Scientology Critic Arrested After 6 Years

destinyland writes "Friday police arrested 64-year-old Keith Henson. In 2000 after picketing a Scientology complex, he was arrested as a threat because of a joke Usenet post about "Tom Cruise Missiles." He fled to Canada after being found guilty of "interfering" with a religion, and spent the next 6 years living as a fugitive. Besides being a digital encryption and free speech advocate, he's one of the original Burr-Brown/Texas Instruments researchers and a co-founder of the Space Colony movement."

Tom Cruise Missile

[lecithin (745575)]

"Other posters joined in the internet discussion, asking whether Tom Cruise missiles are affected by wind. "No way," Keith joked. "Modern weapons are accurate to a matter of a few tens of yards."

So, does that make Tom Cruise a 'straight shooter'?

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[DJCacophony (832334)]

Tom Cruise? Straight? I think not.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[by Anonymous Coward]

I didn't know that interfering with a religion was a crime. Could any lawyers provide some details about this law and what constitutes breaking it?

Thanks.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[Intron (870560)]

California hate crime [la.ca.us] law from the DA's office. ... threatening to use force to injure, intimidate, or interfere with another person who is exercising his or her constitutional rights.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[morgan_greywolf (835522)]

What I would like to know is how this discussion [google.com] violates that law. I don't see anything remotely threatening, just a few people having fun talking about a non-existant 'Agent 99' and their fictitious (and humorous!) exploits.

If you can arrested for this, it makes me wonder how many /.ers have been arrested?

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[jrumney (197329)]

If you look at the original Slashdot article from the time of his conviction (linked in one of the comments here), reportedly he was not allowed to use the context of his quotes in his defense. So all the jury saw were a couple of snippets the Scientologists picked out. He probably ruined his case by going on the run, as I can't believe that a higher court would not have overturned the decision on appeal.

Not the usenet posting

[KenSeymour (81018)]

I read in TFM that he was tried and convicted based on his picketing activities outside a Scientology film studio. Since then, I have not been able to get to TFM.

You can read about it here [wikipedia.org].

So he was not arrested for that usenet discussion. He has been sued in civil court
for publishing Scientology documents. He defended himself and lost, to the tune
of $75,000. He then declared bankruptcy. At that time, he started repeatedly picketing
a Scientology film studio.

When he was convicted and sentenced to six months in jail (for the picketing),
he chose to flee to Canada because he believed that Scientologists would have him
killed in prison.

He applied for political asylum in Canada. After three years, Canada asked him
to appear in person to hear what the decision was. Fearing deportation, he packed up
and left Canada the night before.

So no, usenet posting, in this case, did not get him arrested.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[Belial6 (794905)]

I would think that threatening a person with unimaginable torture for all of eternity if they did not deny the existence of their gods would be considered a threat. Shouldn't the police start arresting the door to door Christian recruiters?

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[uncqual (836337)]

Amen

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[freakmn (712872)]

I see the point you are trying to make, but Christians don't have the power to damn someone to Hell. Usually it is said that God will damn you, or something like that. It is more of a warning, as it is not within their control. It is similar to someone telling you that if you lie in the middle of the freeway, you are likely to get hit by a car. They aren't threatening you with a car, but warning you of the car's coming. Whether you believe in what the Christians are saying or not isn't relevant, just that the message they are bringing isn't a threat.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[Lars T. (470328)]

I see the point you are trying to make, but Christians don't have the power to damn someone to Hell. Usually it is said that God will damn you, or something like that. It is more of a warning, as it is not within their control. It is similar to someone telling you that if you lie in the middle of the freeway, you are likely to get hit by a car. They aren't threatening you with a car, but warning you of the car's coming. Whether you believe in what the Christians are saying or not isn't relevant, just that the message they are bringing isn't a threat.

Oh so it's more something like: "If you don't stop posting here, somebody (who I have no control over) is going to kill you and your family!"

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[frank_adrian314159 (469671)]

I would think that threatening a person with unimaginable torture for all of eternity if they did not deny the existence of their gods would be considered a threat.

No, John Travolta's and Tom Cruise's movies just seem like they last for eternity and, as far as I know, denying isn't enough; you aren't forced to watch them unless you actively spread the information that L. Ron wasn't actually God.

Digital Monks of the Internet Monastery

[HTH NE1 (675604)]

If I were to start a religion based on the preservation of copyrighted works for when they may eventually enter the public domain, employing any methods necessary to make the copies (similar to the preservation of ancient works through the Dark Ages, sort of like Digital Monks of the Internet Monastery), can I gain similar protection against the likes of the RIAA and MPAA, provided I can afford Scientology's lawyers?

Re:Digital Monks of the Internet Monastery

[hotdiggitydawg (881316)]

I am intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:Tom Cruise Missile

[IdleTime (561841)]

Well, the real joke is "The land of the free" bullshit.

