Cosmo the God hacks WBC leader's twitter acc. and live streams gay porn on Shirley Phelps' DVR
70 replies, posted
[QUOTE=TheSporeGA;38942133]And it's happening
Tiger is coming to shit up yet another WBC thread who would have thought[/QUOTE]
Shit up a thread? I guess any dissenting opinion is now threadshitting.
[QUOTE=Reserved Parkin;38942148]Try walk a mile in their shoes. How would you feel if your parents or siblings were killed, and these assholes come picket at the funeral? But hey, going by your standards, they are just excercising 'Free Speech.'[/QUOTE]
As much as I agree it's despicable, the government cannot and should not ever silence someone just because what they say is despicable, regardless of why they say it, provoking or not.
Yes, banning this sort of speech would fix the problem of WBC, but what about the people that legitimately share the opinions they purport? Are they suddenly banned from sharing it? As much as I dislike that viewpoint, I think it would be an amazingly dictatorial manoeuver to prevent anyone from sharing any opinion.
Question: How the fuck do you remotely hack into a DVR, stream content, and then cancel someone's bloody internet service plan?
[QUOTE=Reserved Parkin;38942148]Try walk a mile in their shoes. How would you feel if your parents or siblings were killed, and these assholes come picket at the funeral? But hey, going by your standards, they are just excercising 'Free Speech.'[/QUOTE]
I'd feel like shit and I'd be full of emotion and all out of logic, which is why my opinion would mean shit.
I don't get the whole freedom of speech argument in this case, it doesn't apply, they're straight up inciting hatred.
Freedom of speech isn't freedom from responsibility. Sure, they are ALLOWED to openly hate gay people, but that does not mean in the slightest that people shouldn't react to it. Freedom of speech does not imply that people should tolerate hate speech. The government is the one entity that shouldn't do anything about it.
They wanted attention. They wanted people to react. Well, now they're getting exactly what they want in the form of account hijackings and gay porn on their DVRs.
[quote=King Tiger]words[/quote]
Aren't you cute.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;38942074]Do you have any proof of these supposed lawsuits? And they are irrelevant anyway because apparently they are only filed after their rights are breached.
[editline]23rd December 2012[/editline]
How.
Subjective.[/QUOTE]
There is no 100% concrete proof to confirm that their agenda is solely to litigate and scam people out of money. So if this were a court case, yes what i said is inadmissible. However, it's not purely coincidence that they do this. So yaaay you win that. Congratulations, you support a hate group, try not to be like them and rub it in - oh wait a second......
As for how they are abusing the first amendment, this is PRETTY STRAIGHT FORWARD.
"God hates fags, thank god for dead soldiers"
' hey shut the hell up that's my son you're talking about here, who just died serving his first deployment in iraq and was killed while evacuating insurgents from an occupied iraqi school, his wife is a widow and his son is fatherless. Let me grieve in peace'
"HOW DARE YOU TELL ME TO SHUTUP THIS IS MY GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO PROTEST THIS FUNERAL AND MOCK YOU WHILE MOURNING, DEPRAVING YOU OF MOURNING THE LOSS OF YOUR SON. ACCORDING TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT I DON'T HAVE TO LISTEN TO YOU AND I CAN SAY WHATEVER I WANT AND BE PROTECTED BY THE GOVERNMENT"
You can call that free speech but when they cry to the federal government when someone defies them, that's abuse. When they picket and receive opposition and strike them down telling them to shutup while they continue to preach, that's abuse.
As for how this is "subjective". They are saying that humans should be killed for serving in the military or being homosexual. Killing of any sort or wishing harm against other humans is LITERALLY Human Degeneracy. It's the very textbook definition. This is not subjective at all, this is OBJECTIVE.
They are being vicious towards people blindly based of the slightest thing as someone serving in the military. "Oh but mysteryman, isn't the justice system sending people to deathrow, and wars all together 'human degeneracy too then?' . Yes, yes it definitely is and is also something that needs to stop.
