Anon. Op to destroy Norwegian killer Anders Behring Breivik's manifesto

[ThisIsSnake]

Well Anders manifesto is already a copy paste of several other manifestos such as the Unabombers this seems rather odd. Isn't posting several other manifestos a pretty bad idea? It just means there'll be more of the bile online (Unless they are obvious parodies in which case they won't stop people from finding the original).

I also find it strange that Anon is going after this when it uses Guy Fawkes as its symbol. Guy Fawkes wanted to use a bomb to change the political landscape of Britain from Protestant to Catholic (which would have resulted in more deaths than Anders).

Also on the detracting from his ego thing, the media has made sure that is impossible by painting him as a far right terrorist mastermind with 'terror cells' and connections to 'the far right' that are in Europe to continue his attacks.

 

[Sougo]

And what would be the point of this? Oh wait, censorship.

I was thinking the same, but now that I've seen the article I have to say I think it's a great idea. They're don't want to remove his manifesto as such, instead they're going to create tons of parody versions and claim that they are the real ones, so that no-one even knows which the real one is.

It's censorship nonetheless, maybe a less of an authoritarian way to do it.

Its not censorship unless you modify/remove the original. As long as the original remains intact and out there, it won't be censorship.

 

[Moromillas]

As much as I like the majority of the legion, I think the original will actually do more damage to his(anders) reputation.

Edit: Censorship? No... doesn't look like it. Looks like they're just going to make a bunch of copy parodies to make him into the joke that he already is.

 

[CrazyCapnMorgan]

I'd rather spread a message of peace and love than one of bigoted hatred and violence. 1500 pages of "OMGTHEYISDIFFERENTTHEYMUSTDIEWEARETHEPUREONES" or something that might inspire true tolerance?

Mr. Scatman, take it away please...

 

[Pipotchi]

This will accompish nothing, the major news outlets have already downloaded the manifesto and the vast majority of the public will only read their abridged versions.

Most people dont have time to read 1500 page books let alone the 1500 page ramblings of a Norweigan loon

 

[Booze Zombie]

Couldn't you use the manifesto to profile exactly what caused all of this?

 

[enzilewulf]

Okay seriously? What people are posting is stupid on this forum. People are still spitting on Anon ops because they want to make it so this guy never has his story read and good! They should! This guy is a heartless prick and deserves so much more pain than his story not being read. I would back Lulzsec if it was them instead. This guy shouldn't have rights, he felt the same way about his victims and their right to live! Good job Anon. You finally did something right.

 

[KrabbiPatty]

it saddens me that people want to defend this guy's work after what he did.

Freedom of speech isn't just for people you like.

Look it seems a lot of people (especially the kind of chucklefuck who ironically defends Anon) seem not to understand either hypocrisy or freedom of speech so let the guy who actually believes in freedom of speech put the concept into smaller bite-sized pieces for you.

If we just arbitrarily decide what we will and won't allow to be published, or passive aggressively assail the things we don't like, then we get into a really nasty territory marked only by a sign that reads that says "shit creek, population: you, paddles: NONE".

If censorship exists anywhere, it exists everywhere, because at the end of the day if someone can do this to a guy we don't like it can be easily done to Martin Luther King's writings or the Diary of Ann Frank and so forth. And no matter how passive aggressive and pussified (I'm sorry, "satirical", lawlz) it is it is STILL censorship and it is STILL wrong. Either freedom of speech exists, and that means for everyone, no matter how much you may or may not like them, or it exists for no one...because once you chip away at it, you can't stop. If you declare this obscene, then I can declare the writings of Gandhi obscene and have it suppressed. If I do that then someone will declare something important to me, let's say, the Bible, obscene and suppress it, and so on and so forth.

Speaking of Gandhi, his words "If you live by an eye for an eye, the whole world goes blind" is perfectly applicable to this. Now I'm not suggesting that this will destroy freedom or something. But the fact is that when you claim to care about freedom of speech and then you do something that SPITS IN ITS EYE you're moving slowly, ever so slowly in that direction. I wasn't kidding about we shouldn't burn Mien Kampf, or pussy out flood the world with "satires" of it either, because at the end of the day how is that AT ALL different than someone suppressing something YOU support because THEY find it "obscene"? The answer, if you are at all objective, is "there is no difference".

Freedom of speech is not to protect someone else. That's what people say to be nice. It is to protect YOU and YOUR beliefs, by defending the beliefs of others, therefore making it possible for you to have your own. Freedom of speech is inherently selfish, that's why it is so important to maintain. So no it IS ethically wrong to censor people. Otherwise they can censor you, and you can censor them, and some other guy censors both of you, and this guy censors everyone...and now we're all blind.

Ask for hypocrisy...I'm kind of surprised this needs to even be explained. This is one of the most blatant examples of it available at hand. I mean, this is literally Anon saying "do as I say not as I do".

If you believe in freedom of speech and freedom of information, REALLY believe in it, then anything goes. Two Girls, One Cup has as much right to exist (no matter how many times I pukes after watching it) as the Mona Lisa, the Bible has as much right to exist as MLP: FIM porn (this I'm in favor of, because fuck you Rarity is sexy!) and the very second that you begin to censor stuff you disagree with you lose the right to shield your actions by hiding behind freedom of speech.

Like I said, freedom of speech is inherently selfish. You allow other people's disgusting scat porn to exist, so you can masturbate to Rarity (shut up, she's sexy) and not be afraid of having it censored. That, in a nutshell, is why Anon is full of shit. Because they don't believe what they say--they say it so they can do what they want.

Also the V for Vendetta thing is fucking old meme. OLD MEME.

