(In)famous anti-gay site hacked

July 24, 2001 9:23 AM

(In)famous anti-gay site hacked (copy) - The defacement says, in part, "nothin against 'First Amendment hosting' we support u just not some of ur sites". So if I understand correctly, they support the first amendment as long as they agree with what is being said? Doesn't this seem a poor form of protest?
posted by revbrian (24 comments total)

Doesn't everybody support the First Amendment as long as they agree with what's being said?
posted by darukaru at 9:25 AM on July 24, 2001

The actual site is relying on a poor understanding of the old testament and I certainly don't support their conclusions. Jesus wasn't known for his hate and his followers shouldn't be known for it either. Whatever happened to "Judge not"?
posted by revbrian at 9:26 AM on July 24, 2001

I try not to look to the hax0r community for guidance in Constitutional issues.
posted by jpoulos at 9:27 AM on July 24, 2001

free speech is fine and all that, but if it's a hate site, you get what you deserve.
posted by jcterminal at 9:58 AM on July 24, 2001

The actual site is relying on a poor understanding of the old testament and I certainly don't support their conclusions.

it's worse than that - the guy is a flaming mental case. he lives in a 'compound' with his 'followers' - mostly immediate family members - and the local paper has done expose's on them from time to time. i have links to information on the guy and his 'church' and his website. i'm at work right now and can't access them, but if there is any interest give a shout and i'll post here this evening.
posted by quonsar at 10:00 AM on July 24, 2001

History repeats itself... There's an article about the original godhatesfags.com hack from 1999 on Gettingit.com.
posted by waxpancake at 10:21 AM on July 24, 2001

free speech is fine and all that

Matt, can we have a tagline over here?
posted by thirteen at 10:32 AM on July 24, 2001

It’s surprising fourteen-year-olds with technical know-how are politically active at all. When not being tracked by the FBI “cybercrime” unit, they could just as easily be setting lawn furniture on fire.

I’m happy this particular kid has egalitarian underpinnings, but I don’t expect him to have fleshed out the intellectual ambiguousness between the libertarian ideal of free speech and the golden rule. Most adults haven’t.
posted by capt.crackpipe at 10:49 AM on July 24, 2001

I think you're misreading it. I read that message to say that the hacker doesn't have anything against the web hosting company, just the site itself. I don't see that he's got anything to say about the First Amendment at all.
posted by briank at 11:03 AM on July 24, 2001

A counterpoint site that has an expose of sorts about Fred Phelps.

My favorite anecdote is a more personal one though: My uncle (who used to live in Topeka) came upon a group of Fred's flock picketing on a corner one day and decided enough is enough. He proceeded to tell them they were a bunch of idiots, etc., told them his first and last name and recited his phone number as they videotape all encounters with the public and then drove away.

Sure, my aunt was pissed (she was a high school principal) and imagined they would begin picketing their house or her place of work, but all that happened was a couple of crank calls.

Kind of anti-climactic, but he said it made him feel better!
posted by sillygit at 11:54 AM on July 24, 2001

free speech is fine and all that, but if it's a hate site, you get what you deserve.

Uh. No. If you can't support your case any better than the other guy via an argument, you have no business trying to usurp what he's attempting to say merely because you disagree with it. Put up or shut up, basically.
posted by jammer at 12:59 PM on July 24, 2001

free speech is fine and all that, but if it's a hate site, you get what you deserve.

As a gay guy who's had the dubious pleasure of being personally called a "sinner," a "cocksucker" and an "oozing sore on the face of society" (he and his "church" (i.e., his family) picketed a memorial service I attended and I took the time to write down what he shouted at me on the memorial program), the only thing I'd find more offensive than Fred Phelps is you or anyone else deciding that Fred Phelps can't say whatever the fuck he wants because you think it's "hate speech." Spare me, and the First Amendment, thank you very much. Fred Phelps does more to discredit himself every time he opens his filthy mouth than you can do with an army of lawyers and a ream of restraining orders.
posted by m.polo at 1:07 PM on July 24, 2001

free speech is fine and all that, but if it's a hate site, you get what you deserve.

You're kidding, right?

Why are there so few people who can comprehend the concept of free speech and it's inherent provisions for "bad speech"?

THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT IS THAT NO ONE CAN DECIDE WHAT IS OR IS NOT 'ALLOWED' SPEECH!

Lord have mercy on us all.
posted by glenwood at 1:09 PM on July 24, 2001

See, in Canada, we don't have any of this Free Speech stuff. Does that mean I'm allowed to tell this dumb man to shut up?
posted by Marquis at 1:33 PM on July 24, 2001

See, in Canada, we don't have any of this Free Speech stuff. Does that mean I'm allowed to tell this dumb man to shut up?

Even here in the States, you're perfectly free to tell someone to shut up. The thing you can't do (except under certain circumstances, such as public safety or national security) is force them to shut up, or to somehow keep them from speaking, by coercion or censorship or whatever means.

Congratulations on being Canadian.
posted by RylandDotNet at 2:02 PM on July 24, 2001

Shut up!

:)
posted by Marquis at 2:10 PM on July 24, 2001

As you sow, so shall you reap.
posted by Twang at 2:47 PM on July 24, 2001

jcterminal:
free speech is fine and all that, but if it's a hate site, you get what you deserve.

Glenwood:
You're kidding, right?

