Skip to content


Church of Scientology loses to First Amendment

Recently, the “Church” of Scientology pushed an ordinance in Riverside County, California, to keep “members” of the group Anonymous away from their fortress-like Gold Base, and it was passed almost unanimously by Riverside County supervisors. But today, Riverside County decided to back away from that decision, at least for now because of the inevitable fall-out from such a restrictive ordinance.

The ordinance pushed by the “Church” would restrict picketers by prohibiting them from protesting within 300 feet of Gold Base. The “Church” and their friend inside Riverside County, Supervisor Jeff Stone, argued that Gold Base is a residential area, and there is already a law that prohibits picketers from picketing a person’s home. During the hearings, proponents tried to argue that Anonymous is a hate group by pulling images from imageboard 4chan, which is regarded as the “birthplace” of Anonymous. (4chan is an image board which has spawned many internet inside jokes and memes such as the Rick Roll. Its humour is often explicit, and, admittedly, sometimes offensive.)

Free speech has not quite won this battle yet: the Riverside County board of supervisors still think this ordinance is worth “massaging and tweaking” so that a compromise can be reached. But, for now, this is a temporary victory for Anonymous, and a temporary loss for the tyrannical “Church” of Scientology.

If you enjoyed this post, why not subscribe to our RSS feed or follow us on Twitter? You might also consider making a donation to the Counterknowledge.com fighting fund.

Posted in Counterknowledge, Cults, Scientology. Tagged with , , .

Related posts:

6 responses

  1. hartley patterson said

    Your report is inaccurate. The proposed Ordinance would not have prevented picketing at Gold Base as it clearly and explicitly restricts itself to a single residential building that is being targeted by picketers. Local Press reports and the Board of Supervisors were aware of this.
    What the Church of Scientology’s lawyers are trying to do is not to get picketing banned directly but to create legal complications and court cases so that the picketers will give up and go away.

  2. Mad Kow said

    Most prisons are indeed considered residences.

  3. The main problem is that nobody, particularky people linked one way or the other to the criminal cult, is able to pass a law which would be very contrary to the First Amendmen, US constutution, as well as against the main provisions of the UN Pact on Human rights.

    Scintology cult abused the IRS, CONTRARY to the US Supreme Court, but it should not have any right to suppress free speech and definitive strggle against its completely illegal violations of its own staffs and clients human rights.

Incoming links from other sites

  1. Jeff Stone and Gold Base - a victory for free speech? - Counterknowledge - Why We Protest | Activism Forum linked to this post on 12 December 2008

    [...] Jeff Stone and Gold Base - a victory for free speech? - Counterknowledge Recently, the ?Church? of Scientology pushed an ordinance in Riverside County, California, to keep ?members? of the group Anonymous away from their fortress-like Gold Base, and it was passed almost unanimously by Riverside County supervisors. But today, Riverside County decided to back away from that decision, at least for now because of the inevitable fall-out from such a restrictive ordinance. Read the rest: Church of Scientology Loses to First Amendment - Counterknowledge.com [...]

  2. Church of Scientology loses to First Amendment « Number 6-Anonymous Warrior linked to this post on 15 December 2008

    [...] Church of Scientology loses to First Amendment 14 12 2008 Crossposted at Counterknowledge.com [...]

  3. A Crapload Of Scientology Updates :: Agent Bedhead linked to this post on 19 December 2008

    [...] the beatings. At any rate, a bit of good news for those who believe in the 1st Amendment, which has thwarted attempts by the CO$: Recently, the “Church” of Scientology pushed an ordinance in Riverside County, [...]

Some HTML is OK

(required)

(required, but never shared)

or, reply to this post via trackback.