El Reg writes "Showing a new-found resolve to crack down on self-serving edits, Wikipedia has banned contributions from all IP addresses owned or operated by the Church of Scientology. According to Wikipedia administrators, this marks the first time such a high-profile organization has been banished for allegedly pushing its own agenda on the 'free encyclopedia anyone can edit.'"
It still is the "free encyclopedia anyone can edit," nothing has changed. You miss the point of "free" and "open" it doesnt mean that everything one puts will stay there. People make mistakes, people distort the truth, and people Lie. Others, have to correct these errors. If one person "cries wolf" a lot, you're simply not going to listen to them. This is all that it is. If someone had a history of not telling the truth, why would you trust them?
No, but all this does is cracks down on "official" astroturfing. We all know that xenu's followers will simply do their edits from home, from now on.
This sort of thing cannot be contained if the information is publically editable. I just hope this doesn't mark the beginning of the end for Wikipedia.
This sort of thing cannot be contained if the information is publically editable. I just hope this doesn't mark the beginning of the end for Wikipedia.
If this was the end, wikipedia has had the fat lady singing since the beginning. There's way too much useful information nobody bothers getting into an edit war about to be killed off by these sorts of things. If I didn't read about them on slashdot, I'd barely know they were there but I guess that's because I already know where to expect them.
As much as I despise Scientology, I don't see why their cult should be singled out for direct criticisms in the opening paragraphs of the article, (e.g "cult that financially defrauds and abuses its members").
While this may be true, other cults (oh ok "religions", whats the difference) that do the same thing are being described in completely different way, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints [wikipedia.org] This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not a newspaper editorial so I think the tone and content of the opening 4 paragraphs I think do need some changes. I am afraid to make them though cause I might get banned from the site.
The reason they are singled out for that type of description is there is an enormous amount of evidence to support the description. Church leaders have lied cheated and stolen to support their agenda. The organization has a longstanding harrassment policy against it's detractors. They are extremely good at abusing the legal system to their ends and mostly getting away with it. Other groups most certainly do not come anywhere near the level of abuse that the COS does. Besides that, I don't see the description you refer to in an article right now.
The scale and profound history of criminal behavior of the cult throughout its history and among its top leadership. This is coupled with the cult's dangerous and historically criminal attacks against critics to turn mere "astroturfing" into an affirmation of their fraudulent and criminal behavior.
So, no, the Mormons don't do the same thing. Those differences are what make Scientology a cult: the steps are pretty well described by Steve Hassn, and easily reviewed at his Wikipedia site (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Hassan).
You are correct but there is still a big problem with scientology: it enjoys rights that no other religions in the USA enjoy via secret deals its made with the IRS that we are not privy to. This is a source of concern given its history of governmental infiltration & espionage.
My brother in law is a practicing Scientologist, and he works at the "Church" in San Diego.
He's explained to me time and time again that the church's position is "if you're not with us, you're against us", and that they defend their territory without impunity. Even perceived threats are great game.
When I ask him, "how can you trust an institution that is so legally violent? if it wanted to be judged by its merits, it shouldn't be litigating the hell out of everyone that stands in its way!", he responds "our opponents deserve litigation because they intend to suppress us". It is quite frustrating to have these conversations with him.
Even more interestingly is that inter-church issues are not taken to court, in fact, to take an internal quarrel to court is grounds from a church ban. They have their own "ethics committees" that see such cases, but they generally follow their own laws and not those of the locale they're in.
So I asked him, "if it's a matter of a constitutional issue, why wouldn't you take it up to the Supreme Court?" and his reply is "we don't trust or expect the legal system to understand how we do things."
I'm quite sure he didn't see the double standard in his views - litigation is good, when it's convenient for the church to litigate.
The part about how they treat the outside is definitely evil, although primarily evil insofar as they have a lot of money and intend on doing harm.
The rest doesn't seem at all like a double standard or inherently malevolent. We're all free to get along and settle our differences outside of court. The courts inherently exist only for the cases when no agreement can be reached, but action is required. Definitely it's a huge drain on society to have people dragging one another in there for every trivial piece of bullshit infighting that may occur. Get along, as much as possible.
I don't especially want to take my sister to court because she didn't pay me that $100 back that I loaned her in high school. Nor is there a double standard if I should take my phone company to court if they refuse to reimburse me for making a mistake on my bill. I might be able to agree with my sister, or decide that it's not worth the family hostility, but the phone company is (at best) nobody to me.
