Scientology on the news again, Anonymous owned them again

[Sqrl]

HappySqurriel said:

I fully support freedom of speech regardless of whether a person uses it to express something I am fundamentally against; as long as a person is willing to accept the social consequences from their words. The problem with anonymous is that people hide behind masks which prevents them from facing these social consequences ...

 

There is a difference between social consquences and an organisation vindictively and agressively attempting to ruin people's lives for disagreeing with them.  Do you not believe such actions take place or do you think they should subject themselves to it anyways?

 

starcraft said:

ssj12 said:

Legend11 said:
I'm no fan of Scientology but I'm also no fan of groups of people that hide behind masks in democracies and throw accusations at a religion, a race of people, or whatever.

accusations that are true.

We wear masks so we dont get lynched by the Co$.

No, you wear masks because your not entirely sure that your morally or legally in the right.

 

What is morally or legally objectionable about protesting an orgnisation for its illegal and morally questionable practises?  Sorry but given that Anonymous has stated they do not wish to prevent people from believing what they want only to prevent CoS from extorting, murdering, and otherwise abusing its members I don't see how anything they've done is inappropriate, morally or legally.  Perhaps you know of something I don't?