Anonymous Night Of A Thousand Masks 11.11.11

Pamela when I checked newsvine news page they had this as a "featured writer" article, I hope it stays there for a while so others may see this!

Thanks I voted!

The 99% is not just a US WAR but a WAR that has enveloped many other countries, it is the WAR on the rich that have economically smothered it's own customers as well as their families. This is a new war on SLAVERY of the worker and the general public they are the victims who have had to rely on an industry that is impoverishing them!

Anonymous also has not just stood up for the US but for many different people and venues world wide. Never before has an unknown group of people had such an impact on the world, that has continued for such a long time period!

Did you put the article here on Newsvine?

Since the government and most of the officials seem to keep sweeping this under a carpet, I guess Anonymous is like a carpet removal service, lets hope all the "carpetbaggers" that take their place are not like them! Unfortunately, how do we keep money from corrupting, if the laws aren't doing it? There is also another problem in the recent ability of governments to limit or stop the access of the internet of it's citizens because they are finding out too much about the corruption and or protesting their unfair government!

Re:My question on if you had written an article about your statement in 2.6

That's a phenomena I think I may have written about not too long ago, as a cultural shift to divisions by ideas and interests, as opposed to traditional cultural labels

Wow, it looks interesting, I need to sleep and work, so will have to come back to it! THANKS YOu!!

"There are two type of companies left in the US, those who know they've been hacked, and those who don't know they've been hacked" anonymous NPR spokesman...

I get your point. See comments in Anonymous hactivists more good than harm?

You're free to your opinion. But all of the bluster from Anon recently has been for naught, wouldn't you say?

I wouldn't say, that's neither a question nor an example of what bluster may be, so there's no context for me to comment

Bluster being all of the never realized threats of "shutting down" or "erasing" various institutions, such as Facebook, Fox News, and the NYSE - none of which happened.

This "Night of a thousand masks" seems to have gone the same way.

I've never heard "official" Anonymous threats to do those things

Srsly? Messages from "official" Anon feeds isn't official?

http://www.cnbc.com/id/44776749/Anonymous_Threatens_to_Erase_the_NYSE

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/hacker-group-anonymous-threatens-attack-fox-news-nov-171434254.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20090573-501465.html

but know they managed to get an Anonymous member released from a kidnapping by Mexican drug Cartel through releases of private documents which they have also done to police officers caught in acts of violence against OWS protesters.

Actually, most of the people in that OP backed out because they were afraid of being killed.

They didn't actually release any info, because the Zetas said they would kill 10 people for every collaborator ousted.

http://www.infoworld.com/t/security/anonymous-threatens-then-cancels-attack-drug-ring-177609

You don't like Anonymous, that's clear, but its a personal problem.

Certainly not the case, stop trying to set up strawmen.

Maybe worry more about the promises not kept by Members of Congress!!

The article is about Anon, not Washington.

Why use IRC ling then cite MSM sources?

There are plenty of sources, I just happened to pick the top links from google.

I don't set up anything, just let folks speak for themselves and respond to what they are saying.

You told me how I feel, and then attacked that assumption. That is exactly what a strawman is.

If Washington weren't the corrupt censorship machine it is targeting WikiLeaks and Bradley Manning and Free Speech from the 99% we wouldn't have the need for Anon culture or hactivism!

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that "free speech" is unlimited.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that "free speech" is unlimited.

That's a nice piece of cheese there, Rhep, and I'm putting my head in the trap. What are these limitations to free speech? Were they written in the Bill of Rights?

That's a nice piece of cheese there, Rhep, and I'm putting my head in the trap. What are these limitations to free speech? Were they written in the Bill of Rights

Do you contend that everything involved with our freedoms must be enumerated in the Bill of Rights?

There are several limitations to free speech. Fighting words and slander/libel spring to mind.

All of our rights are limited under the law.

It would seem that even though the words are slanderous or libelous, we are still 'free' to speak them. It's just that the words are subject to litigation, which doesn't mean that the words will always be considered as harm.