Every person under the sun is weak to the effects of an effective brainwash. In these cases, they're especially susceptible, because they're open to it.
Auditing is the process through which they clear "engrams" from the subconscious. It is basically untrained hypnosis, and dangerous. They say it's not hypnosis, but a state of high suggestibility. Same thing to me.
It is through auditing that they become better Scientologists. In this process, however, the brainwash sets in. Eventually, subjects believe that the way of the CoS is the *right* way of doing things. It is a misguided but honorable goal. I've met many Scientologists, many of them are very smart and very capable. My brother in law is hilarious and a great friend. He's not weird by any means. He wants to do it to become a better person. Any attempt to steer him away from it gets shut down rather quickly.
The CoS is full of mostly well-intentioned people that got caught up in a dangerous web of lies (and economic loss). They have been psychologically programmed to do things that we find offensive.
It is very interesting to see the defense mechanisms that church policies have. Almost every rule I've heard of can be easily tied to preventing the Scientologist from realizing the harm he's caused himself: psychiatric treatment (especially medication), the "internal law", keeping "suppressive personalities" away, etc.
My brother in law is quite reasonable in his unreasonableness. He understands we disagree so we hardly touch the subject anymore, and he is open to discussion, but is NOT open to finding a middle ground. Any attempts to do so are seen with skepticism.
He's told me numerous time that the "space opera" that you can read about in Wikipedia is just made up by the press, I wonder what's going to happen when he hits OT3 and they serve it to him on a hot dish of shit.
by Anonymous Coward
on Thursday May 28 2009, @09:50PM (#28134021)
2. Jimbo should watch his back; Scientology *DOES NOT* play nice when it doesn't get what it wants.
Simple solution to this. Any religion that says you can ignore the law may do so, but must be subject to it's own proclamations. It seems to me that if their own policies were applied to them, they wouldn't have a right to due process, nor would their "enemies" be bound by the rule of law. Good luck defending yourselves and practicing your religion without the law.
I almost never post anonymously but I need a bunch of religious zealot nutjobs with no moral compass harassing me like I need a terminal disease.
Hmmm... but according to my research [wikipedia.org], it's just a harmless religion based on love and understanding of others. Why would Wikipedia ban such a group?
You know, it's all fine and nice to be anti-religion, but I am so sick of people involving Christianity whenever Scientology comes up. There is a difference between religion and cult, despite trying to lump them together for your own jollies, and this is coming from an atheist.
I am so sick of people involving Christianity whenever Scientology comes up. There is a difference between religion and cult
Agreed. And since some people don't see it, modern religions don't try to turn their followers against non-followers. They don't try to seclude followers from their families, either. They don't try to kill people that leave the fold.
Note that some religious fanatics may have the above characteristics, but fanatics do not make up the majority of the people that consider themselves religious.
I don't entirely buy that. Most mainstream religions don't require a person to see themselves as worthy ONLY through the religion and most DON'T require as much offerings or tithing they can pressure you out of. There is a huge difference between the corner Baptist church where they don't get bent out of shape if you go to church with your Methodist friend some Sunday and a group like the Moonies. That Baptist church most likely isn't after you to sign over all your money and capital then sell yourself into virtual slavery to cross the Bridge as Scientology will.
Religions differ in the demands they make on parishioners and in the control exerted on them. Religions that make inordinate demands on your social, psychological, time, credulity, and financial resources deserve a pejorative and "cult" is as good as any.
There is plenty not to like about more mainstream religions like the Baptists and Southern Baptists especially but being a cult isn't one of them.
That definition still includes a good proportion of American Christians, since one of the larger (and certainly fastest-growing) sects of Christianity in the US is Pentecostalism, run by pop-star-like, very wealthy and often TV-show-having leaders of megachurches.
CoS has abused Wikipedia since almost its inception and have been a thorn in the side of the moderators for dozens of articles, but this is not going to stop them until you get a coourt to prohibit them from using the site. CoS specializes in umbrella fpr tax shelters and all sort of even more nefarious things and I bet right now they have a fresh batch of IP address just waiting for this story to die down so they can continue to suppress knowledge by outright censorship and the promulgation from the top to continue their intelligence operations based on their own special brand of disnfo, w extra crazy sauce, threats of lawsuits and calls to physical violence.
