digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Scientology Attempts Restraining Order Against Anonymous

sptimes.com — "With the Internet activist group Anonymous threatening a second round of protests against Scientology this weekend, the Clearwater-based church went to court late Tuesday, filing a petition for a temporary restraining order."

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • anon93752, on 03/12/2008, -13/+1176The right to assemble and speak is part of the United States' FIRST AMENDMENT, Co$! Your cult is afraid of freedom of speech!
    • AXNJAXN, on 03/12/2008, -3/+464How do you enforce a restraining order against a large group of anonymous persons?
      • madpie, on 03/12/2008, -2/+168for that matter, how do you provide proof of service of a group of anonymous people? "We sent a copy to their last known address ... oh, wait, we have no idea who they are...."
        • michelspc, on 03/12/2008, -1/+179From the article:

          "Representatives of Anonymous could not be reached for comment."
        • Mejari, on 03/12/2008, -6/+54I'm using my psychic powers to divine the contents of that restraining order. Praise Xenu!


          From: Scientology
          To: The Internets

          Dear Internets,
          Plz don't protest, k? We don't want to have to use our guys with machine guns. Oh wait, yes we do. Nevermind. See you saturday!

          Luv,
          Your Friendly Neighborhood $cilons
        • Smwbigboss, on 03/12/2008, -3/+21As long as they don't find out that anonymous's headquarters is ebaumsworld, they should be fine.
          • MewtwoReturns, on 03/13/2008, -8/+2Why does Anonymous still use eBaum's World as its cover for everything? Eric Bauman, the person Anonymous despised, NO LONGER HAS A STAKE IN THE WEBSITE. He sold it for $17.5 million. If you get actuion takes against eBaum's World by using it as your scapegoat, you're not hurting the person you actually want hurt.

            I'm not even an eBaumfag, but this is just wrong.
          • BigBlimpin, on 03/13/2008, -2/+1Dude because Anon does use ebaumsworld. Duh.
        • mysedai, on 03/12/2008, -1/+12@Smwbigboss
          Great, now you've let the cat out of teh bagz.
        • mattmcm, on 03/13/2008, -0/+7@Mysedai - Im out of ure bagz, blowin ure coverz.
      • xenuxenuts, on 03/12/2008, -1/+114Obviously you have to ban anonymity.
        • RRJackson, on 03/12/2008, -7/+30Did you see the recent ban on anonymous comments used in message boards?
          • misterhat, on 03/12/2008, -3/+31Check the article again.
          • RRJackson, on 03/12/2008, -1/+32Should have read "proposed ban"...sorry.
      • gn0stik, on 03/12/2008, -2/+56FTA: "Representatives of Anonymous could not be reached for comment."
      • jigulous, on 03/12/2008, -1/+28Exactly what I was thinking when I read the article. Wonder if the judge is a Scientologist? Remember ... we're talking about Clearwater, FL.
        • oxdeltaxo, on 03/12/2008, -0/+22It's entirely possible, however that will make things much much worse for them. It'd look bad if a sceintologists judge backed up sceintologists, it would look unfair and biased.
        • amr05h, on 03/12/2008, -0/+18Most people who live in Clearwater feel very negatively toward the 'Church'.
        • mysedai, on 03/12/2008, -0/+5Yeah, scientologists care whether the rest of us think they look unfair and biased...
      • RRJackson, on 03/12/2008, -16/+1You mean like the Ku Klux Klan?
        • lotu, on 03/12/2008, -2/+20The Ku Klux Klan is allowed to protest and they do have marches so I'm not sure what your point is.
          • RRJackson, on 03/12/2008, -1/+3They were also infiltrated by the FBI and have been in court nonstop for the last 30 years. Not to defend them any more than I'd defend Scientology, but anonymity isn't a protection against anything if your opinions don't mesh with the ruling majority.
          • Vlatro, on 03/12/2008, -2/+1Anonymity is not protected. Examples of the Klan in particular exemplify this. Many counties have banned masked marches and protests. You're either an "Out of the closet" Klan member or you don't participate. This has been upheld as constitutional.
          • pintomp3, on 03/12/2008, -2/+3the klan was also actively involved in organized crime, lynching, murder, church bombings, killing civil rights workers, etc. . i hate scientology, but they are no comparison to the klan.
          • RRJackson, on 03/12/2008, -0/+5Way to miss the point. And I wasn't comparing the Klan to Scientology. I was comparing "Anonymous" to the Klan and the safety of "Anonymous" to the lack of anonymity that we institutionally provide to those who seek anonymity.
          • RRJackson, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2BTW, pintomp/Vlatro, that was kind of my point. The Klan is a classic argument used against anonymity's protection. "But they break laws, so screw 'em." That precedent will undoubtedly be used (along with current Hate Speech laws) against "Anonymous" along with a long list of legal offenses, both real and imagined. I agree with the actions Anonymous is taking against Scientology, but don't be all that surprised if the CoS's lobbying power allows this to all spin into religious persecution and Hate Crimes.
      • Vlatro, on 03/12/2008, -10/+17While I agree this is ridiculous, and clearly is an offense to first amendment rights, consider this:
        The First amendment of the constitution enables the right to protest and speak freely in objection to any government entity. It doesn't mean you can say whatever you want to who ever you want any time you want. There are tons of exceptions, like sedition or threats of violence etc. It also does not guarantee the right to anonymity while protesting.

        So to protest, first petition. Have each member state this:
        I {insert name or alias} acting as an individual with no affiliation to any organization, anonymous or otherwise do of my own free will and in accordance of my beliefs...

        Sign the petition and firebomb the fruitcakes back to their respective galaxies of origin. Or better yet, fight fire with fire. Propose a law that retains accountability through various lifes. When they find they owe back taxes for previous lives, or that their souls didn't obtain proper immigration paperwork when arriving on this planet... Oh the fun we could have in court. Yes it makes a mockery of the judicial system, but apparently so do some judges.
        • KentAllard, on 03/12/2008, -6/+13It doesn't mean you can say whatever you want to who ever you want any time you want.
          In public, yes it does.
        • scuvball, on 03/12/2008, -0/+17@KentAllard

          Actually, you can't. There are libel and slander laws for a reason - to protect people from others who would knowingly, falsely defame them.
          • doeboy, on 03/12/2008, -0/+14I'm pretty sure that libel and slander are torts - part of civil law. I can still say whatever I want, but I may be held liable in civil court to the person who was libeled/slandered.
        • gotamd, on 03/12/2008, -1/+9You have an interesting interpretation of the 1st Amendment. It is not conditional:

          Congress _shall_make_no_law_ respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
          • Monk22, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1but your right end where mine begin and that sounds like a condition to me
      • HeDiggMe, on 03/12/2008, -2/+42This totally reminds me of an old Onion headline about "Bush demands al Qaeda form country so we can bomb it".
      • Schmich, on 03/12/2008, -1/+15Yeh I loved this part of the article:
        "Representatives of Anonymous could not be reached for comment."
      • jimdidr, on 03/12/2008, -0/+3You take every Scientologist and put them in an air tight room... just in case...
      • Kikinou, on 03/12/2008, -0/+5You get the cops to block off streets, easy. Plus I'll bet most of the cops in Clearwater are members anyway.
    • sponeil, on 03/12/2008, -49/+7Aren't most churches? I mean, I don't think Buddhists are afraid of freedom of speech, or the Quaker church, but other than that...
      • ExGhost, on 03/12/2008, -5/+29Did you get that impression from watching The Da Vinci Code?
      • drakenlot, on 03/12/2008, -27/+2It's not much they're afraid of FoS, they're afraid of people who abuse said right.
        • OldJesser, on 03/12/2008, -6/+13How do you 'abuse' freedom of speech exactly?
          • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 03/12/2008, -7/+19"FIRE!!!!!"
            "Obama's a muslim."
            See?
          • OldJesser, on 03/12/2008, -0/+12At least one isn't covered by freedom of speech, and the other is considered slander if it is used in a derogatory manner. Is he a muslim? If he is, it's a fact and you are free to say it. If he isn't and it may be detrimental, it's slander, is it not?
          • LeeSoong, on 03/12/2008, -8/+2Obama (peace be upon him) truly a man touched by the prophet.
          • KentAllard, on 03/12/2008, -0/+4you abuse freedom of speech by criticising the church of scientology, pretty obvious really.
          • oneoverzero, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1"If he is, it's a fact and you are free to say it. If he isn't and it may be detrimental, it's slander, is it not?"
            He's considered a person in the public eye...
          • LeeSoong, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1detrimental ?

            Only a racist would say being a part of the great nation of Islam is detrimental.

            Why is being a Muslim 'detrimental' ?
      • Lyk4n, on 03/12/2008, -2/+7They aren't afraid of free speech, they are afraid of free thought..
      • tikidrummer928, on 03/13/2008, -0/+5i'm zen buddhists and one of our "beliefs" is to question authority including your buddhist teacher. it invokes a higher thinking. that's just my two cents.
        • detonate, on 03/13/2008, -1/+1Buddhism is definitely the best religion... If I were religious it would be the one I'd go for...
    • ElAssoWipo, on 03/12/2008, -48/+8The right to property is in the bill of rights though... You can't use legal arguments to defend illegal acts, no matter how moral and appreciated these acts may be. Anonymous attacked COS property and gained access to private property. And since Anonymous attacked media outlets of the COS, it is anonymous who denies freedom of speech to COS. But hey, you can't even really file a complaint against anonymous. It's anonymous. It refers to nobody. Plus restraining orders can only be between two parties, so I don't get how they're going to accomplish anything.
      • cornswalled, on 03/12/2008, -5/+27"Anonymous attacked COS property and gained access to private property."

