Anonymous' attack on Gene Simmons was for his advocating suing the pants off of anyone and everyone. Then he went and said, basically, that he'd found some of t

Anonymous' attack on Gene Simmons was for his advocating suing the pants off of anyone and everyone. Then he went and said, basically, that he'd found some of them and was going to post their pictures online. That really let loose the hounds. In Anonymous' mind (I have absolutely no relationship with the group, other than academic curiosity), I believe it goes a little like the aversion we have as a society to not incite riots. He was advocating being (potentially) frivolously litigious. That made him a target - not some random opinion. Compare how Gene acts towards the internet and how Trent Reznor acts towards the internet. Gene may have an order of magnitude higher net worth (~300mm vs ~35mm, according to "Celebrity Net Worth" - probably not a very good source), but he got it by playing crappy bass in a mediocre band, being a litigious douchebag, selling a lot of over the top merchandise. Trent made it by making good (subjectively) music, and continued to make it by making music instead of Nine Inch Nails-branded coffins. And uses the internet to great success. Which is a better netizen?