Slashdot Mirror

The reality is that the CoS actively infiltrates governments. It's part of their cult mandate: LRon himself wrote "The goal of the [CoS] Department [of Governmental Affairs] is to bring the government and hostile philosophies or societies into a state of complete compliance with the goals of Scientology. This is done by a high-level ability to control and in its absence by a low-level ability to overwhelm. Introvert such agencies. Control such agencies."

Here's the internal CoS memo that ended up with the US IRS being infiltrated, a bijillion documents stolen, and ultimately the arrest and subsequent jailing of CoS members: [Infiltrate the IRS]. It is, of course, worth noting that in the end, the IRS dismissed over a billion dollars in backtaxes and granted the CoS religious exemption status... in a secret, shady, wholly unprecedented deal.

[This document] also provides some good insight.

The Greek government busted a CoS unit, and discovered [top-secret US military airbase maps.]

In Canada, the CoS stole confidential documents from myriad Ontario government organizations, when those organizations were investigating the CoS for various illegal practices. They CoS had operatives working in the RCMP, the Ontario Provincial Police, the Metro Toronto Police, the Ontario Medical Assoc., the College of Physicians, the Cdn Mental Health Assoc., and even the Attorney General's office.

The CoS is also infiltrating businesses: it offers a "training package" which is no more than Hubbardology in business guise. There's a bit of a write up [over here], and a bit of web-searching will dig up a lot more information about the repugnent tactics they use to abuse people to perform better.

Here are two great CoS information sites: [RickRoss] and [Xenu.Net] And it really takes no effort at all to use Google to dig up plenty of facts that will shock and astound you.

As evil organizations hell-bent on world domination go, the CoS is pretty much at the fore-front. Their adherents are fanatical beyond any rational thinking, their mandates to infiltrate governments, businesses and opposition groups is explicit and ruthless, and they have a pile of money.

Go do some web-prowling. The CoS is fascinating, scary and shocking. It's a better use of your time than surfing for goat pr0n!

[I'm probably now "Fair Game" -- which is kind of scary: in CoS words, I "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."]

--

I am not the original poster, and yes, I am posting as AC, but this is why:

The Co$ is known for totally destroying and discrediting its critics.
Take this for example: The Co$ saw Prozac as such a threat (because they prey on the depressed and disenfranchised) that they took it upon themselves to launch a campaign against the drug both in the courts and by impersonating the inventor of the drug and doing many outrageous acts in public. It got so bad that the inventor of the drug (a woman, I forgot her name) was eventually locked up in a mental hospital until this whole shenannigan was uncovered. The Co$ is evil (even more evil than M$, believe it or not.) Time magazine had an article on the evils of the Co$ many years ago (around '91 or '92)... if you want more info on the current evils of Co$, check here

ps. a lot of this has to do with abuse the internet, which earned them a lot of infamity in the internet culture, and pretty much explains why a scientology software CEO is seen by German authorities as a particular threat.

http://www.xenu.net
http://www.lisatrust.net/
Python

All this in the same deposition where they tried to find out who was running the FTP site at 127.0.0.1 that had all their files on it (YHBT-HAND).

For more antics of those wacky lawyers check out www.xenu.net

All this in the same deposition where they tried to find out who was running the FTP site at 127.0.0.1 that had all their files on it (YHBT-HAND).

For more antics of those wacky lawyers check out www.xenu.net

In doing some reasearch, I found a site with various domain name disputes. One dispute [that has been decided] jumped out at me. It seems that a fellow in Germany registered 'scientologie.org' and of course you-know-which-quasi-religious-entity had a hissy fit. In this case, even though that 'religious' entity had a trade mark on SCIENTOLOGIE, the judge dismissed the case...

There is an article here from Globe Technology.

The Scientology crime cult claimed the trademark, and did in fact happen to have registered it.

Here, however, is the rub. A guy named Nordenholz, long before Hubbard, had a book with the unappealing title Scientologie, Wissenschaft von der Beschaffenheit und der Tauglichkeit des Wissens (tr: Scientology, Science of the Constitution and Usefulness of Knowledge), and the German renegade Free Zone Scientologists bought the rights to this book from the author's heirs. Apparently, L. Ron Hubbard "borrowed" the name Scientology himself.