        Example please? Or are you just a COS shill?

        "And since Anonymous attacked media outlets of the COS,"

        I assume you're referring to the supposed DOS against Scientology web sites that may, in fact have been a flood of legitimate traffic that just overwhelmed their underpowered servers. If so, then if COS can provide evidence that any of the protesters were among the "hackers" then the restraining order might have a leg to stand on.
      • spyrochaete, on 03/12/2008, -16/+4I agree completely. COS uses the law to further its cause, so anyone opposing them will have to operate solely by legal means as well or they will get caught up on technicalities and misdemeanours. Claims of copyright infringement (for things like leaked training manuals or DVDs) often fall on apathetic ears, but trespassing and aggression are not so easily overlooked.

        I don't know how much the world can expect from a group who refers to their rivals as "Scifags". Anonymous needs to grow up if they want to play in the big leagues.

        Toronto's "raid" apparently went very smoothly with on-site Police calmly overseeing the entire non-violent protest. Every aspect of the Anonymous movement should exert the same demeanour in every action or it will be written off by the general public as the musings of children.
        • Mejari, on 03/12/2008, -2/+5Show me where COS uses legal means to do what they do. Just because they make it legal in their little mecca of Clearwater doesn't mean it's legal in the rest of the world.
          • spyrochaete, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1If you need me to show you examples of the COS using lawyers to quell critics then you have no business discussing this matter.
        • H3LLSL337, on 03/12/2008, -0/+10Uses the law to further it's case? Using legal means? Ever heard of Operation Freakout? How about Operation Snow White? Neither of these were legal, in fact, people went to prison over these activities.
        • orbitn, on 03/12/2008, -4/+0I agree 100% about the "grow up" bit. I can understand why they hide their identities; Scientology is shady and i certainly wouldnt want them sending goons after me. But you can't expect to be taken seriously when all your posts end with "We are legion." Unless, of course, you are a hoard of demons stuck in one mans body. Then it's sort of scary.
      • ElAssoWipo, on 03/12/2008, -20/+3F for reading comprehension.

        Also,
        "if COS can provide evidence that any of the protesters were among the "hackers" then the restraining order might have a leg to stand on."

        They declared themselves that they were Anonymous.

        Furthermore,
        "The Internet-based group "Anonymous" has released statements on YouTube and via a press release, outlining what they call a "War on Scientology". Church of Scientology related websites, such as religiousfreedomwatch.org have been removed due to a suspected distributed denial-of-service-attack (DDoS) by a group calling themselves "Anonymous". On Friday, the same group allegedly brought down Scientology's main website, scientology.org, which was available sporadically throughout the weekend.

        Several websites relating to the Church of Scientology have been slowed down, brought to a complete halt or seemingly removed from the Internet completely in an attack which seems to be continuous. The scientology.org site was back online briefly on Monday, and is currently loading slowly.

        On Monday, the group released a video titled: "Message to Scientology" on YouTube concerning their intentions to attack the Church of Scientology. A robotic voice on the video begins with "Hello leaders of Scientology. We are Anonymous," and continues by explaining their motivations: "Over the years we have been watching you, your campaigns of misinformation, your suppression of dissent and your litigious nature. All of these things have caught our eye. With the leakage of your latest propaganda video into mainstream circulation the extent of your malign influence over those who have come to trust you as leaders has been made clear to us. Anonymous has therefore decided that your organisation should be destroyed." The message goes on to state that the group intends to "expel Scientology from the Internet".

        They declared a war on the church of scientology. They declare themselves that they are a "hacker group".

        And finally, if you deny the church of scientology their property rights based on their idiotic beliefs, you have to do the same for all religions, being all equally stupid.
        • Mejari, on 03/12/2008, -3/+14F for understanding concepts.
          A) Scientology is not being protested for its beliefs, though pretty much everyone agrees they are retarded; the protests are against the ***** and illegal things they do to their followers and critics.
          B)"They declared themselves that they were Anonymous" Just because you affiliate yourself with a group doesn't make you responsible for the actions of every member. The previous posters point was that the only way the restraining order might work is if they can prove the same people behind the DoS attacks will be at the protests, which is likely, but pretty hard to prove to a court of law (excluding Clearwater, which has no law besides LRH).
          C) They do not declare themselves as a "hacker group", they declare themselves as a group which includes hackers, among many other types of people.
          • ElAssoWipo, on 03/12/2008, -11/+3A) You mean like DOS attacks?

            B)"The previous posters point was that the only way the restraining order might work is if they can prove the same people behind the DoS attacks will be at the protests"

            Why would they file a restraining order when they can send them to jail and sue them? The only thing you need for a restraining order is two parties that are alive.

            C) And Scientologists never declare themselves to be "a cult" they declare themselves as a group which is lead by a cult leader.

          • cornswalled, on 03/12/2008, -2/+9ElAssoWipo,

            I'm sorry I wasted time replying to you. I hadn't paid attention to your user name and had missed the fact that you're a mindless little troll, posing contrary argument wherever you go for the sake of getting a rise out of people.

            Congratulations for fooling me long enough to respond to your drivel.

            I wonder what you REALLY believe...
          • ElAssoWipo, on 03/12/2008, -9/+3cornswalled,

            I'm sorry your arguments were so easily defeated.
          • Mejari, on 03/12/2008, -1/+1A) Um... What? What do the DOS attacks have to do with who is being targeted? I mean if you really want to get into it yes, the DOS attacks are against the leadership and limiting their ability to spread their deceptions. They use that website to collect money from their members and suck more people into their scam. Its not like the majority of scientologists are deeply affected by the websites downtime.

            B) Because, as their own documentation says, legal action is best used as a threat. Actually going through with a case and suing someone is a last resort, as it is a wast of precious money, which they value above all else. Plus, as previously mentioned, the chances of them actually finding the people involved is small. I don't really see how your 'response' even trys to refute my claim that just because someone claims to be Anonymous doesn't mean they are.

            C) Labeling something as a cult is completely different from claiming affiliation with a group. The definition of cult is usually not applied by the people within the cult, and is in that way subjective. I don't care if you call them a cult or if you call them a business or if you call them a religion, it doesn't change what they do and how they do it, which is what the problem is. Claiming you are part of a group is also subjective, and the group as a whole can reject that claim, as Muslims have done with suicide bombers and as Anonymous has done with the people who perpetrate these threats.
          • H34d5h0t, on 03/12/2008, -2/+0You didn't defeat cornswalled's arguments. A) "Scientology is not being protested for its beliefs, though pretty much everyone agrees they are retarded; the protests are against the ***** and illegal things they do to their followers and critics." - cornswalled "You mean like DOS attacks?" - ElAssoWipo What? You do DOS attacks against yourselves??? He means Operation Freakout and Operation Snow White for instance. B) "Why would they file a restraining order when they can send them to jail and sue them?" Ehm... maybe because no one knows who they are?... "The only thing you need for a restraining order is two parties that are alive." And proof. C) "And Scientologists never declare themselves to be "a cult" they declare themselves as a group which is lead by a cult leader." 1. Are you trying to help help or harm CoS here? I never heard or read that CoS are declaring themselves nor their leaders a cult or cult leaders. 2. This is what I call an ad hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem if confused). 3. Overall, you suck at arguments.
          • H34d5h0t, on 03/12/2008, -2/+0woops... I suck at editing comments :P
            I even tried to double post since I can't seem to find any edit button... didn't go quite as planned :P
          • ElAssoWipo, on 03/12/2008, -1/+1"the DOS attacks are against the leadership and limiting their ability to spread their deceptions."

            Infringement of freedom of speech: conceded.

            B) no reasonable person would buy that ridiculous argument. Hacking is a criminal offense, a restraining order still allows them to attack.

            C) Random diatribes. You made the point that anonymous contains hackers for me.
          • Mejari, on 03/12/2008, -0/+2A) I wasn't condoning the DOS attacks; as I said the majority of Anonymous has nothing to do with them, I was simply saying that they follow in the goal of trying not to hurt the average scientologist, but only hurting the money grubbers at the top where it hurts: the wallet.

            B) Again, ignoring my claim that a restraint against a large group of people because of the actions of a few is ridiculous. If they find who is responsible and can prove it, yes, by law they should be punished. That doesn't mean someone only related to them by a nebulous group that has no true connections should also be punished.

            C) Who has ever said Anonymous didn't contain hackers? My point was that not everyone in Anonymous is a hacker. Not everyone is involved in a vast conspiracy to take down the scientology website. You are advocating that those people who are uninvolved should have their right to free speech restricted because of the acts of some other people, which makes no sense to me. Also, nice job labeling it as a random diatribe when I was simply refuting the argument you made about word choices. I didn't bring it up, you did.

