Americans For Prosperity site taken down by Anonymous!

[Modern_Matthew]

http://americansforprosperity.org/

"503 Service Unavailable
No server is available to handle this request."

---

http://twitter.com/AnonNewsNet

"AnonNewsNet Anon News Network
#OpWisconsin has DDoS'd Americans For Prosperity's website http://goo.gl/vxF6Y #Anonymous #AnonOps"

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

1. Whoops

[Lastactiongyro]

56. K&R! nt

[valerief]

2. LOVE IT!!!

Sorry. A non-recoverable error has occurred. The error trace below might help to resolve the issue

Array
(
=> Array
(
<0> => CRM_Core_Error
<1> => handle
)

=> -24
=> DB Error: connect failed
=> 16
=>
=> DB_Error
=>
=> )

[Ellipsis]

14. Hot spit on a gridle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uW6HbZXI9Y0

[Tansy_Gold]

3. YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS n/t (K&R)

[SurfingScientist]

4. Karma's a b*tch (eom)

[Taverner]

5. Thank you Guy Fawkes!

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

6. Good start, but I want something closer to home and nearer the bone

[Lorien]

41. I'd love to see Anonymous throw the 2012 election to the Greens and other

ignored third party candidates. It would be the only way to show the American people just how flawed and easily hacked our system is.

[LooseWilly]

51. I LIKE the way you think...

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[BonnieJW]

65. I wonder

if the Big A is capable of thwarting any attempt at hacking into the electronic voting machines. We could have a fair election.

[calimary]

92. That would be GREAT!

[aquamarina]

66. Now that's an interesting idea.

[dotymed]

68. Lorien...You are wonderful !

That is a perfect idea.
What would happen then?
Would we go to a verifiable election system?
Would the corrupt SCOTUS step in and choose another President?
How many heads would explode?

[defendandprotect]

94. Oh, wonderful, Lorien -- love it!! --

:applause:

:applause:

[TxVietVet]

108. I hope they screw the whole thing up just to show how flawed and corrupt the process is.

Erase ALL of the votes. Give minus (-) for the conservanazis. That ought to chap their asses. :rofl:

[ChiciB1]

WOW! I LOVE YOU IDEA LORIEN! But I AGREE With You Almost ALL OF THE TIME! n/t

[ProfessionalLeftist]

7. Heheee. n/t

[robdogbucky]

8. That was quick! Thanks, Anon n/t

[tinrobot]

9. Can Anonymous please dig up some dirt on these creeps?

Emails the confirm wrongdoing or something...

[SurfingScientist]

13. Yes, an email dump ...

... like the one where they released all of HBGary's emails :evilgrin:

[RainDog]

17. I'd love to see their correspondence with American pols

I wonder how much it took to buy off various ones.

[PA Democrat]

30. That's what I'd like to see. Watch the Kochroaches scatter.

[Loki]

60. Kochroaches.......love it!

Turn on the lights and watch them run.

[gateley]

10. K&R! nt

[LAGC]

11. Oh the horror! The TERROR!

What about the poor corporate lobbyist's free speech rights??

:nopity:

[LiberalFighter]

12. Could they make their money disappear so they are screwed?

[russspeakeasy]

81. Now you're talking...

[divine_truine]

15. May the Forces of Peace, Liberty & Justice continue to guide Anonymous & Wikileaks!

I can already see the blubber & fat sliding off of dick armey's neck!

[defendandprotect]

97. +1000% --

:applause:


:)

[Skip_In_Boulder]

16. Chalk one up for the good guys.

[socialist_n_TN]

18. GO ON WITH YORE BAD SELVES..........

Kick for our anarchist brothers and sisters. Make them FEEL it!

[RainDog]

19. k&r n/t

[Starry Messenger]

20. k&r

[annabanana]

21. my my my..Hey guys.. Keep your penis OUT of that hornet's nest!

Colbert!

[Kurovski]

43. ...with candy.

[Justpat]

22. I think I love these Anonymous people. n/t

[Buns_of_Fire]

26. I've grown rather fond of them recently.

But remember: They're Anonymous. I'm Anonymous. You're Anonymous. We're ALL Anonymous, should we choose to be. I think that's part of the point.