It would seem that even though the words are slanderous or libelous, we are still 'free' to speak them. It's just that the words are subject to litigation, which doesn't mean that the words will always be considered as harm.

Sure, you're "free" to do anything you want, the point that's in dispute is the legal protection of those actions.

Unfortunately slander and libel fall collectively under defamation and are civil rather than criminal... the burden of proof falls on the plaintiff. The truth is absolute defense.

I would have gone with communicating a threat instead. In the enumeration, the first rule is...?

"Prior to the American Revolution, the laws regarding slander and libel stemmed from the English COMMON LAW system, which permitted the publishers of LIBELOUS material to be prosecuted and jailed."

"James Madison saw the need for a press free from governmental restraint, and the Constitution's First Amendment reflects this value by prohibiting laws abridging FREEDOM OF SPEECH or FREEDOM OF THE PRESS."

The words would have to judged as causing harm, and they might not be..was my point.

Unfortunately slander and libel fall collectively under defamation and are civil rather than criminal... the burden of proof falls on the plaintiff. The truth is absolute defense.

Which means they're still not legally protected, eh?

There's no law against it. The limits you refer to are embedded in the same Constitutional Amendment, so yes they are enumerated.

Do you contend that everything involved with our freedoms must be enumerated in the Bill of Rights?

There are several limitations to free speech. Fighting words and slander/libel spring to mind.

All of our rights are limited under the law.

In a way, we are agreeing. I'm not sure where you want to go with the discussion. I can't interfere with your rights by exercising mine. Assault on your person or by threatening you verbally is a crime. In a criminal case, the plaintiff is the state, the victim a witness. In the case of defamation, you are the plaintiff.

I do strongly believe that the First Amendment is the super-ordinate, and that legal laws cannot conflict with it. There are laws that are illegal as a result of the conflict. Do you think the government is above the law? I mean to say, if the government makes laws that conflict with the Constitution, is the government criminally liable?

The limits you refer to are embedded in the same Constitutional Amendment, so yes they are enumerated.

No, not all of our rights are enumerated.

I can't interfere with your rights by exercising mine.

Which means that rights are limited.

I mean to say, if the government makes laws that conflict with the Constitution, is the government criminally liable?

Not until the law is found unconstitutional by a court, at which point the law is thrown out.

Rhep, you must be mistaking me for someone else. There really is nothing to argue about. I nibbled on the bait earlier because it was interesting.

What does enumeration mean to you? Exercising rights means being responsible. The choice not to interfere with your rights and vice versa is implicit in the right. Choosing to act responsibly is an exercise of rights. In the absence of responsibility we merely react to force, which is what we are seeing in the activities of our current government. Rights are limited only by imagination.

The final question was about the criminal liability of a government when it makes illegal laws. You didn't answer it.

Rhep, you must be mistaking me for someone else.

What are these limitations to free speech? Were they written in the Bill of Rights?

#9.10

One would logically deduce that you were of the opinion that something must be enumerated to be valid.

What does enumeration mean to you?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/enumeration

Same thing it does to Mr. Webster.

Exercising rights means being responsible.

It should, but not everyone exercising their rights does so responsibly.

Rights are limited only by imagination.

Again, we are talking about the limits of legal protection of rights, not a physical limitation.

The final question was about the criminal liability of a government when it makes illegal laws. You didn't answer it.

You must have missed the last line of my post?

See, you sidestep the questions. Were they written in the Bill of Rights? No.

What does enumeration mean to you? It means that the first right is super-ordinate, and the rights in succession cannot conflict with the first, and so on. I don't know what Webster says about it, and I still don't know what it means to you.

Irresponsible activity is in conflict with First Amendment, therefore they are not exercising rights, they are exercising foolishness. Legal protection is force, which is exercised in the presence of irresponsible behavior.

The last line of your post did not answer the question of criminal liability. The discussion is stalled without making that point. If you'd prefer, we may simply put this aside.

See, you sidestep the questions. Were they written in the Bill of Rights? No.

Speaking of deflecting...

