congratulate Anonymous on being more than useless.
Re: Kudos (Score:5, Insightful)
When your 8 year old kid is killed in a school shooting feel free to let people walk around you, while your burrying them, yelling that your kid is burning in hell eternally. Till then maybe you should show a little compassion for the people it's actually happend to.
I promise when some madman takes an automatic gun and lots of ammunition, visits the Westboro Baptist Church and kills every single one of these f***ers, I won't be gloating.
Re:Kudos (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Kudos (Score:4, Insightful)
It isn't a religion. It is a way to sue communities that block them to make themselves rich.
Re:Kudos (Score:5, Insightful)
You have it backwards. Having established that it is acceptable to call gays subhuman because their religious beliefs demand it, the rest flows naturally from there. We saw in Germany during WWII what happens when the seeds of hate are not weeded out.
No one is calling Westboro less than human because of their religion. People are calling Westboro less than human because their actions betray a decided lack of humanity.
Re:Kudos (Score:5, Insightful)
In the US at least, hate speech is protected by the constitution. Direct quote from Wikipedia: "Laws prohibiting hate speech are unconstitutional in the United States; the United States federal government and state governments are forbidden by the First Amendment of the Constitution from restricting speech." In the United States, there is no (nor should there be) a distinction between these two things, legally. It is only illegal to act on hate, in the form of some other criminal activity.
It's pretty typical, really. People are all for freedom of speech right up until the point where it actually matters: people saying things that you or "the public" find offensive or unacceptable.
The people of Westboro are not only mistaken and committing acts of evil, but they also give me and every other Christian a bad name. Yet I will not ask that their speech be legally restricted in any way. Like everyone else in America, I have the right to ignore them and/or encourage them, legally, to not speak that way or say those things.
And by the way, it irks me to no end how much people care about hate. Hate is a feeling. It can't do anything. If your doctor HATES you, but otherwise gives you normal service when you're at the hospital, who cares if he hates you? Likewise, if a girlfriend in a fit of jealousy kills her boyfriend because she LOVES him too much to let him talk to other girls, who cares how much she loved him? You might care personally, but legally, the emotions should not matter. Human beings are only fit to judge actions, not the feelings behind those actions. Hate and criminal activity are often associated, but they are not the same thing, and neither necessarily causes the other.
Re:Kudos (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Kudos (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Kudos (Score:5, Insightful)
If you demand censure of someone's speech, you allow him a loophole to demand the censure of yours. Westboro baptist' right to free speech is the same right we all share. Attack theirs and you attack everyone elses, including your own. This right is far more important than the melodrama they cause..
I think westboro baptist is a joke. They should not be taken seriously. 90% of the 'bandwidth' given to their message comes from the overly sensitive sorts when they demand legal protections for their butthurt feelings on national tv. Just ignore them.. They're morons who are not worth losing liberties over.
Re: Kudos (Score:5, Insightful)
No it doesn't. 'misuse' gets defined by those hating the message who manage to garner 'authority'. This authority is then what ruins it for everyone. Be careful. Authority figures use 'blame chain' unlogic whenever they want to dictate badly thought out, yet emotionally satisfying policy.
Re:Kudos (Score:2, Insightful)
Shouldn't the actions of WBC be considered some form of harassment, which definitely has established laws to deal with it? At the very least, I would think a rather large radius restraining order is called for.
Re:Very Odd Coincidence (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Kudos (Score:5, Insightful)
I think there's a distinction between 'freedom of speech', and 'freedom to spread hate'. People don't always recognise the latter (which is why there are so many laws against hate speech).
There's not. It's an important part of the whole concept of free speech. What YOU decide is hateful may not be what I decide is hateful. That's kind of the whole point. Same thing with that whole freedom of religion thing. If this wasn't the case, it wouldn't be important enough to have written it into the constitution.
Re:No longer speech (Score:1, Insightful)
It is not speech it is an act at this point but an act.
Not protected.
