Westboro Baptists Stage Fake Anonymous Threat

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Westboro Baptists Stage Fake Anonymous Threat

image

The Westboro Baptist Church evidently created a fake threat from Anonymous as a publicity stunt.

The controversial Westboro Baptist Church isn't exactly a beloved organization. However, its claim that ethereal hacking group Anonymous had threatened to take the WBC down, was apparently just a bold-faced lie to garner publicity.

Anonymous is known for taking on targets big and small that range from the U.S. government to Gene Simmons. One common thread through Anonymous' attacks is that they all seem to go along with the group's ideals of open government or freedom of speech.

The WBC has some pretty insane views, in my humble opinion, the least terrible of which calls Batman and Superman false idols. At the worst, the WBC praises terrorism for, well, some crazy reason probably not even worth discussing. The organization claims it received an open letter from Anonymous that said: "We will target your public websites, and the propaganda and detestable doctrine that you promote will be eradicated; the damage incurred will be irreversible, and neither your institution nor your congregation will ever be able to fully recover."

Anonymous put out a press release denying it had written the letter, believing it to be a trap to "harvest IPs to sue." The press release reads: "When Anonymous says we support free speech, we mean it. We count Beatrice Hall among our Anonymous forebears: 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.'"

While it might be nice to see Anonymous take on the WBC, it unfortunately just doesn't make sense. It'd be like taking down the website of the crazy guy that yells at you when you walk down the street, on a slightly larger scale.

Source: Silicon Republic

Permalink

Like we needed any more evidence that these guys are scum.
I'm just disappointed Anonymous didn't actually do it.

Edit: Didn't they go after Gene Simmons just because he taunted them?

http://shanghaiist.com/2008/05/16/westboro-thank-god-for-earthquake.php

I hate these guys. Actually hate.

Still, it'll be nice in a few weeks when their site is the largest collection of gay porn on the net. :p

Tom Goldman:
Permalink

What's this, Anonymous? You're discovering you don't have control over who dons your mantle for whatever cause they see fit? Someone does something under the guise of Anonymous, and here's what happens--they suddenly act all "Wait, no we didn't."

Yes, you did. Even if it's just a handful of Anon fans playing pretend, you did it. Even in the extremely unlikely event that WBC had the presence of mind to somehow stage this themselves, which I highly doubt judging by their history, you did it.

You created a mask that shields you from the accountability you try to enforce on others, and now some of those sort of people are adopting the mask and using it to dodge accountability in the same way. You use guerrilla tactics to "enforce" free speech, and yet you act surprised when people discover they can use those same tactics to enforce whatever limits they want to put on the speech of others.

You created the mask. You set the terms of engagement. You did this, and everything that comes after it. Welcome to the fundamental flaw of vigilantism.

Ummmm, I know I'm not the most knowledgeable when it comes to Anon, but if there is no set group of people with contact amongst members ranging from best friends to nonexistent, how do they have a press release saying it wasn't them when one of their "fringe" guys could have done it.

Hell, I could have done it and not included my name while hiding my IP and claim it is Anonymous. Technically it is true.

I think I put this best in the IRC.

WBC - Everything bad about my religion in one easy to nuke package.

Honestly, it's like these people haven't bothered to read the New Testament. "God hates X" and "God despises Y" is completely missing the point. In fact it's completely counter to the point. God loves us all, no matter the flaws we have. (Important: I disagree on most points with what the WBC regards as a flaw)

As for Anonymous attacking them, I wish they would. The issue being they haven't actively done anything wrong. Spouting hate and bullshit isn't against the law. Suppressing their ability to do so is.

Isn't 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.' Voltair?

OT: Regardless of what Anon collectively says, it's only a vocal minority. Generally I don't approve of what Anon does, but when it comes to people like the WBC I'd be happy if they completely changed the WBC website into a gay porn/gay right promotion site, or something along those lines.

forsinain42:
http://shanghaiist.com/2008/05/16/westboro-thank-god-for-earthquake.php

I hate these guys. Actually hate.

Never before has such rage entered my body as it did when I read their little poster next to the news story.
These people are scum and unworthy of any attention.