Scary

[salimma (115327)]

Have we in the Western world become so enamored by political correctness that we cannot even take a joke for what it is? A similar double standard is happening in Britain right now: racism by the majority is rightfully condemned, but some minorities seem to be able to get away with inciting hatred [guardian.co.uk] (The Observer)

Re:Scary

[garcia (6573)]

Have we in the Western world become so enamored by political correctness that we cannot even take a joke for what it is?

We've become so enamored with religion and terrorism that we can't make jokes about anything having to do with either.

Re:Scary

[DrKyle (818035)]

A terrorist, A scientologist, and a donkey walk into a bar....

The terrorist says to the scientologist,"Stay away from the donkey, I've packed him full of explosives."
The scientologist says to the terrorist,"You can't blow up the donkey, I've packed him full of thetans!"
Finally the donkey says,"Actually, I'm fine. You filled each other up, you Asses."

Re:Scary

[edwardpickman (965122)]

Comforting to see it's not just the US. Here what is percieved as the majority have to watch every word but minority groups are largely allowed to say what they want so long as it's about the majority. There is some condemnation if they insult other minorities. Intolerance and hatred is pretty color blind and virtually all groups have issues. Offhand the only major religion that doesn't condemn anyone or anything is Buddism. Most factions have some issue with some one or some thing. Even most racial conflicts tend to be more ethnic or social than racial. In the US we even have a north south division that is a hold over from the civil war. It isn't spoken of very often but there's still tension. Intolerance should never be tolerated by any group and people need to take intent into account. I remember a fuss made about a town called Fish Kil. An animal rights group was demanding they change the name of the town to something fish friendly. When locals pointed out it meant Fish River in Gaelic the group wasn't impressed and still wanted it changed. Intent is everything and sometimes the insult is in the eye of the beholder.

Re:Scary

[Firethorn (177587)]

I've read about his case, and from that I'd say the 'stalking' material would be his picketing their compound. Complete with big-ass sign.

Going by the standards that it takes to get abortion protestors arrested, there's something fishy about the case.

Re:Scary

[AndroidCat (229562)]

Odd thing about that jury, since the case, no one has been able to verify that these people actually exist.

Re:Scary

[jcr (53032)]

The 12 people on the jury never got to hear Keith's defense. Basically, he was prohibited from even telling them why he was picketing. That so-called "trial" was an absolute farce.

-jcr

Scientology isn't a Religion

[Cornflake917 (515940)]

Seriously, it's just a pyramid scheme that takes advantage of people's unhappiness. The leaders of scientology make bank by brainwashing their followers.

Even if Scientology was a legitimate religion, why is it illegal for someone to interfere with a religion, but it's completely acceptable for religions to interfere with everyone elses lifes.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[Tweekster (949766)]

The vast majority of religions that do not require payment. Most religions will teach the beliefs regardless of whether you cough up money. Some ask for donations but that is hardly on the same level as Scientology.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[jspectre (102549)]

maybe it's about time someone starts an open-source religion? license it with the gpl so it can be distributed freely and not require payment to participate in. everyone can modify it as they see fit and all gods/goddesses must be open for all to see.

i just wonder how long will it take for microsoft to embrace the new religion, add their own pantheon, patent it and try to squash the rest of us? i can hear the chant now... "developers.. developers.. developers.." as we do a monkey dance around a bonfire of burning penguins.

Being religious is like being gay

[NotQuiteReal (608241)]

Being religious is like being gay - both have a genetic component.

Some people have both genes, but I'll Cruise away from further speculation on that subject.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[Timesprout (579035)]

Legitimate religions are based on Gourds or Sandals. Scientology is based on science and so clearly is not legitimate.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[Bastian (66383)]

At this point it's no secret that L. Ron Hubbard started the Church of Scientology as a sort of get rich quick scheme. There's plenty of documentation of this, and there is plenty of information on the CoS's internal workings that has made it into the public record thanks to a number of court cases. Red flags should start flying immediately once one realizes that you have to pay the CoS thousands and thousands of dollars before they will start telling you the religion's actual theology (the stuff in Dianetics is really only the tip of the iceberg, it isn't even enough that I would be willing to say that Dianetics alone could possibly qualify as the basis for a religion).

It's true that you've struck on an interesting semantic conundrum, though. The fact of the matter is that, as part of his scheme, LRH and his compatriots did have to construct a religion, and the fact of the matter is that anything can be a religion as long as people actually believe it. And there is a group of people, the Freezone Scientologists [wikipedia.org] who have turned the official Church of Scientology and the incredible number of crimes it has committed. This group is obviously a legitimate religion as much as any religion can be according to any objective definition that I can come up with*.

