This isn't one count, it's about four thousand counts of fraud. I'm sure that complying with the takedown notices cost Google a non-trivial amount of money, too.
I believe the most fitting punishment would be to revoke all Scientology related copyrights.
This is an arguable criminal case and a criminal prosecution would be a waste of time. It is going to be near impossible to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt.
It is, however, a clear abuse of rights granted by the copyright law. The fitting punishment is revocation of those rights.
Please save the nitpicking arguments about if there is such thing as copyright "rights", that is beside the point. If a child can't be trusted with privileges, you take those privileges away.
if that's all it took, then people would start posting fake notices (ie committing fraud) for the groups they OPPOSE, thus preventing the legitimate copyright holder from keeping their copyright.
punish the criminal. in this case that is whoever sent the notices.
If they can establish that it actually was someone from the scientology church with authorization to send these notes, Google could refuse to take down any more videos without investigating the claims first. Their takedown notices, if they have merit, would still be honored, but the takedown would be delayed until they get a chance to look into the issue.
You can be subject to perjury charges if you submit a claim and you do not have authority to represent the party you name as claimant. You are *not* subject to perjury charges if you submit a claim and it turns out that the claimant does not have a valid copyright claim against the content. The law was very carefully worded that way.
there's no such thing as a "rogue $cientologist" - this guy was obviously pulling this stunt with the knowledge/approval of cult leadership and organization.
It was probably along the lines of something like this [torymagoo.org] - his "auditor" told him this was what he needed to do to "clear" something, so he did it.
Of course, Wikipedia's completely bombarded by pro-$cientology stooges [wikipedia.org] who try to whitewash whatever they can from articles on the cult. I'm not surprised one of their stooges popped up trying this on Youtube to remove videos by people who expose the cult for what it is.
And of course, any "Suppressive Person" is "Fair Game. [wikipedia.org]" (also here [xenu.net]). Note the following: "May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed."
From the Wikinews article:
Wikinews contacted Schaper for exclusive comments. Schaper replied saying that he is a "very strong advocate for the Church of Scientology, the religion of Scientology and a free speech advocate" and "I don't need to go into details but I felt that my family and myself have been direct targets and in an attempt to control the situation, I started to track down and remove online links between me and my religion. This included postings made by HouseSpiderAnon on his videos, who publicly connected the dots and made them available to a larger audience."
"I requested several times to have my information removed from his videos as I wanted no association with his work but he refused, even after I stated several times that he has the right to protest but that I would like to enforce my right of privacy. He refused and demanded documentation of the attacks, something I refused because it was not my attention to allow more documents to be available online in public hand," added Schaper who also said he has been a victim of identity theft and now has the FBI involved in investigating his claim.
"Tustin PD [police department] has been on the case and now the FBI is involved as well. Social Security has been notified and we have seen about 200 attempts to use the SSN [social security number] for fake credit cards applications," Schaper told Wikinews.
Certainly looks like typical lying/"fairgame" $cientology behavior in action, doesn't it? I doubt one thing Schaper said about himself is true - and certainly doubt the idea that the FBI would be "involved" in the lies of a $cientologist. But that never does stop the Cult of $cientology from going about its business.
A DMCA take-down notice contains a sword statement that you are acting on behalf of the copyright owner. This means that it would be perjury to file a fake take-down notice, and also means that there's a strict audit trail pointing back to whoever authorised the take-down.
by Anonymous Coward
on Tuesday September 09 2008, @11:04AM (#24933863)
Exactly. It might be economically worth their time for Google to set the precedent that bogus DMCA notices en masse will lead to a lawsuit, so that they can limit the number of staff they'll have to hire to handle requests.
They are honestly going to let Scientology get away with this bollocks? Wow. That sucks. It'd be funny to finally see themselves sucker punch their own faces by trying.
Now I'm left wondering if it was even them that sent them out in the first place.
