A deluded religious nutjob's view on Japan.. Or badly timed troll.

karma_

liah wrote: »

You also should not be harassed by thousands of people at your home for expressing a personal opinion or viewpoint, no matter how unpopular it is. It's simply not right.

Again, I'm not saying she should be protected from people expressing their opinion right back in person or online, but that right stops at her doorstep, and Anonymous (or whoever has done it) has crossed the threshold and therefore is in the wrong.

You're still doing it. There should be a clear demarcation between Anonymous and the garden variety internet vigilante.

Hedman

I very much doubt the group Anonymous that attacked Mastercard and Amazon etc would be behind an attack on the girl, afterall here's what they had to say about the Westboro Baptist Church.

Anonymous also indicated that an attack would be self-defeating stating: "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.'"

It's more likely that some kid from 4chan got her details and posted them up.




Also posting a persons address online is not bloody freedom of speech ffs, cop on.

liah

karma_ wrote: »

You're still doing it. There should be a clear demarcation between Anonymous and the garden variety internet vigilante.

I added "or whoever it may be." It doesn't matter if it's Anonymous or not, as I said in my previous post you can simply replace the word 'Anonymous' with 'internet vigilantes.' It doesn't matter as the interchanging of words doesn't affect my stance or the meaning of what I'm saying at all.

No random person should decide who gets to say what and no random person has the right to target harassment at someone's house simply because they disagree with them. It doesn't matter if it's Anonymous or some other random internet vigilante. It's still wrong, because once you let some away with it because they happen to be on your side of the argument, it might not keep going your way-- you might just find it turning on you, and you won't have 'freedom of speech' at your defense anymore, you let that go when you start encouraging mob rule.

F-Stop

This doesn't look like the work of Anonymous, more like the usual 4chan crack. What right do they have? Ha! They do it for the lulz. And whether she is trolling or not, she put herself in their sights.

karma_

liah wrote: »

I added "or whoever it may be." It doesn't matter if it's Anonymous or not, as I said in my previous post you can simply replace the word 'Anonymous' with 'internet vigilantes.' It doesn't matter as the interchanging of words doesn't affect my stance or the meaning of what I'm saying at all.

No random person should decide who gets to say what and no random person has the right to target harassment at someone's house simply because they disagree with them. It doesn't matter if it's Anonymous or some other random internet vigilante. It's still wrong, because once you let some away with it because they happen to be on your side of the argument, it might not keep going your way-- you might just find it turning on you, and you won't have 'freedom of speech' at your defense anymore, you let that go when you start encouraging mob rule.

By saying "or whoever it may be." does not cut it at all. All through the thread, it's been used as a platform to attack Anonymous and you're still implying it sounds like something they'd be up to. I object to that.

F-Stop

liah wrote: »

No random person should decide who gets to say what and no random person has the right to target harassment at someone's house simply because they disagree with them.

This is not true. If you want free speech you have to accept responsibility for what you say and take the consequences. If she wants to spill hate filled garbage (whether sincere or trolling) she has to accept that she may be harrassed. Freedom of speech only means you can voice your opinions, not that you will be protected from the consequences of voicing them.

liah

karma_ wrote: »

By saying "or whoever it may be." does not cut it at all. All through the thread, it's been used as a platform to attack Anonymous and you're still implying it sounds like something they'd be up to. I object to that.

It does sound like something they'd be up to.

http://www.cracked.com/article_18950_9-major-stories-everyone-got-wrong-this-year.html

The way we heard it:

"It's an impotent ignorant redneck vs. super-cool all-powerful Internet geeks Anonymous! And Anonymous wins! LOL!"

Some of you were exposed to this story only via memes, usually a screen cap of a hillbilly screaming "YOU DUN GOOFED!" at a camera while a girl cries in the foreground.

Or maybe you've just heard people joking that they'll "backtrace" you, or report you to the "cyber police."

It's all referencing the same video, where a girl is receiving harassment from Anonymous (aka the most tech-savvy and malicious posters at 4chan) and her father screams a bunch of hilarious threats that he in no way has the power or expertise to follow up on. It's funny because he's clearly an old, uneducated redneck, the kind of guy who would beat up on a geek if he saw one in real life. And all he can do is impotently shake his fist into the camera and make a bunch of nonsense threats.

It's the stuff memes are made of, a perfect geek victory we can all celebrate. The video exploded on Digg, Reddit and everywhere else. The family wound up on Good Morning ****ing America.

But the truth is ...

It was 4chan making sexual advances to, and then real-life death threats toward, an elementary school girl.

Let's back up for a moment.

