Welcome, my friend and fellow citizen of the world, to Think Anonymously! I am Anonymous (and no, that's not my "real" name) and, as that psuedonym suggests, I am a member of the organization known as Anonymous. And just to preemptively answer your impending question, my friend, no, I am not a hacker nor do I have any interest (or the necessary skill) in becoming one. See, that's a common misconception that's being promoted and thrown about in the media: that the members of Anonymous are just a bunch of glasses-wearing, acne-covered dorky teens with some skill in hacking and a little too much free time that, just for the hell of it (a.k.a. "lulz"), break into governmental agencies, multi-billion dollar corporations, and the like. That view of us is completely false (seeing as that would be LulzSec :). And that encompasses my purpose in writing this blog: to get the voice of Anonymous out there, in the public's eye, so that people may be able to hear both sides of Anonymous' story, not the biased, one-sided account reported on by the media.

So, who is Anonymous? Well, to put it simply, we are a group of people, from all around the globe and from all walks of life, who hold two core beliefs above all: we believe, with every fiber of our beings, that all people are equal, and, in that equality, have a few basic, "inalienable rights: ...Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." And, we believe that our right to liberty, to the most basic human freedoms, most especially the right to think freely and to freely express those thoughts in a public or private forum, are being violated by the governments of the world through censorship and espionage.

So, what does Anonymous do about these gross violations of our most basic civil liberties? We fight back. No, not through violence, rebellion, or warfare, but by peacefully doing what we believe, nay, what we know is right! And yes, some of what we may do is illegal, but, like Thoreau, like Gandhi, like King, we believe in nonviolent civil disobedience, the peaceful refusal to obey the law, commands, and orders of the government that we disagree with and feel violate our natural liberties. We believe that man must obey his conscience first, rather than human law.

And so, my friend, are you ready to join the movement to defend your inalienable rights and freedoms from the forces of oppression? If your answered that question with a roaring, defiant "YES!", then read further, take a look at our website and forums at whatis-theplan.org, and see how you can get involved today.

And remember one thing, my friend: change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitablity, but comes through continuous struggle. And so, we must straighten our backs and work, fight for freedom. A man can't ride you unless your back is bent. So, friend, straighten your back, hold your head high, and look forward into the rising sun, towards a better tomorrow.

Friday, July 22, 2011

The Myth of Free Speech

In England, there has been a long-prevalent belief, widely held amongst the general population, that the public enjoys a little something called "free speech." To compound this, the citizens of the United Kingdom believe that the English Bill of Rights of 1688 guarantees this freedom.
Freedom of speech, the right to speak one’s mind without fear of censorship, without fear of punishment from the Queen, the State, the courts, the police, or, for that matter, any other citizen, is not a right assured to the general populace. Article 9 of the Bill of Rights only grants this basic human right to Members of the House of Commons. Ladies and gentlemen of the United Kingdom, you do not have the right to free speech. We are still stuck in the Dark Ages, where members of the ruling class, those of royal and noble heritage, hold rights and privileges that the people, through their very existence, have earned.
So what kind of freedom of speech does the public have if it is not what they suppose it to be? For an answer to that question, one should turn to a long-time Member of Parliament by the name of Charles Fox. A member of the Whig Party, Fox’s Parliamentary career, considered to be one of the most in history, lasted for over 38 years. On November 25, 1795, just like any other day, a bill was introduced into Parliament. But, unlike any other bill, this one, entitled the "Treason and Sedition Act," attempted to place even further restrictions on free speech, Fox spoke against it, making the case for the unequivocal right of man to speak his mind freely. It is in the first paragraph that we find a description of the freedom allowed to the public then and now.
"Our Government is valuable, because it is free. What, I beg gentlemen to ask themselves, are the fundamental parts of a free Government? I know there is a difference of opinion on this subject. My own opinion is, that freedom does not depend upon the executive government, nor upon the administration of justice, not upon any one particular or distinct part, nor even upon forms so much as it does on the general freedom of speech and of writing. With regard to freedom of speech the bill before the House is a direct attack upon that freedom. No man dreads the use of a universal proposition more than I do myself. I must nevertheless say, that speech ought to be completely free, without any restraint whatever, in any government pretending to be free. By being completely free, I do not mean that a person should not be liable to punishment for abusing that freedom, but I mean freedom in the first instance, The press is so at present, and I rejoice it is so; what I mean is, that any man may write and print what he pleases, although he is liable to be punished, if he abuses that freedom; this I call perfect freedom in the first instance."
This, my friend, is the "freedom of speech" that the British public has enjoyed before and since then. Not the perfect freedom granted only to Parliamentarians, but a qualified freedom, a restricted freedom. Free speech isn't for the public. You only have as much freedom as the government gives you.

No comments:

Post a Comment