Why are there so few people who can comprehend the concept of free speech and it's inherent provisions for "bad speech"?

THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT IS THAT NO ONE CAN DECIDE WHAT IS OR IS NOT 'ALLOWED' SPEECH!

Lord have mercy on us all.

Nooooo, the whole fucking point is that you can say what you want, and face the consequences thereof. If its hate speech then hang on to your package, 'cause there's a storm coming, and you asked for it. Don't pretend that the assholes who speak such tripe as Phelps deserve anything that the "right-thinking" don't. Just because I would defend a person's right to say what that one wishes doesn't mean I don't have the right to tell them that they're a fucking idiot.
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:58 PM on July 24, 2001

thank you wulfgar.
posted by jcterminal at 3:15 PM on July 24, 2001

let's remember that the First Amendment is binding on the government of the US, not the individual citizens thereof.

also, is telling jcterminal to "put up or shut up" the same thing as him or her saying that hatemongers get what they deserve?
posted by tolkhan at 3:23 PM on July 24, 2001

If its hate speech then hang on to your package, 'cause there's a storm coming, and you asked for it. Don't pretend that the assholes who speak such tripe as Phelps deserve anything that the "right-thinking" don't. Just because I would defend a person's right to say what that one wishes doesn't mean I don't have the right to tell them that they're a fucking idiot.

Yes you are. That does not and should not cover actions such as the hacking of websites - which is illegal. The individual(s) who hacked godhatesfags.com and posted a bunch of illiterate drivel which was nothing more than a bunch of ego-wanking bullshit have got it completely wrong. The individual(s) responsible for the godlovesfags.com website have the right idea - create a forum for an opposing viewpoint.

THAT is the freedom of speech, which entails the freedom to espouse your viewpoint. It does not authorize you to abrogate someone elses ability just because you happen to disagree with them. I don't agree with Phelp's viewpoint at all but I feel that he should be allowed to publicly admit his ignorance and possibly expose others who share his viewpoints so that the rest of us can avoid them or propogandize them as we wish - WITHIN the boundaries of the law.
posted by RevGreg at 3:50 PM on July 24, 2001

My good friend and co-worker is a former Baptist minister, Southern Baptist like Mr. Phelps (dumbass), but he no longer preaches the teachings of Southern Baptist. Why? Because he couldn't agree with all of the things they were telling him to say, much akin to the whole godhatesfags thing (fred phelps is a jackass).

While the Southern Baptist aren't as strict as the Old Standard Baptists, they still have a lot of regulations which contradict many pastor's beliefs.

Even though he is a Baptist minister (just not southern baptist, he is calling himself generic baptist for the time being) and I am gay, we still get along, go to lunch together, sometimes I have dinner with his wife and their friends.

The real problem is when people take a TRANSLATION of a Bible, call it the whole and unilateral truth, and codemn those who don't follow in their way.

Fact is, if Fred Phelps had his way, fags wouldn't be the only thing buring in hell. Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, everyone in California......

(side note: my theology is rusty, so please forgive me if I am not penning this EXACTLY correct... but Hell in the bible is not described at pits of fire and brimstone. Hell is the absence of god, according to the Bible. And thats pretty much any Bible you pick up. It does not say brimstone and lakes of fire. Hell is the absence of god. The supposed thing is, "what is eternity if you can not have god in it", which is what hell is supposed to be.)
posted by benjh at 6:48 PM on July 24, 2001

Speaking as a refugee from a strict Southern Baptist household, I can tell you Southern Baptist theology is very simple:

If you reject Jesus Christ you are going to hell.

If you accept Jesus Christ as yr lord and savior (the act of being 'saved') then you are going to heaven.

Thats it.

Any other belief they spout is just an extra splash of vinigrette on this solitary tomato and has no real bearing on the calories or nutritional value.

And they believe in 'once saved, always saved' which essentially means: no matter how much you fuck up, god will still love you and still accept you into heaven.

Therefore: if you have a salvation experience and later become an unrepentent sodomite (such as myself) you will still get into heaven. You will have comitted sins on a regular basis which will get you a slap on the wrist come judgement day but so will your christian sister who smoked three packs a day.

Sin is sin and according to the Bible there is no real difference in degrees. No one is sent to hell for being gay or fornication or being a liar or stealing or murder or smoking or ripping tags off of mattresses. According to scripture, all sins are equally wrong in God's eyes. Salvation is all about the acceptance or rejection of Christ.

You can be saved and still practice zazen, still pray in the direction of Mecca, live in California, have long pink hair, listen to Eminem and Marilyn all the live-long-day, and shake yr booty to electronically generated beats in the dark hours before dawn. The only catch is Christ has to be first in yr life. None of the cultural crap the southern baptists try to foist really matters at all in the context of their core beliefs. So the next time you see Falwell or Phelps or even Ashcroft saying something predictably ridiculous, remember how far they've departed from the simple theology which is at the heart of American Protestantism.
posted by pandaharma at 8:00 PM on July 24, 2001

Just because I would defend a person's right to say what that one wishes doesn't mean I don't have the right to tell them that they're a fucking idiot.

I didn't say you lacked the right to call them a 'fucking idiot'. But you do NOT have a right to hack into their website, or spraypaint 'idiot' on the side of their house. Get it? You have free speech too.

*sigh*
posted by glenwood at 9:53 AM on August 2, 2001