Hackers - An Evil Scourge..or...

[sp1814]

Anonymous are attacking the Westboro Baptist Church because of their threat to picket a vigil held for those killed in Newton.

Now...do you feel this is an outrageous attack on freedom of speech...or like me, do you kinda think "About bl**dy time"?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/17/westboro-baptist-church-hacked-anonymous-protest-newtown-shooting-victims-funerals_n_2315070.html

[whiskeryron]

Beware the anti-Christ. I believe that these vile creatures are abnormal agents or disciples of the devil & must be ignored by all clear & good thinking people. Even if you are Atheist or Agnostic you know good from evil.
Do unto others that which you would have done to yourselves.

WR.

[Bluestone]

Oh absolutely, WR! They are doing Lucifer's work, that's for sure!

They continue to spread their message of hate, and go on about God not tolerating homosexuality, but they forget about the fact they are all having incestuous relationships!

[sp1814]

Hmmm...not really so black and white as I first thought. I understand that on previous occasions, local administrative offices have cordonned off funerals so that the WBC can demonstrate, but only if they were a mile outside the funeral home.

Hopefully this idea will be taken up in Newton.

[Goonermatt]

Why did you remove my answer?

It was actually relative to your question unlike many of the other posts which have gone off on a tangent.

Was it the starred out swear word? That's why i starred it out. Does this mean some words (starred out) are acceptable, such as in the original question, and others are not?

[jno]

sp1814 won't have removed your answer unless he's a moderator. Probabaly someone else reported it and the Ed removed it. I didn't see it so I can't say why.

[ludwig]

Some hacker probably got in and removed it.

[Goonermatt]

Do they not email you or something, explaining why they are censoring you?

How apt, considering the topic of the post.

[ludwig]

No, you must have breached the Site Rules or said something libellous, or just criticised the Ed or one of the mods.
Have a go at remaking your point without doing any of the above, as I'd like to know what it was.

[Goonermatt]

Ludwig, all I said was something along the line of....

'....getting back on point, I agree with anything that Anonymous do to disrupt the WBC.'

I then likened them to a modern day Robin Hood and signed off with a witty 'as long as they stay out of my bank account'

Nothing too scandalous there is there?

I think that I did use the f-word, but starred out all but the first and last letters, not dissimilar to the censored curse word in the original question.

Is that what might have fallen foul of the moderators?

[ludwig]

// Nothing too scandalous there is there? //

I wouldn't have thought so.

[jno]

users should moderate their language and refrain from personal attacks and profanity.

I believe the Ed has indicated that profanity is still profanity even if thinly disguised with asterisks. A lot of it still gets through but that's probably because it goes unreported. Goonermatt's didn't.

[ludwig]

I bet it was a Spurs fan.

[Kromovaracun]

"Would you support them if they were vandalising their homes and church by say spraying them with paint?

How about if they were burgled would you say more power to them then? "

No, I wouldn't. However I still maintain my earlier position - attacking a website may be no less illegal than attacking somebody's house, but I really don't think that puts them on a morally equivalent level. For one thing, a website is essentially a broadcasting tool - it's inescapably public domain. I think targeting someone's broadcasting tool is a good way to a) inconvenience them and b) protest the messages it is used to broadcast.

"breaking the law cannot be condoned just because it's cybercrime against someone you dislike - that's a very slippery slope indeed"

I'm not sure I'd ever choose to condone or condemn an action based purely on how legal it was. And I only think the 'slippery slope' argument works if you subscribe to the idea that law is the only thing preventing modern societies from descending into chaos. Which isn't a premise I accept or one that I think is particularly well-founded, to be honest, so I don't find your argument here that convincing.

[sp1814]

Goonermatt

I think the problem is that the word I used is considered a lower level swear word...like poo, bum and Ipswich.

[Duncer]

"Duncer, aptly named."

.............and that from someone named after a cartoon character. Don't Site Rules state that "users should moderate their language and refrain from personal attacks". Still, toothless and inane ones probably don't count.

"Sorry you took my call for their kids to be murdered seriously. It wasn't."

I don't know if I did take it seriously or not, but you did day it, and any call for any children to be killed is in quite poor taste, no matter how vile their parents are.

[Goonermatt]

sp1814...

This is similar to what I wrote...

http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Animals-and-Nature/Question1198813.html

Did it just not get picked up, or is it because I'm not an established ABer and not part of the clique?

[Goonermatt]

jno...so someone grassed me up?

Pathetic.

[Mick-Talbot]

sp .... bloody is actually accepted.
Gooner should have just used the word he wanted to and let the filter do its stuff.

[sp1814]

Goonermatt

Nah - you'd be surprised at the words that get flag up the AB filter.

I wonder whether Scunthorpe is now allowed.