Proceeding from the premise that hacktivism is aggression, anti-hacktivists would also argue against the freedom of speech aspect raised by pro-hacktivists. Since by their destructive acts, they can be considered as using force in their aggression-critics assert that this can hardly be considered a promotion of the freedom of speech. How so?
Freedom essentially means the right to be left alone. When a hacktivist vandalizes a website, automatically there is an invasion of the right to freedom of speech of another individual, or group of individuals. Thus, there can only be promotion in its truest sense where each individual acknowledges, and more importantly, respects the freedom of another. Promotion necessitates tolerance of other views.
Perhaps the greatest criticism against hacktivism then is that it does not promote freedom of speech, rather it encourages and uses invasions of freedom. With a supposed “noble” cause that is more apparent than real, hacktivists really engage in acts that have always been at a great cost to others. Fuelled by a misplaced sense of justice and egged on by the mob, hacktivists in their quest to solve the ultimate problem, have themselves become part of it.
This blog does neither condemns nor discourages hacktivism, but only seeks to present both sides of the coin and document the exploits of the hacktivist group Anonymous. It should be said, however, that cybercrime of any sort cannot and should not be endorsed. Overall, millions of Internet users around the world are affected each year by cyberattacks, with many resulting in identity theft and massive financial losses. The fundamental question really (disregarding technicalities, legal jargon and stripping it down to the bare issue) is: should hacktivism be considered a cybercrime?
Nathan J. Marasigan, Entry No. 12