(The other part of the point being that ticking off a bunch of people with computer skillz, in this day and age, might not be the best of ideas...:evilgrin:)

[louis-t]

85. I'm sovereign, you're sovereign, my dog is sovereign..

my car is sovereign....oh, wrong site. :evilgrin:

[defendandprotect]

98. +love

:applause:

[elias49]

23. Good job Anon! Kick some ass!

[RainDog]

24. k&r n/t ..again

[TomClash]

25. I guess the didn't expect them

“We are Anonymous. We are Legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget. Expect us.”

[upi402]

27. alright

I'm a believer!
LOL@Kochsukers

legion>2Kochs

[RainDog]

28. LOL

since our govt is owned by sobs like this and our supreme court has decided, against all logic and their own supposed judicial philosophy, that corporations are people...

we are experiencing full-fledged plutocracy and an assault on the working and middle classes in this nation.

it's sad but true that these sorts of actions are the only thing that let the sobs know they cannot fuck with and fuck up the entire world w/o repercussion.

[Matariki]

29. If #CitizensUnited thinks money is free speech, #Anonymous thinks packets are free speech.

:rofl:

[eleny]

31. I'll let this guy comment for me...

[PA Democrat]

32. LOL Quilted Northern is down too!

[MaeScott]

33. K and R. nt

[NYC_SKP]

34. "StandWithScott.com" is next...

Per irc buzz.

http://irc.lc/Anonops/opwisconsin

Hit it...

http://standwithscott.com/

[AllyCat]

35. There is a god

[Canuckistanian]

36. Awesome

Now let's see those emails.....

[nadinbrzezinski]

37. Well I will never condone breakin' the law but

[LooseWilly]

53. I will condone breaking the law right now.

The law is put in place by those in power, to maintain their power, and a peace which contributes to their power and the profitability that that power brings.

Fear of a breakdown of the "peace" portion of that is about the only reason for anyone who isn't part of the power structure to give a shit about whether or not laws of the land be broken... near as I can tell.

I'm not one of the profiteers, and I'm not one of the afeared... just saying. :+

[defendandprotect]

101. The fight back has begun, imo -- slowly, slowly ....

[nadinbrzezinski]

114. Should I add a sarcasm tag next time?

I thought the mask made the point.

[barbtries]

38. it's up now.

how long was it down? big ol' fucking banner at the top, "stand with Walker" :puke:

[onestepforward]

39. Damn!

Hopefully it will go down again soon.

[Lifelong Protester]

40. Go, ANONYMOUS!

and feel free to find yourselves at any other Koch backed sites

[kimsarah]

42. Is site up or down?

I clicked on the site, and it said error, of course. Then I hit refresh button, and the site came up.

[Kurovski]

44. LOL It's up, but it's taking so long my PC is chugging like a locomotive

I expect to be thrown off the net any second now, :rofl:

"prosperity" my ass.

[Enthusiast]

45. I hate Americans For Prosperity as much

as I hate Illinois Nazis.

[calimary]

95. They need to target the Club for Growth too. AND Freedomworks.

Wow - modern day Masked Avengers!

[kaffy4x4]

46. OMG I LOVE IT!!

:bounce: :bounce: :fistbump: :yourock:

[BlueCollar]

47. "503 Service Unavailable"

K&R!!!

[Kurovski]

48. Anonymous sleeps in one country, while awake in another.

Sorry. A non-recoverable error has occurred. The error trace below might help to resolve the issue

[defendandprotect]

102. +1000%

[emsimon33]

49. YEAH!!!!! Just tried to access it and it is still down!

[lob1]

50. Thumbs way up. K&R.

My rec made it 100.

[vicarofrevelwood]

52. Thank you Anonymous!

We need the Calvary!

[Turborama]

54. K&R, I got this just now "504 Gateway Time-out"

"The server didn't respond in time."


Excellent work, Anon. I hope it stays down.

[Kurovski]

55. Still down

[willhe]

57. woot woot

now if someone can only take out the fox news satellite

[Whoa_Nelly]

58. they're back online :(

dang

[deutsey]

59. They are?

Not at the old URL. There's still the 503 message.

http://americansforprosperity.org/national-site

[Whoa_Nelly]

61. Comes up for me at that link

:(

[deutsey]

63. Yeah, it is back up when I just tried it.

[calimary]

99. Link works for me.

[Heathen57]

62. K&R

I just posted on another board that I wished Anonymous would take down Koch's Industries and freeze all their assets. Then I come over here and read that they hit the AFP site. Didn't quite get my wish, but damn, close enough.

