Slashdot Log In
Scientology Injunction Denied Against "Anonymous"
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Sat Mar 15, 2008 02:26 AM
from the much-gnashing-of-teeth dept.
from the much-gnashing-of-teeth dept.
Anonymous writes "A circuit court judge has denied the Church of Scientology's second request for an injunction against protests by the internet group "Anonymous." The Church sought to prevent Anonymous from protesting on the birthday of the Church's leader, the late Ron L. Hubbard. The petition filed by the Church listed twenty-six individuals allegedly affiliated with Anonymous, but "accidentally" included others who merely work near the location of the first protests held in February and did not participate in them, such as a Starbucks employee. Furthermore, the Church failed to show that any of those listed actually committed any wrongdoing."
Related Stories
[+]
Internet Group Declares War on Scientology 891 comments
Darkman, Walkin Dude writes "An internet group calling itself Anonymous has declared war on the Church of Scientology, in the form of an ominous posting to the YouTube site. 'In the statement, the group explained their goal as safeguarding the right to freedom of speech. "A spokesperson said that the group's goals include bringing an end to the financial exploitation of Church members and protecting the right to free speech, a right which they claim was consistently violated by the Church of Scientology in pursuit of its opponents." The press release also claimed that the Church of Scientology misused copyright and trademark law in order to remove criticism from websites including Digg and YouTube. The statement goes on to assert that the attacks from the group "will continue until the Church of Scientology reacts, at which point they will change strategy".' It should be noted that Slashdot users have had interactions with Scientology in the past as well."
[+]
News: "Anonymous" Takes Scientology Protest to the Streets 740 comments
This past Sunday members of the group "Anonymous" that has been running an attack on the church of Scientology took their battle from the tubes of the internet to the pavement of real life, staging a protest outside the central Phoenix Church of Scientology. "The protesters said they gathered Sunday in lieu of the birthday of Lisa McPherson, a Scientologist once cared for by church staffers. Her 1995 death sparked media attention and a civil wrongful death suit against a branch of the Church of Scientology. A wrongful death suit by her family was a public-relations nightmare for the church for years until it was settled in 2004. The Church of Scientology declined to comment on the Phoenix protests. It did provide a news release calling members of Anonymous cyber-terrorists."
[+]
Scientology Given Direct Access To eBay Database 684 comments
An anonymous reader writes "The Church of Scientology can delete auctions from eBay with no supervision under the VeRO program, and has used this to delete all resale of the e-meters Scientologists use. This is to stop members from buying used units from ex-members instead of buying from the official (and very expensive) source. Given Scientology's record of fraud and abuse, should eBay give them this level of trust? Will this set a precedent for other companies that want to stop the aftermarket resale of their products?"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Yay! (Score:5, Funny)
Grab Your Masks! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Grab Your Masks! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Their cameramen patroled public transit on 2/10 (Score:5, Informative)
They're planning on disrupting the protests [indymedia.org.au] with staged violence by anons [enturbulation.org]. Make sure you catch it all on camera if you attend.
Parent
Re:Grab Your Masks! (Score:5, Informative)
(To be fair, yes, some locations have laws against protesting in masks, or in any way that would obscure the face. However this varies greatly by location and there's certainly no blanket "masks are illegal" law like you're suggesting.)
Parent
Re:Grab Your Masks! (Score:4, Interesting)
Not sure if its tested in court.
Parent
Re:Grab Your Masks! (Score:4, Funny)
Scientology vs various John Does, Jane "Gasmask" Doe [encycloped...matica.com], Xenu, LisaMcPhersonWasMurdered [cmu.edu], TravoltaIsGay [snarkygossip.com], John Desu, Desu Desu, Desu Desu Desu Desu Desu et al, proceedings of the Internet Court [encycloped...matica.com] 2008.
Parent
Re:Grab Your Masks! (Score:5, Insightful)
~Dan
Parent
Re:Grab Your Masks! (Score:5, Informative)
Scarves are better than masks.