Does anyone know anything about the "group" that sent them, and is there anything that actually ties it to them?
For all the reasons they'd have to do it, there's also a lot of people who'd like to embarrass that group by acting in their name.
A DMCA take-down notice includes a sworn statement indicating that you are acting on behalf of the copyright holder. If they were sent by someone else then this is a case of perjury, and since they were sent by a law firm there should be a simple trail to identify the responsible party. Unless they were sent by someone pretending to be a lawyer, in which case that's two illegal actions.
Does anyone know anything about the "group" that sent them, and is there anything that actually ties it to them?
Notice the name: American Rights Counsel. Have you heard of Scientology's "ARC Triangle"? If not, Google it. I won't pretend that this is proof, but it sure is an interesting fluke event.
They are honestly going to let Scientology get away with this bollocks? Wow. That sucks. It'd be funny to finally see themselves sucker punch their own faces by trying.
Nobody knows if this was done by official Scientology, by some scientologist who got carried away, or by some prankster who thought it would be fun. No matter who it was, the DMCA act states very clearly that claiming that you are acting for the copyright holder when you are not is _perjury_. Which is quite a serious matter. Which needs to be multiplied by 4000. Which means whoever did this needs to be caught and thrown into jail to discourage any repeats of this.
Imagine he or she gets away with it, and next week 8000 videos about flower arranging get a DMCA takedown notice. Which would be even more disruptive, because people putting up those videos probably have less experience handling such a situation.
I wonder if it has occurred to anyone else that this is actually an attempt by the Scientologists to get names and addresses of the people who uploaded the content? Scientology is well known to harass such people, who understandably tend to want to stay anonymous.
But now, anyone who filed a counter-response to the Take Down is "outed" on documents that Scientology can subpoena.
Actually, it would be "prosecute", not sue, as this is a criminal offense, and requires a criminal prosecution.
All nitpicking aside though, I agree. It sounds like the crazy Scientologists are at it again, and SOMEONE needs to take those crazies down a few notches.
Not just to file fraudulant DMCA notices, but also to do so in the name of a Business that doesn't exist? I'd think someone, somewhere would want to take this opportunity to finally push back and sue for false allegations filed by a fradulant company in the name of an entity that was not part of the original notice. Might make a statement, (especially from YouTube) that we won't simply allow people to negligently file take down notices on material they don't even own the copyright to.
Earlier this year radio talk show host Michael Reagan called for the murder of Mark Dice [youtube.com] live on air. Mark Dice uploaded a 3 minute clip of the death threat to youtube. Reagan's lawyers filed a DMCA claim on the clip [jonesreport.com], youtube took down Mark Dice's entire channel which had a lot of original content and over a million views. Dice tried to counter claim but youtube did NOT reinstate his channel. Dice had to make a new channel and upload his content back.
The FBI or police would not charge Reagan for his death threats and Reagan is still on the air.
While calling for this guys death is over the top and uncalled for, Mark Dice is a to be kind not the nicest of people. And I am a go to church every Sunday kind of guy. He is way far to the right by my standards.
"Dice founded an organization,[1] variously called The Resistance,[2] The Christian Resistance or The Resistance for Christ, which espouses fundamentalist Christianity and professes conspiratorial beliefs about the Roman Catholic Church,[3] the Illuminati, freemasons, Skull and Bones, Bohemian Grove, the 9/11 attacks and Satanism, and which has been reported to "flood the airwaves of call-in radio and television shows"[4] to promote them. His 450 page book, The Resistance Manifesto details these beliefs.
Dice's activities have been covered by national media outlets. His focus is primarily on political activism, culture jamming, boycotts, and pop culture criticism.
He has called for the Georgia Guidestones to be removed from public property,[4][5] protested a Jessica Simpson music video,[1] called for a boycott of the VeriChip,[1][6] called for Duke University to change the name of its sports team (the Blue Devils),[7] called for rapper 50 Cent to stop wearing a cross,[8] and claimed that Scientology is a satanic cult.[9]
He recently launched a boycott against Starbucks, calling the company "Slutbucks", after featuring a logo of a topless mermaid-type figure.[10][11] He also endorsed Ron Paul's candidacy for president in 2008.