4chan isn't entirely pedophiles, but it has a lot of pedophiles. Historians may never know whether it started with real pedophiles or simply hipsters making pedophile jokes in order to be shocking (they invented the "Pedobear" meme, a child-molestation themed mascot), but we know that the No. 1 job of 4chan moderators is trying to stem the tide of child porn (or "CP," as it's referred to in 4chan jargon) that floods the site. Surf /b/ for an hour, and you'll wind up with naked children thumbnails on your hard drive.

Which, on the plus side, is a great way to meet real live FBI agents.

So the girl in the video, who goes by Jessi Slaughter, showed up on /b/ one night and, as they tend to do, /b/ tried to get the fifth-grade girl to strip. She refused to show enough skin and eventually took to her webcam to call /b/ a bunch of losers (4chan keeps no archives, but you can find the screen grabs of all this if you Google it and hate yourself).

Anonymous sprung into action. This is the type of cause Anonymous really gets into. Some of you may know them only for their attacks on Scientology or their defense of the WikiLeaks leakers. You probably don't know that for every one "good" deed, they perform several hundred like this. And by "like this," we mean they hunted down the personal information of an 11-year-old girl, including her home address and phone number, and began calling her house at all hours and making death threats. Hundreds and hundreds of 4chan posters jumped onboard, unified in their drive to terrorize a small child.

But hey, at least they donated all that money to Iran.

She was eventually placed under police protection, and her father flipped out and made his hilarious rant into her webcam to try to get Anonymous to back off. A meme was born.

They say one of the worst things you find out about the world as an adult is the way the oppressed, when given the chance, can be just as horrible as their oppressors. Nerds who get wedgies all day at school don't dream of equality -- they dream of being the one doing the beating and humiliating. For proof, all you have to do is look at how Anonymous behaves when given the chance to terrorize someone who they know can't strike back. They find themselves operating by the same rules as any bully: They don't harm the people who most deserve it, but rather the ones who are least able to retaliate.

This, but with thousands of people in Guy Fawkes masks instead of a little boy.

But most of us who find ourselves on the "geek" side of the equation want to see ourselves as the oppressed and righteous minority, so we cheered on Anonymous and mocked the ignorant hillbillies. Meanwhile, Anonymous went back to their favorite hobby: Defacing Facebook memorial pages of dead children. LOL!

Article 6. Cracked should have the sources within the article and I've read it from other sources, this is only the quickest I've on hand. This isn't even close to the first time they've done something similar using the name of Anonymous.

Regardless, the terms are interchangeable. I do not agree with any level of vigilantism, in any way, shape, or form, whether that be from Anonymous or some script kiddie with too much time on their hands.

liah

F-Stop wrote: »

This is not true. If you want free speech you have to accept responsibility for what you say and take the consequences. If she wants to spill hate filled garbage (whether sincere or trolling) she has to accept that she may be harrassed. Freedom of speech only means you can voice your opinions, not that you will be protected from the consequences of voicing them.

No, they have a right to challenge her opinion. Under no law does anyone have the right to harass another human being at their home.

I'm not saying she shouldn't expect it. I'm saying harassment and encouragement of harassment is wrong. It's like trying to justify rape by saying the girl deserved it because she showed too much leg and should've seen it coming. It's ludicrous.

F-Stop

liah wrote: »

I do not agree with any level of vigilantism, in any way, shape, or form, whether that be from Anonymous or some script kiddie with too much time on their hands.

So you'ld defend bigotry over any level of vigilantism, in any way, shape or form?

What about this vigilantism?

liah

F-Stop wrote: »

So you'ld defend bigotry over any level of vigilantism, in any way, shape or form?

What about this vigilantism?

I don't agree with the WBC on any level but they have a right to say what they want, they are not harassing anyone at their home and they are not breaking any laws. They keep outside the legal distance and do their thing. They have a right to, just like everyone else.

They're not harassing people in their homes, but on public ground, where everyone has equal say.

And yes, I will vehemently defend anyone's right to speak about anything they wish, as long as it's on public ground they have the same rights as I do. Doesn't mean I have to agree to any of it, I'm free to ignore it and personally hate their viewpoint and voice mine, just as they're free to ignore and hate my viewpoints and voice theirs.

DOC09UNAM

liah wrote: »

No, they have a right to challenge her opinion. Under no law does anyone have the right to harass another human being at their home.

I'm not saying she shouldn't expect it. I'm saying harassment and encouragement of harassment is wrong. It's like trying to justify rape by saying the girl deserved it because she showed too much leg and should've seen it coming. It's ludicrous.