            I like this Lettering thing :)
          • ElAssoWipo, on 03/12/2008, -3/+1Ok then, let's say the Nazis invade your city. If you see someone dressed like a nazi, will you assume he isn't?
          • Mejari, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1That would only make sense if the people who were doing the DOS attacks sat outside the scientolgy churches on their laptops with masks on. No one knows what the people doing the attacks look like, where they are, etc... There is most likely zero connection between the DoSers and the protesters. The DoSers attack, the Protesters... protest.
          • PleaseJustDie, on 03/12/2008, -0/+3*mentally changes "offensive?" to "stupid?" and clicks "Report It" and "Block" to ElAssoWipo.*
        • H34d5h0t, on 03/12/2008, -2/+2You didn't defeat cornswalled's arguments.
          A) "Scientology is not being protested for its beliefs, though pretty much everyone agrees they are retarded; the protests are against the ***** and illegal things they do to their followers and critics." - cornswalled
          "You mean like DOS attacks?" - ElAssoWipo
          What? You do DOS attacks against yourselves???
          He means Operation Freakout and Operation Snow White for instance.
          B) "Why would they file a restraining order when they can send them to jail and sue them?"
          Ehm... maybe because no one knows who they are?...
          "The only thing you need for a restraining order is two parties that are alive."
          And proof.
          C) "And Scientologists never declare themselves to be "a cult" they declare themselves as a group which is lead by a cult leader."
          1. Are you trying to help help or harm CoS here? I never heard or read that CoS are declaring themselves nor their leaders a cult or cult leaders.
          2. This is what I call an ad hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem if confused).
          3. Overall, you suck at arguments.
      • ooby, on 03/12/2008, -0/+2The bill of rights doesn’t include the right to property. The only rights regarding property in the bill regard warrants and eminent domain, which describe when and how the government can take or use your property (Fifth Amendment).
      • detonate, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1It stinks of clams in here...
    • NoCt1, on 03/12/2008, -13/+1The link. sptimes.com= scientologies pathetic times.com
      • Aeron, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2as soon as I saw it I thought, "Suppressive Person Times"
    • Spuy767, on 03/12/2008, -8/+68As much as I hate Westboro Baptist Church's spewing of their viewpoint, I shall fight to the death for their right to spew it. If we allow a church to picket the funeral of homosexuals or actors who protrayed homosexuals in movies, and a restraining order is issued against a group of people to prevent them from protesting at a church function, then that is a clear violation of the seperation of church and state and will be a matter taken to the supreme court.
      • Matt2k, on 03/12/2008, -6/+19I wouldn't really fight to the death. I mean. That's a pretty big commitment.
        Just sayin'
        • Firehed, on 03/12/2008, -19/+8That's why America is a nation of pussies and people who do nothing but whine on their blog about their government.
          • alittleroy101, on 03/12/2008, -4/+22Ah, a nation of pussies. Coming from Rambo himself, I imagine.
          • Speed, on 03/12/2008, -11/+3I don't understand dying for someone else's freedoms. Dying for your rights, ok, that makes sense. Dying for a person to say something you disagree with? Doesn't make too much sense. Just saying. I'm all for freedom, but I'm not going to put my life on the line for Billo or Westboro to spew hatred.
          • nobodyUwannakno, on 03/12/2008, -1/+6if Americans "do nothing but whine on their blog" then the Corporation of Scientology has no reason to get a TRO enjoining unnamed persons and/or marcabians against bringing cake to L Ron Hubbard's birthday party.
          • cJw314, on 03/12/2008, -7/+6Dugg up, Firehed - speak the truth.
          • LeeSoong, on 03/12/2008, -0/+5hmm, doesn't sound that bad if you're the only guy in town . . .
          • snakespm, on 03/12/2008, -0/+9One person's right to speak is just as important as the next. When one person's (or group's) rights get violated, that can then be used as a stepping stone to violate others rights. I really hate to godwin a thread but this out stands out in my mind:

            They came first for the Communists,
            and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
            Then they came for the Jews,
            and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
            Then they came for the trade unionists,
            and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
            Then they came for the Catholics,
            and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
            Then they came for me,
            and by that time no one was left to speak up.
      • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 03/12/2008, -11/+2Harassment is illegal you know...
        • betterth, on 03/12/2008, -0/+9Protest, however, is not.

          What CoS does to Anon however, could be viewed as harassment. It is what CoS does best.
      • colin8651, on 03/12/2008, -2/+16great comment spuy767.
        The best way to suppress stupidity like the Westboro Baptist Church, is to allow them to talk to as many people as they can. Give them a big forum and the world will be reminded everyday that evil, in some shape or form, is always out their and always present. When you block it, you enable it to fester like an infection. Hate is a disease, the public needs to be made aware of its danger.
        • pintomp3, on 03/12/2008, -3/+6that's more like letting an infection spread. many hateful and ignorant religious leaders profit from a larger audience, just look at megachurches and the 700 club. the best cure is education and awareness.
          • dinostabOMG, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2I disagree that they are entitled to a forum provided by the public, but I don't think it's a good idea to suppress anyone for what they think - that will encourage a (justified) sense of injustice and self-righteousness in the group, and make them more adamant and polarized.
      • dfeifer, on 03/12/2008, -3/+11Actually, most of the funerals that they were picketing did not involve homosexuals themselves. They believe that the all the problems that have been going on are due to homosexuals. This also leads to their belief that any person in the armed forces, deployed to Iraq or any other theater of threat, that is killed in action, died because they were or supported homosexuality. Really, their slanderous rhetoric, and really protesting/picketing, IMHO should not even be allowed at a funeral. This kind of stuff is really the last thing that a family burying a loved one needs.

        Kudos to the patriot guard.
        • mysedai, on 03/12/2008, -1/+3Those guys planned to show up to picket a funeral here in small town Tennessee. When they saw the thousand or so bikers that turned up to protest them they left.
          And, there was much rejoicing.
      • orbitn, on 03/12/2008, -2/+1I believe in freedom of expression, but the WBC makes me question my beliefs from time to time about the 1st amendment. I wish they were just IRL trolls, but i honestly beleive that man is satan walking the earth. I find it hard to believe he's gotten as much media attention as he has; a man like him deserves to rot in ambiguity.
      • pintomp3, on 03/12/2008, -2/+5they have every right to spew it, but not at a private funeral. the tolerance of intolerance is dangerous and can lead to the destruction of a free an open society. censorship is not the answer, education and awareness are.
      • joshblufs, on 03/12/2008, -1/+2Protesters do not get carte blanche to do whatever they want. There are many practical restrictions and protesting within earshot of a funeral is a restriction I'm proud to support.
      • Killian14, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1No, dumbass, Westboro was forced to face a lawsuit for their picketing at funerals.
    • unusualbob, on 03/12/2008, -3/+107If this ***** gets through our legal system...
      Solution:

      Police- Hi um I am sorry but you cant protest here because Scientology has a restraining order against you guys.
      You- Oh don't worry, I am not a part of Anonymous, I just think that the fact that Scientology is ruining our society as a whole and brainwashing people completely sucks.
      Police- So whats with the mask if you arent a part of anonymous?
      You- Oh well Scientology has a history of attacking people who dont like it, this is just for my own protection.
      Police- Oh ok well as long as you arent with Anonymous.
      • cJw314, on 03/12/2008, -0/+19LOL. Since when do "Police" act like this?

        You're wearing a mask? Ok, you're with anon. Come with me...

        OR...
        No more protesting... or 'free speech zones' will become the norm.
      • LeeSoong, on 03/12/2008, -6/+20More Like This:


        Police- Hi um I am sorry but you cant protest here because Scientology has a restraining order against you guys.

        You- Oh don't worry, I am not a part of Anonym-aaaAH!

        Police- Suprise! TASER TIME!

        brrrzzzz ticky ticky ticky ticky...


        Anonymous has always come across as a Scientology marketing platform-
        I never hear about that group unless someone is complaining about it.
        The Anon group builds up some big act, Scientology lawyers take it to court,
        court finds in favor of scientology because Anon has been making a big deal
        about attacking scientology, and court rules in favor of scientology,
        granting scientology more power and control, while taking away more freedoms from everybody else.

        The problem with joining the herd mentality and following the crowd:
        You don't see the cliff until it is too late.
        • tehWhisp, on 03/12/2008, -0/+2Dugg for "ticky ticky ticky ticky" imagery.
      • luana1980, on 03/12/2008, -5/+1Dreamer...

        http://youtube.com/watch?v=XCB0HkaH0oU

        • nubnub, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1THATS COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL!
        • Fordi, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2O.o

          Holy *****. can you say 'Fabrication'?

          You can tell which videos are lies; they don't have to cherry pick the audio.
      • Halfang, on 03/12/2008, -0/+3Oh sir, can you show me your anonymous membership card?