Dice is featured in Alex Jones' film The 9/11 Chronicles, which documents the activities of the 9/11 truth movement."
Given the amount of resources (time) that Google's lost in dealing with these (4000!) bogus DMCA notices, I think Google should file a lawsuit against the offending party. Obviously, I'd love to see the people who posted the videos start a class-action suit as well, but I think Google having to deal with the paperwork, remove the videos, deal with the counter-claim paperwork, and repost the videos represents a significant loss of time and thus money, all because someone is abusing the DMCA. Were I Google's lawyers, I'd use this situation as a perfect chance to deliver a message to all copyright holders - get it right or deal with OUR lawsuit.
While filing a false DMCA notice is a criminal offense, prosecution in these cases rarely comes about."
Anyone should be able to bring evidence to a judge, and bring charges against someone in a felony or serious misdemeanor case. If someone shuts down your YouTube account via false DMCA notices, and a US Attorney won't take it, you should be able to hire your own prosecutor to press charges against the individual.
You know one major reason why this would be hard as hell to get passed? Because if it were passed it would not only pressure legislatures to write better, more consistent legal codes, but it would allow for pesky things like drug cops in cases like Kathryn Johnston's shooting death to be tried for manslaughter, perjury in securing the warrant and criminal negligence leading to injury or death.
This sort of unethical behaviour is well-documented as absolutely typical for the Scientology sect I'm afraid. The term the sect uses to indicate its position vis-a-vis critics or opponents is to call them "fair game". Meaning that they condone, encourage, or initiate thoroughly unethical conduct against them (ranging from slander and defamation, intimidation through harassment in the widest sense of the word to costly nuisance lawsuits).
In 1994, Vicky Aznaran, who had been the Chairman of the Board of the Religious Technology Center (the Church's central management body), claimed in an affidavit that
Because of my position and the reports which regularly crossed my desk, I know that during my entire presidency of RTC "fair game" actions against enemies were daily routine. Apart from the legal tactics described below, the "fair game" activities included break-ins, libel, upsetting the companies of the enemy, espionage, harassment, misuse of confidential communications in the folders of community members and so forth.
This is one of the good reasons why the sect tends to be viewed with suspicion in Western Europe (the sect is currently defending itself in France against a charge of fraud (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7604311.stm) [bbc.co.uk]). I'm still unclear as to exactly how sect has been able to secure the tax-exempt status of "church" with the US authorities. I have read that it was by successfully harassing the relevant officials, but that's quite hard to prove of course.
I knew they claimed to be a religion, but I wasn't aware that Scientologists now claimed to be a "race"... Was this done to claim additional protections?
I meant that they probably want to portray themselves as a "oppressed minority" or something like that... Although I seriously doubt the ACLU would fall for it
Yes. Did you miss the big scrolling letters running across the screen? The odd thing about Scientology is although that is what they believe, Scientologists are only told it after they have spent an awful lot of time and money on Scientology.
Except now that the Catholic Church is no longer the most powerful organization in the world, does not have a monopoly on Christianity, and still has lots and lots of money, you don't actually have to give the Catholic Church anything and they won't even threaten you with eternal damnation. Tithing is not required, indulgences are a thing of the past.
The Catholic Church enjoyed a monopoly on Christianity in part because it was damn expensive to reproduce books and most people couldn't read latin even if they had a copy. This gave them control over everyone who didn't want to go to hell. And they made damn sure everyone didn't want to go to hell.
The Church of Scientology doesn't have that luxury. Most people are literate, the information is in the common language (actually, I'm guessing more than one), and books are cheap to reproduce. So they have to use legal means to establish their monopoly. But they are using the same basic formula as the Catholic Church to control members and gain money.
