This topic contains 21 replies, has 12 voices, and was last updated by 
-
Posts
-
What happens when activists start attacking other activists?
-
I read there are rumors that this is a hoax and that the church set it up themselves.
-
I’ve read some of those too and I tend to think that is the likely situation.
I just think it opens the door for interesting conversation, when hacktivism begins to take place between two activist groups. Not an activist group vs. gov, corps, or other entity.
-
When people at this “church” say things like “god hates fags” or “thank god for dead soldiers”, they should expect people to protest against them…
The church’s website, godhatesfags.com was unavailable.
Not that surprising…
-
You have to remember, the majority of their funding comes from suing people. Claim an attack, harvest ip addresses of people that come to visit afterward and new cash flow started.
-
I am a bi-vocational Baptist youth minister and I don’t really like Anonymous.
With my disclaimer being said, I hope, if this is true, that Anonymous wipes the floor with Phelps and his “church”. His actions are not representative of any teachings I am aware of and they poison people against good people that don’t share his misguided views.
I don’t like censorship, but I would love it if his group would shut their collective cake hole.
-
@pookie wrote:
I am a bi-vocational Baptist youth minister and I don’t really like Anonymous.
With my disclaimer being said, I hope, if this is true, that Anonymous wipes the floor with Phelps and his “church”. His actions are not representative of any teachings I am aware of and they poison people against good people that don’t share his misguided views.
I don’t like censorship, but I would love it if his group would shut their collective cake hole.
Thanks Pookie, I too am a Christian and am just disgusted by the behavior from Westboro. However, this site deals with ethical hacking. So where do we draw the line? I can’t stand Westboro and their bull they “preach”, but they do have a right to speak out. I don’t think their being reasonable in exercising that right, but I don’t know that it justifies me rooting for anonymous to wipe their site out.
Whatever happens, I would also love if Westboro just “collective cake hole”. 🙂
-
From an ethical hacking standpoint, anonymous is breaking the law. This is the reason I started this board. To point out that, although intentions may be good, breaking the law regardless on which side of an argmunet you are, is wrong and shouldn’t be done.
I like the counter-protest idea that has been done. Groups legally protested Westboro and had enough participants to actually block the westboro protesters from getting near a funeral. Now that’s perfect on 2 fronts… it’s legal and it promotes more free speech rather than less.
From a personal standpoint, I just hope the supreme court hands down a decision against Westboro. If they do, they penalty will for all intents and purposes make their sad organization go away.
Don
PS – Great topic awhitehatter.
-
I am not by any means condoning what Anonymous did, does or is doing right now. Crime is crime and should not be encouraged. All I am saying, is since I can’t stop them, as I am neither in law enforcement nor am I a member of Anonymous have any influence therein, and if they are actually doing it, that I wouldn’t mind Phelp’s little hate factory to be silenced for a while.
I think it is awesome what the Patriot riders are doing, We had Westboro come to town to protest a funeral. 5 – 6 town’s police came out to keep peace. I had some friends that made it out to protest Westboro, the bikers were flying flags, to obscure the signage and circling Phelps to drown out his noise.
I am sorry if I didn’t convey that message well enough.
-
I have limited access to the net at work (I keep waiting for someone to come over and talk to me about surfing EH from work), but the last I heard about this was anon saying it wasn’t them doing the attack.
So did the Westboro cult get attacked, or are they only claiming that so get more air-time / money / ???
-
Thought I would update you people and link to the latest news on the subject.
-
@don wrote:
From an ethical hacking standpoint, anonymous is breaking the law. This is the reason I started this board. To point out that, although intentions may be good, breaking the law regardless on which side of an argmunet you are, is wrong and shouldn’t be done.
I like the counter-protest idea that has been done. Groups legally protested Westboro and had enough participants to actually block the westboro protesters from getting near a funeral. Now that’s perfect on 2 fronts… it’s legal and it promotes more free speech rather than less.