        I told you I'm not member of anonymous!
    • irinotecan, on 03/12/2008, -0/+19It occurrs to me, they don't care that it's illegal or will get struck down on appeal, they just need it in place for one day, to disrupt the protests on their "special day" (LRH B-Day). I guarantee you they won't persue it on appeal, they are just hoping some dumbass judge will approve it long enough to spoil the protests on that day.
      • Phylodome, on 03/12/2008, -0/+2By "dumbass" judge do you mean "scientologist" judge on their home turf?
    • torressr3, on 03/12/2008, -6/+1Hell yeah brother!!
    • dodgejon, on 03/12/2008, -2/+4There is a right to protest, but these are attacks against their groups, not protests. Being this organization is a huge profiting scam, they dont want attacks that will deter big dollars.
    • Malevolant, on 03/12/2008, -0/+23As long as protesters aren't on their property, and are protesting without violence, there's nothing they can do. This is guaranteed under the constitution.
      There is no way around -
      Freedom of speech and the right to assemble
      If any judge gives them a restraining order against peaceful protesters then the judge should be removed from the bench. Don't give them any fuel by doing stupid things while protesting.
      • GreenAlien, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2"Don't give them any fuel by doing stupid things while protesting."

        Wise words. This is exactly the kind of provocation tactics CoS use too, so they have something to use against you.

        Case in point. Just look at how they provoked the BBC Panaroma reporter into having to raise his voice amid constant in-you-face bullyboy tactics over a prolonged period of time. Then people like Travolta come out and say how poor the reporters behaviour was, totally ignoring the provocation and piss poor behaviour by the CoS shown on film.
    • themastersb, on 03/12/2008, -1/+10How do you get a restraining order against thousands of anonymous people?
    • dragonrice, on 03/12/2008, -9/+5Hi I'm a Scientologist and if you guys attend this protest I will stalk you for the rest of your life. Bai!
    • llbbl, on 03/12/2008, -3/+11SPtimes.com .... Did anyone else LOL at that URL?
    • Icriminal, on 03/12/2008, -0/+3If the honestly think they can get away with breaking the first amendment, anyone can stand in front of a building and protest with a mask on!
      unless they have a corrupt judge on payroll,it probaly wont go through
      • Fordi, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2It will in Back^h^h^h^hClearwater.
      • ohnoihavenoname, on 03/14/2008, -0/+0Or unless you're at the Atlanta protest, where masks are illegal.
    • grawity, on 03/12/2008, -1/+10*This comment was removed by Church of Scientology Anti-criticism Task Force.*
      • Zerkave, on 03/12/2008, -1/+6you mean the ''office of special affairs"?... some of the same people that did "operation snow white"?
    • siszam, on 03/12/2008, -18/+4They have the right to freedom of religion without being persecuted too. But I know how you atheists get angry when people refuse to convert to your religion.
      • REM333, on 03/12/2008, -2/+91) Scientology is not a religion
        2) Atheism is not a religion
        Please leave Digg.
      • barnett25, on 03/12/2008, -0/+8Freedom to destroy peoples lives? I don't think so.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult
      • Drkgodess, on 03/12/2008, -0/+6You can believe what you want, but the organisation behind scientology is an evil corporation. We have the right to protest anything we damn well please whether you like it or not =)!
      • Malevolant, on 03/12/2008, -0/+9Scientology is not a religion. It's a pyramid scheme built upon the backs of those who can't afford it, and too desperate, to find better help. I know this from personal experience. My ex-gf was a hardcore Scientologist, mentally unstable, and broke as a joke.
      • sunkist22, on 03/12/2008, -0/+4you're like an 8 year old girl, stomping her feet, and throwing a tantrum that you aren't being treated fairly or with respect when you refuse to do the same to others. Wonderful example you're setting for your 'religion'
      • fmkegl, on 03/12/2008, -0/+8Anonymous isn't protesting their religion or their faith, they are protesting the actions of the Church of Scientology.
    • justbloggin, on 03/12/2008, -3/+3Cult? I think it must be a religion now. It's trying to prevent people from asking questions, prevent free thinking, and collect tons of money without accountability... it could be catholic. If it walks like a duck...
      m.
    • SingerSirCoda, on 03/12/2008, -3/+3Downvoted to keep you at 666.
    • junkwheel, on 03/12/2008, -0/+3Scientology has always thought it's above the law. Because they're the only cult corporation posing as a religion which can charge you for a thetan enema.
    • zekt, on 03/12/2008, -0/+5Sweet! If this gets upheld, I can file suit against my imaginary friend.
      He and I had a falling out some time ago - and he has been stalking me ever since. The bastard!
    • Scaryclouds, on 03/12/2008, -0/+6***** freedom of assembly, I just found out I have the same birthday as L. Ron Hubbard. This is *****!
      • GreenAlien, on 03/13/2008, -0/+5You're the reincarnation! Go show them the light (and teach the tards some ethics while you're over there).
    • hollyminkowski, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2Maybe next they can get a restraining order against the ocean and keep it from reaching the beach :-)
    • detonate, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1Sorry about the threadjack but here is some info about the upcoming protests for those that are interested...

      On March 15th Anonymous invites you to PARTY HARD Against Scientology

      On January 21st, a group calling themselves Anonymous sparked a global uprising against Scientology with this video:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCbKv9yi ... re=related

      On February 10th, 2008 over 7000 people attended peaceful protests against the criminal actions of Scientology at over 100 locations around the world. These protests were organized on the internet in less than 3 weeks by people who were shocked & sickened by what Scientology has done to it's critics, it's members, & their families.

      For a quick summary of the events that led up to these protests, please watch this video called the Road to February 10th:
      http://www.dailymotion.com/SA-Anonymous/video/7341 ...


      On March 15th they are doing it again & this time we are going to PARTY HARD against Scientology:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFMLRf2wX9A

      To join the March 15th protests, go to this link and find the location nearest to you:
      http://forums.enturbulation.org/viewtopic.php?f=7& ...


      Code of Conduct for Protesters:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-063clxiB8I

      More Info:

      Los Angeles Times - Scientology Takes Hits Online (March 3, 2008): http://www.calendarlive.com/printeditio ... 5338.story
      Newsweek - The Passion of Anonymous (February 8th, 2008):
      http://www.newsweek.com/id/109410
      TIME Magazine - Scientology: The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power:
      http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 65,00.html
    • Endit, on 03/15/2008, -0/+1Actually, Scientology is completely for free speech. But only when good things are said about them or bad things about their enemies.
  • Drkgodess, on 03/12/2008, -9/+661Just more proof that $camology is anti-free speech.
    • RealmDown, on 03/12/2008, -2/+73And anti-common sense
      • Spuy767, on 03/12/2008, -17/+19It is a "religion," so anti-common sense kinda goes without saying.
        • Kurlumbenus, on 03/12/2008, -15/+5Actually, most "common sense" axioms have a basis in religion and religious philosophy.
          • WNW3, on 03/12/2008, -4/+14Mmmmm...no. Most common sense axioms were co-opted from people with common sense by religion and religious philosophy.
          • Kurlumbenus, on 03/12/2008, -7/+2Mmmmm... no. That's not true at all. Your forgetting that until comparatively recently, throughout all of human history, almost all art, religion, and philosophy was religious based.
          • OldJesser, on 03/12/2008, -2/+4First, some of that art was forced and not the desire of the artist to create. Secondly, religion would have to be religiously based. Third, I seem to recall certain philosophers being killed off for disregarding their religions...
          • Kurlumbenus, on 03/12/2008, -3/+2Actually, most of the art was religious because the church was the only patron wealthy enough to support artists. They weren't 'forced' to create religious art by anything other than economic concerns.

            Stop attributing today's mindsets to the past. I'm an atheist myself (though not an anti-theist), but I REFUSE to distort history to suit my points of view. I acknowledge fully that, in Europe in particular, people were conditioned to the point where it was almost UNTHINKABLE to question religious doctrine. The few times it did happen - Martin Luther, for example - it was a HUGE deal.
        • OldJesser, on 03/12/2008, -0/+7Yeah, but it's not a prerequisite. Man could have easily come up with the same common sense axioms without being afraid of the sun.
          • Pixelante, on 03/12/2008, -1/+12You ought to be afraid of the sun. That sucker will burn ya if given half a chance. That's why astronomers keep an eye on the mofo all the time.
          • Sharky35, on 03/12/2008, -0/+7Go outside and stare at the Sun for a few minutes... then report back your findings.
          • RRJackson, on 03/12/2008, -1/+2Yeah, but the satellites we use to monitor the sun's general condition are all old and out-of-date aren't they? I seem to remember reading something about that recently.
          • Kurlumbenus, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1Of course they could have! But they didn't, at least not until the 18th century and the rise of rationalism... because those were not the thought patterns our environments gave us.
        • Xondar, on 03/12/2008, -2/+12It most certainly isn't a religion. Scientology is closer to a pyramid scheme.
      • RRJackson, on 03/12/2008, -1/+5Almost every organization is anti-free-speech if that speech disagrees with them. Here in the United States a disparaging comment about a religion, sexual orientation or ethnic group can land you in prison for "Hate Speech." Look for Scientology to use these laws for their own protection pretty soon.
    • EarlOfLade, on 03/12/2008, -1/+14Nothing is FREE in CoS.... A credit score of 820 will get you to the upper levels real fast.

