As a libertarian, I really can't support those sorts of actions. They are aggressively attacking and interferring with private organizations business. Not cool. There are other more legitimate ways to show support.

I find this to be a tough issue to judge from a moral standpoint, but I'm going to have to agree.  On the one hand, are these corporations the active partners and benefactors of state aggression?  Yet on the other hand, if the neighborhood mafia boss commands all the neighborhood shopkeepers and patrons under the threat of his protection racket to stop doing business with your shop because you pissed him off, you can't really justify throwing a brick through their front windows in anger when they follow his commands.  

As far as attacking the Swedish Prosecution Authority, I'm sorry I'm going to have to approve of that one.  It has the word authority right in the name and that just bothers me!!!!

I'm of two minds on this. I don't disagree enough with what they're doing enough to codemn it, but I don't agree enough to condone it.

It's kind of like watching the school bully get bullied. You don't condone bullying for anyone, but you can't help but enjoy seeing someone get what they deserve.

I feel like the cyber attacks on the corporate entities may be justified, as some of the leaked diplomatic communiques show that the U.S. State Department was lobbying on behalf of at least two of the sites affected by the cyber-attacks.  However, as far as sites like PayPal and Amazon, they are themselves victims of government coersion when it comes to wikileaks, and faced pressure from Senator Lieberman, and possibly other agents of the U.S. Gov't.

The Swedish Prosecutors Office is definitely a legitimate target.

And to some extent, because the U.S. Government limits the liabilities of corporations (at the same time making the rest of the population infinitely liable) they can be seen as legitimate targets.  Although to do so would be to harm a lot of innocent people that are totally unaware that the activities of these corporations (by being incorporated in and of itself) are acting immorally.  I think that educating people about the immorality of corporate personhood is a better tactic.

I won't be attacking any organization, but will be boycotting many of the offending companies.

A representative for WikiLeaks has stated that they neither endorse nor condemn the activity of 'anonymous'.

PayPal has since relented to the mob and returned the money owed to WikiLeaks which it illigetimately confiscated after closing their account. I am unsure about the other card companies.

Someone who uses the tag 'coldblood' in the UK gave an interview with the media to explain the actions of 'anonymous'. Soon after 'anonymous' came out with a statement that 'coldblood' doesn't represent 'anonymous'. It's all very silly and often contradictory.

It is altogether likely that the nature in which 'anonymous' operates will allow for false flag activity against them. If the internet is a series of tubes, then 'Anonymous' is wielding some very large gardening shears: They're well capable of sabotaging their own goals.  Either way, some ignorant media pundits are conflating WikiLeaks and Assange with 'Anonymous', and using it as a justification for labeling everyone involved as terrorists. The noise is drowning out the substance of the leaks, and this appears intentional. The government even leaked their battle plan, which involves threatening sources and discrediting the participants in general.