Anonymous Threatens Fox News Over Occupy Wall Street
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
Recommended Videos
As much as I support a lot of the things 'non does, I feel kind of embarrassed for them right now.
"FOX NEWS! YOU EVIL! SO UH.. WE GOING TO TEMPORARILY DDOS YOUR WEBSITE! YEAH! YOUR COMPANY IS AT AN END NOW!
REEL IN THE AWFUL FEMALE TEXT-TO-SPEECH PROGRAM! AND CLICHÉD SCRIPT! IF THIS DOESN'T GET THEM ON THE EDGE OF THEIR SEATS, NOTHING WILL!"
"FOX NEWS! YOU EVIL! SO UH.. WE GOING TO TEMPORARILY DDOS YOUR WEBSITE! YEAH! YOUR COMPANY IS AT AN END NOW!
REEL IN THE AWFUL FEMALE TEXT-TO-SPEECH PROGRAM! AND CLICHÉD SCRIPT! IF THIS DOESN'T GET THEM ON THE EDGE OF THEIR SEATS, NOTHING WILL!"
This again....
I doubt Anonymous is fighting for the rights of people to make "rivers of blood" speeches or to shout "Fire" in a crowded theater, either.
A phrase that indicates the right to free speech, which does not inlcude slander, libel, incitement, or similar.gbemery said:
I doubt Anonymous is fighting for the rights of people to make "rivers of blood" speeches or to shout "Fire" in a crowded theater, either.
Like when they were going to "Destroy" Facebook. or overthrow all world governments with the power of growing crops?
Don't care, and me typing this message is wasting more time than they even put into this plan.
Anon. You are not powerful, you are not smart, you are not effective, you are not hackers, you are not competent, you are NOTHING.
You will always be NOTHING. I do forgive and I do forget, I will forget you.
Don't care, and me typing this message is wasting more time than they even put into this plan.
Anon. You are not powerful, you are not smart, you are not effective, you are not hackers, you are not competent, you are NOTHING.
You will always be NOTHING. I do forgive and I do forget, I will forget you.
LoL I find it funny that people like you think that libel is protected in the freedom of press OR speech. The only reason that fox news is allowed to do what it does is NOT because of the constitution, its because of the lax Libel laws, in order to sue FOX news, you have to prove intent, and that is REALLY hard.songnar said:
In a suit against Fox, they successfully appealed for the right to lie, as well. They actually argued they had no obligation to the truth. And won the appeal against newscasters fired for not wanting to knowingly take part in false reporting.Plazmatic said:
Yay legal system!
Since when is belittling someone by calling them filthy or dirty the same as yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded room, or preaching "rivers of blood"? Last I understood I could call you or anyone I want a filthy beggar and that isn't libel or slander of anyway. You may in fact be a rich well off business tycoon. Those words are just my way of describing you and your actions. If you want to start to get down and sue everyone for such things then be prepared for the lawsuit of Everyone vs. Everyone.Zachary Amaranth said:
Second if you or anyone actually gets your news from Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck or Rush Limballs (oh no I attacked his character and made fun of him..someone sue me for libel) then I have to laugh because it is a well known biased and I believe two of them are considered more political entertainment shows then actual news.
Three here's Anonymous' hypocrisy again where they say they will engage in their own propaganda against Fox. That's just the proverbial "you're no better than them if you do what you despise them for doing" Which in my book you lose all credibility when you do that. There is a time and place for it yes but not when you are trying to claim the "moral high ground"
Four if Anonymous is going to attack them for falsely advertising they are "fair and balanced" which anyone with a tenth of a brain should be able to see they are talking out of their asses about, then attack ever single company that advertises false claims or that's backed up by really shoddy and fudged numbers...omg thats like half the fucking world good luck anonymous.
And since that's ALL They're doing, your rant is totally relevant.gbemery said:
And yeah, that's still slander. Sorry.
Slander may not be the equivalent of "Fire" in a crowded theater, but it wasn't intended to be an equivalent in any sense other than that neither is protected speech.
"We don't like your speech, we don't like you exercising your rights in a way we feel hampers speech we do like, and therefore we will commit criminal acts and otherwise act like little children until we get our way."
Anonymous, in this manner, exemplifies the pits to which modern political discourse has devolved. They're not alone in that --- but they DO seem bent on perfecting it.
