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)
Anonymous helping the haters ! (Score:5, Interesting)
The one thing those haters from Westboro Baptist Church is after is notoriety - I mean, nobody with a sound mind would do what they are doing.
By hacking the websites of the Westboro Baptist Church, and by turning this event into a worldwide thing - face it, the news of the hacking of Westboro Baptist Church website has become a sensational news by itself, else /. wouldn't have carried it - what the Anonymous are doing, while still commendable, is to play it into the hands of those haters.
The best way to deal with haters is to ignore them.
Westboro Church not doing it for ideology (Score:5, Informative)
See here - http://kanewj.com/wbc/ [kanewj.com]
They are con men.
I'm Writing a Book (Score:5, Funny)
"What to Expect When You're Expecting Anonymous"
Re:Kudos (Score:4, Interesting)
By telling everyone that a group of nutcases is going to celebrate while kids are being buried? You REALLY think a lot of people are so demented that they think "Hmm... great idea, let's join that group".
I wonder how many do rather think "Hmm... let's hope a copycat criminal shows up, too, for their picketing."
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)
Re:Kudos (Score:5, Funny)
These people are to Christianity what fungal crotch rot is to love making. Jesus spoke of love, forgiveness and spent his time trying to save the social scum of his society because he knew they needed him the most. The inbred followers of the Festering Boil on the Universe's Ass that was Fred Phelps wouldn't know Christian Charity if it landed on them like Dorthy's House from the Wizard of Oz.
I would personally like to bus in tens of thousands of drag queens to the Phelps Compound so we could stage a 24/7 semi naked gayCirque Du Soleil extravaganza surrounding the hellhole in Westboro. Day and Night, a continuous conveyor belt of nubile young gay men shaking their groove thang waving rainbow colored feather boas at the folks behind the walls. Until one by one, their pea brains exploded and we rid the world once and for all of this affront to human dignity. I realize there are a number of Fundamentalist Christians who might object to this harsh cure, but just consider it a form of atonement to wash the stain of Phelps and his spawn from the faith.
Re:Kudos (Score:5, Informative)
To be entirely accurate, WSBC isn't really a Christian church.
Now, because I can just hear the Atheist trolls firing up their "No True Scotsman fallacy" engines, Understand that WSBC is not a church in ANY traditional sense of the meaning other than they are a unified group and they have regular meetings. In that respect they are as much a church as your local NAMBLA affliate group.
If you look down the WSBC roster you will see that first of all, they are ALL related to one another either by marriage or by birth. It's basically the Phelps clan with some other family appendages.
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.
This is also how they manage to remain classified a church; They are based in a state where church classification rules are loose, and they utilize that and their status as lawyers to keep that classification. (Saves on taxes when the Church makes all the money.)
Then they go out and set up situations where they will likely be assaulted just to make money off of the poor righteous bastards that want to go after them. They keep the threat of violence reasonably low by filming everything and bringing women and children along as human shields, and then when one of them inevitably gets punched or shoved or pushed or gets a hangnail, they sue everyone there, especially any families that are involved in the events they are protesting at.
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. they surround them and then block them from view with HUGE signs and American flags and drown them out with revving Harley Davidson motorcycles. They never touch anyone from WSBC, but they prevent them from causing any emotional harm to the families of dead soldiers. They've been so effective the Phelpses have nearly abandoned going after soldier's funerals.
This is why I say that the Phelpses are NOT a Christian church. They are just a bunch of dirty lawyers using hate and law to make money hand over fist. I suspect that they may very well believe at least some of the bile they spew, but it is FAR more about money than it is about faith. Frankly, if not for the fact that they seem to be so much about making money hand over fist I'd almost suspect they were an attempt to troll Christianity and tax law surrounding the churches.
Re:Kudos (Score:5, Informative)
A source request? REALLY? [lmgtfy.com]
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:WBC dies, who will protest the funeral? (Score:5, Insightful)
More violence and killings is the answer???
Re:Kudos (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullshit. Picketing the funerals of kids is not acceptable.
Re:Kudos (Score:5, Informative)
Bullshit. Picketing the funerals of kids is not illegal.
Re:Kudos (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Kudos (Score:4, Insightful)
So... why haven't the WBC folks been arrested for indecency?
Re:Kudos (Score:5, Interesting)
So... why haven't the WBC folks been arrested for indecency?
Not sure if you're a troll or not, but I'll give you a real response.
The WBC has many many lawyers including members of the Phelps family. They, the WBC, make a living by suing.
The picketing is simply to drum up additional lawsuits.
None of them actually believe any of what they say. It's not an issue of right/wrong. It's simply an issue of greed.
The WBC troll the court system to make a living of off the rest.
Step 1: God hates fags @ funerals.
Step 2: Get arrested or assaulted.