They didn't harass her, they simply told people where she lived.

F-Stop

liah wrote: »

No, they have a right to challenge her opinion. Under no law does anyone have the right to harass another human being at their home.

What? I missed the part about people turning up at her home. Do you have a link? She should call the police.

I'm not saying she shouldn't expect it. I'm saying harassment and encouragement of harassment is wrong. It's like trying to justify rape by saying the girl deserved it because she showed too much leg and should've seen it coming. It's ludicrous.

Yes, it is ludicrous. You skipped hitler and jumped to rape, you've out godwinned us all. I'm leaving this one.

F-Stop

liah wrote: »

I don't agree with the WBC on any level but they have a right to say what they want, they are not harassing anyone at their home and they are not breaking any laws. They keep outside the legal distance and do their thing. They have a right to, just like everyone else.

They're not harassing people in their homes, but on public ground, where everyone has equal say.

Oh FFS, the WBC don't have beliefs, they have a business. They do harass people on public just outside their homes. They hide behind Freedom of Speech in order to antagonise people with hate to the point that they can sue them for assault in order to settle out of court. That's their business model: freedom of speech without consequences.

OK, now I really am out of here.

MrStuffins

liah wrote: »

I'm not saying she shouldn't expect it. I'm saying harassment and encouragement of harassment is wrong. It's like trying to justify rape by saying the girl deserved it because she showed too much leg and should've seen it coming. It's ludicrous.

Whoa.... i'm sorry but.........

F-Stop wrote: »

Yes, it is ludicrous. You skipped hitler and jumped to rape, you've out godwinned us all. I'm leaving this one.

This!

Come on now!

liah

DOC09UNAM wrote: »

They didn't harass her, they simply told people where she lived.

And you can honestly sit there and think she won't be harassed as a result, and that wasn't their intention in revealing her personal home address? Come on.

F-Stop wrote: »

What? I missed the part about people turning up at her home. Do you have a link? She should call the police.

Harassment at her home can include threatening phone calls, vandalism, and ruination of her personal life. I think she should call the police, certainly, because this qualifies as harassment in most countries. What she has done hasn't, though.

Yes, it is ludicrous. You skipped hitler and jumped to rape, you've out godwinned us all. I'm leaving this one.

Look, do I really need to spell it out for you? You bringing up Hitler made my point for me-- what do you think was one of the first things he did? Censoring free speech and censoring ideas and censoring beliefs, which is exactly what you are advocating by encouraging this kind of vigilantism. You are advocating censorship and you are advocating a mob rule in which the only law is what they decide it to be and the only rules are the ones they impose. These people are not lawmakers or judges, they're just random bitter idiots who want to make someone's life hell simply because they disagree with them.

How can you believe that to be just, knowing what we do of the results of losing freedom of speech? How can you not recognize that it's only a slippery slope?

What will you do when they suddenly disagree with something you've done, even if all you did was express your own personal opinion on your own turf? You can't call freedom of speech, you've relinquished that concept.

liah

F-Stop wrote: »

Oh FFS, the WBC don't have beliefs, they have a business. They do harass people on public just outside their homes. They hide behind Freedom of Speech in order to antagonise people with hate to the point that they can sue them for assault in order to settle out of court. That's their business model: freedom of speech without consequences.

OK, now I really am out of here.

It doesn't matter how much you personally disagree with them. They have the right to say what they want.

Trust me, I hate the WBC and their tactics just as much as most people but they are entitled to freedom of speech in the same manner as I.

MrStuffins wrote: »

Whoa.... i'm sorry but.........



This!

Come on now!

It's the same line of thinking. Just think about it for a minute. Do you really think anyone deserves harassment for something they say, think (or the way they dress)?

When I was raped certain people tried to turn it around on me because I was wearing a short dress and 'had it coming.' Not even considering my right to dress as I please without being harassed. This is exactly the same type of thinking, whether you agree with my analogy or not.

MrStuffins

liah wrote: »

How can you believe that to be just, knowing what we do of the results of losing freedom of speech? How can you not recognize that it's only a slippery slope?

A slippery slope indeed, we've gotten from publishing personal information on the web to rape in 5 pages!

Ok, well let's look at this another way yeah? This girl had every idea of the possible consequences of these videos.

She posted them with the intention of winding people up. Of winding up the internet! There's no way she didn't know that people would be able to access her information. She KNEw there'd be a backlash, that is what she's looking for!

Although vigilantism is general is bad, how can you have sympathy for a girl who goes on the Internet and posts a video like this one?

