Anonymous vs. Scientology

[Tipsy]

No, no, no, they attacked the site to get attention (DDoSing has stopped now, if you read reports). But they are attacking the Church of Scientology, even if they make fun of Scientology and Tom Cruise (not hard to do, given recent events).

I don't see anywhere showing that they don't plan to stop using illegal means - maybe "peaceful protest" is the next stage, but that doesn't mean they didn't violate someone's property rights because the person was a Scientologist. I don't care if they make fun of Scientology, Tom Cruise, or anyone else - I care that they are violating the rights of others. I care that they are hypocrites that pride themselves in "absolute free speech" yet they try to silence Scientology. I care that they say they support religious freedom and just instead say Scientology isn't a religion. I care that they state as their goals to take and release information that is privately owned. I care that they do not respect religious freedom, free speech, or legal rights. Scientology may be a terrible organization, but that in no way justifies the removal of someone's rights such as that group has done in the past and seems to show no remorse for meaning that if it suits them, they will probably do it in the future.

 

[x42bn6]

I believe Anonymous is fighting because they believe the Church of Scientology is guilty of restricting Freedom of Speech and how its followers die through its beliefs (see Scientology associated deaths). For example, one of their goals is, "Save people from Scientology by reversing the brainwashing and helping Scientologists realize that the Church of Scientology in its current state is a vast money-making scheme under the guise of "religion." Everyone has the right to freedom of religion, but religion should be free."

If I make a speech urging people to tie themselves to poles and set themselves on fire, can I argue I should not be arrested, that I'm merely exercising my rights under Freedom of Speech?

They have goals I don't agree with either, such as releasing private information, but I am of the opinion that faith should not be bought, too.*

 

[Tipsy]

I believe Anonymous is fighting because they believe the Church of Scientology is guilty of restricting Freedom of Speech and how its followers die through its beliefs (see Scientology associated deaths). For example, one of their goals is, "Save people from Scientology by reversing the brainwashing and helping Scientologists realize that the Church of Scientology in its current state is a vast money-making scheme under the guise of "religion." Everyone has the right to freedom of religion, but religion should be free."

So in order to fight for their freedom of speech we should take away their freedom to speech? That sounds like a George Bush argument right there. Neither side should have their speech censored, and if they feel it is there are plenty of organizations that would gladly pick up the tab for the court fees or even defend you. There is no excuse for breaking the law here and even less of one when one side is fighting for a right they refuse their opponent to have.

If I make a speech urging people to tie themselves to poles and set themselves on fire, can I argue I should not be arrested, that I'm merely exercising my rights under Freedom of Speech?

That specifically would probably be illegal since it would incite an illegal action (suicide), however something such as refusing medical treatment (the issues brought up by the website) is something that has long been done in the United States due to either cultural or religious issues. If the other deaths were murders and it is more factual than hearsay, then it can be brought to court.

They have goals I don't agree with either, such as releasing private information, but I am of the opinion that faith should not be bought, too.

I don't think faith should be bought either, but that doesn't give me the right to break the law.