digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.

See the original image at sptimes.com —

Judge Denies Restraining Order Against Anonymous!

sptimes.com — Tuesday's suit, a petition for an "injunction for protection against repeat violence," was denied Wednesday afternoon by Circuit Judge Linda Allan, who ruled the relevant Florida statute does not apply to corporations.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • Aidenag, on 03/14/2008, -4/+459Finally a judge states that Scientology is a Corporation! Hopefully this is a step closer in having their tax exempt status revoked.
    • IAmTomCruise, on 03/14/2008, -4/+77Nooooo!!!! I AM MELTING!!!! MELTING!!!!
    • zspeed78, on 03/14/2008, -7/+29A non profit corporation can be tax exempt, most nonprofit are still corporations.
      • theaceoffire, on 03/14/2008, -0/+39How does Scientology NOT make a profit?
        • swicken, on 03/14/2008, -0/+36creative bookkeeping
          • colto, on 03/14/2008, -0/+11"It appears we have a problem with your financial records. Did you REALLY make $480,000 with your vending machines?"
      • Rijnzael, on 03/14/2008, -0/+11True, but how many other religious organizations are classified as corporations under US law?
        • jftitan, on 03/14/2008, -4/+2freaking sweet... like dominoes.... they all fall.

          But I do have to admit... they do have a lot of charity organizations that comes from that money. but who knows..
        • JohnFrum, on 03/14/2008, -0/+7Could be wrong but I'd assumed all of them. Not only does it shelter them from tax it shields the individuals from liability.
        • gernblansted, on 03/14/2008, -1/+3@jftitan: "they do have a lot of charity organizations that comes from that money. but who knows.."

          I have yet to see any 'charity' organization from Co$ which isn't just another way to flow needy and desperate people into the Co$ system. From Narconon (wikipedia: "In December 1988, the president of the Church of Scientology, Heber Jentzsch, was arrested in Spain after an investigation into Narconon revealed that he and the Church of Scientology were fraudulently stealing money from Spanish citizens and running its centers with unqualified staff.") to the members who comb the streets for homeless teens in downtown holywood (need food or a 'safe' place to sleep? I bet you're desperate - just work for us for life and we'll give you the answers) everything eventually boils down to "what does the 'church' get out of it?".
      • jeremyduffy, on 03/14/2008, -1/+4But a non profit corporation has to be... ba da duh!... non profit. Co$ is not. Not by a longshot. They were made to make profit, they make obscene gobs of profit. And they don't pay taxes. Them getting tax exempt status is one of the biggest and most successful scams in history.
        • mxmj, on 03/14/2008, -0/+5“If you want to make a little money, write a book. If you want to make a lot of money, create a religion.”
          L. Ron Hubbard
      • drvcr, on 03/14/2008, -0/+3It's easy, in Florida, to create a non-profit corporation as long as there is a significant religious, charitable or scientific component to the organization.

        Non-Profit Corporation is a misnomer. They are, in theory, allowed to make profits however they can not distribute those profits to shareholders or partners in the corporation. The profits must be used to either make capital improvements or return to the next fiscal year's budget.

        Obviously, members who donate to such an organization are able to the deduct the donations from their tax returns...

        I don't know how the IRS deals with COS, but in the past they have not been kind to religious organizations who have claimed to be non-profit. If Scientology is in fact making a profit, whatever little respect I have for the IRS will go down the drain.
    • funkyjunk3, on 03/14/2008, -0/+14Not only that, but free press! Imagine some guy looking at the signs in his newspaper. It's the best rallying article yet.
    • JulyZerg, on 03/14/2008, -7/+54No religion should be given tax breaks, considering how rich they are.
      • colto, on 03/14/2008, -11/+6I disagree if the church is actually doing something that is helpful to the community (i.e. charity work). Otherwise hell yeah tax them!
      • chokeaduck, on 03/14/2008, -0/+4What about the upstarts and lesser cults?
      • dagnome1984, on 03/14/2008, -0/+7Violation of the separation of church and state. It's a two way street. I don't want religion in my government on the other hand it also cuts the other way.
        • mikelieman, on 03/14/2008, -0/+6Religions don't SELL YOU enlightenment.
        • TheInfamousOne, on 03/14/2008, -0/+2@mike

          No, but they do make money. I believe that If I start asking for donations, i'm supposed to report them to the gov. so they can tax them. Even if I do charity work everyday.
          • kaeves, on 03/14/2008, -0/+2You can do it, too. You just need to get your 501(c)3.
          • mikelieman, on 03/14/2008, -1/+1I got nothing against making money... Hey, we all gotta eat.

