I feel it MIGHT be okay for hackers to fight back on behalf of Julian Assange....but only in certain cases.
If corporations are using tactics to make it impossible for Assange to do his thing, then I think that's wrong. My sister used to say that two wrongs don't make a right. But when powerful entities cause major handicaps in a person's business or crusade, I think there IS something noble about people fighting back.
But what about Sarah Palin? From what I'm reading, all she did was speak out against Assange. She doesn't like the guy. To her, he's a villain. She says he's an anti-American operative with blood on his hands. Now that's inflammatory speech, and from what I've heard....it's not really true. Assange hasn't yet caused any deaths. But you know...technically it WOULD be true unless he's a vegetarian. If he's not, he's caused the death of cows, chickens, pigs, etc. Blood on his hands! If he's a vegetarian, he still probably has blood on his hands.It's impossible to go through life and not indirectly cause the death of another living thing.
So there.
Palin is right about the blood on Assange's hand.
Is he anti-American? Probably in some ways. He has a right to be that way just as Palin has a right to be anti-Assange.
It's that whole free speech thing.
It's one thing for a credit card company to refuse to take donations for your organization. That's a crippling action. I can't fault the Anonymous group too much for their hacking games.
But I am against them attacking Sarah Palin's site. In doing so, they seem like hypocrites to me. They'll defend Assange's right to free speech but not Palin.
Why?
And also....this Anonymous group, are they the same Anonymous that are obsessed with fighting Scientology?
Okay. Yeah. It looks like they are.
If corporations are using tactics to make it impossible for Assange to do his thing, then I think that's wrong. My sister used to say that two wrongs don't make a right. But when powerful entities cause major handicaps in a person's business or crusade, I think there IS something noble about people fighting back.
But what about Sarah Palin? From what I'm reading, all she did was speak out against Assange. She doesn't like the guy. To her, he's a villain. She says he's an anti-American operative with blood on his hands. Now that's inflammatory speech, and from what I've heard....it's not really true. Assange hasn't yet caused any deaths. But you know...technically it WOULD be true unless he's a vegetarian. If he's not, he's caused the death of cows, chickens, pigs, etc. Blood on his hands! If he's a vegetarian, he still probably has blood on his hands.It's impossible to go through life and not indirectly cause the death of another living thing.
So there.
Palin is right about the blood on Assange's hand.
Is he anti-American? Probably in some ways. He has a right to be that way just as Palin has a right to be anti-Assange.
It's that whole free speech thing.
It's one thing for a credit card company to refuse to take donations for your organization. That's a crippling action. I can't fault the Anonymous group too much for their hacking games.
But I am against them attacking Sarah Palin's site. In doing so, they seem like hypocrites to me. They'll defend Assange's right to free speech but not Palin.
Why?
And also....this Anonymous group, are they the same Anonymous that are obsessed with fighting Scientology?
Okay. Yeah. It looks like they are.