[quote]Cosmo remotely recorded gay porn to her DVR, before canceling her internet service.[/quote]
lmao, best bit.
Either King Tiger is a troll or he needs to be banned for being an absolute cunt.
[QUOTE=mysteryman;38942412]-angry words-[/QUOTE]
Gee man, calm down. Tiger's an idiot there is no reasoning with him.
[QUOTE=Foxtrot200;38942247]Freedom of speech isn't freedom from responsibility. Sure, they are ALLOWED to openly hate gay people, but that does not mean in the slightest that people shouldn't react to it. Freedom of speech does not imply that people should tolerate hate speech. The government is the one entity that shouldn't do anything about it.
They wanted attention. They wanted people to react. Well, now they're getting exactly what they want in the form of account hijackings and gay porn on their DVRs.[/QUOTE]
not that this isn't hilarious but protesting isn't a crime while hijacking accounts and shit like that is extremely illegal. this is just playing into what the WBC wants; they want people to commit crimes against them. it's how they make money.
[QUOTE=Irkalla;38942200]As much as I agree it's despicable, the government cannot and should not ever silence someone just because what they say is despicable, regardless of why they say it, provoking or not.
Yes, banning this sort of speech would fix the problem of WBC, but what about the people that legitimately share the opinions they purport? Are they suddenly banned from sharing it? As much as I dislike that viewpoint, I think it would be an amazingly dictatorial manoeuver to prevent anyone from sharing any opinion.[/QUOTE]
To be honest - it's not about banning what you say, but how you say it generally. A lot of European countries have semi limited free speech in that manner and one cannot say they are less free for it.
There's the whole malice point to consider. Can you voice an opinion that you do not believe homosexuals should have equal rights in some ways? Yes, but you have take heed of the way you say it kinda.
It was MrOsama (another member of UGNazi) doing it in Cosmo's name, not Cosmo himself.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;38941899]What have "we" gone over? All I remember is a bunch of idiot man-babies who couldn't provide a solid reason why the WBC shouldn't be able to speak a couple months ago. And I got a funny title out of it.[/QUOTE]
Are you trolling or...?
The fact that they say shit like the Newtown shooting was because of gay people doesn't sound simply retarded?
[editline]23rd December 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=King Tiger;38941941]Hate Group: Another name for people who say mean things that make babbies cry.
Embarrassed over what though? If I were embarrassed I would hardly continue to espouse my beliefs, would I? Or maybe I'm not understanding you.[/QUOTE]
Imagine this.
Someone kills your whole family, and some guy comes in and says it happened because of some biggoted reason. How would you feel?
(but I guess it's useless to explain this to you since you appear to be biggoted aswell)
I didn't think people had a right to not be offended.
About time a load of people banded together to take these bastards down, and it's good to know that the numbers actively taking action against the WBC is on the rise.
Being offensive idiots/dickwads isn't illegal.
WBC are a bunch of fuckers, but they aren't doing anything illegal.
In the same way, this sort of stuff- the hacking, bikers, etc- I'm fine with, because it's using civil abilities to counter civil abilities, and is a demonstration of society stepping in when someone is using the system in an inherently unpopular way. This isn't always good, but in this case I think we can all agree it is.
Also, while they are a bunch of lawyers who do bait for lawsuits, I'm not convinced that they aren't true believers also. They've been doing this radical christian thing long before they started protesting, so I'm not so certain that their views are just a sham.
[QUOTE=Matt-;38942443]Gee man, calm down. Tiger's an idiot there is no reasoning with him.[/QUOTE]
King Tiger is to WBC as Dori is to feminism.
When they go to funerals I've always wondered why police don't arrest them for potentially inciting a riot or something, I know it's freedom of speech but in that situation it's something far more.
They wouldn't last a week in the UK, someone would just stab them all.
[QUOTE=ewitwins;38942208]Question: How the fuck do you remotely hack into a DVR, stream content, and then cancel someone's bloody internet service plan?[/QUOTE]
I would assume that the DVR was hooked up to the net for the ppv stuff. I'd also assume that most DVR things have some sort of web interface for managing what you want to record.