I wouldn't call it evil. If they get a notice they have to presume its real, they don't have time to research 4,000 claims. Faking take down notices is fraud or criminal (not sure as IANAL). Since they have to assume they're legit they're doing the right thing by taking them down. Re-instating them is done when a counter-claim is received. They're just obeying the law, albeit a fairly poorly written one.
Totalitarian control is the only outcome of IP? And this got modded up to 5?
I've seen some pretty ridiculous shit from the anti-IP people; but that's one heck of a strawman you've got there. IP is a tool like any other. A totalitarian government will use it as a tool to enforce draconian discipline. A better government will use it to secure rights for creative people. Let's have some fun:
IP is nowhere near as deadly as road construction. That is why, as I keep pointing out, the so called "transportation infrastructure" has the ulitmate effect of creating a totalitarian society. It happens via the deadly mix of technological progress creating increased mobility for both the populace and the military, and resulting in the ever more draconian incursion of armed troops into daily life. That impacts society so because the ability to move troops is the control of our everday lives (as is the only logical outcome of road construction) and must lead to a totalitarian society as a whole.
by Anonymous Coward
on Tuesday September 09 2008, @11:24AM (#24934115)
If you're an old usenet geek, you have plenty of reason to hate them. If you're an old slashdot geek, you also have plenty of reason to hate them. If you're a YouTube user, you also have plenty of reason to hate them. I'd wager that large parts of/. fall into all three categories.
There's been no large, concentrated legal attack on internet freedom from the other religions, to my knowledge, so I feel Scientology is rightfully getting attacked. If you also take the threats of violence, the stalking by PIs, the systematic exploitation of their own members and everything else into account, then it's an even easier choice.
Also of note is that Scientology is just as hateful towards gays as the Big Three religions, so I'm not sure where you're going with that.
No... it's more like, they can't think of a better, more LUCRATIVE scam than the one they've cooked up!
How many nation-wide con-artist operations do you see out there that are protected by federal legislation (organized religion status)?
Just 2 days ago, I received some propaganda piece in the mail from their "church". It was trying to recruit new members with false "scientific findings" they published. (Basically, the premise was that all the chemicals we encounter in our daily lives are permanently lodging themselves in our bodies and poisoning us. By signing up with their group, they could put you through a "cleansing" process to restore your body's "natural state". They actually claimed that it was a *scientific finding* that common anesthesia drugs were discovered permanently stored in people's fat tissue, among other things. Citation was conveniently left out on that, though.)
An e-meter isn't a voltmeter, it's a potentiometer (it measures resistance not voltage). It's based on a Wheatstone bridge design, and is a very sensitive way to measure the resistance between the probes. Since hydration levels, stress, sweat, etc., can all change the resistivity of human skin, an e-meter will measure these changes, which can then be (fraudulently) be interpreted as being of religious significance.
Should be worth pressing charges. (Score:5, Interesting)
This isn't one count, it's about four thousand counts of fraud. I'm sure that complying with the takedown notices cost Google a non-trivial amount of money, too.
-jcr
Re:Should be worth pressing charges. (Score:5, Interesting)
This is an arguable criminal case and a criminal prosecution would be a waste of time. It is going to be near impossible to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt.
It is, however, a clear abuse of rights granted by the copyright law. The fitting punishment is revocation of those rights.
Please save the nitpicking arguments about if there is such thing as copyright "rights", that is beside the point. If a child can't be trusted with privileges, you take those privileges away.
Parent
Re:Should be worth pressing charges. (Score:5, Interesting)
revoking the copyrights would be moronic.
if that's all it took, then people would start posting fake notices (ie committing fraud) for the groups they OPPOSE, thus preventing the legitimate copyright holder from keeping their copyright.
punish the criminal.
in this case that is whoever sent the notices.
