Hackers Release Information on Westboro Baptist Church Members After CT Threat

[Ignatius]

But you have faith in an organization that won't reveal who they are?

Do you have faith in God?

[No Regard]

Do you have faith in God?

What the fuck does that have to do with this?

[Jack Brickman]

True...but you see what I did? Yes hacking is illegal, I'm not arguing that. I think, however, you just think it's unethical PERIOD. Am I correct?

Yes, because it is. That doesn't mean I don't understand it can't be used for positive gains. But as I said earlier, it all comes down to that classic question: do the ends justify the means? Sometimes they do. Sometimes they don't.

Do you have faith in God?

lol

[Maximus]

Thanks for that information. Sure, I would fear them too if they went after me. But they won't.

Maybe not directly, but if they take down Visa/Mastercard/Paypal again it could have an impact on you. Just because they think piracy and stealing/sharing other people's work should be legal? Ummm...ok.

From what I've read, however, they really only target those who are corrupt.

Who defines "corrupt" in their group? Some 15 year old kid that thinks he should be able to steal and share the new Spiderman movie for free before it's released?

[Ignatius]

What the fuck does that have to do with this?

Nothing apparently.

To answer your previous question, Yes.

[Ignatius]

Maybe not directly, but if they take down Visa/Mastercard/Paypal again it could have an impact on you. Just because they think piracy and stealing/sharing other people's work should be legal? Ummm...ok. - Max, I'm not defending them if they are doing that stuff.



Who defines "corrupt" in their group? Some 15 year old kid that thinks he should be able to steal and share the new Spiderman movie for free before it's released? - No, but I'll be able to define it properly. So can many other intelligent people.

.

[Ignatius]

Yes, because it is. That doesn't mean I don't understand it can't be used for positive gains. But as I said earlier, it all comes down to that classic question: do the ends justify the means? Sometimes they do. Sometimes they don't.



lol

Jack.....me and you....we're on the same side buddy lol.

[Malt]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This is cut and dry to me. Changing the constitution is a very slippery slope, and not one which should be tampered with. I can imagine a myriad of reasons a funeral could respectfully be protested. If the deceased individual was gay, and the family refused to acknowledge it or allow his partner and his family to attend the funeral despite potentially a 20+ year long commitment, I wouldn't hold it against the partner or his family to protest the proceedings. A similar thing could happen based on religious or racial reasons. There are peaceful ways to handle these types of situations, and taking an ax to the constitution is not a path we should willingly head towards.

WBC is, by definition, a hate group, They should have their tax exempt status removed, but so long as they remain peaceful and nonviolent in their protest, they have a right to it. The actions of a few should not determine the rights of the many. A simple solution to this problem is to pass a law regarding proximity of the protest to the funeral. They need to have a right to protest, else we're taking away other people's rights to have a legitimate protest.

[Ignatius]

This is cut and dry to me. Changing the constitution is a very slippery slope, and not one which should be tampered with. I can imagine a myriad of reasons a funeral could respectfully be protested. If the deceased individual was gay, and the family refused to acknowledge it or allow his partner and his family to attend the funeral despite potentially a 20+ year long commitment, I wouldn't hold it against the partner or his family to protest the proceedings. A similar thing could happen based on religious or racial reasons. There are peaceful ways to handle these types of situations, and taking an ax to the constitution is not a path we should willingly head towards.

WBC is, by definition, a hate group, They should have their tax exempt status removed, but so long as they remain peaceful and nonviolent in their protest, they have a right to it. The actions of a few should not determine the rights of the many. A simple solution to this problem is to pass a law regarding proximity of the protest to the funeral. They need to have a right to protest, else we're taking away other people's rights to have a legitimate protest.

Nothing about protesting a funeral is peaceful.

That is very cut and dry to me.

[Lee]

I am tired of defending this POS Fred Phelps. One thing to remember is he was a successful attorney and knows his rights and is looking to push buttons. I almost wish a father of one of the deceased children at the funeral shot him in the head. You could make a great case for temporary insanity. That said, only the father would be guilty of a crime, but only the father would be morally justified.

To my point, Phelps is not committing illegal acts, just immoral, but putting a bullet in him isnt immoral, just illegal.

[Maximus]

A simple solution to this problem is to pass a law regarding proximity of the protest to the funeral.

Yeah, i was thinking this too. They did it for military funerals. Why didn't/couldn't they do them for all funerals i wonder?


Honoring America's Veterans Act Signed By Obama, Restricting Westboro Military Funeral Protests


The Huffington Post | By Nick Wing Posted: 08/06/2012 3:48 pm Updated: 08/07/2012 5:47 pm


President Barack Obama signed the Honoring America’s Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012 into law on Monday, providing a wide-ranging package of benefits to military personnel and enacting new restrictions on protests of service member funerals.