Parent
Re:Grab Your Masks! (Score:5, Informative)
They are so the cult doesn't make you a target.
Parent
Re:Grab Your Masks! (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Grab Your Masks! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Grab Your Masks! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll bet neither have the fundie Christians or Islamists done anything directly to harm you and yours.
Yeah, I suppose preaching hatred against gays, so they get spit on or cursed at or their friends get beaten up on the street, that doesn't count as "direct" harm.
Parent
Re:Grab Your Masks! (Score:5, Interesting)
Well the IRA tried to blow up my mother at the Ideal Home Exhibition in Birmingham. She got away unscathed but she saw someone's foot blown off. That's the catholics for you.
Parent
In other news: (Score:4, Informative)
We're never going to give them up, never going to let them down.
Re:In other news: (Score:5, Funny)
We're never going to give them up, never going to let them down.
Wow, an inline rickroll.
Fuck. I just now got ABBA out of my head, and I was going to go to sleep. Take a chance on me. FUCK.
Parent
Touched a nerve? (Score:5, Insightful)
An "injunction against protests"? In the US? Wow! They must have really touched a nerve. Keep it up!
Of course CoS had any sense at all they'd just ignore the whole thing until it blows over... but I'm counting on CoS to blow it way out of proportion. Which is exactly what Anonymous wants.
This could be an interesting showdown, especially if the protests continue to be disciplined and, well... funny!
Scientology playing dirty (Score:5, Interesting)
This article or section has multiple issues. Please help improve the article or discuss these issues on the talk page.
It needs sources or references that appear in third-party publications. Tagged since February 2008.
It may require general cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Tagged since February 2008.
It may contain improper references to self-published sources. Tagged since February 2008.
I would have a hunch, that the "Church" itself is causing the problems on the page. First The war starts [wired.com]. They impose there beliefs and pull web pages from Google [wired.com]. I have seen a few things that they have done to try and put "Anonymous" in a bad light. I wish I could find the link, and maybe someone out there knows it. It is of a group of protesters getting arrested. The "Church" said it was "Anonymous". This was quickly debunked they the comments around the article, and found that the pictures where taken from a real protest elsewhere, and not an "Anonymous" protest. All and all i think the "Church" is a bunch of bull and don't play fair with others.
I'm now prepared to get buried by the "Church" for my negative comments against them.
RIAA run by the church of scientology (Score:5, Funny)
OMG! I think I get it now!
RIAA is run by the church of scientology!
That explains everything!
Um... (Score:5, Informative)
Sydney Protest Footage (Score:5, Informative)
..because they are against everything "geek" (Score:5, Interesting)
They started by taking down anon.penet.fi, and they've been getting worse every year. The hell with all their supposed abuses, and cult like activity. It's messing with the geek stuff that pisses me off.
Get off my f*ckn net! On my f*ckn net we don't tolerate: censorship, copyright abuse, trademark abuse, bogus DMCA notices, intimidating lawyer letters, or stripping our anonaminity for no good reason.
People have been scared to fight back for nearly 20 years. No more!
* Posting anon not because it's cool, but because these jerks still scare me enough not to use my nick.
To support the ides of March from your desk.. (Score:5, Interesting)
http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=573326 [slashdot.org] "Church of Scientology violates Federal Law"
You'd never guess who might be voting THAT one down
A FAQ on Scientology AKA Church of Scientology (Score:5, Informative)
Re:IRL raids (Score:5, Interesting)
Yup, you're right, might as well not even try.
Parent
Re:IRL raids (Score:5, Funny)
I will, however, waste my time insulting your intelligence. Because that's fun.
Parent
Re:IRL raids (Score:5, Insightful)
There is nothing magical about religion that makes it exempt from attack and ridicule.
It is NOT good that you can't attack something because it is a "religion" and would ONLY for that reason deserve respect. People's deeply held beliefs are not OK just because they are deeply held beliefs, they can just as well be ridiculous, and wrong. The fact that you ridicule them isn't even necessarily respectless, not challenging people's delusions, and leaving them with these ridiculous beliefs can be much more respectless.