They can have their own racist sermons and I do not care. They can say whatever they feel right. However if they tell and harass these teachers and childrens families that they are going to hell and provoke them then I am grabbing the ditch diggers shovel and beating them up senseless and I assume the families would be more than happy to join.
Re:Kudos (Score:5, Insightful)
Freedom of speech is only free to us as long as we do not infringe on others rights, and in this case, the Westboro Baptist Idiots have abused their freedom and infringed on other people's rights.
The fact that their speech offends you or others does not mean that they've infringed upon your rights.
Re:Kudos (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm as liberal as they come. But my dislike for a group of people who go nuts over zombie Jesus is greater than ... well, even greater than my indifference towards kids I don't know getting killed.
No. Seriously. There is a line that you simply do not cross. You don't dance on your enemy's grave. You don't kill a soldier and take a dump in his helmet. And you effin' do not picket funerals. And while I usually don't really understand what's the bigger tragedy when kids die (actually, from an economy point of view, the death of an adult in the employable age bracket is a much bigger economic tragedy), the parents have enough to handle already without a bunch of nutjobs telling them how happy they are about it.
Re:Kudos (Score:5, Insightful)
Can you show me an example of a culture where it is acceptable to mock people engaged in a funeral ritual? I'm fairly certain that's a universal no-no, but I would find a counter example very interesting. I'd wager it is even more universal than a taboo on killing children.
Re:Kudos (Score:4, Insightful)
So... why haven't the WBC folks been arrested for indecency?
Re:Kudos (Score:5, Insightful)
No, I don't want the WBC people to be hurt.
I want them to realize the suffering and hurt they've caused.
Re:Kudos (Score:5, Insightful)
and freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences
if you traffic in hate, you reap what you sow
Re:Kudos (Score:5, Insightful)
yes, and neither is revving your motorcycle engines and holding flags in front of such picketers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Guard_Riders [wikipedia.org]
freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. if you traffic in hate, you reap what you sow
Re:Kudos (Score:5, Insightful)
Concur. It is so unfortunate that we have folk like the Westboro Baptist Church to hold up as examples of why speech must be free. Their members should be ashamed of themselves. Their actions are despicable. They appear to be organized to make the worst possible use of free speech.
The law protects them from the government. The government cannot act against them. We, their neighbors, can choose to not associate with them - to not shop in their businesses, to not employ them, to not let them in our homes. So by showing who they are, Anonymous had done us a great service.
But to engage some arm of the government in shutting them up - no, I'm not in favor of that and would never be.
They seem so determined that they will not change. Shunning them might motivate them to behave in a more civilized way.
Re:Kudos (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmm... what about threats about going to hell (or other imaginary punishments)? Protected or not?
If not, I guess we can shut down every church in the country.
Re:Kudos God Win (Score:5, Insightful)
right
and we can't legalize gay marriage because then we have to legalize pedophilia and necrophilia
and we can't legalize marijuana because then we have to legalize meth and crack
the slippery slope is a form of fear based logical fallacy
i can tell the difference between homosexuality and necrophilia. i can tell the difference between marijuana and meth. and i can tell the difference between political speech and hate speech
the slippery slope is an idea that only works in a world where nobody can think and identify different topics. therefore, the slippery slope never works as a persuasive argument
Re:Kudos (Score:4, Insightful)
Umm, are you being FACETIOUS or what? While I agree that laws against hate speech are unconstitutional, there are plenty of laws against hate speech on the books. Most of the time, if they make it to the supreme court, they get overturned. But most people don't have the wherewithal to take it that far and just do the time and/or pay the fine.
Re:Kudos (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Kudos (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, I would incite violence against these people. But, I take issue with your description of these "peaceful demonstrators". The wounds they cause grieving widows, widowers, children, and parents are no less serious than the wounds caused by thrown rocks and bottles. Maybe more serious.
These slime are treading very carefully, picking their targets, and choosing their victims with the goal of causing as much pain and grief as possible, while using the law to "protect" them from the consequences of their actions.
And, no, a punch in the face is not adequate, or appropriate. These sumbitches WANT to be punched in the face, so that they can sue the "offender".