Anonymous, in this manner, exemplifies the pits to which modern political discourse has devolved. They're not alone in that --- but they DO seem bent on perfecting it.
You would be right in your assumption because all that was on my page was what I quoted. But in all respects you can't direct someone back to something that wasn't there in the first place. We'll just call it a mistake on the refresh of the escapist forums.Zachary Amaranth said:
No that is not slander at all. When it is related to mass media it is labeled as libel not slander due to the equivalent of written material reaching a larger audience rather than the spoken word. Sorry.
libel 1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film,...
Libel and slander are just the attacks to maliciously defame someone, mainly a public figure. Laws against them are mainly to protect private citizens and to protect public figures from "outlandish" claims. (which one could argue 90% of what fox says is outlandish) Calling someone dirty or the equivalent of a "poo poo head" is not the same as defamation. Those are childish remarks with little injury in the public eye and are not considered "defamation". Those remarks do more damage to the reporter than the reportee. They have to be proven that they were meant to be malicious, and if any type of name calling was considered malicious defamation then everyone could sue everyone for any little comment. If you ever called someone an asshole, bam lawsuit, ever call someone dumb, BAM lawsuit.
Defamation Any intentional false communication, either written or spoken, that harms a person's reputation; decreases the respect, regard, or confidence in which a person is held; or induces disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against a person.
Defamation may be a criminal or civil charge. It encompasses both written statements, known as libel, and spoken statements, called slander.
The probability that a plaintiff will recover damages in a defamation suit depends largely on whether the plaintiff is a public or private figure in the eyes of the law. The public figure law of defamation was first delineated in new york times v. sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S. Ct. 710, 11 L. Ed. 2d 686 (1964). In Sullivan, the plaintiff, a police official, claimed that false allegations about him appeared in the New York Times, and sued the newspaper for libel. The Supreme Court balanced the plaintiff's interest in preserving his reputation against the public's interest in freedom of expression in the area of political debate. It held that a public official alleging libel must prove actual malice in order to recover damages. The Court declared that the First Amendment protects open and robust debate on public issues even when such debate includes "vehement, caustic, unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials." A public official or other plaintiff who has voluntarily assumed a position in the public eye must prove that defamatory statements were made with knowledge that they were false or with reckless disregard of whether they were false.
Where the plaintiff in a defamation action is a private citizen who is not in the public eye, the law extends a lesser degree of constitutional protection to defamatory statements. Public figures voluntarily place themselves in a position that invites close scrutiny, whereas private citizens who have not entered public life do not relinquish their interest in protecting their reputation. In addition, public figures have greater access to the means to publicly counteract false statements about them. For these reasons, a private citizen's reputation and privacy interests tend to outweigh free speech considerations and deserve greater protection from the courts. (See Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 94 S. Ct. 2997, 41 L. Ed. 2d 789 [1974]).
Distinguishing between public and private figures for the purposes of defamation law is sometimes difficult. For an individual to be considered a public figure in all situations, the person's name must be so familiar as to be a household word?for example, Michael Jordan. Because most people do not fit into that category of notoriety, the Court recognized the limited-purpose public figure, who is voluntarily injected into a public controversy and becomes a public figure for a limited range of issues. Limited-purpose public figures, like public figures, have at least temporary access to the means to counteract false statements about them. They also voluntarily place themselves in the public eye and consequently relinquish some of their privacy rights. For these reasons, false statements about limited-purpose public figures that relate to the public controversies in which those figures are involved are not considered defamatory unless they meet the actual-malice test set forth in Sullivan.
Determining who is a limited-purpose public figure can also be problematic. In Time, Inc. v. Firestone, 424 U.S. 448, 96 S. Ct. 958, 47 L. Ed. 2d 154 (1976), the Court held that the plaintiff, a prominent socialite involved in a scandalous Divorce, was not a public figure because her divorce was not a public controversy and because she had not voluntarily involved herself in a public controversy. The Court recognized that the divorce was newsworthy, but drew a distinction between matters of public interest and matters of public controversy. In Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. 111, 99 S. Ct. 2675, 61 L. Ed. 2d 411 (1979), the Court determined that a scientist whose federally supported research was ridiculed as wasteful by Senator William Proxmire was not a limited-purpose public figure because he had not sought public scrutiny in order to influence others on a matter of public controversy, and was not otherwise well-known.
Defamation may be a criminal or civil charge. It encompasses both written statements, known as libel, and spoken statements, called slander.
The probability that a plaintiff will recover damages in a defamation suit depends largely on whether the plaintiff is a public or private figure in the eyes of the law. The public figure law of defamation was first delineated in new york times v. sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S. Ct. 710, 11 L. Ed. 2d 686 (1964). In Sullivan, the plaintiff, a police official, claimed that false allegations about him appeared in the New York Times, and sued the newspaper for libel. The Supreme Court balanced the plaintiff's interest in preserving his reputation against the public's interest in freedom of expression in the area of political debate. It held that a public official alleging libel must prove actual malice in order to recover damages. The Court declared that the First Amendment protects open and robust debate on public issues even when such debate includes "vehement, caustic, unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials." A public official or other plaintiff who has voluntarily assumed a position in the public eye must prove that defamatory statements were made with knowledge that they were false or with reckless disregard of whether they were false.
Where the plaintiff in a defamation action is a private citizen who is not in the public eye, the law extends a lesser degree of constitutional protection to defamatory statements. Public figures voluntarily place themselves in a position that invites close scrutiny, whereas private citizens who have not entered public life do not relinquish their interest in protecting their reputation. In addition, public figures have greater access to the means to publicly counteract false statements about them. For these reasons, a private citizen's reputation and privacy interests tend to outweigh free speech considerations and deserve greater protection from the courts. (See Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 94 S. Ct. 2997, 41 L. Ed. 2d 789 [1974]).
Distinguishing between public and private figures for the purposes of defamation law is sometimes difficult. For an individual to be considered a public figure in all situations, the person's name must be so familiar as to be a household word?for example, Michael Jordan. Because most people do not fit into that category of notoriety, the Court recognized the limited-purpose public figure, who is voluntarily injected into a public controversy and becomes a public figure for a limited range of issues. Limited-purpose public figures, like public figures, have at least temporary access to the means to counteract false statements about them. They also voluntarily place themselves in the public eye and consequently relinquish some of their privacy rights. For these reasons, false statements about limited-purpose public figures that relate to the public controversies in which those figures are involved are not considered defamatory unless they meet the actual-malice test set forth in Sullivan.
Determining who is a limited-purpose public figure can also be problematic. In Time, Inc. v. Firestone, 424 U.S. 448, 96 S. Ct. 958, 47 L. Ed. 2d 154 (1976), the Court held that the plaintiff, a prominent socialite involved in a scandalous Divorce, was not a public figure because her divorce was not a public controversy and because she had not voluntarily involved herself in a public controversy. The Court recognized that the divorce was newsworthy, but drew a distinction between matters of public interest and matters of public controversy. In Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. 111, 99 S. Ct. 2675, 61 L. Ed. 2d 411 (1979), the Court determined that a scientist whose federally supported research was ridiculed as wasteful by Senator William Proxmire was not a limited-purpose public figure because he had not sought public scrutiny in order to influence others on a matter of public controversy, and was not otherwise well-known.
so in this case with occupy protesters they are infact placing themselves voluntarily into the public scrutiny of a public debate oddly enough in public places and as such are not protected fully from defamation because they are no longer considered private citizens. So such remarks are not defamatory. To try to disprove such comments is hard and for good reason because it eliminates frivolous suits over name calling etc. Fox news may be skirting the bounds of legal reporting but they are still with in their right to do it. I argue with my friends all the time about Fox's shoddy reporting and how I can't believe they can say somethings but needless to say it is still their freedom of speech to do so. So I go back to my original statement of how Anonymous is being hypocritical and just picking and choosing their aspects of what freedom of speech they will allow, and in doing so they are no better than Fox News in this regard. If they are truly going to champion freedom of speech then that doesn't mean accepting just people who have strongly different opinions than your own but also accepting those who skirt the bounds of what is legal to begin with.
No, he isn't. A British news company he owns is under investigation (not on trial --- yet) for wiretapping. And where other news-company owners would likely have leapt to the defense of their organization, Murdoch immediately fired everyone involved and disbanded the paper immediately following the breaking of the scandal.Jingle Fett said:
If you have to manufacture facts to complain about how a news organization manufactures facts...