Westboro Baptist Church also hide behind free-speech, but if they turn up at some poor woman's son's funeral after he had died in combat because for whatever reason he ended up in the army, and at this very sensitive time chanted that he was oing to hell etc, I would have absolutely NO sympathy if she was to punch Fred Phelps in the face!

Sometimes when you create a ****-storm, it can blow back in your face!

MrStuffins

liah wrote: »

It's the same line of thinking. Just think about it for a minute. Do you really think anyone deserves harassment for something they say, think (or the way they dress)?

When I was raped certain people tried to turn it around on me because I was wearing a short dress and 'had it coming.' Not even considering my right to dress as I please without being harassed. This is exactly the same type of thinking, whether you agree with my analogy or not.

it's a completely different situation and you know it! There is no comparison between the 2. And you completely Godwinned the thread without actually mentioning Hitler!

DOC09UNAM

liah wrote: »

And you can honestly sit there and think she won't be harassed as a result, and that wasn't their intention in revealing her personal home address? Come on.

I'm not denying what their motives might be, but all they did was exercise there right to free speech in telling people where she lived.

What you are saying is very hypocritical IMO.

liah

DOC09UNAM wrote: »

I'm not denying what their motives might be, but all they did was exercise there right to free speech in telling people where she lived.

What you are saying is very hypocritical IMO.

I see a massive difference between private and public information and rights of usage of such information tbh. But I'm not saying they should be penalized for the home address (though I'm sure, legally, it can be counted in context as inciting hatred or harassment to a person's private residence, but I don't know how freedom of speech applies in law in this context), it's quite clear I'm talking about the inevitable result of that action (the harassment itself, which is definitely illegal).

I don't agree with internet vigilantism because encouraging randomers to take punishment into their own hands is not wise. They do not have laws, they do not have regulations, they do not have impartialities, and they are not unbiased. Any opinion they disagree with is a target, and that is fundamentally wrong imo. That is where my concern lies.

liah

MrStuffins wrote: »

it's a completely different situation and you know it! There is no comparison between the 2. And you completely Godwinned the thread without actually mentioning Hitler!

It's the same line of thinking. And someone else brought up Hitler before I did. You understand the difference between 'line of thinking' and 'equating them to the same level of crime,' right?

Look. Harassment is never justifiable in the law. You can bring up any excuse you want ('she was asking for it!'), but that doesn't make it the correct response. It clearly was the wrong response.

The analogy is comparable as in my experience, despite me being the one getting 'harassed,' I was the offender because I had provoked it by expressing myself. It is directly comparable whether you want to recognize it or not.

MrStuffins wrote: »

Ok, well let's look at this another way yeah? This girl had every idea of the possible consequences of these videos.

She posted them with the intention of winding people up. Of winding up the internet! There's no way she didn't know that people would be able to access her information. She KNEw there'd be a backlash, that is what she's looking for!

It does not matter. Random people on the internet don't decide who gets punished for what they say. Random people on the internet are not authorized to punish other people for what they say. Random people on the internet are not the law. Random people on the internet do not have a right to harass people they disagree with, no matter how emotionally compelling the subject matter may be.

Although vigilantism is general is bad, how can you have sympathy for a girl who goes on the Internet and posts a video like this one?

It's not about sympathy. My argument is not emotion-based. You have to take emotion completely out of the equation here.

What it comes down to is this:

Person A expresses Opinion A on a public forum. Person B dislikes Opinion A, so formulates Opinion B to counter Opinion A. An argument ensues, some heated things are passed back and forth, and then eventually they both go on their way and just learn to ignore opinions they don't like.

That is fine. But if..

Person A expresses Opinion A on a public forum. Person B dislikes Opinion A, and decides to punish them by directing hundreds of people to harass and threaten them at their home, causing their lives and reputations to be damaged for the forseeable future.

When you take your personal viewpoint out of the picture, it's wrong. It's clearly wrong.

Westboro Baptist Church also hide behind free-speech, but if they turn up at some poor woman's son's funeral after he had died in combat because for whatever reason he ended up in the army, and at this very sensitive time chanted that he was oing to hell etc, I would have absolutely NO sympathy if she was to punch Fred Phelps in the face!

I would have no sympathy, either. But that doesn't mean I agree with the reaction; I understand the reaction, but I don't agree with and therefore will not support the reaction. But I can empathize, sure, in the same way I would empathize if someone murdered a person who murdered their child, but I wouldn't stand behind the decision as if it were the right one.

Sometimes when you create a ****-storm, it can blow back in your face!

Of course, but that doesn't make the blowback any more justifiable. It's still wrong, it's still harassment, it's still selfish and foolish, and it's still undermining the law and undermining freedom of speech.