Parent
Re:Should be worth pressing charges. (Score:5, Insightful)
If they can establish that it actually was someone from the scientology church with authorization to send these notes, Google could refuse to take down any more videos without investigating the claims first. Their takedown notices, if they have merit, would still be honored, but the takedown would be delayed until they get a chance to look into the issue.
Parent
Re:Should be worth pressing charges. (Score:5, Interesting)
There is no perjury threat for submitting the original claim.
Yes, there is, though AFAIK, no one has ever been prosecuted for it.
Parent
Re:Should be worth pressing charges. (Score:5, Interesting)
You can be subject to perjury charges if you submit a claim and you do not have authority to represent the party you name as claimant. You are *not* subject to perjury charges if you submit a claim and it turns out that the claimant does not have a valid copyright claim against the content. The law was very carefully worded that way.
Parent
Remember (Score:5, Informative)
there's no such thing as a "rogue $cientologist" - this guy was obviously pulling this stunt with the knowledge/approval of cult leadership and organization.
It was probably along the lines of something like this [torymagoo.org] - his "auditor" told him this was what he needed to do to "clear" something, so he did it.
Of course, Wikipedia's completely bombarded by pro-$cientology stooges [wikipedia.org] who try to whitewash whatever they can from articles on the cult. I'm not surprised one of their stooges popped up trying this on Youtube to remove videos by people who expose the cult for what it is.
Parent
Followup (Score:5, Informative)
Remember L. Ron's first rule of dealing with the media - "Never Defend, Always Attack." [xenu.net]
And of course, any "Suppressive Person" is "Fair Game. [wikipedia.org]" (also here [xenu.net]). Note the following: "May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed."
From the Wikinews article:
Certainly looks like typical lying/"fairgame" $cientology behavior in action, doesn't it? I doubt one thing Schaper said about himself is true - and certainly doubt the idea that the FBI would be "involved" in the lies of a $cientologist. But that never does stop the Cult of $cientology from going about its business.
Parent
Re:Should be worth pressing charges. (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Should be worth pressing charges. (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. It might be economically worth their time for Google to set the precedent that bogus DMCA notices en masse will lead to a lawsuit, so that they can limit the number of staff they'll have to hire to handle requests.
Parent
Re:Should be worth pressing charges. (Score:5, Interesting)
They are honestly going to let Scientology get away with this bollocks? Wow. That sucks. It'd be funny to finally see themselves sucker punch their own faces by trying.
Now I'm left wondering if it was even them that sent them out in the first place.
Does anyone know anything about the "group" that sent them, and is there anything that actually ties it to them?
For all the reasons they'd have to do it, there's also a lot of people who'd like to embarrass that group by acting in their name.
Parent
Re:Should be worth pressing charges. (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Should be worth pressing charges. (Score:5, Interesting)
Does anyone know anything about the "group" that sent them, and is there anything that actually ties it to them?
Notice the name: American Rights Counsel. Have you heard of Scientology's "ARC Triangle"? If not, Google it. I won't pretend that this is proof, but it sure is an interesting fluke event.
Parent
Re:Should be worth pressing charges. (Score:5, Informative)
They are honestly going to let Scientology get away with this bollocks? Wow. That sucks. It'd be funny to finally see themselves sucker punch their own faces by trying.
Nobody knows if this was done by official Scientology, by some scientologist who got carried away, or by some prankster who thought it would be fun. No matter who it was, the DMCA act states very clearly that claiming that you are acting for the copyright holder when you are not is _perjury_. Which is quite a serious matter. Which needs to be multiplied by 4000. Which means whoever did this needs to be caught and thrown into jail to discourage any repeats of this.
Imagine he or she gets away with it, and next week 8000 videos about flower arranging get a DMCA takedown notice. Which would be even more disruptive, because people putting up those videos probably have less experience handling such a situation.
Parent
Re:Should be worth pressing charges. (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody will prosecute the case if the only impact was $20,000 of Google's money spent on handling the notices.