The decision is here, as well as the various arguments.

This whole thing has taken almost five years to work out, so the system is broken, but in this case the Good Guys won. Since the Nordenholz rights preceded the rights of the cult, their trademark on "Scientologie" is probably invalid. It's nice to see such a bunch of thugs get the boot from time to time.

Incidentally, and to bring it back to somewhat more relevance, the Free Zone Scientologists state "Are you interested in alternative ways of progressing in Scientology and related approaches to Clearing without the vast expenses and excessive control of the Church of Scientology?" Hmm, sounds like an open source version ;-)

Sure! In fact, the Scientology UFO-cult has done exactly that. They provide a list of sites their members are not supposed to read for religious reasons. If you're curious, the ban list is here.

you're wrong about me, i'm afraid, and i wouldn't have any problem with just about any action someone had as long as (a) it wasn't against me personally (call me a selfish b*stard, but if someone burns down my house, no matter what the reason, i'm p1ssed) and (b) legal action and laws still apply. Even if the action is taken against me, i *do* have legal channels I can use to combat them. That's how it should be, IMHO. Everyone should be held accountable for their actions. And if the laws that cause punishment for these actions are wrong, then breaking them and bringing the discussion up can only help.

The Church of Scientology gets its way because it hides behind being a *church*, rather than being a business. Its more about money, power, and control than a real religion. Check out Operation Clambake. They also "win" cases due to their limitless source of funding in their membership. I hope some day the NRA, the Teamsters, and L Ron Hubbard's children get into a battle-royale with cheese and all end up broke.

In the hypothetical example of RU-486 pills getting destroyed, the people doing the destruction and the people that rightfully owned the pills would get their day in court, media coverage would consume the discourse and spit out whatever they felt like saying that day. I don't support the action as much as I support the end result, the discussion, and the final resolution in our society.

For the record, I'm male and don't think its any of my business what women do with their bodies. Destroy pills, have abortions, have babies. Decide for yourself.

One of the longest running free-speech issues on the Net has been between the Church of Scientology and the numerous CoS debunking sites such as Xenu.net. The CoS has vigorously pursued anyone who publishes their secret processes on the internet - they are ruthless, fearless, and most importantly to anyone meaning to host something offshore, they have a NAVY (and Tom Cruise to boot!) If you are truly sovereign, then along with the rights of a sovereign nation come the responsiblities - such as defending yourself from intruders. One of the first groups to seek refuge on your haven will be the Scientology resistance, and you will soon be pitted against Ron's Navy.

Which brings me to my question: Do you have any plans on implementing true physical countermeasures, such as phased-array radar, anti-aircraft weaponry, and hardened gun emplacements?

One of the longest running free-speech issues on the Net has been between the Church of Scientology and the numerous CoS debunking sites such as Xenu.net. The CoS has vigorously pursued anyone who publishes their secret processes on the internet - they are ruthless, fearless, and most importantly to anyone meaning to host something offshore, they have a NAVY (and Tom Cruise to boot!) If you are truly sovereign, then along with the rights of a sovereign nation come the responsiblities - such as defending yourself from intruders. One of the first groups to seek refuge on your haven will be the Scientology resistance, and you will soon be pitted against Ron's Navy.

Which brings me to my question: Do you have any plans on implementing true physical countermeasures, such as phased-array radar, anti-aircraft weaponry, and hardened gun emplacements?

"If you open up a McDonald's franchise, you can't go on national TV and say McDonald's food sucks, and expect to still be running a McDonald's the next day." Same thing.

There is an increasingly distressing tendency of people these days to make a flawed analogy and then announce "same thing" as if the two things are identical. This is what the license says:

Please review the following terms and conditions carefully. This Agreement is a legally binding contract between you ("You") and Apogee Software Ltd., a/k/a 3D Realms, ("Apogee") regarding your access to and use of its web site (the "Site"), as well as your use of Apogee's various games (collectively, the "Property"), the information contained therein and its copyright and trademark policies.

In other words, you are agreeing to this "contract" by looking at their web site. It is not at all like agreeing not to badmouth McDonalds if you become a franchisee.

