Broadly Geeklawyer would say that Denial of Service Attacks were, and should be, criminal offences.
Ah yes, you say, a ‘but‘ is in the air;
There has been a recent sustained attempt to remove this evil quack religion/business/multi-level-marketing-scam from the Internet by online vigilantes who are engaged in DDos attacks.
Fucking good job too. Scientology is the scummy scam product of the fraudster Ron L. Hubbard who confessed to a friend that creating one’s own religion was a great way to make a fortune. Geeklawyer would not, of course, encourage assist aid or incite the commission of any offence, except the murder of Tony Blair, but he remains supportive of their objectives. If they wish dogged vicious intractable and determined pro-bono legal aid in the event of their capture then they may have Geeklawyer’s services gratis.
On a side note, Tom ‘Loony Laugh‘ Cruise has recently been widely mocked for his embarrassing weird video that he has been trying to remove from the Internet because it demonstrates that not only is he a shit actor (Did you see “War of the Worlds”?) but a loony recruitment whacko for his pet cult. And he is, of course, not even slightly a closet homosexual.
As I...
Somehow, “loony” doesn’t even begin to describe a ” religion” which claims that humanity is descended from your bog standard local mollusc, and is chock full of ‘Engrams’(illnesses?)left by the souls of deceased ailens which live in volcanos and were blown up by some other ailen or something…. (* looses plot at this point and takes to drink*)
Good post, and I agree entirely. It’s a scary, scary cult which needs to be declared such by as many people as possible.
Could beating up a Scientologist (let’s face it, Tiny Tom is *properly* asking for it) be described as religiously motivated? Scientology isn’t really a religion, so despite its being the catalyst for the attack, would it be a religiously motivated thing, or could the person in question just say they gave him a beating because he’s a prick?
My incompetence at criminal law is the subject of much mirth & nipple tweaking by Ruthie, but I wasn’t sure that religious ‘hate attacks’ were a specific crime (racial & sexuality attacks, yes). If that is right then it wouldn’t attract an extra penal element: you’d just be done for assault. To which there is perfect mitigation. to whit:
“Geeklawyer: Your Honour the victim of the assault was Tom Cruise.”
“Judge (without listening to further submissions): Mr Cruise you are hereby sentenced to 5 years of hard labour. I’ll work out the charge later; and you must pay the accused £50k in damages”
‘Your Honour the victim of the assault was Tom Cruise’:
i thought it already was a section 3 defence under the criminal law act 1967 - i mean he’s bound to do something wrong sooner or later. And isn’t there a proposed reform to do with keeping small annoying people off the streets?