The prosecutor gets to bring an open-and-shut felony fraud case. Looks good on his record when he runs for office.
-jcr
Parent
Take that Xenu! (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm glad that the YouTube users fought back.
We really need to make people aware of the criminal actions of this cult.
Outed? (Score:5, Insightful)
But now, anyone who filed a counter-response to the Take Down is "outed" on documents that Scientology can subpoena.
Parent
Teach them a lesson (Score:5, Informative)
While filing a false DMCA notice is a criminal offense, prosecution in these cases rarely comes about.
Sounds like this would be a good time to start.
I can't think of a nicer group of people to sue.
Re:Teach them a lesson (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, it would be "prosecute", not sue, as this is a criminal offense, and requires a criminal prosecution.
All nitpicking aside though, I agree. It sounds like the crazy Scientologists are at it again, and SOMEONE needs to take those crazies down a few notches.
Parent
Isn't it also illegal (Score:5, Insightful)
Not just to file fraudulant DMCA notices, but also to do so in the name of a Business that doesn't exist? I'd think someone, somewhere would want to take this opportunity to finally push back and sue for false allegations filed by a fradulant company in the name of an entity that was not part of the original notice. Might make a statement, (especially from YouTube) that we won't simply allow people to negligently file take down notices on material they don't even own the copyright to.
Interesting case of censorship (Score:5, Interesting)
Earlier this year radio talk show host Michael Reagan called for the murder of Mark Dice [youtube.com] live on air. Mark Dice uploaded a 3 minute clip of the death threat to youtube. Reagan's lawyers filed a DMCA claim on the clip [jonesreport.com], youtube took down Mark Dice's entire channel which had a lot of original content and over a million views. Dice tried to counter claim but youtube did NOT reinstate his channel. Dice had to make a new channel and upload his content back.
The FBI or police would not charge Reagan for his death threats and Reagan is still on the air.
Re:Interesting case of censorship (Score:5, Interesting)
While calling for this guys death is over the top and uncalled for, Mark Dice is a to be kind not the nicest of people.
And I am a go to church every Sunday kind of guy. He is way far to the right by my standards.
"Dice founded an organization,[1] variously called The Resistance,[2] The Christian Resistance or The Resistance for Christ, which espouses fundamentalist Christianity and professes conspiratorial beliefs about the Roman Catholic Church,[3] the Illuminati, freemasons, Skull and Bones, Bohemian Grove, the 9/11 attacks and Satanism, and which has been reported to "flood the airwaves of call-in radio and television shows"[4] to promote them. His 450 page book, The Resistance Manifesto details these beliefs.
Dice's activities have been covered by national media outlets. His focus is primarily on political activism, culture jamming, boycotts, and pop culture criticism.
He has called for the Georgia Guidestones to be removed from public property,[4][5] protested a Jessica Simpson music video,[1] called for a boycott of the VeriChip,[1][6] called for Duke University to change the name of its sports team (the Blue Devils),[7] called for rapper 50 Cent to stop wearing a cross,[8] and claimed that Scientology is a satanic cult.[9]
He recently launched a boycott against Starbucks, calling the company "Slutbucks", after featuring a logo of a topless mermaid-type figure.[10][11] He also endorsed Ron Paul's candidacy for president in 2008.
Dice is featured in Alex Jones' film The 9/11 Chronicles, which documents the activities of the 9/11 truth movement."
Parent
Google Should Sue (Score:5, Interesting)
This is why the prosecution monopoly is bad (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyone should be able to bring evidence to a judge, and bring charges against someone in a felony or serious misdemeanor case. If someone shuts down your YouTube account via false DMCA notices, and a US Attorney won't take it, you should be able to hire your own prosecutor to press charges against the individual.
You know one major reason why this would be hard as hell to get passed? Because if it were passed it would not only pressure legislatures to write better, more consistent legal codes, but it would allow for pesky things like drug cops in cases like Kathryn Johnston's shooting death to be tried for manslaughter, perjury in securing the warrant and criminal negligence leading to injury or death.