*Since I can't personally determine the details of the beginnings of any religion, I don't feel it's reasonable to say one religion is legitimate and another isn't based on which ones I am guessing came from the imagination of one man and which ones are truly divinely inspired. Especially given that, as an atheist, I believe that all religions fall into the former group. So I won't call Scientology-the-religion illegitimate despite the fact that it was created as part of Scientology-the-pyramid-scheme.

Re:Scientology isn't a Religion

[raju1kabir (251972)]

It's true that you've struck on an interesting semantic conundrum, though. The fact of the matter is that, as part of his scheme, LRH and his compatriots did have to construct a religion, and the fact of the matter is that anything can be a religion as long as people actually believe it.

But that's what's great about Scientology, and why I hope to see it flourish.

The fact that something which was started in our lifetimes as a get-rick-quick scheme, could become considered a "legitimate religion" on legal par with Christianity and Islam and all the rest, is the most striking demonstration to date of why religion is a crock and in fact deserves no special legal recognition whatsoever.

Ecumenical Councils: the Christian Party Line

[spun (1352)]

You do not know or understand the history of Christianity. There were a series of meetings, known as the Ecumenical Councils [wikipedia.org], that defined what Christianity is, what it believs and professes, and what it considers heretical. The important ones occuring between 325AD and 1123AD and resolved such questions as whether Jesus was entirely Divine, entirely human, human and divine parts seperated, or human and divine parts united.

Allmost all Western Christian denominations, as well as Eastern Orthodox accept the decisions of councils 1-7. Catholics, protestants, all of them. That is the Christian party line. Oriental Orthodox churches only accept 1-3; Assyrian Christianity accepts 1-2; Mormonism, Jehova's Witnesses, Unitarians and a few other fringe groups don't accept any of the council's decisions.

Re:Ecumenical Councils: the Christian Party Line

[sokoban (142301)]

You do not know or understand the history of Christianity.

Matt. Matt. Matt. Matt. Matt. You don't know the history of Christianity, I do.

You're being glib.

Space colony, eh?

[PhxBlue (562201)]

Can we set up a solar colony for the Scientologists?

Re:Space colony, eh?

[anagama (611277)]

It needs to be in this order:
1-Set up space colony.
2-Send up scientologists.
3-Send up air.

Previous Discussion

[Lev13than (581686)]

Here's a vintage /. discussion from 2001 [slashdot.org] that discusses Hanson's escape to Canada.

Friday police

[by Anonymous Coward]

Friday police arrested 64-year-old Keith Henson.

I don't know who these Friday police are, but they should be stopped. Friday police don't have the right to stop free speech anymore than normal police do!

scientology is just an evil cult

[circletimessquare (444983)]

sometimes, i think it is wrong for countries like germany to prosecute them

other times, i think it is wrong for the usa not too

the issue is one of persecution: one should not be persecuted for their beliefs

but if you are persecuting a group BECAUSE they believe they have a right to persecute people like this poor guy who is also just expressing his beliefs, the argument about freedom kind of collapses in on itself

you are free

we all are

but you are not free to restrict the freedoms of others

and across that simple philosophical divide, so much misery in this world is created, this scientology case beign but one small example

personally, i think there is intolerance, which is evil

and then there is intolerance of intolerance, which is a virtue

you don't gain anything in this world by tolerating the intolerant, except more misery and intolerance

and i think this argument applies just as much to fundamentalist christianity and fundamentalist islam

how or why is tolerance served by tolerating the intolerant?

being intolerant of the intolerance is actually extending tolerance in this world

scientology should be punished, not this poor guy

Religion ?

[Alain Williams (2972)]

Surely calling scientology a religion is an oxymoron ?

They have lots of followers but that is only because they have been brainwashed. Scientology is a way of making money for the high ups. Another source of information about the crap that the scientologists peddle is the fishman affidavit [spaink.net] .

If there was any sense in what they were on about they would argue it out in the open, rather than using underhand legalities to silence those who show them to be the charlatans that they are.

Hmmm

[Reality Master 101 (179095)]

I'm no fan of Scientology (they suck, bottom line), but after reading the article, I'm sensing there's a LOT more to this story than we're getting told. It's not like the government are typically fans of scientologists either, so I doubt just their nutty braying is going to get someone sentenced to jail. The guy's statements make him sound a little... er... paranoid and wacked out himself.

I think this is one of those cases where both sides are crackpots. Just because the victims are scientologists doesn't mean this guy didn't do some ugly crap that we don't know about.

There have to be limits to freedom of religion

[MikeRT (947531)]

Freedom of religion should not be extended to religions that are clearly made up. There is ample evidence to show that Hubbard pulled Scientology's belief system out his ass, the same cannot be said of any other religion from Christianity to Taoism to neo-paganism. The "Church" of Scientology is nothing more than a roving scam that exploits the first amendment to avoid taxation. It has also been shown to be a haven for systematic criminal behavior and should be considered a threat to American society.