Well that's really weird. You've completely seized the ancient mistake our species has been making for decades! You should be the sovereign of spelling!
no criminal organization should be allowed to hide under the thin veil of religion
if they offer therapy to people for a fee they need to adhere to state guidelines and laws concerning licencing.
"1 Scientology has attempted to operate its Narconon drug "therapy" program outside of required State licensing or inspection on a leased "independently sovereign" Indian reservation outside of Newkirk Oaklahoma. Just this month, after extensive and costly litigation the state goverment of Oaklahoma ordered this facility closed."
They were just way too pushy. OMG and I don't even know how they call themselves a church. I'm Catholic and we just go about our own business and don't try to convert anyone or make people believe what we believe.
Didn't the Church of Scientology own (a big stake in) earthlink.net some years ago? Is this still the case? If so, does this mean that this ISP's users will be banned from editing Wikipedia?
For more really really fun and interesting info, go to Operation Clambake. Before you freak about the URL, the URL is real, and so is the guy (Andreas Heldal-Lund, who runs this out of Norway, which is why Scientology has not gotten any legal traction against him yet). I recommend a read, for what little that's worth.
I've wondered if it would be feasible to have a dedicated Wikipedia server that is dedicated to 'banned' accounts. Instead of marking the accounts banned, you just mark them to go to this private dedicated server. That way they continue to make edits not realizing that no one else is seeing them. Even allow them to police themselves.
There's a page that lists famous Boy Scouts and Eagle Scouts.
I always add, with CITATIONS FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES and other sources,
Charles Manson
and
Dennis Rader ("BTK Serial Killer)
and the terrorist group known as the BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA promptly removes it.
TOR exit nodes are already notoriously difficult to edit from: *You can't edit anonymously. *If you have a new-ish account that is barely old enough to let you edit semi-protected articles, your account is treated as if it was new when you are connected via TOR.
Well, when the conservatives felt that Wikipedia had too much of a liberal bias, they went and founded Conservapedia [conservapedia.com], so maybe COS could start scientolopedia.com or something?
Well, when the conservatives felt that Wikipedia had too much of a liberal bias, they went and founded Conservapedia, so maybe COS could start scientolopedia.com or something?
Seems unlikely, given how secretive the COS is. The less information there is publicly, the better, seems to be the way they look at it.
"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for all people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." -- Noam Chomsky
They are free to express themselves. Just not over here on this privately run website, that is supposed to host impartial articles on a wide range of subjects, because they refuse to be impartial in their expressions there. They are still perfectly free to express themselves though (this being the internet and all, they can post their drivel just about anywhere).
Random side note: Since they are all supposed to be reincarnations of super beings (or something), why is it that they haven't cured cancer for us yet?
Random side note:
Since they are all supposed to be reincarnations of super beings (or something), why is it that they haven't cured cancer for us yet?
Of course they can but it requires a super ultra rare L. Ron Hubbard signed E-meter selling for the ultra low price of $999,999,999.00 along with Scientology literature that costs an extra $99,999.99 plus training at a secret compound for the discounted price of $500,000 per year for fifty years.
And it takes several rounds from a shotgun, three to the chest, one to the head. Take a look at the death of Mary Florence Barnett, the mother of David Miscavige, the current head of Scientology. (http://www.badcult.info/watd/flo_barnett/coroner.html) Suicide? With multiple shotgun rounds? And _two_ suicide notes?
While the suicide of a cancer patient can be understandable, this does seem.... beyond the usual efforts of a cancer ridden person, threatening their church with lawsuits.
The Irony (Score:5, Funny)
Does this mean that Scientology now has to do their edits Anonymously?
Re:The Irony (Score:5, Funny)
Our E-Meter detects more money in your pocket.
Parent
So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:The Irony (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it means they have to use other IP addresses. It's stupid of Wikipedia to think this stops anything.
Parent
Re:The Irony (Score:5, Funny)
*picture of Picard facepalming*
Parent
Fine by me (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fine by me (Score:5, Insightful)
No, but all this does is cracks down on "official" astroturfing. We all know that xenu's followers will simply do their edits from home, from now on.
This sort of thing cannot be contained if the information is publically editable. I just hope this doesn't mark the beginning of the end for Wikipedia.