And before you ask, yes, I'm a religious man, and I wouldn't mind at all if you mocked and attacked my religion.
I'm not Christian, but I don't see much reason to attack Christianity as a whole. I do occasionally challenge some denominations and churches, or just single people's interpretation.
Scientology on the other hand, I mock completely. You can say dianetics is the basics of the religion, and the church is a seperate thing. I don't thing I have to tell you why I attack the church. So that leaves dianetics. I see no reason I couldn't mock it, it's just pseudoscientific psychological nonsense. It's a lot of stupid ideas and conclusions mixed with some interesting ideas. It's not worthy of respect just because it's claimed to be religious.
(I claim this post is a basic religious text of my religion, it represents my deeply held religious beliefs. It was directly inspired by God and therefor it's content is unchallengable religious dogma, and absolute TRUTH. You cannot deny it.)
Parent
Re:IRL raids (Score:5, Interesting)
There is nothing magical about religion that makes it exempt from attack and ridicule.
It is NOT good that you can't attack something because it is a "religion" and would ONLY for that reason deserve respect. People's deeply held beliefs are not OK just because they are deeply held beliefs, they can just as well be ridiculous, and wrong. The fact that you ridicule them isn't even necessarily respectless, not challenging people's delusions, and leaving them with these ridiculous beliefs can be much more respectless.
Since the prime minister of the country belongs to one of these Christian parties, it is still uncertain whether this will work out.
I found it quite funny to discover that, since it makes ridiculously hypocritical all the talk about having Mohammed in comic cartoons that took place in Europe. I mean, everybody was "pro" support for freedom of speech, but now two major political dutch parties (including the prime minister) seem to see this law as an entirely different story.
Funny, eh?
Parent
Re:IRL raids (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:IRL raids (Score:5, Insightful)
No christian churches label you an 'oppressive person' and send their office of special affairs after you. No christian churches will rile up their congregation over real or percieved insults. You won't see them screaming in the streets, holding signs that say 'death to those who insult christianity.'
You won't even get punched by a believer if you stand in front of a church screaming jesus was a zombie.
Protesting christianity is about as cool as yelling at the old dog laying in the corner because he dug a hole in the back yard. The offense you protest is barely worth mentioning and the dog isn't going to be affected by your protest enough to even get up.
Now, is it 'cool' to protest christianity, as in 'okay'? Sure. There's just no point.
Parent
Re:IRL raids (Score:5, Informative)
They were also the first ones to use the courts to try and get a web page taken down. Depending on who you ask, that may or may not be worse than the fact that they are the largest cult in the world and they kill people.
Parent
Re:IRL raids (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.whyaretheydead.net/ [whyaretheydead.net]
Parent
Re:IRL raids (Score:5, Insightful)
First off, Scientology isn't a Church. They charge admission, and they're a for-profit organization. They're not recognized as a real religion in Belgium, Russia, Canada, Greece, France, Germany, the United Kingdom. [wikipedia.org] It's respected here in the US because anyone with enough money to purchase a free ride gets one in this society. CoS have loads of power.
I was talking about the Catholic Church with someone the other day, and they were arguing that you can't condemn the religion as a whole. I maintain, however, that if the Pope gets to tell you you're not Catholic, [wikipedia.org] it's organized enough to criticize as a whole.
What I think you CAN'T criticize is an individual's drive for spiritual growth. If their religion involves slandering people and destroying their lives (CoS) or protecting child molestors [deliverusf...emovie.com] (Catholic Church), then please, criticize them. In other words, while the person's spiritual practice may be above reproach, the dogma is just a set of ideas and ideals just like any atheist would have. For example:
(I'm not really picking sides, just giving examples)
Religious - God says you should be nice to poor people
Nonreligious - The best interest of humanity dictates you should be nice to poor people
Religious - Abortion is wrong because God says so
Nonreligious - Abortion is wrong because it's unnatural to kill your own progeny
I think that what people call religious belief is just dogma. And atheists have dogma too. If dogma is above reproach, we are in a world of shit, my friend.