            It's the Evil which I disagree with...
        • Kurlumbenus, on 03/14/2008, -0/+2It's not a two way street. A religion does not deserve the same respect (or lack therof) as a government.
    • Connormac44, on 03/14/2008, -46/+8You guys are going to destroy me via the red diggs, but I don't care. I need to voice my opinion about the whole thing.

      I'm not a Scientologist, nor will I ever be a Scientologist. The "religion" is pretty goddamned stupid, from what I've read about it, as it seems to take advantage of its members and act more as a capitalistic money grabbing scheme than a charitable establishment.

      I just don't understand why suddenly there's this massive uproar about this injustice. None of us are personally being affected by Scientology's ploy, nor is the greater good being threatened, nor are our taxes going to funding their religion or anything. There just seems to be this desperate desire to attach oneself to a cause. Why? Why can't we let the crazies be crazies while we go about our daily lives? Is it because we saw some Wachowski brothers' movie which urges us to stand up as a society against oppression? I'm starting to think so.

      Gimme a break, really. If we need to devote ourselves to a cause, why don't invest our time in something a little more relevant to the greater good? Reversing global warming? Bettering our image across the globe? Impeaching the duo of tyrants in the White House?

      This whole Anonymous schtick seems to be a convenient way to avoid actually making a difference. We sit in our computer chairs behind the safety of a screen, telling ourselves we're righting the wrongs in the world. In reality, we're wasting our time and denying society's real problems.

      I don't think this comment is a case of "well you're really not making much of a difference, so why try?" It's more "why invest energy in an issue as insignificant as a bunch of isolated crazies from a made up religion?"

      Let's do something real...
      • SaladCactusKing, on 03/14/2008, -2/+21If you could've prevented Waco, would you?
        • coyote1284, on 03/14/2008, -0/+14or Heaven's Gate, or that other whacked out bunch with the poison kool-aid that I can't think of the name right now? Mmmmm.... nahhh. Now Westburough Baptist Church, they're worth stopping.
        • Connormac44, on 03/14/2008, -18/+2Why does Scientology, above any other religion, show any indication of turning into a Waco massacre? Is the Catholic church not as greedy, deceptive, and blindly obeyed?
          • theaceoffire, on 03/14/2008, -0/+13I have a feeling that when the money runs out, suddenly it will be "time to be purged" of thetans.
          • RealmDown, on 03/14/2008, -0/+6Because of their practices. They are a serious threat to the public both physically and morally.
          • ThndrShk2k, on 03/14/2008, -0/+3"Is the Catholic church not as greedy, deceptive, and blindly obeyed?"
            No one says that they are not, but the church of scientology is using inhumane practices and other tactics that rival the past injustices the Catholic church has done (mostly during the middle ages in Europe)
            Is the catholic church doing this nowadays? No. it's bad press if it got out that they did. But the church of scientology is brainwashing people and uses US copyright law to hide their doctrine from the public as well as become secretive of their official practices that are not recorded in widely distributed books.

            People have the right to believe in whatever junk they want, ID, Speghetti monster, Fraggle Rock, but to deprive fundimental human rights is just not cool. This is what the church does to anyone it can, just so it can make a profit. It's not the matter that the catholic church did some pretty bad stuff too, it's more of the matter that the church of scieetology is doing this pretty bad stuff today, in an supposedly advanced world.
        • dagnome1984, on 03/14/2008, -1/+2So convict people of precrime?
      • likewhateeever, on 03/14/2008, -1/+45http://www.xenu.net/archive/disk/archive/quotes.ht ...

