Scientology on the news again, Anonymous owned them again

[Final-Fan]

"Speaking in a broad sense (take the CoS out of your head for a moment), do you believe it is exceptable for a bunch of masked protestors to attack one person or organization?"

I suppose that depends on the nature of the attack.  If it's a bunch of people doing exercisinzg their constitutional right to free assembly in a civil and peaceful manner, and also speaking out against an organization which has a documented history of persecuting anyone who criticizes it or tries to leave it, well then I'd have to say that Yes, I do believe that such behavior is acceptable, particularly since the masked protesters have provided a (anonymous) avenue by which the organization being protested can confront the protesters and argue with them.

I really think that you are exaggerating the "attacks" of Anonymous.  More importantly, though, I think that you overlook what I see as the primary reason for the right of the accused to confront the accuser:  NOT to see his face, but to have the opportunity to protest and argue against and interrogate, instead of merely being presented with a denunciation that someone has performed against you which cannot be questioned.  The CoS has ample opportunity to interrogate Anonymous, and present counterarguments, etc.

The ONLY thing the CoS cannot do due to the Anonymous mask is discredit or attack the individuals.  There is no impact on its ability to discredit or attack the arguments or the evidence presented -- only the individuals presenting them.  In many situations the identity of the witness is important to the ability of the defense to call into question the credibility of the testimony, but I don't think that is really applicable here.  Do you disagree with that?  If so, why specifically do you think that that is incorrect?

And in any case, we're back to your position that no one should accuse anyone of anything unless they can prove it in a court of law, which I find frankly silly.  (Or was it that we should follow the same rules out of court that we have to in court?  I'm too tired to review the thread right now, but that's even more silly, IMO.) 

I think we've cleared up many of the other major points and I'm frankly starting to run out of steam on this one.  Or maybe it's just that I'm tired; I'll see how it looks tomorrow.