One certified looney-tune who can call on the Veteran's Administration for defense in court should unload on these low lifes, and put them all out of everyone's misery. That is what riot guns were made for. Let the Westboro freaks bury about half of their own, AND be forced stand silently while suffering the verbal abuse of an outraged nation. Poetic justice, as well as real justice, IMHO. And, I certainly DO NOT use the word "justice" in the sense of "Whoever has the most money gets the most justice".
Re:Kudos (Score:5, Insightful)
Ignorance is no excuse, but kudos for admitting it. I said nothing about being offended, so your attempt at a straw man argument fails.
"Freedom of speech" does not include forcing speech upon individuals who do not wish to hear that speech.
Snyder v. Phelps was decided because the speech took place on public property (a sidewalk), and did not directly interfere with the funeral ("Westboro stayed well away from the memorial service, Snyder could see no more than the tops of the picketers' signs, and there is no indication that the picketing interfered with the funeral service itself."), an indication that the court considered that a significant factor in allowing the speech.
Not Just the Westboro Folks, Unfortunately... (Score:5, Insightful)
There were a lot of Christians on my Facebook feed - none of them extremists or anything, mind you - but they certainly felt the need to tell the world that the shootings were a direct result of removing God from the school system.
To me, that is intellectually the same as what the Westboro folks believe. Just without the picketing.
Re:Kudos (Score:4, Insightful)
I think there's a distinction between 'freedom of speech', and 'freedom to spread hate'.
Sure you do. And that's an easy "distinction" for a powerful government to grossly abuse. Keep in mind that governments won't always be in the hands of people you trust in any way. I'd rather cretins like the Westboro group exist, than hand yet another considerable power to governments that already abuse what they can.
Re:Kudos (Score:5, Insightful)
We are not the government. We do not have all the powers of the various branches of government, and we are not restricted by all the government's restrictions.
It's a government of the people, not vice versa.
Re:WBC dies, who will protest the funeral? (Score:5, Insightful)
More violence and killings is the answer???
Re:Christian terrorists (Score:4, Insightful)
I would imagine quiet a lot of them. I am not affiliated with the Baptists, but my Church certainly condemns their tactics, as do all of the Christians that I know. I am surprised that the Baptist Convention has not attempted to sue them to stop using Baptist in their name. I am sure they have no more affiliation with the Baptist Convention than the "Franklin Mint" has with the Federal Government.
Re:Kudos (Score:3, Insightful)
Nor should it ever be.
As much as these Westboro people irk me, I wouldn't want the government stepping in to tell them that they are not allowed to say what it is they say.
If the government can do that, well. Someday, someone is going to get into office, and tell me that I can't say things. It won't even be hate speech; just political opinion. Or maybe not even so political opinion.
If you think this can't happen in the US... Well, you're wrong. It already has. [chicora.org] Dear reader, I'd like to introduce you to President Woodrow Wilson.
Re:Kudos (Score:5, Insightful)
Legal argument aside, he used Wikipedia for what it's very good for: citing factual or directly inferred information, not information up for thats typically debatable. And the reason Wikipedia is good for that is because the users (are supposed to) cite their information.
In this case, his one sentence quote is backed up by citing four separate court cases.
If you don't like his argument based off of that information, that's fine. But to deride him for using Wikipedia, and then imply his resulting argument is faulty because no good can come of Wikipedia is frankly BS. Note: I'm referring to your opening and closing statements, not when you actually get to the issues at hand.
I apologize for venting my Wikihate frustrations towards you specifically, but I finally have time to reply this one of many, I feel, unwarranted assaults against a very useful source of information.
Wikipedia, like all things on the internet must be taken with a grain of salt, but unlike almost all other things on the internet, at least Wikipedia tells the user on what the information is based.
Re:Kudos (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm glad Anonymous have done this - they don't worry about justifying their morality; they're more like a force of nature.
Re:Kudos (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't that akin to shouting "fire" in a theatre though? Potentially the personal information released could have very serious consequences.
