RichmondPhilsFan wrote:pacino wrote:anonymous put out their home addresses. that is too far, in my view.
yes, i'm serious, or i wouldn't have posted that. i don't think this is the way to 'attack' them. the way to attack them is to never mention them. ever. or, to simply joke protest them as has been successfully done before, which is far more cathartic than some entirely negative action which heals nothing.
Why is that too far? They've made a conscious choice to engage in reprehensible, yet legal, behavior. They voluntarily travel from their hole in Kansas to badger victims who unwillingly became a national news story. Why should they remain anonymous while the victims and their loved ones cannot? We're not talking about their bank accounts or social security numbers here... this is public information.
They are fully permitted to exercise their First Amendment rights. Yet there can (and should be) consequences for the irresponsible use of those rights. No one should engage them violently, but perhaps a large group of people could legally picket outside of their houses. Perhaps they should receive telephone calls from people who disagree with their view of the world at all hours of the day. Perhaps they should receive stacks of (non-threatening) hate mail.
Or perhaps someone can bash their faces in.