What does enumeration mean to you? It means that the first right is super-ordinate, and the rights in succession cannot conflict with the first, and so on. I don't know what Webster says about it, and I still don't know what it means to you.

I gave you a link to what the definition is, go have a look.

Irresponsible activity is in conflict with First Amendment, therefore they are not exercising rights, they are exercising foolishness

Where does the First Amendment say that one must act responsibly?

The discussion is stalled without making that point. If you'd prefer, we may simply put this aside.

Might have to, since you refuse to answer any questions asked of you.

I did not ask for Webster's definition. I would be interested to know what you think.

It doesn't say one must act responsibly. I say rights imply responsibility. I wasn't quoting the Constitution.

I haven't omitted answers.

I did not ask for Webster's definition. I would be interested to know what you think.

I've already said that my definition is the same as the one found in the dictionary.

I haven't omitted answers.

You most assuredly have. I asked you twice if you feel that the only rights we have are those enumerated in the Constitution, and you ignored me both times.

Not at all, it was an observation drawn from the collective criticism from you.

I don't care about Anon, I have no reason to. Most "hackers" couldn't find their way out of MSN Messenger without a script to do it for them. DDoS isn't difficult or noble.

That's rich, talk about a double standard that protects anything you say but holds other to a different standard at the same time.

No, I said you seem to be under that impression (from my perspective) and I didn't make a judgement about that. You, on the other hand, told me how I feel and then attacked it.

Mine was an opinion, yours was an attempted statement of fact.

You claim it's an unfair straw man tactic for me to draw an opinion from your comments about the narrow subject of this discussion then tell me what I think of the concept of free speech and right to exercise it.

Yours wasn't presented as opinion. :)

That tells me you're too lazy about gathering information and take for granted the results you get will be available based on the free flow of information under attack by the censorship efforts of Congress.

Or I really don't feel the need to spend the time looking for direct Anon sources for debate on Newsvine, to each their own. Oh, and attacking sources isn't a valid debate tactic.

(There's some debate as to whether the threat on the Zetas was an actual Anon op, btw.)

Trot out that double standard again Rhep!!

I don't believe I've attacked your sources?

how are we a Democratic Nation

We aren't.

@BD Styres, thanks so much for the efforts to enlighten and links to illuminate and substantiate your points, it's an exhausting process to build a solid argument when only one side does all the work. :~)

I think you're confused? He has only posted a single link in this discussion, unless you count the sidebar about porn. He's also made quite the habit of avoiding any question that would require a solid answer.

I did not ask for Webster's definition. I would be interested to know what you think.

I've already said that my definition is the same as the one found in the dictionary.

I haven't omitted answers.

You most assuredly have. I asked you twice if you feel that the only rights we have are those enumerated in the Constitution, and you ignored me both times.

The first point most likely indicates you don't know what you think. I get that. In my case, I would simply admit that I don't know. I told you what I think it means, and you are welcome to use my link instead of Webster's (in case someone else might ask your opinion and you find yourself once again at a loss).

There's no law against it. The limits you refer to are embedded in the same Constitutional Amendment, so yes they are enumerated.

Do you contend that everything involved with our freedoms must be enumerated in the Bill of Rights?

There are several limitations to free speech. Fighting words and slander/libel spring to mind.

All of our rights are limited under the law.

In a way, we are agreeing. I'm not sure where you want to go with the discussion. I can't interfere with your rights by exercising mine. Assault on your person or by threatening you verbally is a crime. In a criminal case, the plaintiff is the state, the victim a witness. In the case of defamation, you are the plaintiff.

I do strongly believe that the First Amendment is the super-ordinate, and that legal laws cannot conflict with it. There are laws that are illegal as a result of the conflict. Do you think the government is above the law? I mean to say, if the government makes laws that conflict with the Constitution, is the government criminally liable?

#9.18

For clarity, I'll expound on earlier comment. The Constitution, composed of 7 articles and multiple sections within the articles, was composed as a framework for government. It was deemed necessary by the writers to form the nation independent of the previous sovereign and the document replaces the Articles of Confederation, which were determined to be inadequate.