        Justice Anderson, Supreme Court of Victoria, Australia:

        "Scientology is evil; its techniques are evil; its practice is a serious threat to the community, medically, morally, and socially; and its adherents are sadly deluded and often mentally ill... (Scientology is) the world's largest organization of unqualified persons engaged in the practice of dangerous techniques which masquerade as mental therapy."

        Kenneth Robinson, British Minister of Health:

        "The government is satisfied that Scientology is socially harmful. It alienates members of families from each other and attributes squalid and disgraceful motives to all who oppose it; its authoritarian principles and practice are a potential menace to the personality and well being of those so deluded as to become followers; above all, its methods can be a serious danger to the health of those who submit to them... There is no power under existing law to prohibit the practice of Scientology; but the government has concluded that it is so objectionable that it would be right to take all steps within its power to curb its growth."

        Federal prosecutor's memorandum to the judge urging stiff jail sentences for 9 top leaders of Scientology who had pleaded guilty to criminal charges:

        "The crime committed by these defendants is of a breath and scope previously unheard of. No building, office, desk, or file was safe from their snooping and prying. No individual or organization was free from their despicable conspiratorial minds. The tools of their trade were miniature transmitters, lock picks, secret codes, forged credentials and any other device they found necessary to carry out their conspiratorial schemes."

        Justice Latey, ruling in the High Court of London:

        "Scientology is both immoral and socially obnoxious...It is corrupt sinister and dangerous. It is corrupt because it is based on lies and deceit and has its real objective money and power for Mr. Hubbard... It is sinister because it indulges in infamous practices both to its adherents who do not toe the line unquestionably and to those who criticize it or oppose it. It is dangerous because it is out to capture people and to indoctrinate and brainwash them so they become the unquestioning captives and tools of the cult, withdrawn from ordinary thought, living, and relationships with others."

        Judge Breckenridge, Los Angeles Superior Court:

        "[The court record is] replete with evidence [that Scientology] is nothing in reality but a vast enterprise to extract the maximum amount of money from its adepts by pseudo scientific theories... and to exercise a kind of blackmail against persons who do not wish to continue with their sect.... The organization clearly is schizophrenic and paranoid, and this bizarre combination seems to be a reflection of its founder, L.Ron Hubbard."

        Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Paul Breckenridge, June 1984, in the Gerry Armstrong case:

        "In addition to violating and abusing its own members' civil rights, the organization over the years with its 'fair game' doctrine has harassed and abused those persons not in the church whom it perceives as enemies."

        California appellate court, 2nd. district, 3rd. division, July 29, 1991, B025920 & B038975, Super. Ct. No. C 420153:

        "In January 1980, fearing a raid by law enforcement agencies, Hubbard's representatives ordered the shredding of all documents showing that Hubbard controlled Scientology organizations, finances, personnel, or the property at Gilman Hot Springs. In a two week period, approximately one million pages were shredded pursuant to this order."

        California Supreme Court, United States v. Lee [455 U.S. 252,257,258 (1982)*/:

        "When a person is subjected to coercive persuasion [as in Scientology] without his knowledge or consent ...[he may] develop serious and sometimes irreversible physical and psychiatric disorders, up to and including schizophrenia, self-mutilation, and suicide."

        USDJ Judge Leonie Brinkema 4 Oct 96 Memorandum Opinion, RTC vs Lerma:

        "The dispute in this case surrounds Lerma's acquisition and publication on the Internet of texts that the Church of Scientology considers sacred and protects heavily from unauthorized disclosure. Founded by L. Ron Hubbard, the Scientology religion attempts to explain the origin of negative spiritual forces in the world and advances techniques for improving one's own spiritual well-being. Scientologists believe that most human problems can be traced to lingering spirits of an extraterrestrial people massacred by their ruler, Xenu, over 75 million years ago. These spirits attach themselves by "clusters" to individuals in the contemporary world, causing spiritual harm and negatively influencing the lives of their hosts ".