[CanonRay]

64. Unfortunately up and running at 7:54am CST

[ananda]

67. It's not down now!

Bummer.

[Maineman]

69. I love it

[mistertrickster]

70. Great. We're against free speech now. That'll be a winner in the next election

cycle.

Don't get me wrong, I hate what Americans for Prosperity stands for with every fiber of my being. The Koch Family Compound is in the middle of my hometown, for heaven's sake.

But this isn't how you win.

Imagine how they'd be crowing on FReep if we were taken down.

Hitler believed in "free speech" that he agreed with. Free speech means tolerating the message that you hate

[LAGC]

72. Do corporations have free speech rights?

I'm sure you agreed with the Citizens United decision too? Corporations are "persons", and "persons" have rights.

And money is "free speech" too, right?

[mistertrickster]

87. No way. Don't straw man me, LAGC. Money is not speech and corps

are not people.

I believe like Jefferson that corporations are entirely gov't entities to be controlled by gov't.

[PA Democrat]

73. The problem is that the corporate plants on the Supreme Court have redefined

MONEY as free speech.

[Bragi]

74. Agreed, we're into dangerous territory here

I supported Anonymous when it attacked the websites of corporations who were trying to deprive Wikileaks of its right to publish documents received from whistleblowers.

In that instance, Anonymous was defending free speech.

I don't see how taking down the Koch-funded site constitutes a defense of free speech, however.

Wisconsin workers have already been winning public support for their battle by forcefully expressing their views.

I don't think they will gain anything by trying to silence the other side, nor will it foster rationale political debate around the issues raised by the WI workers.

[mistertrickster]

88. Well reasoned. I agree. nt

[defendandprotect]

103. Koch has plied its wealth into destroying democracy and free speech --

by subterfuge -- deception -- lies --

buying government and elected officials -- catapuling the rw propaganda 24/7 --

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[frylock]

78. oh the humanity..

this only helps to level the playing field.

[mistertrickster]

91. Yup. It's emotionally satisfying, I agree. I wish I could figure out a way

to rationalize it, because I WANT to say this is justified.

Unfortunately, it's not consistent to deny someone else's free speech because you don't like it if you want to maintain that your message is also protected free speech.

I really hate being a stick in the mud, because it's good to see a big powerful monied interest getting taken down a peg, but if we start arguing that this is just who has the power to do it, no holds barred, we're not going to win that fight.

[frylock]

125. you either play by the rules or you play to win..

fuckheads like the koch brothers have been gaming the system for years. people are waking up to that fact and utilizing whatever methods possible to level the playing field.

[OnyxCollie]

82. Free speech shouldn't be the right to deceive on a major scale.

Using tax-deductible image advertising to do it.

[Bragi]

90. Yes, free speech allows for massive deception

The antidote to massive political free speech that deceives isn't censorship.

The antidote is massive political free speech that tells the truth.

Free speech is the foundation for liberal democracy. We limit it at our own peril.

[OnyxCollie]

96. Wrong.

Exemption Requirements - Section 501(c)(3) Organizations
http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=96099,00.html

To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.

Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) are commonly referred to as charitable organizations. Organizations described in section 501(c)(3), other than testing for public safety organizations, are eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions in accordance with Code section 170.

The organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, and no part of a section 501(c)(3) organization's net earnings may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. If the organization engages in an excess benefit transaction with a person having substantial influence over the organization, an excise tax may be imposed on the person and any organization managers agreeing to the transaction.

Section 501(c)(3) organizations are restricted in how much political and legislative (lobbying) activities they may conduct. For a detailed discussion, see Political and Lobbying Activities. For more information about lobbying activities by charities, see the article Lobbying Issues; for more information about political activities of charities, see the FY-2002 CPE topic Election Year Issues.

Americans for Prosperity are not free to say whatever they want, nor should they be able to get a tax deduction for it.

[Bragi]

109. Are you a tax lawyer?

I have no objection to the Koch miscreants losing a tax shelter if they shouldn't have it. Like they care?

My point was/is about political free speech.

I am opposed to its suppression because doing so undermines democracy.

[OnyxCollie]

115. I'm not a tax lawyer.

I'm a political science grad student who has finished all his classwork, and is now in the process of crafting a thesis that will not offend the delicate sensibilities of his conservative committee.

And my point is about political free speech, corporations, and the undermining of democracy.

Here's part of a paper I wrote about it:

Corporations, like the totalitarian governments to which they are drawn, wield great
influence over belief systems in society (Friedmann, 1957). The large corporation is “the
institution which sets the standard for the way of life and the mode of living of our citizens;
which leads, molds and directs; which determines our perspective on our own society; around
which crystallize our social problems and to which we look for their solution" (Drucker, 1946, p.
6, 7 as quoted in Friedmann, 1957, p. 170.) Despite such great power, corporations have avoided
restraint due in part to the “charitable trust” where corporate earnings and corporate strategy can
remain undisclosed (Friedmann, 1957).

Maitland (1936, as quoted in Friedmann, 1957, p. 156) distinguishes the differences
between English and German concepts of trust and advocates for personal accountability:

(M)any reformers of our "charities" have deliberately preferred that "charitable trusts" should be
confided, not to corporations, but to "natural persons." It is said-and appeal is made to long
experience-that men are more conscientious when they are doing acts in their own names than
when they are using the name of a corporation (p. 182, 183).

But apparently there is a widespread, though not very definite belief, that by placing itself under
an incorporating Gesetz, however liberal and elastic that Gesetz may be, a Verein would forfeit
some of its liberty, some of its autonomy, and would not be so completely the mistress of its own
destiny as it is when it has asked nothing and obtained nothing from the State (p. 207).

Friedmann (1957) distills Maitland’s thesis to its essence; there is “the social and political
danger of the assumption that an association, corporate or unincorporated, merely by being in
form private rather than public, should still enjoy the far-reaching immunity from judicial or
other official control which the courts have accorded it” (p. 157).

Spawned from the concept of the charitable trust, the foundation is what Friedmann
(1957) characterizes as “the most important modern institution in the field of group power” (p.
157). A chiefly American invention, the foundation is a permanent charitable institution that
provides a tax shelter to donors, primarily heads of corporate empires (Friedmann, 1957). The
foundation accomplishes this in multiple ways: through gifts exempt from gift taxes, which are
then allowed to be deducted from income; through bequests deductible from estate taxes; and
through the exemption of the foundation itself from income tax, property tax, and other taxes
(Friedmann, 1957). The foundation allows for large sums of wealth to be diverted from tax
collection, while simultaneously awarding control, credibility, and a perception of social
responsibility (Friedmann, 1957).

The ability of foundations to influence educational policy, research, and foreign affairs
has led to the development of what Adolf Berle has described as a “corporate
conscience” (Friedmann, 1957). As a conscience is dependent on the belief system that supports
it, it is not surprising that the endeavors of some foundations appear questionable (Friedmann,
1957). Friedmann (1957) cites the linkage of educational policy to the “political propaganda” (p.
162) of free market principles.

Foundations capitalize on the mass media to further their interests (Herman and
Chomsky, 1988, as cited in Goodwin, 1994; Joseph, 1982). Mass media has a dependence on
“experts” and foundations provide content, in effect subsidizing the media (Herman & Chomsky,
1988, as cited in Goodwin, 1994). The self-serving interests of the foundation creates a bias in
news (Herman & Chomsky, 1988, as cited in Goodwin, 1994). This is one of the five “filters” in
Herman and Chomsky’s propaganda model that “filter out the news fit to print, marginalize
dissent, and allow the government and dominant private interests to get their messages across to
the public” (Herman & Chomsky, 1988, p. 2, as cited in Goodwin, 1994, p. 104). Taken as a
whole, these filters signify what Herman (1994) refers to as “power laws”- a “power law of
access” and an “inverse power law of truthfulness”:

The first law says that the greater your economic and political clout, the easier access to the your
mass media; the less your power, the more difficult the access. ... The second law says that the
greater your economic and political power-hence, access-the greater your freedom to lie; the
smaller your power, the less your freedom to prevaricate (p. 14, as quoted in Goodwin, 1994, p.
107).

”The second law, follows in part from the first, as those who would be most eager to refute the
lies of the powerful are weak and have limited access, further reduced by their discordant
messages” (Herman, 1994, p. 14, as quoted in Goodwin, 1994, p. 107).

Friedmann (1957) states, “the most powerful, wealthy, and highly organized group may
succeed in identifying the ‘public interest’ with its own interests” (p. 167). Key (1942, as quoted
in Joseph, 1982, p. 247) declares “"The great political triumph of large-scale enterprise has been
the manipulation of public attitudes so as to create a public opinion favorably disposed toward,
or at least tolerant of, gigantic corporations” (p. 102, 103). In a pluralistic society there are
countervailing forces, however their ability to heard may be limited (Friedmann, 1957; Joseph,
1982).


Friedmann, W. G. (1957). Corporate power, government by private groups, and the law. Columbia Law Review, 57(2), 155-186.
Goodwin, J. (1994). Sociological Forum, 9(1), 101-111.
Joseph, L. (1982). Corporate political power & liberal democratic theory. Polity, 15(2), 246-267.

[Bragi]

119. Thoughtful stuff

I agree that the corporate class are undermining democracy, but I don't think the way to stop them is to limit their ability to engage in political free speech. I think trying to do so is unacceptably very high-risk.

I note you wrote as follows:

The first law says that the greater your economic and political clout, the easier access to the your
mass media; the less your power, the more difficult the access. ... The second law says that the
greater your economic and political power-hence, access-the greater your freedom to lie; the
smaller your power, the less your freedom to prevaricate (p. 14, as quoted in Goodwin, 1994, p.
107).

I agree with that. However, I think the proper course for a democrat lies in building up, enabling and joining those with limited power, so they can speak and communicate. As this happens, I think their influence and power will grow, while the power of corporate liars will dissipate.

However, I suspect we agree that censorship is antithetical to democratic values. My point is that trying to use its suppression as a legal cudgel on behalf of the powerless will fail. In fact, the powerful will be happy to see free speech rights diminished, knowing full well that it won't be their free speech that will ultimately be suppressed.

That's why, in my view, people who oppose the powerful need to be uncompromising "absolutists" when it comes to free speech.

And with that, as a retiree, I say to you: Get back to your books!

- B

[OnyxCollie]

133. Thank you for the response.

You are mistaken, however, in your belief that Americans for Prosperity is being censored. Americans for Prosperity can say whatever they want, but if they're trying to get candidates elected and influence legislation for David Koch's benefit, they can't do it with tax-deductible image advertising.

Image advertising allows a corporation like General Motors to create a campaign against drunk driving (a social good) and be able to deduct it from their taxes.

Issue advertising allows a corporation like ExxonMobil to create a campaign against windfall profits tax (benefiting ExxonMobil) and is NOT tax-deductible. Considering that the money ExxonMobil spends on this campaign will be significant, and there is a chance they will not be successful in persuading others, this is both costly and risky. Better to not try it.

Americans for Prosperity are trying to sneak around these regulations by using vague, ambiguous complaints that Americans are being taxed too much (TEA Party) while behind the scenes getting candidates elected and influencing legislation to benefit David Koch. That's cheating, and there really aren't any effective deterrents to stop that. The first deterrent, the Fairness Doctrine, is no longer with us. The second deterrent, the Federal Trade Commission, has the difficult task of trying to prove claims are true. The third deterrent, the IRS, isn't suited to evaluating claims. So, without any deterrents, what's to stop David Koch and Americans for Prosperity, or Steve Forbes and FreedomWorks, from spending SHITLOADS of money on rallies, fancy wrapped tour buses, commercials, etc.?

Nothing.

They can spend as much as they want (far more than any countervailing forces could spend), influence many through deception, and not suffer any risk. No one playing fairly can compete with that.

Do you remember Glenn Beck's "Restoring Honor" rally? No one was permitted to carry political signs (it would have blown their cover) and, ultimately, no one really knew what it was about. It was all tax-deductible, though. I read here that Democrats were looking to see if tax regulations had been violated, but like many attempts to reign in the corporate criminals, nothing ever became of it.

I can understand your concern about Anonymous. But the fact that they actually are anonymous, with many people and many beliefs, is itself a check against tyranny. They took down Americans for Prosperity to help US. Our government's too weak and too corrupt to do it.

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." -PUBLIUS (James Madison), The Federalist, 51

[Bragi]

134. Do you really think our side will win a censorship war?

I do not disagree with your assessment as to how the corporate class has much better access to the tools needed for effective mass communications than do their opponents, or that they get at least some some of their access paid for via tax subsidies.

You'll get no counter-argument from me on those points. However...

Do you really think that we would win any war of ideas with this crowd based on the ability of groups like Anonymous to block corporate communications via the Internet or otherwise? What makes anyone think that the corporate class couldn't easily outspend and out-censor us 10-1, or 100-1, given their resources?

