Free to shine
Shiny & Free
From Tony Ortega:
http://tonyortega.org/2014/06/12/ap...ur-coverage-of-them-legitimates-their-spying/
http://www.scribd.com/doc/229415666/Monique-Rathbun-v-Scientology-CSI-Appeal-Brief
Wonderful shoop here. I'm not going to hotlink it, worth a click:
http://tonyortega.org/2014/06/12/ap...-legitimates-their-spying/#comment-1432828739
http://tonyortega.org/2014/06/12/ap...ur-coverage-of-them-legitimates-their-spying/
And here’s that new twist we mentioned — Scientology suggests that our Village Voice coverage of the Squirrel Busters siege of the Rathbun home is proof that Scientology’s goon squad was accomplishing its goal. Wow.
Rathbun was such a threat, Scientology suggests, the church pretty much had no choice but to hire some private investigators and some lawyers to consider possible litigation.
One of the most interesting results in Waldrip’s decision was that because Scientology kept insisting it was protecting its “trademarks” when it was surveilling the Rathbuns, then it was acting like a business protecting its turf. And a business protecting its turf cannot fall back on an anti-SLAPP motion. Naturally, Scientology is griping about that, and says “the court ignored the IRS’s contrary finding that the Church has an exlusively charitable and religious purpose.”
Scientology also says Waldrip erred because he didn’t consider this a free speech case. Scientology counters that it is a speech battle, and one that is “a matter of public concern.” Their evidence? Once again, it’s our press interest in their harassment of the Rathbuns. Fascinating.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/229415666/Monique-Rathbun-v-Scientology-CSI-Appeal-Brief
Wonderful shoop here. I'm not going to hotlink it, worth a click:
http://tonyortega.org/2014/06/12/ap...-legitimates-their-spying/#comment-1432828739