OT: A church lying.
Heh talk about irony, until you realize it's Westboro.

I consider them a church in the same way I consider bacon to be a vegetable

Dastardly:

Tom Goldman:
Permalink

What's this, Anonymous? You're discovering you don't have control over who dons your mantle for whatever cause they see fit? Someone does something under the guise of Anonymous, and here's what happens--they suddenly act all "Wait, no we didn't."

Yes, you did. Even if it's just a handful of Anon fans playing pretend, you did it. Even in the extremely unlikely event that WBC had the presence of mind to somehow stage this themselves, which I highly doubt judging by their history, you did it.

You created a mask that shields you from the accountability you try to enforce on others, and now some of those sort of people are adopting the mask and using it to dodge accountability in the same way. You use guerrilla tactics to "enforce" free speech, and yet you act surprised when people discover they can use those same tactics to enforce whatever limits they want to put on the speech of others.

You created the mask. You set the terms of engagement. You did this, and everything that comes after it. Welcome to the fundamental flaw of vigilantism.

They aren't "Anonymous Fans", they are people using false threats to garner support. "We are being attacked, we need sympathy so we don't appear to be some of the worst people in existance....brb gonna troll a funeral"

I hoped anon would just say "well they are testing us" and shut down the site. Also it seems they are worried, they never cared about being sued and having IPs harvested before.
Shame them taking down the WBC may have made them look good.

Dastardly:

Tom Goldman:
Permalink

What's this, Anonymous? You're discovering you don't have control over who dons your mantle for whatever cause they see fit? Someone does something under the guise of Anonymous, and here's what happens--they suddenly act all "Wait, no we didn't."

Yes, you did. Even if it's just a handful of Anon fans playing pretend, you did it. Even in the extremely unlikely event that WBC had the presence of mind to somehow stage this themselves, which I highly doubt judging by their history, you did it.

You created a mask that shields you from the accountability you try to enforce on others, and now some of those sort of people are adopting the mask and using it to dodge accountability in the same way. You use guerrilla tactics to "enforce" free speech, and yet you act surprised when people discover they can use those same tactics to enforce whatever limits they want to put on the speech of others.

You created the mask. You set the terms of engagement. You did this, and everything that comes after it. Welcome to the fundamental flaw of vigilantism.

The way the article makes it sound there was no hacking attempt or threat by anyone claiming to be anonymous. It all came from within the WBC itself to gain publicity.

Aaaaand the next news bulletin: WBC site DDoS'd and their members' financial details leaked? Probably not their brightest move and none of their moves are bright to begin with.

So "anonymous" has a spokesperson now or what?

I'm just waiting for the day when these guys finally cross the line in order to get attention so we can see em hauled away to prison.

Tom Goldman:
We count Beatrice Hall among our Anonymous forebears: 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.'"

Tell me if i'm wrong but didn't Voltaire say that?

Dastardly:

Tom Goldman:
Permalink

What's this, Anonymous? You're discovering you don't have control over who dons your mantle for whatever cause they see fit? Someone does something under the guise of Anonymous, and here's what happens--they suddenly act all "Wait, no we didn't."

Yes, you did. Even if it's just a handful of Anon fans playing pretend, you did it. Even in the extremely unlikely event that WBC had the presence of mind to somehow stage this themselves, which I highly doubt judging by their history, you did it.

You created a mask that shields you from the accountability you try to enforce on others, and now some of those sort of people are adopting the mask and using it to dodge accountability in the same way. You use guerrilla tactics to "enforce" free speech, and yet you act surprised when people discover they can use those same tactics to enforce whatever limits they want to put on the speech of others.

You created the mask. You set the terms of engagement. You did this, and everything that comes after it. Welcome to the fundamental flaw of vigilantism.

Hate to break it to you, but Anonymous didn't create itself. Anonymous is just a hivemind formed by the fundamental nature of the internet, if you tried to go back in time and prevent its formation, you'd have to prevent the formation of the internet itself. And even then, it would probably have formed eventually.