This is why I think that the tactic of trying to forcibly shut down communications platforms for corporate messaging just won't work. If by doing this, we politically "normalize" these kind of attacks into being a new norm in political discourse, then I think we end up the losers. They will use their resources to take down our websites and communications platforms with ease.

You wrote: They can spend as much as they want (far more than any countervailing forces could spend), influence many through deception, and not suffer any risk. No one playing fairly can compete with that.

I disagree with that. There is a real risk to building influence upon deception, which is the risk of your lies will be exposed, and people won't believe you.

In fact, this does happen. Otherwise, why would polls right now show that the public sector unions are winning the public opinion against Walker?

It sure isn't because the conventional media are reporting the issues here fairly. It's because the workers are able to get their messages out via tools still available to them -- which are mostly internet-based, and because the messages they are putting out are true, and counteract the lies being spread by the teapartiers.

That's why I think the left needs to be uncompromising in its support for free speech, and why it needs to be very careful in taking actions that have the effect of "normalizing" attacks on free speech that have for their goal preventing opponents from communicating, even if their communications is nothing but lies.

The way our side wins is by openly defeating corporate lies by expressing truths, not by attacking communications infrastructure so as to prevent corporate liars from lying. Long term, I think they will win if we make attacks on communications infrastructure a standard and accepted form of political discourse.

[OnyxCollie]

139. I believe Anonymous' knocking Americans for Prosperity

offline was a warning to Koch. If all they could do is continually knock a website offline, they would be nothing more than gnats battling a giant.

I think they are more powerful than that. Look at what they did to HBGary.

We are in very dangerous times. Too much power has been ceded to the corporate criminals and it's going to take an extraordinary effort to get it back.

I am not so confident that we may win by openly defeating corporate lies by expressing truths. We wouldn't be in Iraq if that were the case. Also, when fear is added to the mix, you will find some interesting results

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x582516#582649
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x582516#582750

Thank you for the discussion.

[defendandprotect]

104. Exactly, there's a difference between propaganda/lies and free speech -- !!

[Bragi]

113. And you get to decide which is which?

I constantly despair that there are so few people on DU who are actual defenders of free speech when it comes to protecting free speech with which they disagree.

Sadly, if the proetection of political free speech wasn't already in the U.S constitution, I doubt you could get a majority at DU to support enacting it.

Sigh.

[defendandprotect]

117. We ALL get to decide re right wing propaganda lies -- no onus on us to protect LIES -- !!

[Bragi]

120. Lies should be forcefully exposed and condemned, not censored /nt

[defendandprotect]

123. The website is a LIE -- Koch Bros. activities have been based on nothing but lies/wealth ....

it's time for a response like this --

and here's another point --

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=524271&mesg_id=529993

[Bragi]

135. My additional thoughts on this are upthread here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=524271&mesg_id=532535

[defendandprotect]

136. There is, of course, an on-going threat to the internet --

I well understand your point -- it's a dual threat -- we uphold free speech rights

or we don't -- we tolerate even the speech we hate!

Free Speech is about the speaker, not the listener!


However, I will take this more as a prank -- and it is the right wing which has set

so many of these "dirty tricks" and foul pranks -- very successfully in the case of

ACORN and "Swiftboatings" etal --

so - no -- I'm not going to see this as the whole ship of state of "free speech" going

down because of Anonymous' attack on corporate speech bought by wealth.


It is liberal free speech which has so long suffered the attacks of the right wing --

in every foul and evil way possible -- from actal political violence/assassinations

which took our president and our people's government -- to continuing attacks on any

liberal leadership rising!

[TorchTheWitch]

132. you and me both

This is no better than what the other side wants... they want the speech THEY believe in to be free and the speech they don't believe in to be silenced. This is the same thing.

Aside from the free speech issue these attacks don't ever actually DO anything. All they do is draw attention to Anonymous and most of that attention is negative.

[defendandprotect]

137. Actually, you could look at this as more of a boycott of a corporation ....

and please see this response I just made to "Bragi" --

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=524271&mesg_id=533352

It's not as if this were an attack on any political or free speech --

it's their corporate website.

[Lorien]

110. Speech isn't free. in America you must be very well heeled

to be allowed to use the megaphone. The rest of us are not permitted access.

[defendandprotect]

124. That would be another point which I would move on to who's speech we are then defending?

Are we going to defend the "free speech" of the corporates/wealthy when it comes

completely at the expense of citizens?

Corporate free speech is BOUGHT and it attacks citizen's rights and legitimate

free speech. I wouldn't defend it!