It is more like agreeing that you won't badmouth McDonalds by the very act of buying one of their burgers, or even walking past a McDonalds and looking up at their signs.

I also totally don't buy their claim of not planning on enforcing such a contract term if it so suits them. Even if the people in charge now wouldn't do such a thing, it's entirely possible it will be bought out by people who would have no compunction of doing it.

You'd have to be insane to attempt to enforce such a clause, as the resultant bad publicity would make you entirely despised, but there are lots of insane and stupid people out there and a disturbing number of them are in charge of corporations.

I'm sure some lawyer somewhere would be thrilled to do any stupid-ass crazy corporate thug-stomping heavy routine that paid in money. In any case, it won't be companies that produce good products that will attempt to use such terms. It will be thuggish crook operations that sell toxic or dangerous garbage and don't want it exposed. Scientology interestingly enough has such a gag contract on anyone receiving their "services" but even they have never been crazy enough to try to enforce it with a lawsuit.

In conclusion, I am aware of that terms of use document, I used the page it's on, thus by their reasoning "agreeing" to it, and Apogee sucks dick. Duke Nukem is a child molestor. Apogee can lick my Balls of Steel.

I don't consider such a contract binding even by current law, as unlike a "click-through" you can access it without even seeing it, as it's hidden in a little link on the bottom. Imagine a company distributing "reviewer copies" of a book and saying you couldn't give the book a bum rap!

Under the DMCA, you are not allowed to own devices that can circumvent copy protection. It doesn't matter how many uses there are for your decoder, the mere possibility that it could be used to circumvent copy protection renders it illegal.

NOT true, according to a lawyer from Morrison and Foerster, a genuinely kickass intellectual property firm that likes to be called MoFo. I love that!

"To facilitate enforcement of the copyright owner's right to control access to his copyrighted work, the DMCA also prohibits manufacturing or making available technologies, products and services used to defeat technological measures controlling access. Similarly, the DMCA prohibits the manufacture and distribution of the means of circumventing technological measures protecting the rights of a copyright owner, e.g., measures which prevent reproduction. But to ensure that legitimate multipurpose devices can continue to be made and sold, the prohibition applies only to those devices that:

• are primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing;
• have only a limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent; or
• are marketed for use in circumventing. Id."

Quoted from THE DIGITAL MILLENNIUM COPYRIGHT ACT, Jonathan Band, Morrision & Foerster LLP Washington, D.C. jband@mofo.com

Full article here.

Incidentally, the Mighty MoFo were the pro bono defense lawyers for Dennis Erlich in his litigation with Scientology.

When DeCSS loses its trade secret status, though (and I think this is inevitable), then CSS could be inferred/REd from DeCSS.

In my opinion it already has lost trade secret status, but the judge in DVD CCA v. McLaughlin, Bunner et al. disagreed in this order. Frankly I find the idea a little weird.

"The Court is not persuaded that trade secret status should be deemed destroyed at this stage merely by the posting of the trade secret to the Internet. Religious Technology Center v. Netcom on-Line.com supra. To hold otherwise would do nothing less than encourage misappropriaters of trade secrets to post the fruits of their wrongdoing on the Internet as quickly as possible and as widely as possible thereby destroying a trade secret forever. Such a holding would not be prudent in this age of the Internet. Plaintiffs moved expeditiously, reasonably and responsibly to protect their proprietary information as soon as they discovered it had been disclosed by investigating, sending cease and desist letters all over the world and then filing suit against those who refused within two months of the disclosure. The Court is satisfied that trade secret status has not been destroyed."

Now the whole point of trade secrets is that you have to keep them secret. The judge here is apparently saying that he doesn't care that the material has already been downloaded by everyone and their grandmother. He is basically pulling the judicial equivalent of putting his fingers in his ears and going "Neener neener I can't hear you."

Even more weirdly, he cites RTC v. Netcom, where the judge came to an entirely different conclusion, though stating that he was "troubled" by it.

