Haha, I'm not surprised! I don't have the b@lls to post negative news items about the Org on FB, etc., but even in conversation they don't want to hear about negative news items. When the Conti case verdict first got announced, a group of us was talking about it. After about 10 minutes discussing the actual policies of the wTS and the ins and outs of the Org's procedures in handling abuse claims, somebody in the group finally stood up and said, "I don't think it's right for us to be talking negatively of the Organization."
When someone responded "We're not, we're just talking about how the jury obviously felt about the WTS' policies and procedures. We're not saying anything negative about how the WTS handled it."
"Well, it doesn't matter. Even if it happens to be true, if it's paints the Org in a negative light, we ignore it and not talk about it."
(I just kept my mouth shut; I didn't want call attention to myself. I could tell that what he said didn't make sense or sit well several people in the group, but because of institutionalized fear of being seen as negative toward the Org, everyone kept their mouths shut and moved on to another topic.)