Re: Anti-Quackwatch "Defamation" Litigation ROARS Forward... [updated]

Corinthian, why couldn't QuackWatch advance its position without resorting to attacking free speech?

If QuackWatch's position is correct, can't it make its claims without trying to silence its critics?

Corinthian, if you explained to a Scientologist that one of the biggest problems with Scientology is that its attempts to silence its critics are blatant examples of violating free speech, wouldn't you expect that single datum (especially since Scientology claims to support free speech) to be sufficient to cause the Scientologist to start to question the real intent of the church?

Be intellectually honest here. Wouldn't that single datum (with supporting evidence) be enough for you, in your own mind, to expect that Scientologist to start to see the light, so to speak?

Or do you mean to suggest that you think it's perfectly acceptable for Scientology (and, therefore, QuackWatch) to invoke fair game on its critics and engage in whatever legal trickery it can in order to violate the free speech rights of its critics?

Or is it simply that, like Scientologists, you are willing to ignore the tactics used by the group you support when attacking a group you don't?

My money's on that last one, and if I'm right, you have no integrity whatsoever.