    • ArchangelZLT, on 03/12/2008, -2/+4Yes, and this is anti-constitution. And anti-America. And anti-human.
    • siszam, on 03/12/2008, -13/+1It seems like the group trying to suppress freedom is everyone trying to prevent scientologists from practicing their beliefs. Fundie, atheist hypocrites.
      • Drkgodess, on 03/12/2008, -0/+4They have a right to their beliefs and I have a right to disagree with them! So we're par for the course there buddy!
      • sunkist22, on 03/12/2008, -0/+7Didn't you tell someone one day to convert to YOUR religion because they seemed to have a lof of anger in their life, and that submitting to GOD would help them??? Seeing how much hate and anger ooze out of every single one of your digg posts... I would think avoiding your religion is the way to living a happy life. All you do is bitch about people who do not think like you, and about the very small majority who might actually want you to not practice your religion. The other 99% of atheists just want to go about their lives and not think about people like you.
    • NSResponder, on 03/12/2008, -0/+12To be precise, Scientology is a Totalitarian movement. Hubbard used to brag about how they were going to take over the world. Attacking free speech is a minor part of what this criminal nut cult wants to inflict on the world.

      -jcr
    • Eucolastic, on 03/12/2008, -8/+0oh my gawd :D

      http://moviefone.com
    • KMyHero, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1No, it's fine Scientology. Revoke the First Amendment, so Anonymous can't protest. Oh wait, it's the SAME Amendment which allows your [cult] to exist in the first place. Choices, choices...
    • kingvik, on 03/12/2008, -0/+3A friend and I are starting our own religion called dreamism; and we promise that we will never try to revoke the first amendment, plus you don't have to give us money for our knowledge but donations would be apreciated.
      • burnin8r28, on 03/13/2008, -0/+4elaborate
        • kingvik, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1What you and everybody else is doing is dreaming. When you die in this "life" you wake up in your real life and live it; and then when you go back to sleep in real life you are reincarnated in this "world."
          That's the basic concept, it gets even better.
          So if you want to see the truth just give me a shout.
    • burnin8r28, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2fight the power!
    • protogenxl, on 03/13/2008, -1/+4I will be protesting as a member of the Church Of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

      Scientologists Repent, The Meatballs are upon You!
  • skmike, on 03/12/2008, -11/+522Why are they so afraid of our message?
    • RealmDown, on 03/12/2008, -1/+104It hurts their bottom line.
    • Eazy~e, on 03/12/2008, -25/+7We are not anonymous, we are on digg. Your name is right there above your comment. Anon exists on sites that don't require usernames.
      • Xondar, on 03/12/2008, -0/+19This message belongs to anyone who protests or speaks out against Scientology.
      • madpie, on 03/12/2008, -0/+16Easy-e, all you really know is that anonymous exists. You have no more authority to describe what it is or isn't, or what websites its members frequent, than anybody else (including me).
        • Eazy~e, on 03/12/2008, -9/+2But the fact that we can have an argument by using a screen name proves my point. If you aggregate enough data, you can build a profile and tie it to a real person.

          My original point is for people here to not get too comfortable about this and don't think for a minute you are anonymous. If Digg got a subpoena they would have to turn over all their info about you, and don't think for a second they wouldn't.

          But as the old saying goes, arguing on the internet is like winning the Special Olympics. I are still retarded.
        • Sharky35, on 03/12/2008, -1/+3I am sure Kevin would stand his ground!!! LOLOLOLOL
    • Sharky35, on 03/12/2008, -3/+60What are their CRIMES?
      • psyjoniz, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1one's that would get them landed in jail.
    • UnWeave, on 03/12/2008, -11/+11Don't get me wrong, I am as against CoS as the rest of you: but your comment was stupid, we all know why they are afraid.
      • evilregis, on 03/12/2008, -4/+4It's called a rhetorical question. Do you even know what "rhetorical" means?
    • fxu1989, on 03/12/2008, -0/+11What I've been thinking lately is that some of their members might pretend to be on Anonymous' side to start ruckus ...

      Now you know ... if there's any violence within the protest, it's their own members' pretending to be Anon.
      • thecyko1, on 03/12/2008, -0/+7Simple solution. Anyone causing trouble should immediately be detained by other members of anonymous. If they still insist on causing trouble then they will be turned over to the police. If that becomes policy during these protests then we'll get to enjoy scientologists sending each other off to jail.
    • ninja0, on 03/12/2008, -0/+3'Cause the truth hurts.
    • MrFisty, on 03/12/2008, -0/+2Maybe Xenu has returned... in Human Rights form.
  • MurkyMoose, on 03/12/2008, -4/+315Once again the CoS is attacking the very democracy we all love. This is an attack on our constitutional rights to peaceful assembly and freedom of speech.
    This is yet another action from this litigious organization that quell any resistance and wants the first amendment gone.
    They have already hogtied the big media and now this?
    If this passes through in any way, we will know for sure who they got in their pockets!
    • ROBINEW, on 03/12/2008, -2/+22This is exactly what has always worked for them in the past. Remember, this was filed in the Pinellas County Court system. It probably will pass.
      • lotu, on 03/12/2008, -0/+9Which will make Saturday even more fun.
        • Mejari, on 03/12/2008, -1/+7Who exactly are they supposed to be intimidating with this thing anyway. Its not like they can sue Anonymous.
        • dema, on 03/12/2008, -0/+4They certainly can't sue "Anonymous" but if they are able to obtain a sweeping restraining order I'm sure they will be more than happy to watch any protester who shows up be taken away by police.
  • HeroofTime55, on 03/12/2008, -6/+166lolscientology.

    When will they learn?
    • unicronband, on 03/12/2008, -0/+14When the ***** check clears!
    • kevyn, on 03/12/2008, -1/+3you guuuuys
    • latrosicarius, on 03/12/2008, -0/+18When will they learn how the internets works? There is no "Group" called Anonymous. Good luck with their restraining order
  • HailXenu, on 03/12/2008, -6/+348The Church of Scientology is actually trying to subvert the First Amendment... I'd say I didn't believe it, but nothing surprises me these days.

    But just think about it:

    They are actually trying to suppress our unalienable rights, as citizens of the United States, our right to peaceably assemble. As far as I know, nothing untoward happened in the last protest in Clearwater, so they have no case. If they have proof that individuals have threatened their church, they should take specific legal actions against those involved. But this is just an attempted subversion of the Constitution, plain and simple. This proves again that the Church of Scientology is, quite simply and undeniably, anti-free speech.

    Also, they're breaking their own "Youth for Human Rights" rule:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y37zD6a1g1I
    • crazybugger, on 03/12/2008, -21/+7When Bush can do it, then why not Scientology ?
      • RealmDown, on 03/12/2008, -3/+5This logic is massive failure. You probably just forgot the sarcasm tag, at least I am desperately hoping you did.
      • spyrochaete, on 03/12/2008, -4/+3You're right. The president has a history of writing exceptions to laws and vetoing motions to nullify those exceptions. If the president is for sale then so are the laws he supposedly oversees.
      • slowdowns, on 03/12/2008, -0/+11I can protest against Bush in the reddest of the red states and the worst case scenario would be getting heckled by a few goobers. If I protested in front of a Scientology Org unmasked the worst case scenario would include harassment, vandalism, death threats, lawsuits, and slander. According to their own OSA (Office of Special Affairs) "Justice Manual" it is not only acceptable to drive their enemies to suicide but encouraged. Google and Wikileaks are your friends. If you really care about your first amendment rights you will defend them on every front.
    • BoneheadFarker, on 03/12/2008, -4/+8"As far as I know, nothing untoward happened in the last protest in Clearwater, so they have no case."

      So on March 15, get ready for the ***** to hit the fan. False flag at FLAG....
    • Xondar, on 03/12/2008, -1/+10I urge anyone with a YouTube account to give that video 1 star. Let's show Scientology that we won't fall for their propaganda.
      • nikkesen, on 03/12/2008, -1/+3But it proves that people are still stupid enough to give it even an iota of attention. The way is to ignore the child having a tantrum so they learn that people don't give a *****.
    • ncc74656m, on 03/12/2008, -0/+6Un"alien"able?
    • crzdmn, on 03/12/2008, -0/+8You know the funny part of this is, Scientology is the one who stations armed private security all around their "compounds". Who's trying to get violent here?
  • slowdowns, on 03/12/2008, -5/+117The totalitarian UFO cult strikes again.
  • grez0, on 03/12/2008, -2/+150Screenshot: http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/696/cosinjunction ...
    • jigulous, on 03/12/2008, -0/+29lol @ An Association of People known as Anonymous. "You see, judge, we have no idea who these people are ..."
      • BoneheadFarker, on 03/12/2008, -0/+5Are they pulling from the RIAA playbook now?
      • nikkesen, on 03/12/2008, -0/+2People are often too stupid to learn from the stupidity of others.
      • provoko, on 03/12/2008, -0/+5Haha. They got a restraining order against everyone on the internet, does that include the judge...
    • deanoplex, on 03/12/2008, -0/+11Thanks for image. It helped me find this on AKIYAMA ROGER:http://www.buffaloscientologyinfo.com/who.html and this on the RPF:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rehabilitation_Projec ...
      • dunk71, on 03/12/2008, -0/+3They got Billy Sheehan too? That explains a few things...
      • torressr3, on 03/12/2008, -0/+7holy *****!!! that RPF ***** is unbelievable
      • docholoday, on 03/12/2008, -0/+6From the link you provided...

        "Beth and Roger have attained the status of Patrons Meritorious of the IAS, which simply means they have donated $250,000 toward the Church of Scientology’s war chest. Not only have they been devote paying publics donating a quarter of a million dollars to the cause, they have also joined Scientology’s elite Sea Organization which requires their commitment for the next billion years."

