Scientologists have been arrested for sequestration of an ex-scientologist in Italy and are sued in France. Like for anonymous, scientology deny the sequestration, attack the journalists, speaks of unjustice, and would like to be considered honest in such circumstances? 
They dream.

I knew something was up. My Google Alert "See all stories on this topic" suddenly stopped picking up anything on $cientology. Now today, this news item comes up, and I get 1 hit. There used to be at least a page of hits.

Terryeo has a point. It should be against the law to even touch copyrighted works even if we were just quoting it. Like it should be illegal to criticize a religion by quoting the scriptures themselves because they are copyrighted!! That way Scientology can enjoy its status as a real religion and nobody can speak out against them or try to reform the church because then we'd be arguing over copyrighted material. Just think, the Catholic Church wouldn't have to deal with their criticism if they would just copyright the bible. Problem solved.

Nice to see that we've got another OSA comment popping up immediately. How's the rest of the people at LEAF doing? Oh, I'm sorry, here's a rather convoluted link explaining what LEAF is and the effect it can have on free media: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/browse_thread/thread/944ee8cf50e0ee56/a661ab2134a23a9a

See you on the 15th, Terryeo.

@Terryeo
I'm not sure who's paying for your little heartfelt post, but you're completely wrong. The problem with copyright laws in the U.S. is that they're slowly getting them to the point where they never end. I think we're up to something like 75yrs or so. I mean we have films that are still copyrighted, after everyone who starred in or help make the film is dead. Why? They're not making any money from it. The studio still makes a little money here and there from showings. So when are works allowed to go public domain? After a studio is sure they've squeezed every nickel out of a project?

How are we protecting the artists, creators, etc. to make sure they make a living, when they are all dead? Current U.S. copyright laws don't protect individuals who create works, but corporations. If they had it their way anytime anything they made, whether it was made 300years ago or 10 years ago, they'd get paid. Still sound like a good idea? Still see no problem?

Of course Copyright Law has a purpose. That does not mean it cannot be abused. The entire purpose of copyright laws is to prevent competitors from stealing your work and claiming it as there own. It is not to eliminate alternative opinions, hamper criticism, or attack people who are using the content in question in a perfectly legitimate manner. How anyone could think differently is simply beyond my ability to comprehe... Oh, wait. Terryeo. Didn't notice that was you at first. Figures it would be an ardent Scientologist who supports this law.

Google has been doing this for a long time (years), and so do other search engines. 

The difference between google and other search engines is, is that it shows this to the user, and puts up a link to the take down notice over at Chilling Effects (@W, that is the chilling effect link you see)

Reading the takedown request you can see WHO request the takedown, and WHAT they requested to be take down (so with a bit of effort you can still even find the page).

Would have been nice to mention that in the article, since from looking at the screenshots you did click that link.

Copyright Law has purpose. Our culture is richer because we protect artistic production. If no one wanted these things, there would be no need for law. Hollywood could not produce expensive films if they were endlessly cheap. Our great artists would (likely) not have produced many paintings, books, plays, and operas. Copyright Law makes sense. The internet difference is, any beanbrain can snipe at it.

First of all I see no such message on any google search, and second of all from the picture I gather it removed chillingeffects.org, which isn't some pirate site but an organisation seemingly involved with "monitoring the legal climate of the internet" 
And who's main page contains the line:
"But we've noticed that not everyone feels the same way. Anecdotal evidence suggests that some individuals and corporations are using intellectual property and other laws to silence other online users. Chilling Effects encourages respect for intellectual property law, while frowning on its misuse to "chill" legitimate activity."
So the plot thickens.

Considering that all written material is implicitly copyrighted under US law, Google could be forced to block any and all websites when told to. I wonder if this means that someone could include some copyrighted work in their forum signature, tell Google that their work is being infringed and have the entire site blocked.

Good job on this story. It makes one wonder what is up with some of the Western countries in that they are all of a suddon filtering content from the public. 
I think someone is trying to get back to the (let me tell you what you can know) era as I know better.