        Lord Denning:

        "...capable of such danger that the public interest demands that people should know what is going on"

        Judge Constandia Angelaki:

        "It is an organization with medical, social and ethical practices that are dangerous and harmful,"

        "It claims to act freely so as to draw members who subsequently undergo ... brainwashing by dictated ways of thinking that limit reaction capabilities."
      • jchrome, on 03/14/2008, -5/+14You raise some good points and although I agree -to a degree- with the larger sentiment you are expressing, I believe you're over-thinking this.

        They do it for the lulz.
      • funkyjunk3, on 03/14/2008, -3/+17Anonyomous is NOT the only group on digg that protests many different wrongs. There are people here who do go to anti-global warming rallies, impeach Boosh rallies, etc.

        • likewhateeever, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1Absolutely right
        • dagnome1984, on 03/14/2008, -1/+1What about this?
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNO6G4ApJQY
        • coyote1284, on 03/14/2008, -1/+2What "wrong" did Haribo or Second Life ever do? anonymous doesn't protest wrongs, they just do it for the lulz, that's it. anonymous didn't screw with Scientology to for any greater good, they did it because they thought it would be fun.
        • likewhateeever, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1 I'll digg you .. I think Scientology should be stopped but two wrongs do not make a right , ***** like that will just discredits legit people that want to stop Scientology by legal means
      • jabberwolf, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1Simple - if you allow something like this to happen to others... it will only be a matter of time it effects you. Doing nothing for others is tantamount to doing nothing for yourself.
    • MikeFallopian, on 03/14/2008, -0/+12Look up the legal definition of a corporation, it's not what you think. But a nice win for anonymous regardless.
    • GibitStylin, on 03/14/2008, -0/+2i agree... here might be the next instigator...
      http://digg.com/world_news/Possible_bomb_threat_Sc ...2
    • ArchangelZLT, on 03/14/2008, -0/+6You know what, Scientology should be classified as anti-humanity and its leaders should be arrested. Pity the cops are too busy listing terrorism suspects to do that.
    • jargonaut, on 03/14/2008, -0/+4Yes, the definition of corporation would help some ppl on here who are confused. Most churches in America are incorporated and accept donations to the church under the corporate name. And let's face it: all religions make money. Besides possibly the biggest banks in the world, there is no richer corporation than the Catholic Church. The difference between a for-profit corporation (a bank, etc) and a non-profit corporation (church, aid group, etc) isn't whether they MAKE money, it's whether or not the profits from the money they make are to be distributed to the owners of the company or not (as profits). Salary is a different thing. And I believe there are some parts of CoS that are for-profit corporations, such as the book publishing parts which don't do religious things.
    • jabberwolf, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1Where are the T-SHIRT sales?!?! "I'm an SP - Kiss me" or " I'm a PTS and proud of it!" Sell them across the street from all the Scientology churches!
  • jigulous, on 03/14/2008, -10/+191DENIAL ... Not just a river in Africa.
    • gcnaddict, on 03/14/2008, -5/+31I see what you did there.
    • oxdeltaxo, on 03/14/2008, -0/+44For all I care they sail their fail boat down denial.
    • SuperWinner, on 03/14/2008, -0/+12Huge success
      • colto, on 03/14/2008, -1/+8If anyone makes a comment about "Making a note here" in this thread I am going to break their kneecaps. I just might even tear them to pieces.......and throw every piece into a fire. ***** now I'm doing it.
        • Mr.Gone, on 03/14/2008, -0/+4I'll make a note of that.... right here. Just to reiterate, I'm making a note here.
        • NeoNevermore, on 03/14/2008, -0/+2Calm down. Have some cake.
    • Tophillious, on 03/14/2008, -1/+1Correct me if im wrong, but isn't the Nile River in Egypt??
  • Skitzzo, on 03/14/2008, -3/+143How the hell do you file suit against Anonymous? You have to name people in lawsuits and isn't that sort of the point of being Anonymous? I realize they named 26 people in the second suit but surely they must know that there will be others there to replace anyone they push out.
    • Weaselski, on 03/14/2008, -0/+13you can name parties as John Does when you file if their ID could not be reasonably ascertained. But at some point they will have to be named or dropped from the complaint.
      • undersky, on 03/14/2008, -0/+2exactly. class action suit could file claim again A and potentially unlimited amount of other John Does if later it turns out more ppl could be sued in the same case.
    • familynight, on 03/14/2008, -0/+6i think that you also have to serve notice on the enjoined parties, and i have no idea how they could reasonably serve notice in this case. even if people identified themselves as part of "anonymous," what the hell does that even mean? there's no real organization and the members come from a wide variety of places. the injunction would have to be more general than allowed.
      • PURPLEDRINK, on 03/14/2008, -0/+2exactly, anyone who thinks anonymous is a group is just a retard. thats like saying everyone who goes to ebaumsworld.com is part of a group. That would be like filing suit against anyone who may or may not disagree with Co$... oh wait it is. Even the judge insulted them by calling them a corporation, almost as if to say "wtf is this *****?"
    • jabberwolf, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1Lawyers are creative (in a demented way) . They can sue objects, people, organizations, governments, and even non existent figments of their imagination. So long as judges allow it ( this one hasn't) lawyers can sue anything and anyone for their client.
  • TSCheredar, on 03/14/2008, -4/+71Matthew Dakan was one. A 28-year-old comic book appraiser from Sarasota, he is named in the lawsuits, but says he isn't a member of Anonymous.
  • syroncoda, on 03/14/2008, -4/+47haaaaaaaaaaahahahahhahahahahahahaha! i wonder what CAP'N EL RON (z0r) would have thought about all this. sitting in his big boat in space or whereever these people think happens when they die, looking down and laughing at the silly celebrities raking in loads of cash because their sheeple are a little on the spendy needy side of the spectrum.

