I have been blogging last January 6, about what appeared to be a ridiculous ordinance preventing critics from picketing Gold base.
However, what the article did NOT say, and what apparently was also concealed by critics, is the following information to be found in that article:
"However, the revision preserved Anonymous' right to protest in its usual position across from the main gate"
So, during all this time, critics were protesting about a supposedly anti free speech ordinance when in fact it preserved their right to protest in the position where they protested before?
Furthermore, we also learn of new developments as well:
"At one point, the Sheriff's Deputies emerged and their Sergeant informed us that Scientology and the Riverside County's Legal Counsel had worked out an interpretation of Ordinances 884 and 888. Provided we did not use the name of any living Scientologist specifically, and only protested Scientology generally, we could protest up and down both sides of Highway 79."
For the rest, I am highly skeptical of the article, considering the source. IndyBay has indeed been so biased against Scientology in the past it could virtually be considered as a critic mouthpiece, with all the cultic thinking that goes with it. I would need to wait for more reliable source before considering what they claim as a worthy news item.
I already note, however, a couple of fallacies, which I blog about separately here and here.
Related blog entries: