I generally agree with what Anonymous stands for, but I don't like their methods.
I whole-heartedly support free speech, and freedom of information.
However there is one exception I would make for "freedom of information."
Information that, if released at the wrong time, could put people in danger, sour relationships between nations, or at the worst case scenario, lead to war... I think that kind of information should be kept safe until it is no longer dangerous.
To clarify...
Information about say... torture camps and political corruption, or corporate abuse, I have no problem with such information being released, and would in fact go so far as to say that kind of information SHOULD be released.
However, any kind of information that poses a clear threat to the safety of civilians, or that could lead to war if released at the wrong time; that kind of information should be secure until it no longer poses a threat to anyone.
As for Anonymous's response to the WBC, I have to agree that it was a very mature and carefully considered response. They attempted to be civil towards a group they knew would not return the courtesy and attempted to reason with them. Though... judging from this and some other things the WBC has been up to... I suspect there is simply no reasoning with them.
I really hope the WBC's membership stays relatively low. The last thing the world needs is another group of unreasonable bigots gaining power and influence.