Bottom line is religions don't have "trade secrets," but Scientology does. I could buy that if it claimed to be a mystery religion or a form of gnosticism, but it doesn't. Rather, those secrets are exposed as the result of a financial transaction.

Some religion. Despite my being a libertarian, I think the Germans are right on this one. It's not a religion. It's a subversive organization that needs to be monitored by the state because it has been known to use force and criminal behavior to advance its agenda, which is not even remotely religious.

Re:There have to be limits to freedom of religion

[dpbsmith (263124)]

All religions look like they are "made up" when they are getting started, are small, and the core tenets are associated to a single leader, who claims to have received them by divine revelation.

The LDS Church (Mormons) have been around for a century and a half... old enough for some people consider it a "religion," but young enough for some people to feel that Joseph Smith just "made it up." Don't expect to see the golden plates in a museum the next time you visit Salt Lake City: Smith gave them back to the Angel Moroni.

How do you support Christianity looked during the lifetime of Jesus of Nazareth? Do you think the Roman authorities saw it as a religion? Or as something that Jesus just made up?

Deciding what counts as a religion and what doesn't is a very tricky business.

Re:There have to be limits to freedom of religion

[drxenos (573895)]

Freedom of religion should not be extended to religions that are clearly made up.

Um, wouldn't that be all religions?

Re:There have to be limits to freedom of religion

[Animats (122034)]

"religions that are clearly made up. ..." the same cannot be said of any other religion from Christianity to Taoism to neo-paganism."

Most, if not all, religions are "made up". In some cases, we know when and by whom. Christian Science was made up by Mary Baker Eddy in 1866. Mormonism was made up by Joseph Smith in 1830. Islam was made up by Mohammed around 610. Christianity was more of a group project; most modern doctrine comes from a committee meeting [wikipedia.org] in 325. In 431, there was a another meeting for a feature upgrade [wikipedia.org], and the Virgin Mary was added.

What, no linkage to Operation Clambake? :)

[bad_fx (493443)]

Here's all the info you need on Scientology [xenu.net]

In Soviet California....

[sconeu (64226)]

Xenu imprisons YOU!

It's only a matter of time...

[naChoZ (61273)]

"interfering" with a religion

So now it's just a matter of time before creationists start having archeologists arrested for digging up dinosaurs and interfering with their religion...

The moral of the story is

[ClosedSource (238333)]

Don't mess with space aliens.

Re:hm

[Applekid (993327)]

One of the things that makes Scientology dangerous is not that they believe in odd things, it's that they are very well organized and equipped to muzzle detractors. South Park attacked the fundamentals of belief in a way that's obvious. Nobody except Keith and that church branch really know what happened during his protest. The original trial where he wasn't able to even counter Scientology's accusations is a travesty of justice. Beleving in Xenu, thetans, and paying gobs of money for the privilage of memorizing word lists aren't in themselves dangerous, illegal, or even wrong. What IS dangerous is how much legal protection they are granted by being recognized as a religion and their willingness to exploit the law in their favor. Other religious organizations (Roman Catholic for the best example) dumped influencing governments centuries ago. Like a badly behaved child, this new religion is trying to do exactly what a lot of the old world religions did at one time and no longer consider fashionable.

Re:Hazy Case & Donation Fund

[thelexx (237096)]

"I personally hate Scientology but they are a religion and must be respected as one."

Not necessarily. From http://home.snafu.de/tilman/krasel/germany/ [snafu.de]:

"The German Federal Government maintains that Scientology is an organization which has primarily economical interests. This idea has been reinforced by a ruling of the Federal Labour court (which is not connected to the government in any way). After having reviewed several Scientology books, the judges concluded that Scientology is not a religion, but a commercial enterprise.

  Furthermore, the German government maintains that Scientology tries to distribute its ideas as widely as possible, ideally leading to a society where humans life together according to Scientology rules. A closer look at Hubbard's writings shows that this is not desirable since Scientology is structured in a totalitarian, anti-democratic fashion."

There is an entire faq on the Germany v Scientology thing: http://home.snafu.de/tilman/faq-you/germany.txt [snafu.de]

Re:Hazy Case & Donation Fund

[Rob the Bold (788862)]

I personally hate Scientology but they are a religion and must be respected as one. If they can convince chumps to give them money, there's nothing I can do to stop that.

I was going to say something of my own here, then I thought of this Menckenism:

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart." -- H. L. Mencken

Re:I don't get it?

[jrumney (197329)]

While not outright illegal, everyone here would give me the eyeball if I went out picketing a Jewish mosque.

If you can find yourself a Jewish mosque to picket, then I say go for it. You'd probably get a lot of support from Jews and mosques around the world (not to mention the evangelical Christians) for picketing such an abomination.