        The fact that they use words like "warchest" and "commitment for a billion years" in their own material just scares the crap out of me.
    • KentAllard, on 03/12/2008, -0/+6Didn't they successfully pull this same stunt with the Lisa McPherson Trust? And then for a while were getting restraining orders on anyone else who protested, saying they were connected to the trust
      • BoneheadFarker, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1But in that case, they knew who to serve the restraining order to...
    • babar77, on 03/12/2008, -0/+2If someone can get to the Clearwater clerk's office, you should be able to obtain the full documents for a small fee.
  • acis1, on 03/12/2008, -11/+139restrain this 8==============>
    • khail250, on 03/12/2008, -5/+4i tried, but couldn't over come you
    • Sharky35, on 03/12/2008, -6/+2Someone's been looking at nude pics of me...again!
    • Herostratus, on 03/12/2008, -0/+3WOW dude that's all you got? Don't worry, puberty will kick in soon enough...
    • buenit, on 03/12/2008, -0/+14I've always preferred this version 8=========D
    • jesuswuzanalien, on 03/12/2008, -0/+8I think his is the uncircumcised version.
    • cambob76, on 03/12/2008, -0/+3Those are some tiny balls.
    • jthei, on 03/12/2008, -2/+4Mine's Bigger __
      ( )-----------------------------------------------------------|
      ( )-----------------------------------------------------------|___/
      • 1337Einstein, on 03/12/2008, -0/+16A pretty sloppy circumcision there.
      • IllBeBack, on 03/12/2008, -0/+2Looks like Digg ate up your backslashes.
        You need to double them to make one. E.g. \\ turns into \
        • jthei, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1Informative, but unfortunately what digg produced was pretty accurate.
    • rockjunky116, on 03/12/2008, -0/+5actual size
  • weedbag, on 03/12/2008, -20/+120BAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWW BAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWW PPLZ IS TRYIN 2 PROTIZT MY RILIJUN BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWW
    • Ajnag, on 03/12/2008, -2/+6BAAAAAAWWWWWWWW indeed.
    • vervalsing, on 03/12/2008, -0/+9That actually made me laugh out loud...I think I need to go get tested for an extra chromosome.
  • tksparks, on 03/12/2008, -4/+78Scientology - *The Church of Gutless Wonders*
  • acis1, on 03/12/2008, -3/+57A larger protest is planned Saturday in downtown Clearwater, where the church's international religious headquarters are located. "We are taking every security measure we can," Harney said. "We are not taking this lightly."
    • mllawso, on 03/12/2008, -0/+16Well duh, Anonymous might bring one of their yellow vans.
  • cheesebob, on 03/12/2008, -2/+100wtf? just another attempt to silence truth.
    GUESS WHAT!?
    the truth does hurt.
    specially when you're following the teaching of some god-complexed scifi writer.
    and not even a good one, at that.
    • karlisjones, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1wtf have you read any of his books? f'ing good dude
  • theroc82, on 03/12/2008, -3/+84This just shows how desperate they are. Pathetic
  • c05m0, on 03/12/2008, -6/+89This guy's a top notch reporter. How can you NOT find an Anon rep?
    • astroknave, on 03/12/2008, -5/+58No one represents ANON. Anon is no one and everyone.
      • Kurlumbenus, on 03/12/2008, -1/+12Everyone represents ANON. Anon is no one and everyone.
      • TripcodeMel, on 03/12/2008, -5/+0O rly?

        http://media.www.thenorthernlight.org/media/storag ...
      • hello2usir, on 03/12/2008, -12/+2Anonymous is actually how 4chan users refer to themselves. When you make a post and don't fill in the name field, it gets filled in as Anonymous. And there's an ongoing joke there that Anonymous is a real individual.
        • fxu1989, on 03/12/2008, -0/+8. . .

          Is this a joke ? ... or are you seriously explaining to me what Anonymous is ?
          • hello2usir, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1I'm explaining the origin of the name that this anti-scientology movement is labeled. Most people don't know this. (Because they have lives)
        • gurudrew, on 03/12/2008, -1/+8fail - lurk more
        • dunk71, on 03/12/2008, -1/+8Thanks. Can you also help me find my ass? I have a flashlight.
        • FreedomToThink, on 03/12/2008, -2/+2it's also the default login of about a billion FTP servers and other message boards and similar web systems, sowhat?
          • hello2usir, on 03/12/2008, -0/+2Congrats to all on completely missing the point.
          • gurudrew, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1@hello2usir
            Actually your the one who missed the point. Anonymous did not start on 4chan. Yes, 4chan has anonymous posting (as do many sites) and yes many of those participating in the movement visit 4chan. It does after all have a nice mix of both LULZ and cancer. However, anonymous has no home. It has no beginning. It has no end. It has no name. It does not forget and it does not forgive.
          • hello2usir, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1Nope, you're still missing the point.

            "Anonymous" the _label_, as it is used in its propaganda, started as a reference to 4chan's culturally unique interpretation of the word. 4chan, as an inside joke to confuse "newfags", uses the word in their discussions as a pronoun, rather than the expected adjective. (See: http://www.4chan.org/faq.php#anonymous) And this is essentially what is going on here, except this time the Scientologists are the newfags. And yes, the word "anonymous" itself is used all over the place as an adjective, but 4chan pioneered the pronoun usage. In other words, if 4chan did not exist, then you could reasonably assume that this particular movement might not have labeled itself "Anonymous", and overused pseudopoetic catch phrases like "we are legion" would not have been invented.

            From 4chan users, it snowballed and spilled to other forum users, chat room users, email, word of mouth, and so forth. The idea of combating Scientology in this way picked up more momentum and has evolved into what it is now: A bunch of loosely unorchestrated people who, for one reason or another, feel the need to combat Scientology, and use "Anonymous" in the 4chan pronoun sense (whether or not participants realize it) as a strategy to confuse and frighten the opposition with effective and potentially comical results.
        • purzzzell, on 03/12/2008, -2/+3@gurudrew - fail - lurk moar.
        • gurudrew, on 03/12/2008, -0/+4@purzzzell - seems my LOLcat has mastered the mouse but he still has trouble with the keyboard
      • dsmx, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1Sounds like an agent from he matrix when you say it like that.
    • jj101, on 03/12/2008, -0/+16He's probably not even tried and is just glad to be able to report on Scientology without the threat of being sued.
    • Peko, on 03/12/2008, -0/+3I would like to reply here but "Anonymous" is not an available screen name.
    • iRelinquish, on 03/12/2008, -3/+1irc n00bs
    • ronintetsuro, on 03/12/2008, -0/+4That was my favorite line from the article:
      "Representatives of Anonymous could not be reached for comment."
      It's tragically funny when people don't get it.
  • FreddyO, on 03/12/2008, -3/+150This is disgusting! A restraining order against peaceful protestors - who do they think they are? They use the legal system to make a mockery of our democracy. They have gone too far now. This Saturday, FreddyO will definitely be PROTESTING this menacing organization that dares to call itself a "Church." The lawnmowing will just have to wait.
    • Kurlumbenus, on 03/12/2008, -2/+37Oh ***** THEY HAVE AWAKENED THE SLEEPING GIANT that is FreddyO!
      • cheesebob, on 03/12/2008, -0/+3Yeah, and they'd better watch out, too. I've seen that ***** go down.

        Not pretty.
    • ThreeDee912, on 03/12/2008, -0/+7Dugg for referring to yourself in the third person.
  • SuiseisekiDesu, on 03/12/2008, -2/+199I wasn't going to be able to attend this weekend's protests, but after reading this story, I've cancelled my meetings with my clients. I'll be there! Scientology won't get away with this abuse.
    • Anonakitty, on 03/12/2008, -29/+11Are they taking the restraining order out against the basement dwelling geeky 14yr olds or the Hackers On Steroids , or the KKK loving , mein kampf reading , masked terrorists?
      Surely they cant restrain everyone.
      They fail to realise that Anonymous is made up of every single person in the world who hears about and gets educated is therefore appalled at the crimes of their cult

      This only provides even more proof of the lengths this cult will go to in their attempts to silence their critics.
      As a result it provides even more reason to attend the global protest.
      Their bullying might have worked in the past but it won't this time.




      • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 03/12/2008, -1/+10Wow, insulting anti-scientologists and scientologists in one post...and getting buried.
        • MurkyMoose, on 03/12/2008, -0/+2Not really. S/he was just making fun of the descriptions the Church of Scientology have given of Anonymous.