"We have a moral sacred duty to our men and women in uniform," Obama said before signing the bill, according to a pool report. "The graves of our veterans are hallowed grounds."

The new law will have strong implications for the Westboro Baptist Church, a Kansas-based organization which the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League have labeled a hate group. Westboro Baptist Church has drawn media attention for its brand of protest, which frequently links the deaths of soldiers to America's growing acceptance of gays.

Under the new legislation, protests must be held at least 300 feet from military funerals and are prohibited two hours before or after a service. The law counters a 2011 Supreme Court ruling, which found that displays such as Westboro's were protected under the First Amendment.

Members of the church responded defiantly to a Huffington Post report following Congress' passage of the bill, claiming that the law's restrictions could also have an effect on counter-demonstrations organized in response to Westboro's attempts to disrupt military services.

Two of these counter-efforts drew national attention last month, when large groups of people turned out in both Missouri and in Texas in an attempt to create "human walls" to shield attendees of military funerals from Westboro's demonstrations.

In an interview over the weekend, Westboro spokesman Steven Drain told CNN that the new law was "not going to change our plans at all."

According to the Army Times, future violations of The Honoring America’s Veterans Act would include the possibility of $50,000 in statutory damages.

[Ignatius]

Yeah, i was thinking this too. They did it for military funerals. Why didn't/couldn't they do them for all funerals i wonder?


Honoring America's Veterans Act Signed By Obama, Restricting Westboro Military Funeral Protests


The Huffington Post | By Nick Wing Posted: 08/06/2012 3:48 pm Updated: 08/07/2012 5:47 pm


President Barack Obama signed the Honoring America’s Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012 into law on Monday, providing a wide-ranging package of benefits to military personnel and enacting new restrictions on protests of service member funerals.

"We have a moral sacred duty to our men and women in uniform," Obama said before signing the bill, according to a pool report. "The graves of our veterans are hallowed grounds."

The new law will have strong implications for the Westboro Baptist Church, a Kansas-based organization which the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League have labeled a hate group. Westboro Baptist Church has drawn media attention for its brand of protest, which frequently links the deaths of soldiers to America's growing acceptance of gays.

Under the new legislation, protests must be held at least 300 feet from military funerals and are prohibited two hours before or after a service. The law counters a 2011 Supreme Court ruling, which found that displays such as Westboro's were protected under the First Amendment.

Members of the church responded defiantly to a Huffington Post report following Congress' passage of the bill, claiming that the law's restrictions could also have an effect on counter-demonstrations organized in response to Westboro's attempts to disrupt military services.

Two of these counter-efforts drew national attention last month, when large groups of people turned out in both Missouri and in Texas in an attempt to create "human walls" to shield attendees of military funerals from Westboro's demonstrations.

In an interview over the weekend, Westboro spokesman Steven Drain told CNN that the new law was "not going to change our plans at all."

According to the Army Times, future violations of The Honoring America’s Veterans Act would include the possibility of $50,000 in statutory damages.

That's nobel, but way too soft. However, it is better than nothing at this point.

"We have a moral sacred duty to our men and women in uniform," Yea, you do, along with every man and woman in this country.

[Ignatius]

I am tired of defending this POS Fred Phelps. One thing to remember is he was a successful attorney and knows his rights and is looking to push buttons. I almost wish a father of one of the deceased children at the funeral shot him in the head. You could make a great case for temporary insanity. That said, only the father would be guilty of a crime, but only the father would be morally justified.

To my point, Phelps is not committing illegal acts, just immoral, but putting a bullet in him isnt immoral, just illegal.

Very true, but I'm sure even I could argue that it is still immoral. I'm not advocating that....even though most of us wouldn't care if it happened.

Force is best used as a final solution.

Instead of keeping them 300 feet away and FUCKING ALLOWING THEM, still, to protest within 2 hours, YOU SET A PRECEDENT, and keep them 5,000 FEET away and cannot protest withing 6 HOURS. Does anyone REALLY think that would be unusual punishment?

I think I'm starting to get it........I really am.....and it makes me sick.

[supergoat52]

Nothing about protesting a funeral is peaceful.

That is very cut and dry to me.

Not even the lack of violence?

[Ignatius]

Not even the lack of violence?

That is admirable, at it's very best. You forget to think about the psychological and societal damage that can and does happen as a result of these people, as small of a crowd they may be. It's not always about the presence of physical violence.

We simply no longer have the wish to protect ourselves in the most fundamental of ways. Our priorities are definitely out of order.