Step 3: Sue either way.
The tax payers have to fit the bill to fight the suits against the state/county/city (or against the WBC.) The cost of fighting a large legal team (which is what the WBC really is) is too costly to be worthwhile. Then settlement money eventually gets payed out and/or money to cover the lawyer costs... and who did we learn the lawyers were? Yes... the people who run the show @ WBC.
Essentially the WBC is a scam to skim off the taxpayers by lawyers who are more unscrupulous than any others out there.
Why should anyone have sympathy for these types of people who are more focused on greed than anything else on planet Earth?
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, Informative)
Don't even consider them Chrsitians. It's a business scheme.
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)
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: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:5, Interesting)
I'm an American. I'm a veteran. I've actually carried that flag in places where it wasn't respected, or wanted. Burning my flag offends me, yes. But, I do recognize that burning the flag might constitute free speech, and that some people might find no other way to convey a message, and to get their point across.
Picketing funerals goes far beyond burning a flag. Picketing the funerals of innocent children is even more despicable than picketing the funerals of fallen heros.
I would suppress the "voices" of Westboro, no problem.
Re:Kudos (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Re: Kudos (Score:5, Insightful)
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:5, Insightful)
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: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)
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: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 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:5, Informative)
Re:Kudos (Score:5, Insightful)
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, Interesting)
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)
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: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: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.
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.
Re:Kudos (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Freedom of Speech protects you from the governm (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Kudos (Score:5, Informative)
Lets keep in mind what The Westboro Baptist Church is and what they are say.
Firstly, they are a single family of lawyers lead by their patriarch Fred Phelps. They've garnered so much notoriety because they are lawyers and use their knowledge of the legal system to research and plan their events so they are barely within the legal limits of the locality they are in. This is not an organized church, it's almost entirely a single family and their ideology is dictated to them by a single man.
Secondly, the "speech" they are shouting at childrens funerals is specific. They want to remove the rights of others to speak, be free, or even live. They want homosexuality to be illegal and want to imprison of even kill those found committing homosexual acts.
There are limits to free speech in every country in the world. Including this one. The government may not be able to stop them from speaking, but the government also can not protect them from the repercussions of their hate speech. I find it rather surprising no ones burned their houses down yet.
Re:Kudos (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Fighting words (Score:5, Informative)
You do not have the right to say whatever you want. Hate speech or inciting violence are not protected. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942. [wikipedia.org]
"There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality."
And that was the unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court. So no, people did not die for us to have the freedom to hurt each other with hate speech.
Re:Kudos (Score:4, Insightful)
Free speech is not just speech you just like. It's any speech.
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)
Isn't that akin to shouting "fire" in a theatre though? Potentially the personal information released could have very serious consequences.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Kudos (Score:5, Informative)
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).
In United States "laws against hate speech" are unconstitutional. There may be many laws against hate speech in other countries, but if you are talking about US, you are wrong.
You may be thinking of "inciting to violence speech", but pure hate speech (e.g., "[someone] should burn in hell") is not illegal.
Re:Kudos (Score:5, Interesting)
Illegal or not, it is certainly immoral and unethical to disrupt funeral services to taunt the survivors. And, BTW - the GOVERNMENT is mandated to respect free speech. Those whose services are being disrupted aren't exactly bound by the same laws as the government is. The obligations are entirely different.
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: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: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)
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: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: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:Kudos (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
1st amendment only addresses gov't action (Score:5, Informative)
Free speech is not just speech you just like. It's any speech.
Wrong. The constitution only prevents government reprisals or discrimination against a speaker. Private citizens are under no such prohibition. Private citizens are free to punish speakers, that is what recent boycotts against Chick-fil-A were. All we can really say is that Anon is choosing to punish in an illegal manner.
Re:1st amendment only addresses gov't action (Score:5, Informative)
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
ignore instead of feed (Score:5, Insightful)
these scum do it because they get the attention they want. ignore them, please!
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: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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Streisand Effect (Score:5, Insightful)
Christian terrorists (Score:5, Interesting)
I also wonder how many baptist churches preach against what this church is doing. I mean if a muslim goes out a does something, and every other muslim leader does not immediately condemn the behavior, then all the christians go and condemn all the muslims. So is turnabout fair play?
I would hope that they find the peace of the almighty and work for peace and acceptance that one's faith is not diminished just because others disagree. We have twenty kids dead because we can't just be peaceful and accepting. Now they want to make it worse.
God must be dead . . . (Score:4, Insightful)
. . . if they're alive.
In real time, on air. (Score:5, Informative)
Petition White House to recognize them as a hate g (Score:5, Informative)
We The People petition: Legally recognize westboro baptist church as a hate group [whitehouse.gov]
Don't Feed the Trolls (Score:4, Informative)
Someone should of told Anonymous that it is never a good idea to feed the trolls.