          Yes, they have really written and said all that in press releases.
    • KlogereEndGrim, on 03/12/2008, -1/+9ALL THEIR BASE ARE BELONG TO US!
    • anon101, on 03/13/2008, -0/+0same here actually... this kind of thing CANNOT stand
  • nitheea, on 03/12/2008, -3/+140Oh, this is just so stupid!
    How can you restrain the internet?
    • Tippis, on 03/12/2008, -0/+21Wirecutters go snip?
    • bosssmiley, on 03/12/2008, -1/+15EMP?
    • evil-doer, on 03/12/2008, -1/+42anonymous isnt the internet, anonymous is people, ITS PEOPLE
    • chris9902, on 03/12/2008, -0/+14Lottery balls. They clog the tubes.
    • likewhateeever, on 03/12/2008, -0/+11. Attempt to label anyone who speak out against you as being part of this "highly organized" nefarious group called Anonymous
      2. You accuse said group of being a terrorist organization ( alleged bomb threats anyone)
      3. Anyone who share the same ideas and speaks out against you must therefor be a terrorist
    • writerboyVSgod, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1Packet shaping
  • DarthShaun, on 03/12/2008, -10/+80Also, *****.
  • kamizumo, on 03/12/2008, -13/+28I think with this move Scientology has waved the white flag. FFS, anybody with half a brain ought to realize that the internet can't be charged with anything. This should be under the definition of footbullet.
  • bairey, on 03/12/2008, -2/+78Oh dear, we'll all be in trouble when they find the stack of secret contracts we all signed upon joining the Association of Anonymous, LLC.

    Personally, on March 15 I was planning on being Incognito, so no TRO will apply to me.
    • RealmDown, on 03/12/2008, -0/+27It won;t apply to you if you go as a citizen in support of anonymous. After that, go in support of the supporters of anonymous, etc.

      Silly sci-lons -- you're dead, but just haven't noticed yet.
      • karlisjones, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1annnnd thats why there is a restraining order
    • mllawso, on 03/12/2008, -0/+9Didn't you hear? Anonymous canceled the protest.
      /Although I heard a group called 'Pseudonymous' is going to protest on the 15th
  • SgtAl, on 03/12/2008, -2/+84The courts are the cults #1 weapon against the truth. In Clearwater Florida they own the police so dont be surprised if some people are arrested this weekend on trumped up charges. There is absolutely no tactics that are too low for the followers of L Ron Hubtard.
    • deanoplex, on 03/12/2008, -0/+7Hi Sarge! It looks like 'the church' is swinging at phantoms. They are good at attacking but have no skills in defense!
      • Mejari, on 03/12/2008, -0/+6Vegeta, what does it say about Anonymous' power level?
        • BuddyDoQ, on 03/12/2008, -0/+3This baby can take temperatures up to 9,000 degrees!
          • tyywebb, on 03/12/2008, -1/+14…………………………………………………………..,' . . . . “~-,”~-,, . . . . . _„„„„„„_ . . . . , . . ',…………
            …………………………………………………………,„|,_ . . . . ,-' ,-~, '~ . .|| ,||||||||||||||||¡, . . ', . . .',………..
            ……………………………………………………..,-''¯„-, .'-, . . .' .-' . . . . . . '' '''¯¯_'''i||||||||¡ ', ;;; . ',………
            …………………………………………………..,-'' ,-''_,,', . | . . . . . . . . . . . ,¡|i'' 　　　''I||||| . . .| ;; .. |………
            ………………………………………………….,' .,',-” . . | . | . . . . . . . . . .,¡|i' 　　 　 　 '|||| . . ,' . . .|………
            ……………………………………......._„„„„„„„„| . |” . . _„| . . . . . . . . . . . ,||' 　. 　　　　　'||| . . ' . ,- . .|………
            _………………………._„„„----~''”””¯¯¯ . . . . . ', . .,-'' ,-' . . , . . . ,, . . . . I| 　 　 　 　　　||' . . . .' . _ , '………
            _¯¯”””””””””~~-„„_„„-~””¯ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .', .| --~'-, . . / . .,;;;;; . . . . 'I 　　　 ○ 　　 ||' ./ . .„¡¡||||||I……….
            . ¯¯””””~~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | . . | .'-„__| . . '-, . . . . . '''''''''''''''~~-,,_　　　|||I” . “II”¯,'II'………..
            . .---~~''''''''''' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | . “-, .', . . . . , . . . '-, . . . .,, . . . . . . . . ''~-,' . .''`○ . .　 /…………..
            . . . . . . . . . . . ~--------,,,,,,_ . . . . . . . ,-',-~, ' .'-,,_,,-' . . . . / . . ;;'' . ,,-~_ . . .__,, .. . '-,,,/|……………
            _,,,,--~''''''''¯¯ . . . . . . . . . . . ¯''~-,, . ,,-'',-' . . . . ,-'' .| . . , . . / . . . .,-'' ,-~'　 ¯''~,, .( . , . ./ . .''|……………
            . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ¯''-,-'' . . . . ,-' . . / . . | . ./ . . . , .,-''　　 　 　　 '-, ¯', ,/ . . . . . . . . . . .. .)……………
            . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .''-, . . ,-' . . . / . . ,' . / . . . / ,¡||||||¡¡¡¡¡-„„„„_　 　 ¯''~'--,', ,-'……WHAT NINE THOUSAND!?
            . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ''-,,/ . . . ./ . . .,' . . . . ./ ,|||||||||||||||||||||||¡,,¡ 　 | ¯|''~-,,　,¡| / /………………
            . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,,,__ .''-, . . ./ . . .,' . . . . / .¡||||||||||||||||||||||¡¡¡¡||¡¡¡¡||¡¡¡||I' / /……………….
            . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ¯¯¯'''''~'--,,_,' . . . . / .,';;;;;;;''I||||||||||||||||||||||||||I' ,-''…………………
            . . . . . ,;; . . . . . . . ., . . ,,;;;;;, ';;;;;; . . . . . . . . . . . .''~-,, . ' . /;;;;;;;;;;;;'||||||||||||||||||||I' ,/…………………...
            . . . . ,;;; . . . . . . . ,' . . .' ' ' . . . ., , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .''~-,/-,;;;;;;;;;;;;|||||||||||||||||I' ,/…………………….
            . . . ,;;;;;,, . . . . . .,' . . . . . . ,;;;;;;;;' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .''~,''~-,;;;;;,|||||||||||||||I' ,/………………………
            . . . ;;;;;;;; . . . . . ,' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .''~, 　 '''''''IIIII||||||||' ./……………………….
            . . . ;;;;;;; . . . . . .| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'-,~-,,_ 　 ''/ ./………………………...
            . . . ;;;;; ' . . . . . .| . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'-, . . ¯'~' ./…………………………
            . . . . . . . . . . . .,' . . . . . . . . . . . . . / ,- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ''¯'' . ,-''…………………………..
            . . . . . . . . . . . .| . . . . . . . . . . . . ,-' / . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,-'…………………………….
            . . . . . . . . . . . .| . . . . . . . . . . . ./ ./ . . . . .,,;;;;;; . . . . . . . . . .', . . . . . ',¯……………………………….
            . . . . . . . . . . . .'-, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .-~;;;;;;; . '' . . . . . . . . . . ', . . . . . ',………………………………..
            . . . . . . . . . . . . . ', . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .''¯;;;;'' . . . . . . . . . . . . . | . . . . . .|……………………………….
            . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'-, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,;;, . . . . .| . . . . . .|……………………………….
            . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .'-, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,,;;;;', . . . . .| . . . . . .|……………………………….
            . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '-, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,-' ,-' , . . . . | . . . . . .|……………………………….
            . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'-, ';;;;;;, . . . . . . . . . . . . . -' ,-' ,-'' . . . . ,' . . . . . .|……………………………….
            . . . . . . . . . . . ,,- . . . . . . '-,;;;;;;, . . . . . . . . . . . . ,-'',-'' . . . . . .| . . . . . .,'……………………………….
            . . . . . . . .,,-;;;;;;;; . . . . . . . ''~-;;;, . . . .,, .-, .-, . . . '' . . . . . . .,' . . . . . .,'………………………………..
            . . . . . ,,-;;' . '';; ;;;; . . . . . . . . . . .''~-,,___''-;;;-,''---~~~~--,, . . ,' . . . . . .,'…………………………………
            . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|………………………………….
            . . . . . . . . . . . .,;;;; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |………………………………….
            . . . . . . . . . . . . ', . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,,- . . . . . ., , . . . . .'-,…………………………………
            . . . . . . . . . . . .,' . . . . . . ,;;;;;; . . . . . . . . . . . ,,-'',,-~- . . . . ';;;;; . . . . . ''-,………………………………
            . . . . . . . . . . . ,' . . . . . .;;;;;;;' . . . . . . . . . .,-~''¯ . . . . . . . . . ';;; . . . . . . .'-,…………………………….
            . . . . . . . . . . . | . . . . . .;;;;;; . . . . . . . . . ,-'' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'-,………………………….
            . . . . . . . . . . . | . . . . . .;;;;;' . . . . . . . . . / . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
          • Scira, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1Couldn't do vegeta? still im surprised you arn't dug up more
        • nairanvac, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1IT'S OVER NINE THOUSAAAAAND!!!!11!!!uno!
    • tuh2, on 03/12/2008, -0/+5Well thats when www.ratemycop.com comes into play :)
  • modemac, on 03/12/2008, -3/+58Welcome to the strange and bizarre world of Scientology legal actions. Do some research on the antics they've pulled over the years and you will be AMAZED at the stunts they've pulled in court.