As to streaming porn? That's a little bit more on the far fetched side, though I haven't used those systems for several years, so I may be missing out on something.
Cancelling the internet plan is pretty simple. Once you get access to all of their account information, it's pretty trivial to call an ISP and have them terminate an account. However, it's usually carried on until the end of the month.
[QUOTE=- Livewire -;38943718]They wouldn't last a week in the UK, someone would just stab them all.[/QUOTE]
Probably why they're banned from entering the UK.
[QUOTE=The DooD;38943840]Probably why they're banned from entering the UK.[/QUOTE]
Send them to Manchester, they wouldn't last 10 minutes.
[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;38942238]I don't get the whole freedom of speech argument in this case, [B]it doesn't apply[/B], they're straight up inciting hatred.[/QUOTE]
Oh yeah, I remember that part in the constitution. First amendment right?
[QUOTE=United States Constitution]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, unless Facepunch says so; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=mysteryman;38942412]There is no 100% concrete proof to confirm that their agenda is solely to litigate and scam people out of money. So if this were a court case, yes what i said is inadmissible. However, it's not purely coincidence that they do this. So yaaay you win that. Congratulations, you support a hate group, try not to be like them and rub it in - oh wait a second......
As for how they are abusing the first amendment, this is PRETTY STRAIGHT FORWARD.
"God hates fags, thank god for dead soldiers"
' hey shut the hell up that's my son you're talking about here, who just died serving his first deployment in iraq and was killed while evacuating insurgents from an occupied iraqi school, his wife is a widow and his son is fatherless. Let me grieve in peace'
"HOW DARE YOU TELL ME TO SHUTUP THIS IS MY GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO PROTEST THIS FUNERAL AND MOCK YOU WHILE MOURNING, DEPRAVING YOU OF MOURNING THE LOSS OF YOUR SON. ACCORDING TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT I DON'T HAVE TO LISTEN TO YOU AND I CAN SAY WHATEVER I WANT AND BE PROTECTED BY THE GOVERNMENT"
You can call that free speech but when they cry to the federal government when someone defies them, that's abuse. When they picket and receive opposition and strike them down telling them to shutup while they continue to preach, that's abuse.[/QUOTE]
That is so absurdly, completely subjective. WBC may be a bunch of assholes but your reasoning could just as easily be applied to, say, people picketing a KKK rally. This in particular:
[quote]You can call that free speech but when they cry to the federal government when someone defies them, that's abuse. When they picket and receive opposition and strike them down telling them to shutup while they continue to preach, that's abuse.[/quote]
is literally saying 'if they preach, and get beaten up, they shouldn't be able to pursue legal action', which sets a horrible precedent for all kinds of other cases.
What if that reasoning were applied to the civil rights movement in the 1960s? What if blacks couldn't go to the courts when they were beaten and abused during rallies, because 'they have free speech but need to face the consequences'? In fact, that's exactly what happened, and it's now seen as a horrible mistake.
You can't shut down someone's right to free speech because you don't like their opinion. You have no right to not be offended. They are responsible for what they say, but that doesn't mean you can physically attack them because you don't like what they say. WBC can go fuck themselves with a rake but they aren't sending mail bombs or death threats and labeling them a hate group would set a dangerous precedent for the rest of us.
Here are the facts: WBC are assholes and deserve anything that comes to them. They are also perfectly within the confines of law. They aren't breaking any laws, and there is [I]no way[/I] to alter the existing laws, and [I]no possible interpretation[/I] of the First Amendment that could stop them from doing what they are doing without also opening the door to significant censorship (and I don't mean putting black bars over titties on TV).
It sucks, but all you can do is bite the bullet and deal with it.
Isn't hate speech against the law in the US?
[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;38945809]Isn't hate speech against the law in the US?[/QUOTE]
to some extent, yes
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