Parent
Re:Fine by me (Score:5, Interesting)
This sort of thing cannot be contained if the information is publically editable. I just hope this doesn't mark the beginning of the end for Wikipedia.
If this was the end, wikipedia has had the fat lady singing since the beginning. There's way too much useful information nobody bothers getting into an edit war about to be killed off by these sorts of things. If I didn't read about them on slashdot, I'd barely know they were there but I guess that's because I already know where to expect them.
Parent
Re:Fine by me (Score:5, Informative)
As much as I despise Scientology, I don't see why their cult should be singled out for direct criticisms in the opening paragraphs of the article, (e.g "cult that financially defrauds and abuses its members"). While this may be true, other cults (oh ok "religions", whats the difference) that do the same thing are being described in completely different way, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints [wikipedia.org] This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not a newspaper editorial so I think the tone and content of the opening 4 paragraphs I think do need some changes. I am afraid to make them though cause I might get banned from the site.
The reason they are singled out for that type of description is there is an enormous amount of evidence to support the description. Church leaders have lied cheated and stolen to support their agenda. The organization has a longstanding harrassment policy against it's detractors. They are extremely good at abusing the legal system to their ends and mostly getting away with it. Other groups most certainly do not come anywhere near the level of abuse that the COS does. Besides that, I don't see the description you refer to in an article right now.
Parent
Re:Fine by me (Score:5, Interesting)
The scale and profound history of criminal behavior of the cult throughout its history and among its top leadership. This is coupled with the cult's dangerous and historically criminal attacks against critics to turn mere "astroturfing" into an affirmation of their fraudulent and criminal behavior.
So, no, the Mormons don't do the same thing. Those differences are what make Scientology a cult: the steps are pretty well described by Steve Hassn, and easily reviewed at his Wikipedia site (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Hassan).
Parent
Re:Fine by me (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.nysun.com/national/judges-press-irs-on-church-tax-break/70957/ [nysun.com]
Parent
About Fucking Time (Score:5, Informative)
The Church of Scientology has a long history of censorship and general Internet fuckery.
http://www.factnet.org/Scientology/censorware.html [factnet.org]
Two things:
1. Wikipedia should never lift the ban.
2. Jimbo should watch his back; Scientology *DOES NOT* play nice when it doesn't get what it wants.
Re:About Fucking Time (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, look what they did to that Shamwow dude.
Parent
Re:About Fucking Time (Score:5, Interesting)
http://community.atom.com/Post/AntiScientologyInfomercials/03EFBFFFF0182C7B8000800AE87F1/ [atom.com]
Wow, I'm pretty impressed. Almost makes me want to buy one of these shitty towels... almost.
Parent
Re:About Fucking Time (Score:5, Informative)
My brother in law is a practicing Scientologist, and he works at the "Church" in San Diego.
He's explained to me time and time again that the church's position is "if you're not with us, you're against us", and that they defend their territory without impunity. Even perceived threats are great game.
When I ask him, "how can you trust an institution that is so legally violent? if it wanted to be judged by its merits, it shouldn't be litigating the hell out of everyone that stands in its way!", he responds "our opponents deserve litigation because they intend to suppress us". It is quite frustrating to have these conversations with him.
Even more interestingly is that inter-church issues are not taken to court, in fact, to take an internal quarrel to court is grounds from a church ban. They have their own "ethics committees" that see such cases, but they generally follow their own laws and not those of the locale they're in.
So I asked him, "if it's a matter of a constitutional issue, why wouldn't you take it up to the Supreme Court?" and his reply is "we don't trust or expect the legal system to understand how we do things."
I'm quite sure he didn't see the double standard in his views - litigation is good, when it's convenient for the church to litigate.
Parent
Re:About Fucking Time (Score:5, Insightful)
The part about how they treat the outside is definitely evil, although primarily evil insofar as they have a lot of money and intend on doing harm.
The rest doesn't seem at all like a double standard or inherently malevolent. We're all free to get along and settle our differences outside of court. The courts inherently exist only for the cases when no agreement can be reached, but action is required. Definitely it's a huge drain on society to have people dragging one another in there for every trivial piece of bullshit infighting that may occur. Get along, as much as possible.
