On Jan 19, 7:44 am, anothersurfer
...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Jan 18, 11:34 pm, "wheaths
...@googlemail.com"
> <wheaths...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > - Show quoted text -
> > > Harrassment like this is not ok. Yes, scientology is a scam (IMO) but
> > > squelching their free speech is as bad as them squelching ours.
> > > You wrote: "The people are taking a pro-active step, something that
> > > should be encouraged and as for freedom, they are operating legally
> > > within the confines of US and UK law. Much like the publicising the
> > > truth of"
> > > Much like the publicizing of ... what?
> > My bad, it's quite late here (7:27am) and I've not slept. Much like
> > the publication of pamphlets and other materials revealing their
> > terrible practices. As far as squelching their freedom of speech that
> > is not what is occurring, they are well within their rights to express
> > themselves as they wish, but theinternetis a strange place and if
> > you say something expect people to react to it. There are many actions
> > that could have been undertaken, an actual DDoS is something different
> > to what is actually happening. It would also have been possible for
> > the front page to have been vandalised or attempts at damaging their
> > machine. What is happening is that today their site got really popular
> > and each time it is refreshed a fraction of a cent is taken away from
> > scientology and prevents them from harming other individuals. At best
> > their page will run really slow for a few hours, at worst they have to
> > pay a couple of bucks extra for their bandwidth bill this month.- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
> I am not sure how your post justifies an attack on a site on theinternet.
> What do you mean "their site got really popular and each time it is
> refreshed a fraction of a cent is taken away from scientology and
> prevents them from harming other individuals. At best their page will
> run really slow for a few hours, at worst they have to pay a couple of
> bucks extra for their bandwidth bill this month" ?
> This post started with a claim that people were attacking and now it's
> "their site got really popular" - ??
> I am a scientology critic and I believe it is a harmful organization.
> But I will not condone the willful squelching of free speech.
There are steps that can go from here that will lead to the classic
debate about how far can you take free speech, if it's okay with you
I'd like to skip that part.
By 'their site got really popular' all the people who are attacking
the website is doing is reloading images that they have hosted on
their own site, as they intended them to be. I also understand that
you think that free speech is being impeded here but I view it as the
removal of a internet community and a way of saying 'we don't want you
hear, please move on' much like if a paedophile or other danger to a
community would be urged to move on. Much like shouting fire in a
crowded theatre is illegal because it endangers peoples lives, the
website and their presence on the internet is also a danger.
(please excuse my rather crude prose, I know what I want to say in my
head but I don't know how to express it)