Mission Accomplished (Score:5, Insightful)
They now have the names and addresses of the posters who responsed with DMCA counter-notices, and those individuals are now free to be "fair-gamed".
Typical behaviour of the Scientology sect (Score:5, Informative)
See e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) [wikipedia.org], http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology)#Court_cases_involving_.22Fair_Game.22 [wikipedia.org], http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karin_Spaink [wikipedia.org], http://www.xs4all.nl/~kspaink/ [xs4all.nl], http://www.xs4all.nl/~kspaink/cos/idx_coskit.html [xs4all.nl], http://home.snafu.de/tilman/j/general.html [snafu.de]
See also this quote from Wikipedia:
In 1994, Vicky Aznaran, who had been the Chairman of the Board of the Religious Technology Center (the Church's central management body), claimed in an affidavit that Because of my position and the reports which regularly crossed my desk, I know that during my entire presidency of RTC "fair game" actions against enemies were daily routine. Apart from the legal tactics described below, the "fair game" activities included break-ins, libel, upsetting the companies of the enemy, espionage, harassment, misuse of confidential communications in the folders of community members and so forth.
This is one of the good reasons why the sect tends to be viewed with suspicion in Western Europe (the sect is currently defending itself in France against a charge of fraud (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7604311.stm) [bbc.co.uk]). I'm still unclear as to exactly how sect has been able to secure the tax-exempt status of "church" with the US authorities. I have read that it was by successfully harassing the relevant officials, but that's quite hard to prove of course.
What's Scientology? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Racial Bigotry (Score:5, Interesting)
I knew they claimed to be a religion, but I wasn't aware that Scientologists now claimed to be a "race"...
Was this done to claim additional protections?
Parent
Re:Racial Bigotry (Score:5, Insightful)
I meant that they probably want to portray themselves as a "oppressed minority" or something like that...
Although I seriously doubt the ACLU would fall for it
Parent
Re:Racial Bigotry (Score:5, Insightful)
Great - another 600 bigoted posts about Scientology.
Scientology is a great, true faith. But you guys don't know anything about faith, do you.
I'm an atheist, and while I think the middle eastern religions are pretty horrid, Scientology is pure insanity. Xenu? DC10s? Thetans?
LOL, psyco.
Parent
Re:Racial Bigotry (Score:5, Funny)
Wait, you mean the crap they showed on South Park was really was these people believe?!
Parent
Re:Racial Bigotry (Score:5, Informative)
Yes. Did you miss the big scrolling letters running across the screen?
The odd thing about Scientology is although that is what they believe, Scientologists are only told it after they have spent an awful lot of time and money on Scientology.
Parent
What's really sad (Score:5, Insightful)
What's really sad is that your wife's way of thinking is typical here in America.
It's not real unless you saw it on TV.
Parent
Re:Racial Bigotry (Score:5, Funny)
To be completely fair, they were DC-8s.
Parent
Re:Racial Bigotry (Score:5, Funny)
Yea, DC-10s just makes no sense at all!
Parent
Well, it's as legitimate as my religion (Score:5, Funny)
May you be touched by His Noodley Appendage.
Parent
Re:Racial Bigotry (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, because a zombie born by a virgin and fathered by sky-guy is sane.
Parent
Re:Racial Bigotry (Score:5, Insightful)
Lol, who gives a crap about the faith? They can believe what they want, it's the bullying, censorship and child maltreatment that gets me.
Parent
Re:Racial Bigotry (Score:5, Interesting)
Let me fix that for you:
The Catholic Church enjoyed a monopoly on Christianity in part because it was damn expensive to reproduce books and most people couldn't read latin even if they had a copy. This gave them control over everyone who didn't want to go to hell. And they made damn sure everyone didn't want to go to hell.
