I asked that question on a political website and they deleted it within minutes.

Here’s a full description:
wikipedia article

Rule 1
Rule 2

Domestic Terrorists. Nothing more nothing less.

Domestic Terrorists. Nothing more nothing less.

Seems to me that’s about what King George III said right around 1776

I’m a patriot and King George was not. That makes my statement right.

They’re an organization that generally tries to promote freedom of speech / expression both online and in other places.

It’s a little fuzzy though since they don’t really have a coherent structure, a leader, or manifesto of any sort.

As a guy who has spent a minute or two on 4chan, I’d say the best way to describe ANONYMOUS is that it’s really more or less a media term to describe a sort of virtual group responsible for most cyber attacks around the world. It’s really hard to pin them down on anything, but I’d say promoting freedom of speech would be the one thing that is generally accepted as their purpose. Ask again somewhere else and I’m sure that you’d get a different answer though.

Anonymous is a group using civil disobedience to cripple those who oppose freedom. (looking over my shoulder as I am now targeted for thinking such thoughts.)

I have found several conflicting opinions of the group and hundreds of videos ostensibly of their making. The videos seem to be intended to intimidate their targets. I am leaning somewhat toward supporting Wikileaks and ANONYMOUS seems to have a great deal of interest in defending that organization also. Their other targets are somewhat off my radar. CNN advertised airing a documentary on ANONYMOUS on Saturday and my curiosity led me to google it and I was in for an eye opener. No one out here in the back woods had a clue. And as for Wikileaks, do many here favor or oppose Assange’s internet anarchy.

“I’m a patriot and King George was not. That makes my statement right.”

LOL. Good enough for me missleman.

Wikileaks? Eh, I have mixed feelings. For the most part I think we have a right to know certain things about what the government and other organizations are doing. On the other hand I do believe that people as individuals have a legitimate right to privacy and I also think that there are situations in which the government has a legitimate interest in doing things in secrecy. Then again, I think that sort of privelage or exception to the rule of public disclosure has been abused a little lately.

I guess I’d say that Wikileaks isn’t something I’m worried about, but I’m reluctant to fully support it myself. They seem to be a little to aggressive at times. I’m all in favor of transperancy and the such, but there is such a thing as knowing just enough to get you in trouble. I’d say organizations like ANONYMOUS and Wikileaks are a response to some trends in the last 10 years that are a little troubling. I don’t see either organization really doing a HUGE harm to anyone or blowing the top off anything.

I have found several conflicting opinions of the group

That’s because the group conflicts with itself. It supports good causes, such as freedom of speech, but also goes after various groups, as they put it, “for the lulz,” which is not a legitimate form of political protest.

Because it’s not an organized group beyond having an anonymous forum to talk on, a member or a group of members can decide to do something that the other members might not approve of. So the political activist members have to put up with the script kiddies screwing with people for no other reason than they think it’s funny, while the little anarchist jerk component of Anonymous has to put up with the political side’s activism that isn’t quite so funny.

Really, if the Anonymous social-conscious group wants to be effective, they’re going to have to split off from the rest of them and form some sort of organization. After all, right now a lot of people have a lower opinion of Anonymous than they do of PETA, which is a pretty remarkable achievement.