Parent
Re:IRL raids (Score:5, Insightful)
They don't really give a damn if you want to believe in the bullshit. They just don't like how people have to pay to get to see the bullshit.
Parent
Re:IRL raids (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:IRL raids (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:IRL raids (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not so sure about that. Without God, you must explain moral codes in practical terms. The most basic (lie, cheat, steal)are easy enough. Some of the less obviously explained moral codes are both very important and not easy to explain the practicality thereof. (Envy, gluttony, etc.)
Humans are not fundamentally morally superior now as compared to 5,000 years ago. The only thing that has provably changed in that time is the societal indoctrination methods, and churches are the majority of those methods.
Churches, God, and Sin are ways of imposing codes of behavior that have been show to be successful over several millennia. The concepts of 'God' and 'Sin' are necessary to impose these codes of behavior, because you can't argue with God and you better do what he tells you.
If you were once again a child, or once again a teen, or once perhaps still are, how often do you recall arguing with your parents over some matter? That you were unconvinced by their stance?
They had at least two decades more of life experience than you to learn life lessons, and perhaps you might remember they were correct much more often than they were wrong.
But you still argued with them, because you didn't understand the value of their experience and you had to learn some of the same lessons the hard way, just as they did.
Well, assigning the most basic of these life lessons as commandments from God, with whom you may not argue, and who will punish you eternally for consistently failing to obey him, removes them from the 'negotiable' list completely. Do not lie. Do not steal. Do not murder. Don't try to screw your neighbors wife. Don't make babies with someone you're not committed to. Don't be envious, etc.
Any one of these things, when broken, will gain the perpetrator a momentary advantage that is plain for anyone to see. In the long run all are detrimental to both the perpetrator and the society around him. Convincing everyone that God would burn you in hell for eternity for doing any of them made folks decide that the momentary gain wasn't worth the fire.
Much less obvious is the long term benefit to society when everyone obeys these rules. Both explaining the full logic of why that is so, and getting the student to accept your and societie's experience is a damn near impossible task with an empty slate of a child or a hormone-driven teenager.
Further, there are countless adults who fail to grasp the utility of the religious rules and traditions we live by. If they are religious, they may yet follow the rules and their lives will be satisfactory, and their impact on society a net positive.
If they are not religious, and do not accept that those traditions and rules exist for reasons they do not grasp, then they will behave as they see fit- leaving ruin in their wake, as lessons learned hundreds or thousands of years ago are tossed out as the baby with the bathwater.
So, allow me to try to summarize if you've made it this far:
Religion is a way of passing down millennia of hard-learned lessons in a way that leaves no room for argument.
I would go into the lessons besides 'don't lie, cheat, murder or steal', except you might argue with me about those topics, proving my point while convincing yourself I'm anachronistic.
Western civilization lies atop a massive carefully-built structure of unnatural behaviors that enable the tremendous intellectual and material wealth we enjoy today.
That behavioral structure is so carefully crafted and re-enforced that we forget that it is unnatural, and in forgetting that, we disparage the tools with which it was carefully built and must be maintained.
We are not naturally better than folks 5,000 years ago. We are only better because of the methods our ancestors derived to make us internalize their hard-learned lessons early in life.
Incidentally I do believe in God, but that doesn't prevent me from seeing the anthropology.
Parent
Buddhism's a much bigger raft than just Zen (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:no point of attack (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Germany got it right... (Score:5, Insightful)
Bypassing the obvious science fiction elements of Scientology, there is this simple fact.
You have to pay (out the nose) to be a member in good standing in the Church of Scientology. While other religions have practices of tithing and/or charities, they are not required in order to progress in the understanding of the faith.
In Scientology, you have to pay to take the courses that ultimately give you the Xenu/volcanic explosions/thetans story. You have to pay many thousands of dollars before you get access to this "knowledge".
Show me the secret books of the Bible or the Qu'ran that only the followers who have ponied up tens of thousands of dollars get to see. You can't. There aren't any such books.