I don't especially want to take my sister to court because she didn't pay me that $100 back that I loaned her in high school. Nor is there a double standard if I should take my phone company to court if they refuse to reimburse me for making a mistake on my bill. I might be able to agree with my sister, or decide that it's not worth the family hostility, but the phone company is (at best) nobody to me.
Parent
Re:About Fucking Time (Score:5, Interesting)
Legally violent? They're not above assassination attempts and framejobs for outsiders and raping and murdering insiders.
Parent
Re:About Fucking Time (Score:5, Interesting)
Auditing is the process through which they clear "engrams" from the subconscious. It is basically untrained hypnosis, and dangerous. They say it's not hypnosis, but a state of high suggestibility. Same thing to me.
It is through auditing that they become better Scientologists. In this process, however, the brainwash sets in. Eventually, subjects believe that the way of the CoS is the *right* way of doing things. It is a misguided but honorable goal. I've met many Scientologists, many of them are very smart and very capable. My brother in law is hilarious and a great friend. He's not weird by any means. He wants to do it to become a better person. Any attempt to steer him away from it gets shut down rather quickly.
The CoS is full of mostly well-intentioned people that got caught up in a dangerous web of lies (and economic loss). They have been psychologically programmed to do things that we find offensive.
It is very interesting to see the defense mechanisms that church policies have. Almost every rule I've heard of can be easily tied to preventing the Scientologist from realizing the harm he's caused himself: psychiatric treatment (especially medication), the "internal law", keeping "suppressive personalities" away, etc.
My brother in law is quite reasonable in his unreasonableness. He understands we disagree so we hardly touch the subject anymore, and he is open to discussion, but is NOT open to finding a middle ground. Any attempts to do so are seen with skepticism.
He's told me numerous time that the "space opera" that you can read about in Wikipedia is just made up by the press, I wonder what's going to happen when he hits OT3 and they serve it to him on a hot dish of shit.
Parent
Re:About Fucking Time (Score:5, Interesting)
2. Jimbo should watch his back; Scientology *DOES NOT* play nice when it doesn't get what it wants.
Simple solution to this. Any religion that says you can ignore the law may do so, but must be subject to it's own proclamations. It seems to me that if their own policies were applied to them, they wouldn't have a right to due process, nor would their "enemies" be bound by the rule of law. Good luck defending yourselves and practicing your religion without the law.
I almost never post anonymously but I need a bunch of religious zealot nutjobs with no moral compass harassing me like I need a terminal disease.
Parent
Why!? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Why!? (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, it's all fine and nice to be anti-religion, but I am so sick of people involving Christianity whenever Scientology comes up. There is a difference between religion and cult, despite trying to lump them together for your own jollies, and this is coming from an atheist.
Parent
Re:Why!? (Score:5, Insightful)
I am so sick of people involving Christianity whenever Scientology comes up. There is a difference between religion and cult
Agreed. And since some people don't see it, modern religions don't try to turn their followers against non-followers. They don't try to seclude followers from their families, either. They don't try to kill people that leave the fold.
Note that some religious fanatics may have the above characteristics, but fanatics do not make up the majority of the people that consider themselves religious.
Parent
Re:Why!? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't entirely buy that. Most mainstream religions don't require a person to see themselves as worthy ONLY through the religion and most DON'T require as much offerings or tithing they can pressure you out of. There is a huge difference between the corner Baptist church where they don't get bent out of shape if you go to church with your Methodist friend some Sunday and a group like the Moonies. That Baptist church most likely isn't after you to sign over all your money and capital then sell yourself into virtual slavery to cross the Bridge as Scientology will.
Religions differ in the demands they make on parishioners and in the control exerted on them. Religions that make inordinate demands on your social, psychological, time, credulity, and financial resources deserve a pejorative and "cult" is as good as any.
There is plenty not to like about more mainstream religions like the Baptists and Southern Baptists especially but being a cult isn't one of them.
Parent
Re:Why!? (Score:5, Insightful)
That definition still includes a good proportion of American Christians, since one of the larger (and certainly fastest-growing) sects of Christianity in the US is Pentecostalism, run by pop-star-like, very wealthy and often TV-show-having leaders of megachurches.
Parent
Re:Why!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
It was only a matter of time (Score:5, Interesting)
xenu (Score:5, Funny)
It's not their fault! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It's not their fault! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
how many more people have to die? (Score:5, Interesting)
no criminal organization should be allowed to hide under the thin veil of religion
if they offer therapy to people for a fee they need to adhere to state guidelines and laws concerning licencing.