James Madison wrote the Bill of Rights in order to define more specifically what the government can and cannot do. The main document stands alone, but is made in such a way that it can be amended. The Bill of Rights is the term for the collection of the first ten amendments.

As you can see in the quote, I made an honest attempt to answer our questions (some of mine since you were at a loss, and most of yours). Your question does not elicit a simple response. Your question is not germane to the Constitution which, although it certainly is specific about some rights, which I must assume were issues of the day, does not define all rights nor does it attempt to define all rights. It would be simpler to define rights you do not have, but the writers left such discussions to persons involved in issues of the day, meaning that today we exercise rights that were not even thought of in the time of the writing of the Constitution.

There is a catch all Amendment:

Amendment 9

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I sincerely hope this clears things up. I realize this amendment directly contradicts with your earlier statement, "All of our rights are limited under the law." I repeat, our rights, yours and mine, are only limited by our imagination. Law can never limit your rights. Law may punish irresponsibility, and illegal laws may be used forcefully to infringe on your rights, which is a point that I was aiming at earlier. The government doesn't get punished for infringement. Challenges to laws are civil, not punitive. How do you punish a government? You cannot, but you can develop a Constitution which keeps government in its position of subservience to its people. We should get back to doing so.

Rhep, I did your homework. Up to this point, you have been discourteous and your comments serve no purpose other than to attempt to incite reaction from the reader(s) in the forum. At some level, I continue in good faith to believe you have some sort of point but lack the will or ability to express yourself in a civilized manner. I don't always play well with others either, but I never poop my pants in public, and that's what you're doing in this case.

Here is a helpful link for you, which is what I think of your snarky comments:

How to poop your pants in public

Clean yourself up, gets some rest, and come back when you're ready to play nice.

I'm not going to count my links for you. What we usually do, as I see others do it also, is provide a link that cites others' work. Links provide clarity, and also topics for interpretation. I do not provide links in place of subjective points of discussion.

Where's the debate? Link me please!

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2011/11/anonymous-zetas-threat-confusion-drug-war-mexico.html

The first point most likely indicates you don't know what you think.

Deflection.

I told you what I think it means, and you are welcome to use my link instead of Webster's (in case someone else might ask your opinion and you find yourself once again at a loss).

I'll stick with the actual definition, thanks though.

Your question does not elicit a simple response.

So you ignore any but the simplest of questions?

I sincerely hope this clears things up.

Yea, you just conceded the argument and admitted not all of our rights are enumerated. Thank you for admitting that, finally.

I realize this amendment directly contradicts with your earlier statement, "All of our rights are limited under the law."

Please tell me which of our rights is unlimited in scope and power?

Law can never limit your rights.

Oh, THAT'Swhy it's illegal for me to CCW into certain buildings?

Rhep, I did your homework.

ROFL. You've done nothing I hadn't done by 7th grade.

I don't always play well with others either, but I never poop my pants in public, and that's what you're doing in this case.

I'm done with your deflections and ad hominem BS. Good day.

cyal8r

Rhep, your selective editing of information rivals the sleezy campaign ad by Romney that takes Obama's 08 campaign remark QUOTING McCain, strips the attribution and uses it as Obama's quote.

What have I "selectively" edited, if I may be so bold?

Nice job, Pamela. ..misdirectings and red-herrings, most certainly.

Sorry it took so long to reply, between Thanksgiving, graduation, and a new job it's been a busy few days.

In retrospect it seems selective editing was a poor choice of words and misdirecting, conflicting statements and red herring points is more accurate.

A wall of comments of mine doesn't exactly "prove" your claim. Quite the contrary, my comments have consistently asserted that our rights are not unlimited in scope or power.

(Most of the wall o' quotes don't have a ton to do with each other, nor do they really mean much when out of context like that.)

We do not sit idly by and watch criminals decriminalize all their actions and victimize the people the Nation's government is supposed to serve.

Additionally they criminalize our activity by regulating our rights. There are several pieces on the vine addressing this issue.

Thanks Pam ;-)

I like yer style too.