 

[KrabbiPatty]

Yes my point exactly:

Much like Anon doesn't actually know who Guy Fawkes was, you guys who defend this by saying "LOL MAKING COPYPASTA ISN'T CENSORSHIP HEYUCK!" don't seem to understand what censorship even fucking is!

Protip: it's that!

 

[Fanboy]

I read the original manifesto... it was a total ripoff of Star Wars: Episode One.

Yeah, it's technically censorship, but at least it is creative, and kind of funny.

Anywas, the world is not going to miss 1500 pages of psychotic bullshit, aka George Lucas's script for "The Phantom Menace."

 

[Mylinkay Asdara]

And what would be the point of this? Oh wait, censorship.

...I don't know where you got that from. It's actually to destroy his message. How's that censorship? Do you want his message to be spread or something?

What, you serious?

Dude, destroying a message IS censorship. That is literally the dictionary definition of censorship. Like, no I'm serious, that's what it means. To destroy or suppress what someone says or does for some reason, usually political.

What did you THINK censorship meant? Do you think it only applies to things you like? And what's with the 'tude man? "Do you want his message to spread?" Who fucking cares...that's not even a relevant question, and even if it were, if you REALLY don't believe in censorship (as Anon claims...key word, "claim") then the answer would be YES!

But we all know that Anon is not about freedom of speech or information or whatever buzzword they use this week. They're effectively an anarchist cult that worship's memes. They're not even entirely aware, I believe, of who or what Guy Fawkes was--they literally chose him at random from a movie. Is it any wonder then that they claim to be against censorship and yet are practicing the LITERAL DEFINITION of censorship? They probably don't even know what that means...this is what happens when your revolution is organized by thirteen year olds on 4chan Lol.

censorship |ˈsensərˌ sh ip|
noun
the practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts : details of the visit were subject to military censorship.

Bolding the "officially" done by me. Destroying a message is just the destruction of a message and when it isn't done by an official authority it isn't censorship. Happens all the time - some things people just don't care about and they fall off the face of the Earth, that's not censorship either. Telling someone not to see a movie because you thought it was terrible isn't censorship - nor it cutting it up and making fun of it on YouTube - though that might be copywrite infringement.

Also - in terms of censorship and the 'destruction' and all, it isn't as if they are tracking down the last original copies and burning them to eradicate the very existence of the document - they are staging their own, maybe backward, form of protest against the ideas the manifest expresses by attacking the accessible versions online.

I'm pretty sure they're as you say in terms of not knowing much of the history behind the idea they seem to have accidentally embraced, and even then only sporadically - the idea of fighting without reward for something they feel is right. What more do you want from any person or any group? Not perfect, might even be bad, but an effort is appreciated at this point in history where the global apathy threatens to smother us.

Personally, though, I believe they should have kept quiet on this one, because we should call no attention to that person's ideas, we should forget him and remember his victims.

 

[KrabbiPatty]

I read the original manifesto... it was a total ripoff of Star Wars: Episode One.

Yeah, it's technically censorship, but at least it is creative, and kind of funny.

Anywas, the world is not going to miss 1500 pages of psychotic bullshit, aka George Lucas's script for "The Phantom Menace."

For Christ's sake. Again...THAT IS NOT THE FUCKING POINT.

Are you guys seriously so incapable of understanding this simple fact? Do you really not see the problem with this? Do you not see the hypocrisy? The bullshit? Do you not see WHY censorship is bad? Does none of that sink in, or do you just not care, and if you don't please explain to me why WITHOUT mentioning the fact the guy is a criminal OR that you disagree with him. Why, objectively, is this so obscene.

I'm seriously questioning if this should be taught in school or something: what is and isn't actually censorship, and why it is ALWAYS FUCKING BAD. Jesus.

 

[KrabbiPatty]

censorship |ˈsensərˌ sh ip|
noun
the practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts : details of the visit were subject to military censorship.

Semantics? Really?

The only relevant part of that is the "suppressing unacceptable parts". That is literally what the actual word means, that is how it is used, you KNOW this which is why you're picking it apart to find some loophole to jump through.

But fine, you think it has to be done in an "official" capacity. OK sure. Since Anon says that basically they're all one big unit that works as one, then any one of them acting on this is an official edict, de facto, from all of Anon. Therefore it is done in an official capacity on behave of Anon. That's semantics too, but it's just as valid as yours.

 

[Mylinkay Asdara]

I read the original manifesto... it was a total ripoff of Star Wars: Episode One.

Yeah, it's technically censorship, but at least it is creative, and kind of funny.

Anywas, the world is not going to miss 1500 pages of psychotic bullshit, aka George Lucas's script for "The Phantom Menace."

For Christ's sake. Again...THAT IS NOT THE FUCKING POINT.

Are you guys seriously so incapable of understanding this simple fact? Do you really not see the problem with this? Do you not see the hypocrisy? The bullshit? Do you not see WHY censorship is bad? Does none of that sink in, or do you just not care, and if you don't please explain to me why WITHOUT mentioning the fact the guy is a criminal OR that you disagree with him. Why, objectively, is this so obscene.

I'm seriously questioning if this should be taught in school or something: what is and isn't actually censorship, and why it is ALWAYS FUCKING BAD. Jesus.

Also, not to poke holes in you here, but "censorship" as YOU seem to consider it from what I'm reading happens all the time and isn't always that bad. "Censoring" yourself at a family event with that kind of language, for example, is probably a great idea. A younger sibling should be "censored" by an older one from the same type of misstep, or politely reminded that staring at people is rude, etc. etc.

What you're seeing is the moderation of a group within society of an idea they feel is inappropriate. They have no *authority* to actually quash the thing, they are expressing themselves against it. That's allowed. Sometimes discourse springs from just such conflicts of ideas - which is why I earlier said I think they should have left it alone - and let it be forgotten.