IMAO, Scientology is at best, a business designed to empty the wallets of the gullible. At worst, it is a scam and an extortion campaign.
Parent
Re:Germany got it right... (Score:5, Informative)
As a matter of fact, according to Jewish Halacha Law, it is ILLEGAL to charge money for the teaching of the Torah. The knowledge this work contains belongs to the whole world.
Parent
Re:Germany got it right... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Germany got it right... (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Germany got it right... (Score:5, Insightful)
Those books are not "required" to be a good Catholic.
The Church of Scientology has a carefully organized series of classes that are required (and increasingly expensive) in order to progress through the ranks of the church laity (any person not a member of the clergy).
You have to spend many thousands of dollars in the Church of Scientology before you learn about Xenu or what thetans "really are".
How much money do you have to spend to read the Bible?
Parent
Re:Germany got it right... (Score:5, Interesting)
Second: The technical, traditional meaning of "cult" strictly refers to the priests and priestesses of a god or goddess in a pantheon. Aphrodite had a cult, Isis had a cult, and, at one point, your friend and mine, Jesus had a cult (he had about three hundred followers on a commune at one point, if I recall.) By contrast, a religion may include more than one god and encompasses those who simply believe as well. The media term "cult" generally refers to what academics call a "dangerous NRM" (new religious movement). "Dangerous NRM" supports your statement that it is a real religion and not something fundamentally different, but it is important to note the "dangerous" part. Wicca is a non-dangerous NRM. Heaven's Gate is a dangerous NRM. The difference is best related through a number of techniques that dangerous NRMs frequently use:
Another strong indicator of an NRM is the presence of a single, charismatic leader figure, like David Koresh or Jim Jones. (Both of whom eventually killed most of their followers, but were extremely well-respected by them. Jim Jones was even respected by main-stream Christian religion during his life time.) For this reason, and possible other reasons, Christianity actually satisfies both the traditional and modern definitions of "cult" (although whether that is a dangerous or non-dangerous NRM is another topic entirely.)
Books are great like that.
Parent
Re:Germany got it right... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a god-hating atheist too, but as much as I dislike traditional religions (for different reasons) the abuses of Scientology, in this day and age, are almost as bad as the Inquisition in its day. The difference is that, again, in this day and age, we can do something about it.
Just saying "it's just as bad, oh well" is a lazy cop out.
Besides, this isn't about their beliefs, this is about the abuses they perpetrate. The "fair game" policy, the special tax exempt status, the disconnection policy, all of that stuff adds up. They're worse than you think, especially if you're still at the "meh, they're silly" stage. They're much, much worse.
Yes, fundamentalism is bad, we're all aware of that. But most fundies aren't near as bad (when all aspects are considered) as the CoS. I'll concede that those that kill for their religion are more reprehensible -- but then again so would most regular people who are in those religions. In the CoS, Hubbard's way is the only way. It's an enitre religion of fundies who want to "clear the planet" -- and this includes you, by the way.
Parent
Re:Lets be fair to the Hubberdites (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not saying that any or all of the death threats that the Scientologists are receiving are bogus, but there is already an established history of them attempting to manipulate the courts against people critical of them.
Parent
Re:Lets be fair to the Hubberdites (Score:5, Insightful)
No. Non-violent, lawful protest is the best way to go about it. If you start harassing members of the CoS personally, you are no better than they are and, more importantly, you would lose an important defence in court: that you have the right to peaceful protest. If that's all you are doing, legally they can't touch you.
As soon as you start harassing them, you lose that important benefit. This is why the protests were strictly peaceful and calm. If anything, a peaceful protest hurts them more because there's nothing they can do about it, and it looks to the world like the Scientologists are unable to defend their "Church"'s system from a bunch of people from the internet.
Parent
Re:Lets be fair to the Hubberdites (Score:5, Insightful)
For every one person you can find to do this, the CoS can find five who have many more years experience of behaving like this and getting away with it. And the people who the CoS find won't stop at following you home and photographing you.
Parent
Re:Whats wrong with america? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent