| Sqrl said: As response to the last two paragraphs I do think you've made a commendable effort in bringing the discussion back to something manageable and civil. So on that note I'm very pleased and appreciative, but at the same time I hope you'll take this as no offense when I say I'm holding out final judgment for the time being as things could still make just as wild of a turn the other way...although I hope not.
|
Oh wow thats huge. I just realized that there were highlighted additions to my post lol. I think I covered most of it in my response to Final Fan, so I'll just make a few points.
-I certainly agree that there is cause for concern to a modern day opponent to the CoS's actions in terms of their safety. That said, for the various reasons I have stated I don't think this concern extends anywhere near the neccessity of protecting oneself by wearing a mask:
-Given the (unwanted) publicity the CoS is now receiving it would be organizational suicide to attack (physically or financially) any member of Anonymous that showed their face.
-The media is clearly on the protestor's side.
-The danger of being found out privately FAR outweighs revealing yourself to camera's, because if you believe that the CoS could murder someone over all this, their scope to do so is far greater if the media hasn't recognized someone as an Anonymous supporter.
-I would accept the strong possibility that things like internal memo's detailing "fair-game-like" tactics have not been halted, but rather reorganized into a more private manner. That said, as I stated in my response to Final-Fan, our belief that this is likely does not constitute proof. I guess my biggest gripe with you guys is the impression I get that your willing to bend the rules on things like the "rights of the accused" and "due process" and even "fairness" when it comes to an organization you do not like. I don't like the CoS at all, but no matter how convinced I (or you) might be of their wrongdoings, I still recognize that this must be proven by a public power higher than myself or a mob.
-Ok, this is my response to the last three highlighted paragraphs.
I firmly believe that a notorious serial killer that has a body found buried in their back yard deserves the right to a fair trial and fair treatment in the media leading up to that trial. Just because someone has done something wrong in the past does not strip them of their right to fair treatment this time around. What is this thread about if not holding the CoS to account for it's actions? Why should we not be able to hold Anonymous members to account for their actions?
At the end of the day I don't think your point about there being too many Anonymous members for the media to protect holds water, primarily for two reasons"
-The CoS may be evil, but it's clearly not stupid. The moment a member of Anonymous dies, the media would be up in arms and public pressure would dictate that the police HAVE to look at the CoS as a possibly involved party.
-The IRS isn't stupid either. The fundamental thing I feel your missing is that this is not ten years ago. The CoS is now in the public eye, and NOONE wants to appear to be influenced by them.
Here is the final point I want to address. Your "axe-murderer" analogy. I fundamentally agree that the police did the right thing in the case you outlined. The problem is, that isn't what is happening here. The police are a legally and morally empowered entity within our society. The mob is not. I would be completely behind any effort by the Anonymous group to directly involve the police in the situation.
starcraft - Playing Games = FUN, Talking about Games = SERIOUS
