The debate "The Anonymous Hackers are very liberal and deny certain peoples freedom of speech they're oppresive" was started by
November 3, 2015, 11:07 pm.
17 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 10 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
AstroSpace posted 2 arguments to the agreers part.
liberalssuck, roshni, bigB, Nury, Anas, DannyknowsItAll and 11 visitors agree.
Sosocratese, historybuff, PsychDave, AngryBlogger, jjrocks1738 and 5 visitors disagree.
If a group of people picket outside of a business, are they denying that business freedom of speech? When Anonymous uses DDOS attacks, they are essentially digitally protesting a site to prevent anyone from going in. It is definitely illegal, but it is not really an attack on freedom of speech so much as an expression of it. I neither agree with their methods nor message, but they are not oppressively attacking freedom of speech so much as digitally expressing their own.
So has blacklivesmatter, but they're not terrorists???
and they have committed domestic terrorism. that isn't attacking freedom of speech. it's attacking terrorists. the US government goes after ISIS on the web too. is that an attack on free speech?
The kkk's websites have been repeatedly attacked.
to my knowledge they have never gone after anyone for saying unpleasant things. they go after people who do terrible things. I'm not saying I approve of their methods but I've never heard of any case of them suppressing someone's freedom of speech.
Ok, that's a valid point, but vigilant justice does not exist. I could yell "Sieg Heil!" all I want, as an adult, nobody can throw me in jail or legally punish me for it. Anonymous does just that, which is why they're attacking the freedom of speech. The freedom of speech doesn't exist anymore in my opinion. The country is too pc and afraid.
How is vigilante justice limiting freedom of speech? By its nature it is attempting to right a perceived wrong or prevent one, but that is still not violating your right to freedom of speech. The right to freedom of speech guarantees that the government will not silence you or punish you for speaking out. It I'm no way forces anyone else to listen to you or provide you with a platform to spread your message. Unless Anonymous is directed by the government, they may break numerous laws, but they cannot violate your right to free speech.
Yeah well vigilant justice is limiting freedom of speech believe it or not. Just because it makes you feel emotional doesn't mean you can ban it or silence it.
I can understand the argument that crashing a website is an attempt at limiting the speech of those targeted, but that is a flimsy argument. The message is still available on many other media and it is not a concerted effort to remove the message, it is a strike at those they feel have wronged them. As sosocratese says, it is closer to vigilante justice than am a track on free speech. I am not saying I agree with their actions, but I have yet to see justification for calling them oppressive.
I don't agree with everything they do. but releasing information does not stop free speech. they are just unmasking cowards and bigots. they do crash websites too. but to my knowledge they don't suppress anyone's freedom of speech.
It's my understanding that anonymous simply releases information and crashes websites which belong to corporate entities who have somehow wronged them or others they feel can't defend themselves. I think it's easier to accuse them of vigilante justice. However, I haven't seen any evidence of them suppressing speech directly. Meaning that they don't crash websites simply to keep certain groups from delivering their ideas.
Nkw weather or not the KKK should be declared domestic terrorists is a whole other debate. But, aside from the KKK, people who are not terrorists are still hacked and targeted for their speech.
Sure thing, Dave. These hackers are notorious for attacking (DDOSING) websites which have different political views, or talk badly about anonymous. An example would be the KKK, releasing personal information and attacks based on their speech and beliefs. Don't get me wrong, the KKK are extremists, but their terrorism rates are much much lower than ever before.
I would agree that they ate very liberal, but I don't know of any case where they denied someone's freedom of speech. Could you explain where that opinion comes from?