    remember kids, if you have a problem, throw some money at it and there will be religious nutters from around the world ready to stuff it in their pockets and tell you how to make all your problems disappear. GROW THE ***** UP. sort your ***** out. get on with life.
  • jigulous, on 03/14/2008, -2/+59Wow. Yesterday there were close to 5000 diggs on the article announcing CoS's injunction. Today one might imagine >= that same response knowing the suit was denied. Am I missing something here?
    • likewhateeever, on 03/14/2008, -3/+36Scientology has an organized effort to bury Scientology related stories maybe that is why
      • bagboyrebel, on 03/14/2008, -8/+1sorry, but that's *****. This article made the front page and there was a period of time when 9 of the top 10 stories were about Scientology. Even if you are right about Scientologists burying stories then that only proves that the stories were being posted at a rate that could be considered spam.
        • anstice85, on 03/14/2008, -0/+8No, there was an email sent out by the COS earlier telling them to digg a certain pro-Scientology story on here. Scifags are here and queer.
        • Xondar, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1And L. Ron Hubbard's book, Battlefield Earth, made it to the New York Times bestseller list because it was an epic opus of science fiction.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlefield_Earth_%28 ...
    • kibiz0r, on 03/14/2008, -1/+24Scientologists were happy when they were getting an injunction but now that it's been denied they're a bunch of grouchy pants?
    • joot2112, on 03/14/2008, -0/+25A "church" potentially suing to inhibit free speech is more interesting/sensational than the news that a court is protecting an obvious right.
    • acis1, on 03/14/2008, -0/+5there was an email that was leaked to enturbulation.org and other sites that linked to digg and told the scientologists to help out. it is truth and fact. it has been confirmed.
      • jigulous, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1I've heard of the CoS doing this type of thing before ... Including planting violent people in Anonymous' peaceful protests. Does anyone have the ability to track any of this behavior? Email chains, server logs, forum posts, video, or anything else?
  • elwoodblues, on 03/14/2008, -2/+47But now they are trying new tactics...including infiltration and incitement
    http://digg.com/world_news/Scientologists_march_on ...
    • funkyjunk3, on 03/14/2008, -0/+8http://forums.enturbulation.org.nyud.net:8080/view ...
      please use this rather than the linked one in the article. I'd rather see the forums stay put for Anonymous members to gather in than for it to be hosed by the Digg effect.
    • 4d669, on 03/14/2008, -5/+3More of their tactics:
      http://www.youtube.com/user/anonymousexposed
      • Fordi, on 03/14/2008, -0/+11Hehe. That user's a shill. First thing: "The core of the group is composed of racists, religious bigots, and online predators."

