| Final-Fan said: "Speaking in a broad sense (take the CoS out of your head for a moment), do you believe it is exceptable for a bunch of masked protestors to attack one person or organization?" I suppose that depends on the nature of the attack. If it's a bunch of people doing exercisinzg their constitutional right to free assembly in a civil and peaceful manner, and also speaking out against an organization which has a documented history of persecuting anyone who criticizes it or tries to leave it, well then I'd have to say that Yes, I do believe that such behavior is acceptable, particularly since the masked protesters have provided a (anonymous) avenue by which the organization being protested can confront the protesters and argue with them. I really think that you are exaggerating the "attacks" of Anonymous. More importantly, though, I think that you overlook what I see as the primary reason for the right of the accused to confront the accuser: NOT to see his face, but to have the opportunity to protest and argue against and interrogate, instead of merely being presented with a denunciation that someone has performed against you which cannot be questioned. The CoS has ample opportunity to interrogate Anonymous, and present counterarguments, etc. The ONLY thing the CoS cannot do due to the Anonymous mask is discredit or attack the individuals. There is no impact on its ability to discredit or attack the arguments or the evidence presented -- only the individuals presenting them. In many situations the identity of the witness is important to the ability of the defense to call into question the credibility of the testimony, but I don't think that is really applicable here. Do you disagree with that? If so, why specifically do you think that that is incorrect? And in any case, we're back to your position that no one should accuse anyone of anything unless they can prove it in a court of law, which I find frankly silly. I think we've cleared up many of the other major points and I'm frankly starting to run out of steam on this one. Or maybe I'm just tired; I'll see how it looks tomorrow. |
Whilst I DO see where your coming from, I still do not agree. So long as Anonymous remains hidden, it can say whatever it wishes to without any risk of philosophical reprisal. To use the word you used, Anonymous cannot possibly have it's individual members "discredited." But that's the thing, what if it's individual members are NOT credible? In most democratic nations, an alleged rapist get's to confront the woman her allegedely raped in court. She has to undergo rigorous questioning. And yet it is unreasonable to you for Anonymous' members to have to put their credibility and reputations on the line for their arguments, because the CoS might get the IRA to audit them (that was one of Sqrl's examples)?
I would argue that as long as their opponent remains invisible, there will ALWAYS be an impact on the CoS's ability to discredit the attacks or arguments against them. But equally, so long as Anonymous remains hidden, the credibility of their argument will always be somewhat dunious. As I've said, I agree with most of their arguments, but those arguments would be stronger if they made them openly.
I don't believe that noone should be accused of anything unless the accusation is provable in a court of law. That makes no sense as I fully support the fact that there have been millions of trials over the years that have resulted in aquittals. I simply disagree with the fact that we (society and the media) have universally declared the CoS to be guilty without a trial.
starcraft - Playing Games = FUN, Talking about Games = SERIOUS