OT: Go Anonymous for sticking to y/our guns. And for correctly attributing that Beatrice Hall quote.

EDIT: Realized the tone of my reply seemed a bit rude. I only intended it as an explanation, nothing angry was meant. Don't wanna start anything here.

Chezzz:

Tom Goldman:
We count Beatrice Hall among our Anonymous forebears: 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.'"

Tell me if i'm wrong but didn't Voltaire say that?

Baron Von Evil Satan:
Isn't 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.' Voltair?

Expecting to be ninja'd but:

No. She wrote it in a biography (I think) about him. It just gets misattributed a LOT.

EDIT: Sorry for the double post. Fully expected someone to have posted by the time I finished typing the second reply.

Any single Anon could have done that. Lord knows there are enough people of all stripes that find the WBC a disgusting collection of freaks. Any one of those Anons who saw their assault on Scientology as an assault on a bastard religion rather than as an assault on that religions threats against free speech could easily have shifted the target onto the WBC without a second thought and felt perfectly justified. After all, they were protecting a family's right not to be heckled at a funeral.

Anon's greatest strength does have a weakness in that it's very nature means they can be blamed for anything and it might even be true to an extent. Different anons have different agendas.

It would be so delicious if this motivated the anon to actually do something.

Suppose the only ones who can actually do anything are a bit pre-occupied with the FBI at the minute though.

Dastardly:

Tom Goldman:
Permalink

What's this, Anonymous? You're discovering you don't have control over who dons your mantle for whatever cause they see fit? Someone does something under the guise of Anonymous, and here's what happens--they suddenly act all "Wait, no we didn't."

Yes, you did. Even if it's just a handful of Anon fans playing pretend, you did it. Even in the extremely unlikely event that WBC had the presence of mind to somehow stage this themselves, which I highly doubt judging by their history, you did it.

You created a mask that shields you from the accountability you try to enforce on others, and now some of those sort of people are adopting the mask and using it to dodge accountability in the same way. You use guerrilla tactics to "enforce" free speech, and yet you act surprised when people discover they can use those same tactics to enforce whatever limits they want to put on the speech of others.

You created the mask. You set the terms of engagement. You did this, and everything that comes after it. Welcome to the fundamental flaw of vigilantism.

Dude you are on the wrong side of the fence on this one.

Sure that is the fundamental flaw of vigilantism, but it is the main ideal of Anon.

If you have an opinion and an internet connection you are Anon. There is no wrong reason to use the mask, everything is the mask, every point is the mask. Honestly that is why I don't understand why Anon even has press releases.

Also, a little unrelated but your statement really reminded me of, "I'm not the one wearing hockey pads."

The ironic thing is this will probably make them the target for the more trollish Anon's...

I have never heard of the WBC before but i hope get whats coming too them for this.

Dastardly:

Tom Goldman:
Permalink

What's this, Anonymous? You're discovering you don't have control over who dons your mantle for whatever cause they see fit? Someone does something under the guise of Anonymous, and here's what happens--they suddenly act all "Wait, no we didn't."

Yes, you did. Even if it's just a handful of Anon fans playing pretend, you did it. Even in the extremely unlikely event that WBC had the presence of mind to somehow stage this themselves, which I highly doubt judging by their history, you did it.

You created a mask that shields you from the accountability you try to enforce on others, and now some of those sort of people are adopting the mask and using it to dodge accountability in the same way. You use guerrilla tactics to "enforce" free speech, and yet you act surprised when people discover they can use those same tactics to enforce whatever limits they want to put on the speech of others.

You created the mask. You set the terms of engagement. You did this, and everything that comes after it. Welcome to the fundamental flaw of vigilantism.

They actually are an organization, though. People claiming to be part of Anonymous can be shut down because they aren't Anonymous, they're just anonymous.

I support Anon, seeing as they take everybody down a few pegs (Gene Simmons needed to be, and the US government is now, too. It's great). They hack a Congressman's twitter account, destroy HBGary's website and private archives, put thousand of emails up for free pickings, and what do they say once they're in? They spout a bunch of 4chan memes and laugh.

