You don't have to infringe on anothers right to say what they want in order to say what you want. "I disagree sir, with what you say, but defend to the death your right to say it." Voltair.Kukakkau said:
Anonymous Sends a Letter to the World
- Thread starter SL33TBL1ND
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Am I the only one who thinks that all anonymous will accomplish with this supposed fight for "free speach," is more of this:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.249896-U-S-Government-Plans-to-Expand-Internet-Piracy-Crackdown?page=1
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.249896-U-S-Government-Plans-to-Expand-Internet-Piracy-Crackdown?page=1
It would help if YOU didn't miss the entire point of what I'm saying. Let me be clear. I think they are lying, and only using this as an excuse to support another argument on the basis of free speach, (in addition to thier pro-piracy actions) In order to lend legitimacy to thier attempts to secure thier own right to pirate whatever they want.Dasmaster said:
I don't believe in freedom of speech.
Now that that's out of the way let me explain. Freedom of speech must either be entirely open, or regulated, and the regulations must apply to everyone. True freedom of speech includes the freedom to be racist, the freedom to insult, demean, manipulate, abuse. And I don't think that's right. I would say you should be free to speak, as long as what you say does not impose on another's free will. (In general, my true feelings would require a manifesto to explain.)
So that's point one of why I oppose Anonymous.
All further points in spoiler to prevent wall of text.
In many ways I hope they do push too far, so they can see just how hard the US will push back.
Now that that's out of the way let me explain. Freedom of speech must either be entirely open, or regulated, and the regulations must apply to everyone. True freedom of speech includes the freedom to be racist, the freedom to insult, demean, manipulate, abuse. And I don't think that's right. I would say you should be free to speak, as long as what you say does not impose on another's free will. (In general, my true feelings would require a manifesto to explain.)
So that's point one of why I oppose Anonymous.
All further points in spoiler to prevent wall of text.
Point two is that Anonymous are, by and large, bullies. Sure they take down bullies on occasion, but they do it by being bigger and meaner bullies than the first bully. Hopefully everyone remembers being told that 'two wrongs don't make a right' well Anonymous is the second bigger wrong trying to right the first smaller wrong and fucking everything up worse than it was.
Point the third is that while they have their campaign hats on now, we all know what Anonymous is like. All it will take is for someone to use their name as a marketing campaign, or quote the passage from the Bible that they like to use, and the attack will be directed on those poor people. Maybe governments deserve it, maybe they don't, but Anonymous attacks everyone for their right to 'Freedom of Speech', they are not noble.
Fourth point is to ask why Anonymous in America is campaigning for Freedom of Speech according to the American Constitution, and expects me to play along with it. I'm a Brit, I don't believe in your Constitution and I don't very much like your entire country. You're not fighting for me, you're fighting for your own egos and a sense that you might be doing things right for America without considering whether anyone else in the world wants you to do it, and without even considering if most of America wants you to do it.
Fifth. Anonymous are cowards. They hide behind their internet hard-man persona, but I'm willing to bet any amount of money that if most of Anonymous were to live somewhere like China, with their stringent laws, then the cowards would sit quiet and not do anything. The only reason they feel entitled to attack is because they know American law won't punish them too harshly. When Anonymous are no longer Anonymous, and carry out their attacks the way other protestors do, then we'll talk.
Sixth, in many ways Anonymous are terrorists. Digital terrorists maybe, but crashing sites which many people other than the people you're attacking use? Causing disruption and chaos, spreading viruses that hurt many more people than just who you're attacking? That soudns to me like a terrorist group, or a group at war trying to justify 'collateral damage' to the very people they're trying to save. If you want to keep this in the internet realm (see above point) then accept that your actions in the internet realm are not too shy of cyber-terrorism.
Seventh. Anonymous are ever changing, which means that again, while this particular letter may have been written by someone with a noble heart, he even acknowledges that Anonymous is not always even led, which makes them anarchists at best, and a mob at worst. Mobs are wild uncontrollable, and destroy everything they come across.
Finally, everything they do ever is counterintuitive in the long run. For ever cyber-attack, governments around the world look at them more seriously. Media starts reporting on them, other groups start taking preventative action. Sooner or later they will push some trivial non-issue too far and provoke a real response from the US government. See above regards to terrorism for an idea of what sort of laws might be implemented, and of course it will be bad for everyone. The media reports on Anonymous, makes reference to 4chan, and calls them Anonymous. This means that regular people, the Moral Guardians who so regularly bring their issues to government, will associate the internet with these cyber-terrorists. It's already happening, and Anon are too blind to see it.
In many ways I hope they do push too far, so they can see just how hard the US will push back.
What hypocrites; when their "right" to download copyrighted intellectual property from it's creators is threatened, they haul ass to get as many freedom related quotes from the Funding Fathers, and state that they are fighting for their own freedom to not be censored and to be able to behave as they would like; however, when a girl makes Youtube videos of herself acting like a spoiled brat-slut, they do whatever is within their reach to make her life as bad as possible. Doesn't that only mean that they themselves are, in fact, imposing social standards of behavior?
Also, thisPyode said:
Firstly im all for 100% free speech. I dont see any problem with "hate speech" or racism since the words in themselves actually dont have anything negative in them only the meanings from the person saying it. However im also all for kicking someone's ass if they start to taunt you.MelasZepheos said:
I think you have gotten allot of things backwards and i encurrage you to look deeper into it however i can understand if this just dont interest you and in that case your free to just ignore this.
What you know about anonymous is pretty much incomplete. You speak like everyone is a cyber maniac that goes around overloading servers when this is absolutely not true. Most people in anonymous is just like you and me trying to make a difference while having fun. (Yes they are not trying to hide there identity's because they are cowards but because its fun)
The most used phrase is probably "For the lols" which pretty much sums up why they got a V mask.
This more major part of anonymous is allot more "active" in the real world and goes on pride parades or general protests. Track down paedophiles and animal abusers and report them to the police. Crash religious sects such as Scientology which has suffered allot. And spread info about corruption and war crimes.
Mostly they just play around on different forums.
Lately they have been donating money to Wikileaks so they can continue to stay up. Also providing technical support and supplying sites to host up copies of wikileaks so it wont dissapear.
How do you think people can keep together without a leader. A common meeting-place and chain of communications! Also since they are anonymous and you cant link any one user to any one action your evaluation stops there.Nimcha said:
Sure you can evaluate every action for themselves but there is no connection between them. No way to make sure the same people were involved, same reasons, same methods, same ideas. So you cant base any new effort on the record of any old.
Yes, Anonymous. :ÞDasmaster said:
Besides it seems to me they do have goals, that letter seems to indicate that.
And I'm still wondering what your point is. Whatever the hell you want to classify Anonymous as, group, hive mind, collective consciousness, incorporeal entity, whatever; I don't see how that changes my point. They're an extremest __________ (insert appropriate classification here) and I hate extremists.
Extremists is wrong.canadamus_prime said:
Any other protest would involve picketing or a sit in as mentined in the letter. A sit in is where protesters literally sit in the way of a company to stop them going about their business.
A DDOS is the exact internet equivalent of this. It's not extreme it's a time honoured form of protest in a modern form. It's certainly peaceful and non-violent.
It is illegal but then so is all civil disobedience. I prefer people's actions be moral than lawful.
Well what you do not seam to understand is they do not agree... quite the opposite they are extremisms on both sides and in the middle.. all over the spectrum your talking about to be honest...canadamus_prime said:
They sometimes got blatantly separate objectives and even contradictory at times.