From a personal standpoint, I just hope the supreme court hands down a decision against Westboro. If they do, they penalty will for all intents and purposes make their sad organization go away.
Don
PS – Great topic awhitehatter.
Thank you Don,
I agree, I like the counter pro-test idea as long as it remains in the legal spectrum.
H4TT1fn4TT, thanks for the update.
-
Westboro wins Supreme Court Decision 8 – 1. :'(
Don
-
Booo! Makes we want to buy a Harley and join the Patriot Riders.
-
@don wrote:
Westboro wins Supreme Court Decision 8 – 1. :'(
Don
Free speech is free speech don, even if it is something people might not agree on. From one side you can be happy because it does not open the door for trails against people that criticize certain subject like is happening in some parts of Europe.
Like a famous comedian once said. Free speech means having the right to say hurtful things. Here in the free west we build a wall around us against those things and if you are not capable of doing that you should move away. Everything a person says can be hurtful to an other.
Just to state I do not support this church just wanted to make a point.
-
@h4tt1fn4tt wrote:
Free speech is free speech don, even if it is something people might not agree on. From one side you can be happy because it does not open the door for trails against people that criticize certain subject like is happening in some parts of Europe.
H4TT1fn4TT , I agree to a point. Perhaps the Supreme Court wasn’t the best avenue nor is censorship the best approach. However, there should be an expectation for reason.
For example, I can drop the F* bomb all day long at my son’s little league game, but is it reasonable? I agree with you, I don’t support this church and I think they should be allowed to protest whatever they wish, but it should be exercised in legal and reasonable boundaries. This conversation is moving a bit out of the cyber realm and the intent of this post. I think we can all agree that anonymous’ actions were un-ethical, even if we were silently cheering in the back of our minds.
-
Freedom of speech and Freedom of information are America’s greatest foundations. It allows us to learn and be whatever we’d like. It is because of these great soldiers that have lost their lives defending those principles that they are able to protest in the first place. What Anonymous is doing is illegal, although i think I can manage to turn a blind eye.
-
No one has mentioned the live hack yet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZJwSjor4hM
It’s toward the end.Anyway, Anonymous has said they have not been attacking their site as they believe in free speech. Free speech is like the old bible verse “If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even ‘sinners’ love those who love them”. The true test of free speech is allowing and defending speech you find repugnant. I doubt whether this Jester guy is actually part of Anonymous. He seems like someone out to make a name for himself in public instead of being recognized by his peers as an expert. It is also apparent that it was the taunting by Westboro that caused the live hack. They have followed the same route as HBGary or as Stephen Colbert put it “Now to put that in hacker terms, Anonymous is a hornet’s nest and Barr said ‘I’m going to stick my p***s in that thing”.
-
Hi,
I am not the person who relates – Ethical Hacking & Activism. It’s like relating Military Training & Terrorist.
Free speech eh? Heard of the “don’t taze me bro” video. Clearly signifies that free speech can not be practiced unless you have a political backup or you are enough popular in the media. I mean there are tons of examples. Not just one.
Protests, rallies are all works of extremists. Extremists want to oppose. Hell if you don’t like something then why don’t keep the idea to yourself. Why oppose in the first place. But then you are an extremist.
If you don’t like gay people stay out of it. I don’t like cats. I wouldn’t go killing all the cats in the hood? Would I?
Just a thought.
Cheers!
P.S. Don – The forum font is really small. Do we not have any other themes for this board. (Sorry I am new, 0 intentions to offend). -
-
things get tricky, activist warfare 🙂
-
I agree with much that was said here. What the person or group is doing is illegal and not what we should stand for. Remember the only difference between hacker and ethical hacker is the word “permission”. They do not have it.
One area of disagreement that I have is to use the term activist for the target group. A group filled with hate and bile like they are, is not what activism is all about. They are simply pushing their own twisted ideas and not trying to improve anything. I personally am glad to see anything that hinders this ‘churche’s’ ability to spread its message of hatred.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