        There is no core. Anonymous is all who participate.
      • wetard57, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1Is youtube broken? was it the Pakistan again?

        time is 3AM Cental
      • Frost9999, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1That video was interesting to watch. This whole thing between Anonymous and the CoS is likely to be a propaganda war. He who markets their information best, wins.
  • BeeArePro, on 03/14/2008, -44/+8We Are Ano---... errr, who gives a *****.
  • oyflaaaayvin, on 03/14/2008, -6/+16"Tuesday's suit, a petition for an "injunction for protection against repeat violence," was denied Wednesday afternoon by Circuit Judge Linda Allan, who ruled the relevant Florida statute does not apply to corporations."

    *zing!*

    /hail Xenu
  • michaelfitz, on 03/14/2008, -4/+19Because you can't feasibly attempt to sue a group of unidentifiable persons that may or may not exist (in the minds of the law; Anonymous obviously exists though) for crimes that are dubious if not nonexistent?
    • radu79, on 03/14/2008, -0/+2Just because you call yourself anonymous doesn't mean you don't exist, just like calling yourself invisible doesn't mean you are not visible.
      As someone pointed out, you can file a lawsuit against an unknown person, and the identity of that person might be revealed by a court order or something.
      In this case, I guess they were seeking a restraining order against protests by the Anonymous, and I would guess it would be hard for them to get such a restraining order, because of the free speech and stuff.
      • michaelfitz, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1Perfectly true; as a legal type, I just find the idea of trying to sue an anonymous individual, or group for that matter, extremely paradoxical and ironic.
  • chicoer2001, on 03/14/2008, -3/+48Another federal judge puts down Scientology
    • Mattja, on 03/14/2008, -0/+8............./´¯/).............(¯`
      ............/....//........... ...\...
      .........../....//............ ....\...
      ...../´¯/..../´¯.........../¯ `...\¯`.
      .././.../..../..../.|_......_| ............
      (.(....(....(..../.)..)..(..(. ....)....)....).)
      ................./.../..... ../................/
      ................... /........................../

      Yeah I was just looking for a chance to troll with this.
      BUT ***** SCIENTOLOGY.
  • freakon, on 03/14/2008, -2/+78Weird that scientology is smart enough to trick people into giving them money, but isn't smart enough not to pursue frivolous lawsuits.
    • carpespasm, on 03/14/2008, -0/+23I don't think it takes a whole lot of brains to convince people with emotional problems to give you money when you say you can make them better.
      • michaelfitz, on 03/14/2008, -1/+2Neither of those require much (or any) intelligence.
      • RealmDown, on 03/14/2008, -0/+3A good example is the current election.
    • wordglue, on 03/14/2008, -7/+1My theory, and this is about to be really really unpopular, is: Scientology started Anonymous as a publicity stunt and then real people joined in because they genuinely hate scientology. I can't speak as to whether the anonymous movement is still in their control or not, but think about the "epic" wins lulz lulz, they've actually been nominal and generated big publicity. Scientology board members are NOT stupid, that would be a very big mistake to underestimate the enemy...so this frivoulous lawsuit as you rightly say is very fishy.
      • Kurlumbenus, on 03/14/2008, -1/+2Welcome to the internet.
      • Fuze07, on 03/14/2008, -1/+2You sir, are a complete idiot. Go read an Internet manual and then come back on digg.
  • linkin2, on 03/14/2008, -11/+1that's some weird 404 error
  • SaladCactusKing, on 03/14/2008, -3/+52Clearwater's Closed Due To Thetans! 3/15!
  • implied, on 03/14/2008, -2/+22"...Dakan said he gave his name to someone who identified himself as a reporter and later saw someone photographing his license plate. "

