By Selwyn Duke

The Church of Scientology is threatening legal action against Andrew Morton, author of Tom Cruise: An Unauthorized Biography, a work that paints the cult in a negative light.

This strategy isn’t unusual for the church, as it was prescribed by its founder, L. Ron Hubbard.  He once said,

"The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than win.

The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly."

This approach isn’t unusual, of course.  The courts have become a weapon with which the rich and powerful can silence opposition and destroy opponents.  For example, this strategy has been used to great effect by the ACLU (although their aim certainly is to win) in its effort to purge our public square of traditionally-present religious sentiments and symbolism.  With an overflowing war chest, all the anti-American group need do is threaten a locality with legal action and it will often fold like a tent; this is especially true of small towns, which often lack the resources to fight protracted legal battles.

One obvious victim of this strategy is the Boy Scouts.  For a long time the organization was attacked from all sides: Atheists sued them because they had the word "God" in their pledge, a girl  sued them because she wanted to be a "boy scout," and homosexuals sued them because they don’t allow avowed homosexuals to be members.  And I really believe that when leftists take such legal action, while they’d love to prevail, they relish the fact that, if nothing else, they will drain their victim of valuable resources.  In the case of the Scouts, these leftists — who make such a show of their desire to help the poor — achieved the very noble goal of ensuring there were fewer funds available to aid poor children.

This is why we must have a "loser pays" law.  It’s outrageous and unconscionable that a person can abuse, menace and possibly destroy others through the courts with impunity.  Thus, if you choose to sue someone and you lose, you should have to pay his legal fees (I would also include extra funds to compensate him for his time and emotional distress).  My attitude is, hey, if you want to sue someone, go ahead.  But you’d better make sure it isn’t frivolous.  Because if it is, he’s going to be making a living off you.   

Critics say that a "loser pays" law hurts the downtrodden, as it becomes more difficult for them to seek legal redress. 

This is a poor argument. 

While those of modest means would be less likely to sue and, in certain cases, abuse others, they also would be less likely to be sued and abused.  Thus, I consider this aspect of the matter a wash.  The only group our current system benefits on balance is lawyers.  No matter who are the victims or victimizers, they are always capitalizers.

We should also think about the goal of those who use our legal system as a hammer.  They wish to silence others, and it’s largely effective.  For instance, I have an editor who toned down my criticism of a certain dirty, low-down scoundrel, explaining that so-and-so "litigates for a living."

Is this the kind of society we want, one in which people are afraid to voice their beliefs for fear of legal grim reapers?  Should we make it easier for one to speak his mind or rob someone else blind? 

If a man attacks you in the street, he runs the risk of serious personal harm should he be less than successful.  When someone uses and abuses the courts by using them to abuse you, it is no less an attack; yet, should you block this punch, he can just walk away unscathed, even if you are left with a bruised arm.

This is nothing less than an immoral situation, and it shouldn’t be allowed to stand.  Everyone loves to talk about tort reform, but it needs to take one specific form:

A "loser pays" law. 

                                                 Protected by Copyright