Hackers Release Information on Westboro Baptist Church Members After CT Threat

[Ignatius]

Extremely weak statement Aussie.

No, you do not take away their guns as long as they do not use them in THE WRONG WAY.

The WBC is abusing their constitutional right (because we allow it) to purposely harm people in an effort to profit. But again, it's OK because THEY have rights.

[Lee]

Extremely weak statement Aussie.

No, you do not take away their guns as long as they do not use them in THE WRONG WAY.

The WBC is abusing their constitutional right (because we allow it) to purposely harm people in an effort to profit. But again, it's OK because THEY have rights.

How do they profit from the protests? We allow it because the Constitution allows it.

[KI4MVP]

I'm of the opinion that hacking is a unethical act that is occasionally used for positive gains. Still, you can't just look at the end result and assume that the act itself is ethical. It's not. That doesn't mean I'll complain too much when the hackers target a group like WBC, but it also won't change my opinion that the act itself is thoroughly unethical.

there are no absolutes with the ethics of a given act. Context matters.

Hacking into a child porn sever to identify and catch people creating and distributing child porn is ethical.
Hacking into a server to steal software or credit card numbers is unethical

Murder is unethical.
Murdering Hitler during world war 2 is ethical.

[boxxer]

How do they profit from the protests? We allow it because the Constitution allows it.

They profit because they sue the city or any individual that infringes on their right and usually settles for a monetary figure. Its a racket they use to make an ass load of money. It's why their tax exempt status should be immediately revoked.

[Ignatius]

Welcome to the big leagues, KI4MVP.

I want everyone to answer this question and if it takes more than a second for u to answer GTFO...

Should the protesting of funerals become an illegal act?

[KI4MVP]

How do they profit from the protests? We allow it because the Constitution allows it.

there is a logic flaw here. The constitution allows things, but it doesn't allow you to harm others.

the right to bear arms doesn't allow you to shoot people
freedom of speech doesn't allow you to slander people

why should freedom of assembly allow you to inflict emotional harm on other people? Doing so is simply about protecting the rights of the people attending the funeral.

Blocking these protesters at funerals doesn't infringe on their freedom of assembly. They would still be free to assemble away from funerals. Where away means far enough away that people attending the funeral don't see or hear them at any point.

[KI4MVP]

Welcome to the big leagues, KI4MVP.

I want everyone to answer this question and if it takes more than a second for u to answer GTFO...

Should the protesting of funerals become an illegal act?

absolutely, and I just explained why.

[Ignatius]

absolutely, and I just explained why.

And you explained it perfectly.

[Lee]

Welcome to the big leagues, KI4MVP.

I want everyone to answer this question and if it takes more than a second for u to answer GTFO...

Should the protesting of funerals become an illegal act?

It would take a constitutional amendment. Just like flag burning, and other extreme acts still covered under free speech. Its a slippery slope.

So no, it should not.

The biggest problem I have is that we shouldnt have a need for this conversation. It is only an utter disgrace of a human being that would even think to do this though.

[Jack Brickman]

there are no absolutes with the ethics of a given act. Context matters.

I disagree.

Illegally hacking into any server is inherently unethical. That doesn't mean the end results can't be justified, but the act itself is still unethical. Similarly, murder is always unethical, but we find ways to justify it. Like war, for example.

Murdering a bad person doesn't make the act of murder ethical. It simply makes the unethical act of murder more palatable.

[Lee]

there is a logic flaw here. The constitution allows things, but it doesn't allow you to harm others.

the right to bear arms doesn't allow you to shoot people
freedom of speech doesn't allow you to slander people

why should freedom of assembly allow you to inflict emotional harm on other people? Doing so is simply about protecting the rights of the people attending the funeral.

Blocking these protesters at funerals doesn't infringe on their freedom of assembly. They would still be free to assemble away from funerals. Where away means far enough away that people attending the funeral don't see or hear them at any point.

Dont confuse morals with the law, they are not always the same.

Blocking the protestors does infringe on their freedom to assemble. They have the legal right to assemble anywhere they chose, including funerals. Just like the KKK has the right to assemble in a Jewish area. Read about the National Socialist Party v. Skokie. In the end, The Nazi's had the right to protest in a town where 1 out of 6 at the time were holocoust survivors. The ironic part was the lawyers that won the case were Jews. This has been argued time and time again. Its not moral, but legally they have the right.


http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/strwhe.html

PS, this is black and white. The courts have ruled they do have the right to assemble although they did end up assembling in Chicago instead. So in a sense, even the Nazi party ended up with more morals than the WBC.

[supergoat52]

absolutely, and I just explained why.

What if it is Fred Phelp's funeral and at the funeral they have publicly announced that they will be doing many anti-gay demonstrations, along with demonstrations of the sins of America by slaughtering baby piglets (in accordance with the law), to show how we "slaughter" unborn babies?

An extreme example obviously (though let's be honest, entirely possible), but i am trying to defend the most extreme example of free speech I know of in this country so its only fair.

Point is, this isn't how the law works, or should work IMO. Its legal to be an asshole and the legislative branch is not in the business of trying to determine just how big of an asshole you are allowed to be. By asshole i mean someone who emotionally taunts, bullies, or offends people without causing actual physical harm.

[CardiacCavs]

And what if they don't?

What if we all just sit with our thumbs up our asses and keep letting this shit happen, the advancement of hatred and stupidity?

How big is the WBC? Lets say it has 500 members. In another few years, it could have thousands. And then hundreds of thousands, and then the minority becomes the majority, because "these people have the RIGHT to protest a funeral". Absolutely nonsensical.

Our rights are taken away every day by the government (we are just too blind to see it most of the time). I'm no longer willing to play politically correct, and I take YOUR SO CALLED RIGHT to protest a funeral and shove it up your goddamn ass (not directed toward anyone )

There are 40 members of the WBC, give or take a few. They mostly all belong to the Phelps family. No need to worry about that church growing.

[Lee]

There are 40 members of the WBC, give or take a few. They mostly all belong to the Phelps family. No need to worry about that church growing.

Like I said, inbreeders.

[Ignatius]

So we want to protect the rights of 40 people who spread hate and abuse the constitution. Got it.

An amendment needs to be made. Simple as that. Problem solved.

This is NOT about taking away RIGHTS. Again, this is about ideology and fixing our problems.

You should have the RIGHT to bare arms....NOBODY should have the RIGHT to protest a funeral.

This is where morality needs to win over and the law needs to reflect that.

This is just 1 example, as small as it may seem, that is going to end up hurting this country if we keep letting it.