    Dont give your name to anyone and don't ***** park anywhere near the buildings so you can make sure you don't have a tail.
    • PHiZ187, on 03/14/2008, -2/+11I have a prehensile tail, thanks you insensitive clod.
    • Cerebron, on 03/14/2008, -2/+2I think he just wanted proof he isn't Anonymous.
    • Fordi, on 03/14/2008, -2/+2Doesn't help if you're followed.
      • AussieFox, on 03/15/2008, -0/+1Yes it does, if you think your being followed (which having to walk to your car gives you time to work out), go somewhere to eat, go shopping.
    • jigulous, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1Plain and simple ... Be extremely cautious with your identity when going anywhere near a CoS. Especially in Clearwater. It's scary how many surveillance cameras there are EVERYWHERE throughout that entire town.
  • lickmylovepump, on 03/14/2008, -5/+26tom cruise likes to put gerbils in his rectum and pretend he is a 19 year old girl.
  • Hangly, on 03/14/2008, -3/+11I thought corporations were legal persons...?
    I approve of this ruling.
    • Drkgodess, on 03/14/2008, -0/+3Yes, but not with respect to restraining orders which are meant to protect individual's from violence. How would a corporation as an entity need protection from violence?
  • cjs119545, on 03/14/2008, -8/+3He must be a member of ANON!!
  • NikoKun, on 03/14/2008, -2/+61Violence? LOL what violence?

    Scientology classifies protests as "violence"... -_-
    • PHiZ187, on 03/14/2008, -0/+38Independent thought is violence towards brainwashing.
    • MasterRex, on 03/14/2008, -3/+2Maybe they're talking about the constant DDoS attacks that have been plaguing their web servers?
      • NikoKun, on 03/14/2008, -0/+2Maybe... but that's no reason to block a protest. LOL
  • digitallysick, on 03/14/2008, -2/+133/15 its on! Power in numbers , im ready to see it grow, anon needs to release a new video and gain more support.
    • funkyjunk3, on 03/14/2008, -0/+10With this article you just did. How many Clearwater saw the Anonymous videos before this article? probably not as many who've just googled Anonymous and are watching it now.

      Just look at google trends: http://www.google.com/trends?q=anonymous&ctab=0
      see that spike at the end? That's from all this news coverage.
  • swgc5, on 03/14/2008, -3/+16Epic win!
  • coffee200am, on 03/14/2008, -3/+40Lisa McPherson died needlessly at the hands of Scientology. Hubbard Tech produced the death of a young vibrant woman. Killed by the Church of Scientology.