    "I cannot see how the cult actually believes this will help them at all." If it keeps Anonymous away from their convention hall on Saturday, then it helps them. They don't CARE about the legal ramifcations or what happens after that. Scientology knows how to take the most obscure legal action and drag it into a major court battle that lasts for months, if not years. The courtroom is their home turf, and that's what they want. Above all, remember the sacred words of LRH: "The purpose of the lawsuit is not to win, but to harass." They are throwing legal mud at Anonymous to see what will stick. If it works, they will try it all over the country.
    • coolmos, on 03/12/2008, -2/+5Not true. From the Manual of Justice (Frank Oliver files):

      "When to Sue
      Never if you can help it. It consumes time, means little but trouble for you. Suits are basically best as threats."

      They don't want to be in court. They want to stress, harass, and threaten.
      • fxu1989, on 03/12/2008, -0/+2Did you read the last part of his post ?

        ...
    • Typhoon2009, on 03/12/2008, -1/+10Anonymous is legion.
  • astroknave, on 03/12/2008, -7/+68Stupid scientology.

    You can't issue a restraining order against an idea. Which is all anonymous is.

    It is obvious that they are trying to flush out a "leader" who will show up in court to "represent" anonymous.

    Stupid Scientology. No court will go for this. The jim crow days when someone like the KKK could pull a stunt like this and get away with it are long gone.
    • astroknave, on 03/12/2008, -4/+7haha! Sci-lons can't stand having a mirror held up to them.
    • cgbspender, on 03/12/2008, -0/+6The problem is that they own half of the police in Clearwater.
      If they get the restraining order they will just pick out protestors, have them arrested by the police and then have names for their fair game policy.
    • fhornplayer, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1Ideas are bulletproof.
  • rebotfc, on 03/12/2008, -6/+152First they ignore you,
    then they ridicule you,
    then they fight you,
    then you win.
  • Anoner, on 03/12/2008, -7/+24Subverting the basic rights of citizins is anti-freedom.

    And they call us Nazis...
  • jmohring, on 03/12/2008, -21/+3G
    L
    H
    F?
  • chromerium, on 03/12/2008, -5/+390"Excuse me, but there is a court order restraining the group Anonymous from protesting here."

    "Oh, I'm not part of Anonymous."

    "Who are you with then?"

    "The general population."

    ...
    • Mejari, on 03/12/2008, -0/+25It will change the chants somewhat;

      "Who are we?
      um... not Anonymous?"
    • anononon, on 03/12/2008, -0/+77General population never forgives
      General population never forgets
      General population is legion
    • aaron117, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1So very true.
    • error792, on 03/13/2008, -0/+5Just you wait. They're going to get a restraining order against the general population.
    • Icouldbe, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2HAHAHAHAHAHA! Scientology doesn't know what it's up against...let alone who. If they want to be considered a real religion, well welcome to the real world where religions are protested. They can have their cake and choke on it too for all I care.
  • Semprini, on 03/12/2008, -4/+66They just made their enemies stronger.

    Big fail by the cult.
  • Bing11, on 03/12/2008, -42/+6I don't think anyone is stupid enough to believe that Scientology is going to get a restraining order based on a protest - I think the reasson they're seeking one is because of the threats they've been receiving. They even mention it in the article: "the church has documented threats made by members of Anonymous, and provided those threats to Clearwater police"

    The First Amendment does not cover threats.
    • InfamousAtheist, on 03/12/2008, -1/+25Then they should pursue a restraining order against those individuals who made the threats.
      Subverting our constitutional right to peaceably assemble is not the same... and is a pretty good indicator of their desperation.
      • Bing11, on 03/12/2008, -17/+1But the people who submit the threats don't exactly sign the threats with their name. They probably signed it "Anonymous" thus involving the group as a whole. That's part of the problem of being an "unorginized" orginization that wears masks: when a few members go bad, everyone is subject to questioning.

        Also, if you're saying Anonymous shouldn't be held accountable for the acts of a select few members of their orginization, then what are you protesting Scientology for but the actions of a select few of their members? Anonymous openly admits "we don't have a problem with anyone but the 'higher ups'" so how do they excuse this double-standard?
        • likewhateeever, on 03/12/2008, -1/+16Scientology fabricated the threats .. as they have done before
          • Bing11, on 03/12/2008, -13/+1Isn't it pretty obvious that when you align yourself with the threats, people aren't likely to take your cues seriously without evidence? If you have evidence, I welcome it, but "some people who are no longer involved with the church did something decades ago, so the church is probably doing it now" doesn't sound like a good excuse to me.

            Also, as I have personally received some death threats myself for being a Scientology sympathizer (not even a Scientologist myself - just defending their right to practice peacefully), I know from personal experience that these threats are not fabricated. (Though I don't expect you to believe me, which is why I wrote the first paragraph: in hopes this doesn't turn into a "he said she said" thread.)
          • Xondar, on 03/12/2008, -1/+18Scientology has been known to fabricate and forge threats against themselves to get the law after certain individuals. How can you prove they didn't do it this time.

            How can you sympathize with such an evil to the core organization? Have you not read about all they've done? Haven't you read about all the lives they've destroyed in pursuit of profit? No right thinking person should ever support such a group. I've no doubt that you're either brainwashed or on Scientology's payroll.
          • Bing11, on 03/12/2008, -11/+2@Xondar You said "How can you prove they didn't do it this time." I follow the rule: innocent until proven guilty. Besides, as I said in my last post: I've been the target of some of those threats, so I need no further evidence.

            As for the "evil": I don't support the wrong-doings of the select few members who have long been extracted, and the pushiness of some current members in recruiting (that's probably the #1 reason I am not myself a member). That said, those criminals have been extracted for a long time now, and the benefits that people have enjoyed from Criminon, Narcanon, The Way to Happiness, etc. are not worth being destroyed because a small group of people made these mistakes. If the criminals were still running the church, I might have different views, but that is not the case.

            You can assume I'm a Scientologist, but if you check my comment history (especially the debates with adventchild08) you'll learn quickly I'm not. I'm just an informed outsider, looking in, and shaking his head at these senseless attacks.

            I wish Anonymous used their force for extracting true murders instead of targeting a religious group (99.9% of whom weren't involved with the past crimes) and instead marched on the White House to end the War in Iraq. A true revolution could be had, if only the aims of this group weren't blinded by small-picture ideals. Maybe then the V masks can actually be used for the political purposes they were intended, rather than as a substitute for white hoods or red armbands. I can dream, anyway...
          • likewhateeever, on 03/12/2008, -2/+8Bing11 ..

            I read ... "I know from personal experience that these threats are not fabricated" & "not even a Scientologist myself - just defending their right to practice peacefully" & "I don't support the wrong-doings of the select few members who have long been extracted" .

            I think to myself .. since you're not a Scientologist you're really in no position to make that last statement.

            Then I read .. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientolog ...
            "ENEMY — SP Order. Fair game. May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed."

            You lying Scientologist you ;-)








          • Herostratus, on 03/12/2008, -2/+10Bing sounds like a scientologist. He's probably been ordered by Flag to watch Digg for information pertaining to Anonymous. LOLZ.
            Silly BING, DIGG is for thetans!
          • Mejari, on 03/12/2008, -2/+6@Bing11: Lemme guess, to you it will always be a 'small group'? I'll let you in on a little secret: it's always a 'small group' The problems arise when, just as has happened w/ scientology, the 'small group' controls a vast number of people and bends them to their will. Hate to Godwin this, but as an example the Nazi's were technically a small group that gained control and ***** everything up. You complain about how Anonymous should target the true murders, but that's exactly what they're doing. They aren't protesting Scientology's retarded beliefs, they're protesting Scientology's leadership that is taking advantage of its members and hurts everyone.
          • Bing11, on 03/12/2008, -8/+3"I think to myself .. since you're not a Scientologist you're really in no position to make that last statement." Just because I'm not a Scientologist doesn't mean I'm not allowed to shun people who once were? I'm sincere: I don't follow what you're trying to say. But I maintain, if you follow my comment history (especially the debate with adventchild08) you'll notice I am not myself a Scientologist. Believe it or not, not everyone who isn't a Scientologist shares the views of "Anonymous"

            As for Fair Game: yes, it's stupid, and if you can prove to me that it's still enforced (despite all signs otherwise) I will denounce the church. I will not, however, accept the "Anonymous" view, as I do not support the death threats or double-standards they follow. (I just said "I don't support Anonymous, but that doesn't make me part of it, by your logic, does it?)

            So far the basis of all these claims against Scientology that I've seen are, in my words: "the acts of a few 'high-up' Scientologists from decades past were wrong, and thus Scientology should be taken down despite these people having been removed from the Church by the current members." Meanwhile, the evidence I have seen against "Anonymous" is the death threats they have made against me. Surprisingly, I understand Scientology's desire to keep these people away and let them practice in peace.
          • likewhateeever, on 03/12/2008, -2/+7No, the point is if you're not a Scientologist you really don't know anything about what is really going on in the organization hence you can't make statements like "...who have long been extracted"

            As for Fair Game .. Just go youtube and watch some of the Scientology bull baiting videos ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLLW9xEFMgI) , or watch the BBC Panorama episode on Scientology .. many current examples
          • Bing11, on 03/12/2008, -7/+2@likewhateeever

            How can you claim that since I'm not a member, I'm not knowledgeable, yet you, who I assume are also not a member, is? Double standard?

            @Mejari

            "Scientology's retarded beliefs, they're protesting Scientology's leadership " In calling the beliefs of the members "retarded" you just insulted/attacked them. In the same sentence even...