Scientology on the news again, Anonymous owned them again

[Final-Fan]

starcraft said:
Whilst I DO see where your coming from, I still do not agree. So long as Anonymous remains hidden, it can say whatever it wishes to without any risk of philosophical reprisal. To use the word you used, Anonymous cannot possibly have it's individual members "discredited." But that's the thing, what if it's individual members are NOT credible? In most democratic nations, an alleged rapist get's to confront the woman her allegedely raped in court. She has to undergo rigorous questioning. And yet it is unreasonable to you for Anonymous' members to have to put their credibility and reputations on the line for their arguments, because the CoS might get the IRA to audit them (that was one of Sqrl's examples)?

I would argue that as long as their opponent remains invisible, there will ALWAYS be an impact on the CoS's ability to discredit the attacks or arguments against them. But equally, so long as Anonymous remains hidden, the credibility of their argument will always be somewhat dunious. As I've said, I agree with most of their arguments, but those arguments would be stronger if they made them openly.

I don't believe that noone should be accused of anything unless the accusation is provable in a court of law. That makes no sense as I fully support the fact that there have been millions of trials over the years that have resulted in aquittals. I simply disagree with the fact that we (society and the media) have universally declared the CoS to be guilty without a trial.

As I said, I don't think that the credibility of individual members of Anonymous is that important to the CoS's legitimate defense against them as protesters.  Why do you?

However difficult a cross-examination may be for a rape victim, that is hardly the equivalent of the life-ruining tactics the CoS has employed.  I don't think it unreasonable that Anonymous should decline to give it the ability to employ those tactics unless required by law...which it is not.  And again, this is not a court of law.

And you (understandably) misinterpreted what I meant.  I meant that you seemed to be claiming that unless someone felt his case was strong enough to TRY to prove it in court then he should just shut up until he could, instead of, for instance, protesting.  As opposed to the other interpretation, which is that we were all wrong to accuse O.J. of murder.

P.S.  Which is closer, that hypothesis or my later addition, "(Or was it that we should follow the same rules out of court that we have to in court?)"?  Or are neither close enough to the truth?