WBC thrives on negative attention and hate.
After some further reading... (Score:5, Informative)
aparantly someone had earlier hacked the WBC, claiming to be anonymous, but it really wasn't.
Anonymous refuted, and even apologized, and tried to explain this to WBC. WBC, didn't want to back down, and kept talking smack to anonymous, and kept provoking anonymous.
Today WBC found out what happened when you kick a sleeping bear.
They were not silenced for the speech, and the WBC does not "win", and this has nothing to do with their ongoing campaign against everything for tollerating gays.
This his what happens when the sped kid keeps picking a fight with the biggest kid in class, and he finally runs out of patience.
Hate speech =/= Free speech (Score:5, Informative)
Let them trade for press again (Score:4, Interesting)
After the Virginia Tech shootings the WBC threatened to protest the funerals. Some radio guy offered to let them have air time in exchange for not doing so.
As a friend of one of the people killed in those shootings I was very happy the family wouldn't go through this even if it resulted in a sick group like the WBC getting radio air time.
I think we would be serving the families of these new victims well by making some sort of similar compromise. I doubt anywhere near the number of people listened to that radio interview as would have seen the protests in the news, so I don't think it even helps the WBC cause at all.
Very Odd Coincidence (Score:4, Interesting)
I realize that it's a different kind of place over there, but either that hack result is fake or there is a LOT of inbreeding going on in that church.. If you look over the list of members, there are 74 listed - and of those 74, there are only three (!) people whose last names are NOT either Phelps or Hockenbarger (or something hyphenated that includes one of those, like "Phelps-Roper").
So, 95.946% of these assholes are in one of those two families. Sounds like a genetic problem to me.
Re:Very Odd Coincidence (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Slashdot trolls (Score:5, Interesting)
It's funny, I was just watching Shirley Phelps-Roper (daughter of WBC founder Fred Phelps and a spokesperson for the group) talk on YouTube. The way she speaks ranges from over-the-to self-righteous indignation to outright hysteria.
Somehow, she's exactly what I'd expect from an IRL internet troll.
Bill of Rights trolls (Score:5, Informative)
Someone on Fark pointed out that the WBC aren't really haters, or even Christians, just a bunch of lawyers trying to make extortion money from the threat of (very carefully and legally) exercising their 1st Amendment rights:
http://www.fark.com/comments/7488418/81313473#c81313473 [fark.com]
The appropriate response is actually to just organize counter-protests that block or drown out their feeble message, until hopefully they run out of money.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/04/AR2011030406330.html [washingtonpost.com]
But anytime someone actually blocks them illegally, they get to sue and collect some settlement and they get their payday.
I suppose the DDoS helps them bleed money as well, But probably not enough, esp. if they manage to catch and sue the perpetrators.
Re:Slashdot trolls (Score:5, Insightful)
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:If nothing else..... (Score:5, Interesting)
For example, imagine if someone wanted to enter your house to give you a message and tell you how blind, and what a sheeple you are. Would you let them enter your house? What if they stood outside your residence at 3:00AM, with a bullhorn, and woke up everyone on the street with a message saying that all white people are evil and should be slaughtered?
Would you accept it as a test of your commitment to freedom?
It is possible for someone to both champion freedom of speech, and also believe that you shouldn't harass people at a funeral.
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:4, Insightful)
And yet if someone is harassing you, you can get a restraining order against them, can you not?
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:Absolutely! (Score:5, Informative)
Not everyone agrees on where the exact line between reasonable and unreasonable lies, but certainly there are times when most people agree it is unreasonable (in the middle of the night with a bull-horn in a residential neighborhood when everyone is sleeping counts as unreasonable; telling the victims' families that god hates them and their children are in hell during the funeral counts as unreasonable).
Re:This isn't even funny... (Score:5, Informative)
I've always held that anyone is free to speak their mind, even if I don't agree with what they're saying.
If Westboro Baptist Church was really planning to interfere with the tragedy that has happened at Newtown, they've sunk to a level so low that no reasonable Christian should want anything to do with them. Scum.
This is too far. I don't want to say any more to further dirty the pain the families and the trauma the survivors are going through.
I think you'll find that most reasonable Christians DON'T want anything to do with these clowns. A lot of people in my church are VERY conservative, and even they are appalled anytime one of the WBC crazies opens their mouth. Small sample size, yes. But I've found it to be true in other locations as well.
Re:Anonymous Commie Scum! (Score:4, Interesting)
posted as the "Anonymous Coward".
The irony is killing me. Not only do you hide behind the "anonymous" title like they do, you ultimately got it the same way.
Postinging in a threaded message board and not choosing to use a name.
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:Just in case anyone missed it. (Score:4, Funny)
If that's for real, they sound kind of ... inbred, or something.