Re:Kudos (Score:5, Insightful)
I was thinking of something infinitely better myself - when Fred kicks the bucket (however it happens, how old is he?) get a million or two angry Americans to surround the entire perimeter of the graveyard and every inch of the street the procession goes down. No placards, no chants, no insults, nothing but the accusing stares of a million people who won't sink to their level - wearing masks of Fred's face.
Re:Kudos (Score:5, Insightful)
If you demand censure of someone's speech, you allow him a loophole to demand the censure of yours.
Then I wish someone would explain to me how WBC can picket almost anywhere with relative ease, but something like "Occupy Wall Street" gets relegated to "free speech zones" out of the way of all eyes and ears.
If that's not censure, then I don't know what is.
Re:Kudos (Score:2, Insightful)
you are an idiot. i mean that as sincerely as possible
Re:Kudos (Score:1, Insightful)
Hacking someone's website is not speech. It is a criminal act. IF someone didn't like your speech, would it be acceptable for him to hack your computers and publish your personal information?
Re:Kudos (Score:5, Insightful)
That was insightrul, interesting, and informative, thank you. I'd figured they were misguided nuts, I had no idea they were purposely evil.
Secondly, you may notice that all or nearly all of the Phelpses are LAWYERS. In fact, they are all very accomplished tort lawyers and/or law staff. When you look at their history you will see that they ALWAYS sue people that assault them, and they almost always win. They have made MILLIONS off of suing people that attack them for their repugnant views.
Luke 11:46 And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers. 47Woe unto you! for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and your fathers killed them. 48Truly ye bear witness that ye allow the deeds of your fathers: for they indeed killed them, and ye build their sepulchres. 49Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute: 50That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; 51From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation. 52Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.
This is why I LOVE LOVE LOVE the Freedom Riders. Basically a motorcycle gang that specifically follows the WSBC around whenever they protest a soldier's funeral.
I admire the Freedom Riders, and they're bikers but they're NOT a "motorcycle gang." Motorcycle gangs are organized criminals like the Hell's Angels and The Outlaws. "Gang" as in "James Gang" and "Capone Gane" and "Bloods" and "Crips." The Freedom Riders are not gangsters, they're normal, law-abiding citizens (mostly veterans iinm) who happen to ride motorcycles.
This is why I say that the Phelpses are NOT a Christian church.
Well, whether or not they're a church, Jesus hates what they're doing.
Re:Kudos (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason you predict people are going to respond that way is that you know full well that is exactly the logical fallacy you are indulging in.
No, it is not. I list the TWO things that they have in common with Christian churches, and then go on to list all the things they do NOT have in common with Christian churches. In fact I very specifically point to that they are FEIGNING being a church for tax purposes, and use their lawyer skills to retain that classification.
The problem with using the "No true Scotsman Fallacy" argument is that it:
A. Is only an informal fallacy. (Sometimes Angus really ISN'T a true Scotsman.)
B. Due to (a) it is used overbroadly to shut down argument. The WSBC case is almost textbook:
1 - Crazy group uses Christianity as cover for evil.
2 - Atheists conflate this group with all Christians everywhere as a way of pushing their own agenda.
3 - Christians of all stripes roundly condemn crazy group and reject them while pointing out that these people aren't really Christian.
4 - Atheists start screaming "No True Scotsman! No true Scotsman!" and continue to conflate the two groups.
C. If you are going to conflate a small group engaging in clearly fringe behavior with a larger mainstream group, it is YOUR responsibility as the accuser to show the links. NOT the responsibility of the accused to show lack of links.
Re:Kudos (Score:4, Insightful)
Vaguely defined "public order" is one of the most easily abused reasons to arrest someone. I feel far safer in a country where WBC is able to protest freely than in one where I could be arrested for disturbing the public order if the police don't like my message. After all, the entire point of protests is to disrupt the public order and institute a new one.
Look at how the government treated Occupy Wall Street. Do you really want to give them more power to shut down protests? If anything, protesters need more rights in the US, not less.