Scientology on the news again, Anonymous owned them again

[starcraft]

Final-Fan said:

 

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?

I'm glad you brought up O.J. as I was going to bring him up yesterday and completely forgot.  I think that the credibility of Anonymous as an organization is called into question so long as it calls for it's members to be anonymous.  I still contest your belief that in the current climate the CoS would have any chance of deploying life-ruining tactics against it's detractors. 

I never said someone should shut up if they couldn't prove their case in a court of law.  I merely pointed out that they should hand such a case onto their local authorities or even their constituent's Congressperson of a State Senator.

As for O.J. the victim's family DID go to a legally and morally empowered institution (Civil Court), to prove their case that O.J. was a murderer.  I have absolutely no problem with that, and wish that Anonymous would do anything remotely similar in this case.