Ah yes, "we the people", which in this modern age means "since I believe I'm right, the entire population is on my side", resulting in a phrase that's now been bastardized by everyone from the Tea Party to Occupy Wall Street.
If you think Fox is alone in that, you're sadly misguided. The term "infotainment" predated Fox's existence by decades; those of us who've been alive and paying attention since the '70s have watched a slow but steady decline in journalistic integrity which often seems to revolve around whatever political affiliation, or take on a particular issue, that a given reporter has at any given moment.
An example: six months after 86 people died in a BATF/FBI siege near Waco, Texas, the BATF put out a press release claiming that none of their agents had brought any assault weapons on their initial raid --- only standard sidearms.
The press ran that release without any questions whatsoever. But my local paper also ran a file picture captioned "BATF officers drag away their wounded under fire on the first day". This was a picture taken during the initial raid --- and it showed at least one person wearing a BATF vest and holding what was unmistakably an M-16 assault rifle, exactly the kind of weapon the BATF was now claiming no one on that raid had.
I called the paper, pointed out the picture, and the person I talked to said "Oh my God, you're right, I'll get on this immediately". The paper never corrected itself, never challenged the BATF's claim, and when I called back a week later to ask what had happened, I got called a conspiracy nut and hung up on.
Eighty-six people died, a government agency lied through its teeth after the fact, there was photographic evidence of the lie --- and the newsies didn't give a damn.
So welcome to reality, kiddo. The news is a product to be sold, not a Bastion of Truth.
Uh, isn't this an obstruction of free speech? Doesn't that kind of make it...illegal? Fox news is calling the protestors horrible things...and the protestors are calling god knows how many people terrible things. The way I see it it breaks even.
Calbeck said:
Relevance of that story? Don't get me wrong, it's terrible, but that's merely an example of the kind of thing that should be avoided and only adds to what I'm saying. Or are you saying you're in favor of that because "that's the way it is?"
And be a little less condescending plz? I never once said the other news outlets aren't biased as well. I seem to specifically recall mentioning MSNBC as well...
Most news is biased and if they were to be targeted as well, I'd likely support it depending on their level of bias. But if I had to choose one news outlet to get targeted by Anon (or any hacker group for that matter), Fox is definitely the first that comes to mind. The so-called "fair and balanced" news. The greater of two evils so to speak. If Anon is going to make an example out of anyone, I'd rather it be them.
Funny how one word makes all the difference, right? We the people might refer to the entire population but the problem is I didn't say WE the people, I said THE people. As in referring to anyone who is part of Anon. It doesn't mean the entire population is on that side...just that a portion of them obviously ARE. So I don't see the relevance of what you just said.
Please correct me if I'm mistaken but from what I've gotten from what you've said, you haven't disputed my core position. I might be wrong but it seems to me like yours is simply "they all lie and that's the way it is".
Yay!
now the real question is is this ethnically right?
well that is question able and the awnser is very liklt to be no. yet i don't care because this time there target is fox and i have no sympathy or respect for fox.
this time i support them but most of the time there are just annoying and i don't support them
now the real question is is this ethnically right?
well that is question able and the awnser is very liklt to be no. yet i don't care because this time there target is fox and i have no sympathy or respect for fox.
this time i support them but most of the time there are just annoying and i don't support them
You know, there's a difference between being the bigger man and just passively allowing bad things to happen. People understand that right?
I'm not American so I haven't had much exposure to Fox news, but the little I've had has been utterly terrible. You have the freedom of speech as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others, and Fox news frequently 'silences' guests it doesn't agree with or overpowers intelligent dialogue with irrational loudness. I'm not pretending Australian journalism is great or even decent most the time, but I struggle to fathom how something like Fox News is given the power of a legitimate news station. That kind of stuff just wouldn't fly here. D:
I'm hoping Anonymous gives Fox News a scar or two come November 5th.
I'm not American so I haven't had much exposure to Fox news, but the little I've had has been utterly terrible. You have the freedom of speech as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others, and Fox news frequently 'silences' guests it doesn't agree with or overpowers intelligent dialogue with irrational loudness. I'm not pretending Australian journalism is great or even decent most the time, but I struggle to fathom how something like Fox News is given the power of a legitimate news station. That kind of stuff just wouldn't fly here. D:
I'm hoping Anonymous gives Fox News a scar or two come November 5th.