Lawsuits, lulz.... this should be interesting.

While I agree that counter-protests are the only real answer, they don't work with the Phelps clan. These are people who have constructed a reality for themselves that is utterly impregnable to what everyone else calls 'reality.' Protesting them just makes them more convinced they're right; but not protesting them causes them to be disruptive and, yes, emotionally harmful at, for example, funerals.

Besides... duelling protests within hearing distance of a funeral is... rather tacky.

But the Phelps' clan lack of engagement notwithstanding, you are absolutely correct: Supporting free speech doesn't mean you have to be a doormat and let every intrinsically wrong statement pass without a reality check.

Well, it's more complicated than that.

Mind you, I don't think Anony will accomplish much with this other than deface their website, claim victory, and call it a day. Though I'm curious as to if they're thinking of doing more, there's just not that much you can do to the Phelps clan. They're not really a small family, though -- they're about 30 people, almost all of them related to Patriarch Fred by blood or by marriage. And they are all, apparently, lawyers. It's probably part of their home-schooling curriculum.

The further problem is that not everyone is laughing at the Phelps clan. There are quite a few conservative religious groups which either agree with them or agree with their message that 'God hates fags.' Pat Robertson tried to distance himself from him but he was doing the same thing that they were: Blaming things like Hurricane Katrina and the Haiti disasters on homosexuals. Patty is not really representative of fringe Christianity.

The fact is, American Protestantism is becoming increasingly radicalized. The Phelps clan may look like they're 'out there' but only because they are shouting at soldiers' funerals what a lot of congregations and churches and so on, have been quietly saying all along. You see it in part in their statements, filled with 'we regret their delivery,' 'we cannot condone disrupting the funerals of our dead soldiers,' 'they were unwise in their method of communication.' If ultraconservative Christians In Name Only are decrying the way the Phelps clan is delivering their message, they certainly aren't decrying the message itself.

Well, let me throw in a total hypothetical.... So, yeah, this is going to be batshit.

Say that somehow in the US (or your Western nation of choice) there is a real asshole of a politico. As in, all but ate kittens on television. Doesn't matter what his party or politics were. Did the whole hypocritical politician thing with regards to his religion. Went to Christian church, accepted communion, had the blessings of his minister, yadda yadda. In short, total asshole hypocrite.

Said politician dies. His church for whatever reason is still singing his praises as the best leader EVAR and are planning a big, elaborate, ostentatious religious funeral for him. Epitome of his faith, model to look up to, he will be properly interred with all the honor due to such a great man. Folks might have some other thoughts about the 'great man' part. They may see such a thing as an affront, a tawdry display, a mockery of all the church supposedly holds dear.

At that point, I can see a protest of the funeral being pretty fitting, no matter what your politics. But this was a contrived exampled, albeit one I can see, sorta. I vaguely recal this happening in a couple of nations that made a very rocky transition from autarchy to something slightly more egalitarian.

That being said... yeah, the WBC are obnoxious douchenozzles. I admit if the dropped off the face of the memesphere tonight, I wouldn't miss them.

Good observation. I went to SUNY Maritime College at about the time they hired Joe Hazlewood as an instructor. The man was probably the most exacting officer on a deck watch. Granted, he was conning a ship full of cadets that had a big-ass 'STUDENT DRIVER' sign on the stern kingpost, but he knew his stuff, and like you said, paranoia will be eating him alive any time he's aboard a ship.

Burlusconi has been Prime Minister of Italy for a long time now, in part by owning most of the media -- he started with a radio station and a newspaper in the south, and pretty much came to control everything. When he wanted the job of PM, guess who every newspaper endorsed for the job? He's basically the William Randolph Hearst of Italy, except Hearst never managed to hold an office.

Burlusconi is in it only for the power and will stomp on anyone to get his way. In a way, though, this is extremely instructive: This is what happens when you allow one person or a handful of people unrestricted control of the media.

or at least not without the help of a member of any US political party.

FTFTFY.

W0men l0ve a b1g un1verse! G3nu1ne v1@gra, C1@li5, f0r y0ur s1ngular1ty!

Make f0r her the best B@ng s1nce the B1g B@ng!

Hasn't it been established, though, that the universe will continue to expand until heat death?

And assume a perfectly spherical mathematician.

But you'd have a beowulf cluster of Mae Link Mak -- oh, forget it.

If what's coming out of Yemen and Egypt is to be believed, and the events in Iran two years ago, that's actually more or less what's happening.

Of course, after clicking 'Like' they go out on ten-thousand-person protest marches through the capitol and get gassed by the police, but there you go.

GP is pretty right on the money; twenty years ago, things were quite different. We scoff at Facebook and Twitter but there have been some interesting, actual events that may have been enabled by social networking, and certainly were enabled by the Internet and cellular phones.

In some parts of the world -- including, if some people on the left and the right are to be believed, in the US -- this is a lot more common than people think, or than most media outlets look into.

Without the Anonymous DDoS, the issue could have been handled by some nice letters and petitions, instead.

While I agree that the DDOS was illegal and arrests and sentencing is justified... are you serious? Since when in recent memory has any petition by mere unincorporated people, or any letters to a corporation by same, resulted in anything? Corps only change their mind only if they think it's almost too late. I have yet to see any such beast mend their ways after a mere letter-writing campaign. If you have some good high-profile examples of a multinational listening to a petition or to peoples' letters and actually changing in some meaningful way, I really would love to hear it; as it is, my faith in corporations is pretty damn low.

Civil disobedience is disobeying unjust laws, and getting arrested in order to put a face to the issue. I don't think these kids were protesting that DDOS attacks should be legal. That being said, it was a pretty non-violent protest. I don't think anyone was killed by it.