[mistertrickster]

130. That is a good point. It's like "freedom of the press belongs to the man who owns one."

You could argue that Koch money buys them so much access that the average person's free speech is a whisper compared to the roar of Niagara Falls.

[defendandprotect]

138. Koch is a corporation engaged in political deception/manipulation -- via their wealth ....

I think that puts them in a bit of a different category than "Planned Parenthood"

or "Rainbow Coalition" or even "Heritage Foundation" --

[Hosnon]

112. Anonymous isn't a government entity so the primary threat doesn't exist here.

But the general concept of "free speech" does extend beyond government action. The best would be an honest free market of ideas (Koch, et al., might run aground on the "honest" part).

[liberation]

126. The "concerned" gonna "concern...."

[bdamomma]

71. it seems to be up

I just clicked on it. it should be down.

[NoPasaran]

76. It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye

Anarchists are not your friend.

[OnyxCollie]

83. Neither are authoritarians.

Go hug your security blanket and wait for Daddy.

[defendandprotect]

105. And who are those labels most often used against -- ?

People trying to make government accountable --

[liberation]

127. Oh, this is next level irony maneuver...

... you do know that your chosen screen name was a battle cry by, among others, anarchists during the Spanish civil war.

Ah, the massive bounds the concerned must leap in order to establish the satisfying, yet always false, equivalence.

[femrap]

77. Well, it's back up now....damn. nt

[Crowman1979]

79. YAY!!!!

:D :hippie: :party:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GwjfUFyY6M


Whoops, it's back up again. :-( :shrug:

[thecoyote23]

80. That's it?

I think Anonymous is pretty cool, but I don't think that the evil powers that be are shaking in their boots because their crappy front website isn't accessible. Anonymous and everyone else needs to step things up a bit if we are actually going to do some damage to these jerks.

[joeunderdog]

How long before Anonymous gets named and charged with Domestic Terrorism?

Seriously, you don't think that there is a massive hunt for these disruptors of the Repub Cause?

[Plucketeer]

84. My love is "Anonymous"

Keep ripping up the Asstro-turfs!

[JuniperLea]

86. Link works for me... booo...

Do it again! haha!

[ladywnch]

89. yeah, that's good and all but they really need to is get into Koch's internals

...their financial, their holdings, bank accounts (corporate and personal), etc,....then give all the info to Wikileaks just before deleting it ALL - including backups.......foreclose their houses, repossess their cars.... wipe out everything that makes them 'Koch Bros'.....leave them with the clothes on their backs...and nothing else.

To quote the line from the Count of Monte Cristo.....'tell them to take it.....TAKE IT ALL'.......

....then spread it all around to anonymous bank accounts throughout the world......starting with Wisconsin.

[defendandprotect]

93. I'm getting very found of these anonymous folk -- wish I knew something about computers!!

[Blacksheep214]

100. Perhaps this point is lost on some of us.

As the Tea Party has been bleating for a couple years, WE are in the process of taking our country back.
Stage 1 is the peaceful marches and protests. We can see that the process is being ignored, so...

Time to escalate to the next step, cyber warfare. Still peaceful, but the message is sent that we are not powerless.

Why do the tea partiers carry weapons? Do they want to fire the shot heard round the world?
This is the opening salvo in preventing the rich bastards from taking over.

This is not a game! Losing is not an option!

Just because I prefer peace, it doesn't make me a pacifist!

[defendandprotect]

107. The only valid response is a non-violent one --

[TxVietVet]

106. The kochroaches flee when exposed to daylight.

[white_wolf]

111. Go Anonymous!

We need more like them to fight the corporations.

[Birthday]

116. It works when I try it. n/t

[OneAngryDemocrat]

118. The People, United, Will NEVER Be Defeated!

K&R

[patrice]

121. It's back up.

[Kurovski]

122. Maybe Anonymous moved on.

[Kurovski]

128. The site is whining like a tittybaby over "illegal free speech attack"

But after every article they have a thumbsup/thumbsdown icon you can click...only the thumbsdown does not register. the articles only have "thumbsup" and zero thumbsdown

That's some grassroots you got there.

Chicken Fuckers.

[PA Democrat]

129. Koch Brothers think Speech = Money

They love money so much they cheat and steal from their own family members. Stay classy Kochroaches!

[DainBramaged]

131. It's back

[mdmc]

140. ..