Defending free speech

Free speech is one of the most basic human rights. Defending it often
comes with a cost. Those brave enough to defend our right to speak out
despite personal loss deserves our admiration.

Some people claim their beliefs are such that it should not be countered,
criticized or ridiculed. And a few are so convinced they hold the key to truth
that they reserve the right to bully, crush or kill anyone daring to
challenge their beliefs.

Like Scientology. Ingrained in the subject is the belief that Scientology
holds the Truth, the Whole Truth and Nothing But the Truth. And so
Scientologists are encouraged to bully and crush all opposition. Tender as
they are, they cannot stand having their beliefs countered.

Before the Internet, the Church of Scientology was able to target its
resources to hunt down and remove any critics. After 1995, the scene
started to change. With champions of free speech such as Andreas
Heldal-Lund (of and scores of others on the old newsgroup ARS,
Scientology was countered, criticized and ridiculed. The church tried to
battle the waves of criticism coming from this new frontier, but to no
avail. The founder of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard, never predicted the
Internet and so he never devised any policies or plan to handle such a
massive arena for free speech.


In recent years, Scientology has been made to grow up through waves of
free speech champions on the Net. Anonymous did a splendid job of grinding
down any effective opposition to free speech left in the marrow of

Whereas before it was dangerous to speak out against Scientology, today
you can freely speak. You can counter it with scientific arguments, your
own subjective hunches, satire or obscene ridicule.

No beliefs – political, religious or otherwise – should have any special
defence against criticism. No people of any belief should be able to pose
special restrictions on the free speech of others.

Free speech is a two-way street. We should reserve our right to be openly

Today very few would support any special rights for Scientologists not to
be the target of satire.

How come the same can not be said of all religions or political views? Why are we so
sensitive to criticism against Judaism, democracy, Islam or the US?

I believe we should massively criticize all beliefs to the point where
those holding the beliefs defend them sensibly using free speech instead
of unfair play or violence.

I vote for more satire, not less.

Thanks Andreas. Thanks Anonymous. You have shown effective means.

Video: Scientology and Wikipedia (Internet war)

My first video on the Church of Scientology’s Internet war created a bit of a splash. The interview I did with J. Swift over at Karen De La Carriere’s lasted more than 45 minutes and will be cut to at least 10 videos. This second video, featured on Tone Ortega’s, covers the church’s situation in 2009 where they were banned from editing the Wikipedia pages on Scientology. I talk here about my proposed strategy on how they could mitigate the situation:

Church of Scientology and their Internet war

It’s been a busy afternoon here as my first video from my interview with J. Swift at Karen’s hit the Net. It was first featured at Tony Ortega’s blog. Then it got Slashdotted. Here’s the video:

FYI: The OSA meeting in LA where they first used me as a strategic advisor on Internet matters happened in late Autumn 2001. There will be more on my work for OSA in videos to come, including my proposal on how they should have handled the Wikipedia bar in 2009.