    http://www.lisamcpherson.org/
  • funkyjunk3, on 03/14/2008, -2/+27This news article is the best damn press release Anonymous could have gotten. Not only is it free, but it forces the Average Joe who's reading it in his newspaper to ask why a "church" would go to a judge for a restraining order for protesters, and get's Anonymous' message out much, much further.
  • Osirus1156, on 03/14/2008, -2/+7Was there any doubt?
  • Drkgodess, on 03/14/2008, -3/+64They tried to fight the lulz and the lulz won...
  • PHiZ187, on 03/14/2008, -2/+44CoS has lawyers. Anonymous has truth!
    • Kurlumbenus, on 03/14/2008, -0/+3Truth to lawyers is like garlic to vampires.
  • Codename46, on 03/14/2008, -2/+23Eat *****, Scientology!
  • OSuX, on 03/14/2008, -2/+10You know what I think, there are alot [[Comment Removed by the Church of Scientology due to Thetan levels]]
  • diggsahole, on 03/14/2008, -8/+19"We are Anonymous. We are legion. We will not fail."
  • DaviDTC, on 03/14/2008, -2/+95Imagine if it went through.
    "Are you part of anonymous?"
    "No."
    "What is your name?"
    "I wish to remain anonymous."
  • likewhateeever, on 03/14/2008, -2/+14http://digg.com/politics/Scientology_using_dirty_t ... .. do these people have no shame !?! . Using their own kids as a weapon in their dirty war against peaceful protesters. It's criminal !!!!
  • stellandfly, on 03/14/2008, -2/+8I'm not surprised. They never had a chance.
  • bradcrc, on 03/14/2008, -2/+37dugg for a judge with a brain... too rare these days.
  • DiggLive, on 03/14/2008, -2/+15XENU SMASH!
  • KloroFormd, on 03/14/2008, -2/+7Here's some celebratory 'Still Alive' by GlaDOS.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6ljFaKRTrI
  • JSKYs, on 03/14/2008, -4/+14We are Anonymous
    We are the People
    We see the Truth
    Let us set you Free
  • d0onut, on 03/14/2008, -2/+24Anonymous: Anonymous are anonymous. Who're they going to restrain?
    I wonder who said that.
  • RichardOSA, on 03/14/2008, -2/+8Find your local protest against Scientology happening THIS SATURDAY here: http://forums.enturbulation.org/viewtopic.php?f=8& ...
  • DeePsix501, on 03/14/2008, -7/+2I know you can't "restrain" anonymous from protesting, as it violates civil rights, they might have a point about harsh phone calls and messages. I'm sure a lot of people made malicious phone calls when this whole thing started.
  • Soar, on 03/14/2008, -4/+1Obviousness? In my silly court cases? It's moar likely than you think.
  • lilricky, on 03/14/2008, -8/+2I still think there's a chance that the "church" created Anonymous, to try and drum up support for themselves. They may have also created it to frame their outspoken opponents, as we have seen in this latest court action. It wouldn't be the first time. Of course I could be completely wrong and Anonymous is a real organization determined to show the "church's" real agenda. Lets hope I am wrong.
    • anstice85, on 03/14/2008, -0/+0....
    • shadus, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1O_o Conspiracy theorist much? Anonymous has existed for years. Their big failing is failure to maintain interest long term... they never forget but they get bored and wander off aimlessly after a while.
  • whatisnttaken, on 03/14/2008, -2/+33Scientology: " I can has restr-"
    Judge: "No."
    Scientology: ::handfaceplant::
  • aserer511, on 03/14/2008, -3/+11in for lulz.
    I am going this saturday
  • sark666, on 03/14/2008, -2/+8from here: http://forums.enturbulation.org.nyud.net:8080/view ...

    Ok so heres what's going down in Australia. Scilons have formulated a plan against anonymous.

    lol. From this day forth, they should be called Scilons! Frak em I say.
  • agentx216, on 03/14/2008, -6/+2Does anyone have a link that the article mentions that Scientology posted on Youtube about Anonymous?
  • KloroFormd, on 03/14/2008, -4/+6http://www.fairgamed.org/lawsuit.htm

    Relevent. DON'T BE DISCOURAGED, GET OUT THERE AND PROTEST!
  • anewname, on 03/14/2008, -7/+1I wonder if anyone will go this time. The media coverage last time was pretty poor and I haven't seen nearly as much about it on digg.
    • likewhateeever, on 03/14/2008, -0/+5I thought the media coverage was good. The Anon protests made me aware of this evil cult .

      I think the coverage should be even better this time ( all the fake bomb reports and restraining orders) .... It's amazing how self defeating these goons are .
      • nunu4u, on 03/14/2008, -0/+3Where have you been? the protests were covered world wide and coverage still continues. Go over to entubulation and get caught up! Locally, the LA Times ran a couple of articles and local tv news has covered the protests.
      • anewname, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1Here in Canada a swiffer disposable mop got about 3x more airtime than the protest did. The local paper had 2 or 3 articles, only 1 of which was widely distributed.

        Most (and I mean by a large margin, most) people I speak to have no idea what happened, what Scientology is, or Anonymous for that matter.

        Meanwhile, all I heard today was "Did you see the picture of that governor's hooker? Damn!"

        Yeah. Lots of media coverage.

        The media stinks.
  • Macattack15, on 03/14/2008, -2/+9I love the reader comments on that article.

    "Over 9000 protestors worldwide on February 10th, and not one single arrest."
    "Over 9,000 citizens worldwide protested peacefully"

    961 Diggs! Thats over 9,000!!
  • rinote, on 03/14/2008, -1/+13"David: The Church of Scientology is playing right into their critics' hands by demonstrating the very reason why they oppose them. Brilliant strategy!"

    Oh David. lol.
  • junkwheel, on 03/14/2008, -1/+4Anonymous have grass roots momentum.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 88 of 88 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.