Re: Fox "news" under attack?

**Desert Sleepy** on 4th November 2011, 1:06 am

Jagdgeschwader wrote:
puttymon wrote:GOOD LUCK! MAKE THOSE FOX F**KERS PAY

Another fine citizen who is willing to use his constitutional right to free speech against an establishment but also more than willing to suppress said establishment's right to free speech.

The hypocrisy is alarming.

He's not suppressing their free speech, he's just telling the people who are going to try to do it (and in the process waste their time) "Good luck". Though, I guess saying "Make those fuckers pay!" counts as support for them, I still wouldn't count it as him suppressing their free speech, just being in support of someone else doing it. I don't think those specifics are all that important though.

That, and I'm pretty sure libel isn't covered under free speech. I'm not sure what constitutes libel, I just know it's basically slandering people through the press instead of through talking. But I do know Fox News has "accidentally" misreported things so often that they've no doubt committed libel a few hundred times in the bunch of errors.

**Jagdgeschwader** on 4th November 2011, 6:04 pm

Desert Sleepy wrote:
Jagdgeschwader wrote:
puttymon wrote:GOOD LUCK! MAKE THOSE FOX F**KERS PAY

Another fine citizen who is willing to use his constitutional right to free speech against an establishment but also more than willing to suppress said establishment's right to free speech.

The hypocrisy is alarming.

He's not suppressing their free speech, he's just telling the people who are going to try to do it (and in the process waste their time)

You obviously missed the point that by giving his consent, he is supporting anonymous suppressing Fox New's freedom of speech by DDoSing their site. The implication being he would do it if he could.

Therefore, it is hypocritical. Nobody here should give even a modicum of support to something like this, no matter who it is. I don't agree with your political views, does that mean it should be fine for me to shut you up and keep you from talking?

**Desert Sleepy** on 4th November 2011, 8:28 pm

Jagdgeschwader wrote:You obviously missed the point that by giving his consent, he is supporting anonymous suppressing Fox New's freedom of speech by DDoSing their site. The implication being he would do it if he could.

Therefore, it is hypocritical. Nobody here should give even a modicum of support to something like this, no matter who it is. I don't agree with your political views, does that mean it should be fine for me to shut you up and keep you from talking?

If I was regularly committing slander or libel, it would be okay if somebody shut me up and kept me from talking (and subsequently committing more slander).

It took me like a month to finally get it memorized that "definitely" is spelled that way, and not "definately". Now I've got to do the same thing with "committed/committing". Like they need that many T's.

**ABigSoggy Wafle** on 5th November 2011, 12:23 pm

Super Mega King wrote:
ABigSoggy Wafle wrote:
Slacker Hero wrote:Anonymous is a joke.

Script kiddies who think they're all powerful because they learned to DDoS'd a site.

If you think they're amazing in any way, you're probably 12.

...and stole almost everyone's psn info....

Anon aren't script kiddies. They aren't geniuses however, most of them have a decent background in computers. So give credit where credit is due.

That being said, have they every really accomplished anything? I just find them humorus in their attacks against the Westburo Baptist Church and most other attacks. While I admire the "rage against the machine" philosophy, are they really doing anything to truly further a better world? If they are the future, do I really want to live in a world that is ruled by the creators of longcats and "over 9000" jokes?

On a final note, I would like to point out that the negative connotation with the word "terrorist" should be dismissed. Our history is littered with "terrorists" including Anonymous. What do you think each revolution in this country was?

The PS3 hack wasn't difficult at all. A script kiddie could have easily done it. That's the point, that the PS3 security was -so- bad.

Also, the PS3 hack was done by LulzSec.

I had heard it was from Anon and it is not that easy to steal such information. They also have acquired pay pal info. And regardless of their ability and knowledge, they still are making a massive impact on today's news feed and internet environment.

And please stop using the term "script kiddie". It is as demeaning as the word "n00b". I am sure Anon isn't on the top of the "Most Wanted Hackers" hit list but, they are still one of more well known, which is what their objective is. If they can overcome their targets than, to me, they are successful.

Once again, I am not supporting them more so showing respect. I am sure you are a renounced hacker of a high prestige but, give a little credit where it is do.

**ABigSoggy Wafle** on 5th November 2011, 12:28 pm

Desert Sleepy wrote:
Jagdgeschwader wrote:You obviously missed the point that by giving his consent, he is supporting anonymous suppressing Fox New's freedom of speech by DDoSing their site. The implication being he would do it if he could.

Therefore, it is hypocritical. Nobody here should give even a modicum of support to something like this, no matter who it is. I don't agree with your political views, does that mean it should be fine for me to shut you up and keep you from talking?

If I was regularly committing slander or libel, it would be okay if somebody shut me up and kept me from talking (and subsequently committing more slander).

It took me like a month to finally get it memorized that "definitely" is spelled that way, and not "definately". Now I've got to do the same thing with "committed/committing". Like they need that many T's.

I think it is going more so on the view that fox has a louder voice than Anon. So, to even the playing field, they drop a site and post a message over it. Fox is a major news syndicate hosting some of the loudest people anyway. In a way, they are diminishing the value of freedom of speech by providing mostly bias views and disowning anyone who thinks other wise.

Double post by the way

**eaustinn36** on 5th November 2011, 1:44 pm

ABigSoggy Wafle wrote:In a way, they are diminishing the value of freedom of speech by providing mostly bias views and disowning anyone who thinks other wise.