"1 Scientology has attempted to operate its Narconon drug
"therapy" program outside of required State licensing or
inspection on a leased "independently sovereign" Indian
reservation outside of Newkirk Oaklahoma. Just this month, after
extensive and costly litigation the state goverment of Oaklahoma
ordered this facility closed."
http://skull.piratehaven.org/~atman/factnet/scnbond2.txt [piratehaven.org]
Its amazing how many people have ended up 6-feet under after becoming a member of scientology:
http://www.badcult.info/watd/ [badcult.info]
Good :) (Score:5, Funny)
They were just way too pushy. OMG and I don't even know how they call themselves a church. I'm Catholic and we just go about our own business and don't try to convert anyone or make people believe what we believe.
Scientology and earthlink.net (Score:5, Interesting)
Didn't the Church of Scientology own (a big stake in) earthlink.net some years ago? Is this still the case? If so, does this mean that this ISP's users will be banned from editing Wikipedia?
So now it's... (Score:5, Funny)
Wikipedia - the free encyclopedia many people can edit!
What Science? (Score:5, Insightful)
Scientology is to science what Al Qaeda is to Islam, total fucktards having hijacked a noble precept.
Operation Clambake (Score:5, Informative)
For more really really fun and interesting info, go to Operation Clambake. Before you freak about the URL, the URL is real, and so is the guy (Andreas Heldal-Lund, who runs this out of Norway, which is why Scientology has not gotten any legal traction against him yet). I recommend a read, for what little that's worth.
http://www.xenu.net/ [xenu.net]
Devious alternatives (Score:5, Interesting)
I've wondered if it would be feasible to have a dedicated Wikipedia server that is dedicated to 'banned' accounts. Instead of marking the accounts banned, you just mark them to go to this private dedicated server. That way they continue to make edits not realizing that no one else is seeing them. Even allow them to police themselves.
Re:Devious alternatives (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
I hope they ban the Boy Scouts of America next (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Yay (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Tor already mostly blocked (Score:5, Informative)
TOR exit nodes are already notoriously difficult to edit from:
*You can't edit anonymously.
*If you have a new-ish account that is barely old enough to let you edit semi-protected articles, your account is treated as if it was new when you are connected via TOR.
Parent
Re:nice (Score:5, Funny)
Wikipedia 2 - Rise of the Thetans
That sounds like something Hubbard would cook up!
Parent
Re:nice (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, when the conservatives felt that Wikipedia had too much of a liberal bias, they went and founded Conservapedia [conservapedia.com], so maybe COS could start scientolopedia.com or something?
Parent
Re:nice (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:nice (Score:5, Informative)
when the conservatives felt that Wikipedia had too much of a liberal bias
"Reality has a well-known liberal bias." --Stephen Colbert [youtube.com]
Parent
Re:nice (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, when the conservatives felt that Wikipedia had too much of a liberal bias, they went and founded Conservapedia, so maybe COS could start scientolopedia.com or something?
Seems unlikely, given how secretive the COS is. The less information there is publicly, the better, seems to be the way they look at it.
Parent
Re:freedom of expression (Score:5, Insightful)
This is one private entity to another, a simple case of "my house, my rules" - Abuse them and I'll make you leave.
Parent
Re:freedom of expression (Score:5, Insightful)
"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for all people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." -- Noam Chomsky
They are free to express themselves. Just not over here on this privately run website, that is supposed to host impartial articles on a wide range of subjects, because they refuse to be impartial in their expressions there. They are still perfectly free to express themselves though (this being the internet and all, they can post their drivel just about anywhere).
Random side note:
Since they are all supposed to be reincarnations of super beings (or something), why is it that they haven't cured cancer for us yet?
Parent
Re:freedom of expression (Score:5, Funny)
Random side note: Since they are all supposed to be reincarnations of super beings (or something), why is it that they haven't cured cancer for us yet?
Of course they can but it requires a super ultra rare L. Ron Hubbard signed E-meter selling for the ultra low price of $999,999,999.00 along with Scientology literature that costs an extra $99,999.99 plus training at a secret compound for the discounted price of $500,000 per year for fifty years.
Parent
Re:freedom of expression (Score:5, Informative)
Parent