Random people on the internet do not decide who gets punished.

People don't seem to realise that Anonymous are just whoever happens to be online and happens to see the thread on 4chan. It's not a secret society. Go browse 4chan for a week and see how it works.

If she's not trolling, she's an evil bitch. If's she trolling, she's an evil bitch. Free speech my arse. Did the idea of free speech save John Galliano? No. Will it save her? No.


And liah, what are you doing in this thread? What does you being raped have to do with anything?

liah

Deleted User wrote: »

People don't seem to realise that Anonymous are just whoever happens to be online and happens to see the thread on 4chan. It's not a secret society. Go browse 4chan for a week and see how it works.

If she's not trolling, she's an evil bitch. If's she trolling, she's an evil bitch. Free speech my arse. Did the idea of free speech save John Galliano? No. Will it save her? No.


And liah, what are you doing in this thread? What does you being raped have to do with anything?

I only divulged that to use anecdotal evidence in my argument in order to illustrate a point. I don't let what's happened in my past own me so I don't see why I cannot use it in an analogy.

It doesn't matter if she's an evil bitch or not. It still doesn't justify vigilantism. Vigilantism is simply acting on emotions instead of logically considering the long-term implications of your actions, it's not logical, it's not rational, and it's unacceptable in a law-based and presumably equal and secular society.

And if you're referring to me with the 4chan/Anonymous comment, I've stated repeatedly that my argument in no way applies solely to those parties, and that it applies to vigilantism on the whole.

You're making absolutely no sense to me whatsoever.. Does she have to break a law and be held accountable in a court of law before people can express their own opinion back at her? Youtube is a public forum.. If you post it, deal with the consequences of angry people. It's happened before, it's happening now and it will happen again.



And no, you can't bring up your rape as a bargaining chip in an argument.. You wouldn't do it in real life so don't do it here.

liah

Deleted User wrote: »

You're making absolutely no sense to me whatsoever.. Does she have to break a law and be held accountable in a court of law before people can express their own opinion back at her? Youtube is a public forum.. If you post it, deal with the consequences of angry people. It's happened before, it's happening now and it will happen again.

Have you even read any of my posts? I covered this. Of course responding is fine, YouTube comments and the like are absolutely fine, walking up to her in the street and having a word is absolutely fine. I have said this many, many times. I drew the line at telling potentially hundreds of people to harass her at her home. How on earth is this such an unacceptable concept? Does everyone only profess free speech when it suits them?

And no, you can't bring up your rape as a bargaining chip in an argument.. You wouldn't do it in real life so don't do it here.

I didn't bring up my rape. Re-read my posts. I used it after he made mention of it being an invalid analogy; in order to clarify my analogy I worked upon my own experiences. It's not 'using it as a bargaining chip,' it's me using an example I have experience of. I'm allowed to talk about my experiences however I wish, thank you-- I have no reason to be ashamed of what happened to me and I don't see why I should have to tuck it away in shame. It's my choice as to how I use it. You don't have the right to dictate the circumstances under which I should bring it up.

For me, free speech is mandatory for much bigger things in society.. Rights issues etc.

But in my opinion, it belittles the idea of free speech if you extend it onto retards like that girl. If you go on youtube and be a complete dickhead, take the consequences. It's a simple choice, post a video praising/trolling the deaths of thousands of people or don't post the video. Retard posts video, retard gets punished.

How can she honestly expect to hide behind a computer screen when insulting so many people? She's fair game in my opinion for whatever gets thrown at her. If she's a troll, she knew exactly what could happen on 4chan. If she's not a troll, she's an evil bitch who doesn't deserve any sympathy.

liah

So free speech is only free if it agrees with mob rule, and harassment is a totally rational response to disagreeing with someone's opinion. Good to know.

Agree to disagree Liah because I couldn't give a fuk anymore.. This isn't anywhere close to where the thread was supposed to go so, good night.

Ghost Buster

murphthesmurf wrote: »

I imagine she's one of many god fearing religious lunatics who are thinking the exact same thing, but haven't come out and said it.

Its in perfect keeping with old testement God. The same bloke with the family press officer in episode 2

alphabeat

wow some posters have a really childish view of the internet here .

its not a magical fairy land that disappears when you turn the pc off.

it is a however a ready link to every nutjob and hater out there .

you should be as aware on the web as if you are walking down a dark alley in your pj's 3 am in a major city back alley.

if you post hate inducing content , then you better be hiding your details somehow , and even if you just run a fluffy toy website , you need to be careful how much detail is out there.

there is a loony out there for every occaison/ situation .