While they are dangerous, their heart is in the right place.

9_6:
So "anonymous" has a spokesperson now or what?

That is what I am wondering. How does anyone know if Anonymous didn't send the letter? Does Anonymous always know what Anonymous is doing?

Cpu46:

Dastardly:

Tom Goldman:
Permalink

What's this, Anonymous? You're discovering you don't have control over who dons your mantle for whatever cause they see fit? Someone does something under the guise of Anonymous, and here's what happens--they suddenly act all "Wait, no we didn't."

Yes, you did. Even if it's just a handful of Anon fans playing pretend, you did it. Even in the extremely unlikely event that WBC had the presence of mind to somehow stage this themselves, which I highly doubt judging by their history, you did it.

You created a mask that shields you from the accountability you try to enforce on others, and now some of those sort of people are adopting the mask and using it to dodge accountability in the same way. You use guerrilla tactics to "enforce" free speech, and yet you act surprised when people discover they can use those same tactics to enforce whatever limits they want to put on the speech of others.

You created the mask. You set the terms of engagement. You did this, and everything that comes after it. Welcome to the fundamental flaw of vigilantism.

The way the article makes it sound there was no hacking attempt or threat by anyone claiming to be anonymous. It all came from within the WBC itself to gain publicity.

I don't think it's the actual hacking attempt he is talking about. If you make a mask of unaccountability. Everyone is invisible and can't be held to anything, no one knows what YOU'VE done or what other people are making up, it's hard to try and play "whodunnit?"

A bunch of fully masked people can send a letter to someone and then say "Didn't do it" and who could possibly know better? Someone else could fake an anonymous letter and who would know the difference? We don't know who they are to begin with, so an anonymous letter can easily be passed off as written by Anonymous.

Doesn't mean I agree with the poster's idea though... I'll have to read a tad more into it

Funny thing is that the WBC guys get (rightfully so I might add) DDoS'd and trolled on a fairly regular basis, although I don't believe that has ever been part of any real Anon operation. But lying about a threat from Anon is downright pitiful. What's the matter, Fred? Isn't anybody paying attention to your little degenerate congregation anymore, so you resorted to crying wolf? Aw, how about a round of pity for Phelps and his retard followers...

Thank fucking god. I figured not even Anon would be bad enough to go back on their own beliefs on freedom of speech.

Dear WBC.

You don't poke the bear. That is all.

Gah! These people again? I thought somebody would have 'gotten rid' of them by now. Seriously, they need their heads examined...

Chezzz:

Tom Goldman:
We count Beatrice Hall among our Anonymous forebears: 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.'"

Tell me if i'm wrong but didn't Voltaire say that?

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

* Ch. 7 : Helvetius : The Contradiction, p. 199; because of quote marks around the original publication of these words, they are often attributed to Voltaire, though Hall was not actually quoting him but summarizing his attitude with the expression. The statement was widely popularized when misattributed to Voltaire as a "Quotable Quote" in Reader's Digest (June 1934), but in response to the misattribution, Hall had been quoted in Saturday Review (11 May 1935), p. 13, as stating: I did not mean to imply that Voltaire used these words verbatim and should be surprised if they are found in any of his works. They are rather a paraphrase of Voltaire's words in the Essay on Tolerance - "Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too."

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Evelyn_Beatrice_Hall

hahaha XD

Don't these Christians know that Lying is a sin?

Where are they based again?
I'd like to know where they are so that I can avoid them.

*sighs* darn. That was my Christmas, Easter, and Birthday combined into one. Ah well, maybe they will still do it one day.

Anyways, I wish I could say I didnt care, but I had a rather... person, run in with one of the WBC this weekend.

Though... if they were going to sue IP addresses, why dont other corporations do this when attacked by Anon?

Waaait... they're seriously a church? I thought this is comedy site like Landover Baptists... /facepalm

DTWolfwood:
hahaha XD

Don't these Christians know that Lying is a sin?

Actually it's not, just giving false testimony (as in court testimony) against your neighbor is. Common misunderstanding, but the 10 commandments aren't quite as clear as you might think.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here