The Church of Scientology doesn't have that luxury. Most people are literate, the information is in the common language (actually, I'm guessing more than one), and books are cheap to reproduce. So they have to use legal means to establish their monopoly. But they are using the same basic formula as the Catholic Church to control members and gain money.
Parent
Re:First? (Score:5, Funny)
Is there some kind of rule that if it's in a hyperlink, it's spelled 'DCMA', but if it's plain text, it's 'DMCA'?
Get with the program. Today is Transposed Tuesday.
Parent
Re:First? (Score:5, Funny)
Wow! I am behind on my Ubuntu distro then. I am still on the J's.
Parent
Re:Of course. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Oh pulllllleeeze (Score:5, Insightful)
Totalitarian control is the only outcome of IP? And this got modded up to 5?
I've seen some pretty ridiculous shit from the anti-IP people; but that's one heck of a strawman you've got there. IP is a tool like any other. A totalitarian government will use it as a tool to enforce draconian discipline. A better government will use it to secure rights for creative people. Let's have some fun:
IP is nowhere near as deadly as road construction. That is why, as I keep pointing out, the so called "transportation infrastructure" has the ulitmate effect of creating a totalitarian society. It happens via the deadly mix of technological progress creating increased mobility for both the populace and the military, and resulting in the ever more draconian incursion of armed troops into daily life. That impacts society so because the ability to move troops is the control of our everday lives (as is the only logical outcome of road construction) and must lead to a totalitarian society as a whole.
Parent
Re:Southpark's Scientology Video (Score:5, Informative)
Here is their own link
http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/103804/ [southparkstudios.com]
Parent
Re:What's with the scientology hatred? (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:What's with the scientology hatred? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're an old usenet geek, you have plenty of reason to hate them. If you're an old slashdot geek, you also have plenty of reason to hate them. If you're a YouTube user, you also have plenty of reason to hate them. I'd wager that large parts of /. fall into all three categories.
There's been no large, concentrated legal attack on internet freedom from the other religions, to my knowledge, so I feel Scientology is rightfully getting attacked. If you also take the threats of violence, the stalking by PIs, the systematic exploitation of their own members and everything else into account, then it's an even easier choice.
Also of note is that Scientology is just as hateful towards gays as the Big Three religions, so I'm not sure where you're going with that.
Parent
Re:Great, another cult that brainwashes everyone (Score:5, Informative)
No ... it's more like, they can't think of a better, more LUCRATIVE scam than the one they've cooked up!
How many nation-wide con-artist operations do you see out there that are protected by federal legislation (organized religion status)?
Just 2 days ago, I received some propaganda piece in the mail from their "church". It was trying to recruit new members with false "scientific findings" they published. (Basically, the premise was that all the chemicals we encounter in our daily lives are permanently lodging themselves in our bodies and poisoning us. By signing up with their group, they could put you through a "cleansing" process to restore your body's "natural state". They actually claimed that it was a *scientific finding* that common anesthesia drugs were discovered permanently stored in people's fat tissue, among other things. Citation was conveniently left out on that, though.)
Parent
Re:E-meter videos? (Score:5, Funny)
This probe goes in your mouth.. This one goes in your ear. This one goes in your butt..."
Parent
Re:E-meter videos? (Score:5, Informative)
An e-meter isn't a voltmeter, it's a potentiometer (it measures resistance not voltage). It's based on a Wheatstone bridge design, and is a very sensitive way to measure the resistance between the probes. Since hydration levels, stress, sweat, etc., can all change the resistivity of human skin, an e-meter will measure these changes, which can then be (fraudulently) be interpreted as being of religious significance.
It's nothing more than a half-assed lie-detector.
Parent
Re:E-meter videos? (Score:5, Funny)
It's nothing more than a half-assed lie-detector.
And since lie-detectors themselves are no more than a half-assed lie-detectors, I'm curious as to exactly what fraction of an ass an e-meter has...
Parent