Lawyers shouldn't determine who gets to read what. Religions shouldn't determine who gets to think what. But the worst combination is when religions use lawyers to stop criticism of their actions and beliefs.
Scientology, the money making scam purveyed by the mentally deficient (I can't think of a nicer way to say it), has prevented Andrew Morton's biography of Tom Cruise, the couch and shark jumping actor, from being sold in Australia. This follows similar moves made, by threats of litigation as usual, in the UK.
Now, I don't know whether Morton's biography is a piece of crap or a meticulously researched and authoritative study, but I am minded to buy a copy by the internet just to spite the Scientologists.
More like this
Frank Crary said:
[Kennesaw] was a response to Morton Grove's gun ban. Guess which "worked"
better?
If by "worked" you mean that crime rates were lower after the
relevant law than before, the answer is Morton Grove.
Diederich Andrew Richard said:
What you need to know before the fight begins is that the gun control
lobby has no intention of fighting a good fight based on truth
and accuracy. They intend to use disinformation, inaccuracy and lies
to mislead you.
There is much blogospheric chatter right now about how newspapers will survive the combination of recession, with associated collapse in advertising revenue; the maturing of the internet as multi-media; and the obsolete business model of most newspapers.
This has been a pretty standard Scientology tact for some time. They're a religion until someone publishes a critical book, and then it becomes a copyright issue. They did an attempted purge on the Internet about six or seven years ago.
What seems very sad is that the courts let this crooked organization get away with it. I can't support Germany's attempts to outright ban them, but I certainly understand the underlying sentiment.