"While the Internet has not reached the status where a temporary posting on a newsgroup is akin to publication in a major newspaper or on a television network, those with an interest in using the Church's trade secrets to compete with the Church are likely to look to the newsgroup. Thus, posting works to the Internet makes them "generally known" to the relevant people -- the potential "competitors" of the Church. The court is troubled by the notion that any Internet user, including those using "anonymous remainers" [sic] [29] to protect their identity, can destroy valuable intellectual property rights by posting them over the Internet, especially given the fact that there is little opportunity to screen postings before they are made."

The "Church" referenced is, of course, Scientology.

I would argue that it is hard to comment or report upon something without actually viewing what it is that is to be commented on. So even those posters who merely posted the entire document could be said to be furthering disscussion on the document.

At least one 9th Circuit judge disagrees with you. Judge Ronald M. Whyte, who is also the judge in the Sun v. Microsoft case, ruled against H. Keith Henson for doing precisely this--posting the entirety of a short document on a Usenet newsgroup to discuss its ramifications. A Wired article discusses this. It was Henson's contention that the document, NOTS 34, demonstrated illegal practice of medicine by the Scientology cult.

Judge Whyte was roundly criticized in a Wall Street Journal article for "Pecksniffian literalness" and for having "turned copyright law on its head."

The document, NOTS 34, is discussed, along with many other such documents, at Dave Touretzky's NOTS Scholars Page, and a description of the earlier parts of the trial is at Ron Newman's old page while the jury trial for damages is transcribed at Sten-Arne Zerpe's page. Incidentally, Judge Whyte dismissed trade secret claims in this litigation based on Internet distribution, as well as similar claims in other cases.

I would argue that it is hard to comment or report upon something without actually viewing what it is that is to be commented on. So even those posters who merely posted the entire document could be said to be furthering disscussion on the document.

At least one 9th Circuit judge disagrees with you. Judge Ronald M. Whyte, who is also the judge in the Sun v. Microsoft case, ruled against H. Keith Henson for doing precisely this--posting the entirety of a short document on a Usenet newsgroup to discuss its ramifications. A Wired article discusses this. It was Henson's contention that the document, NOTS 34, demonstrated illegal practice of medicine by the Scientology cult.

Judge Whyte was roundly criticized in a Wall Street Journal article for "Pecksniffian literalness" and for having "turned copyright law on its head."

The document, NOTS 34, is discussed, along with many other such documents, at Dave Touretzky's NOTS Scholars Page, and a description of the earlier parts of the trial is at Ron Newman's old page while the jury trial for damages is transcribed at Sten-Arne Zerpe's page. Incidentally, Judge Whyte dismissed trade secret claims in this litigation based on Internet distribution, as well as similar claims in other cases.

Brilliant idea! Well, through www.xenu.net you should be able to get a copy.. there's a page telling you how to get it (actually it's telling how to NOT get it because of "legal" reasons.. :).. it surfaces here and there - like the decss source they can never find and delete them all.

Other countries including Greece and Sweden (also somewhere at xenu.net)

Other countries including Greece and Sweden (also somewhere at xenu.net)

If you want to know about CoS, check out this link as well: www.xenu.net

This article is principally about the DCMA and not about Scientology, but if you're wondering why the Church of Scientology behaves as it does, it's worth looking at www.xenu.net to get some of the picture. (This is an anti-scientology site; obviously, look at www.scientology.org for the other side of the argument then choose which you believe).

As far as the DCMA stuff goes, I can't believe that it can restrict this much liberty and not get blown out of the water by the US Supreme Court for being an overextension of the government's powers. Unfortunately, until that slow legal process is actually complete, people in the US have to assume the law is valid. It's a case of the legal process being far too slow, once again.

Tom Cruise is supposedly another famous scientologist. Does that mean that next month we're going to start ragging on Mission Impossible-2 as another cult indoctrination plot?

There's a world of difference between the two, and you know it.

• Battlefield Earth was written by L. Ron Hubbard, the Church of Scientology's founder.
• Despite Travolta's claims to the contrary, Scientologists and their front agencies are known to be involved in the production and marketing of Battlefield Earth.

You can't say either of those about MI2.

The "ethics" of the CoS specifically allow for lying and deception if it helps advance their goals. Intimidation, slander and harrassment are also "ethical" if it targets an "enemy". F.A.C.T. Net and Operation Clambake are two good resources about the CoS; there are numerous accounts by former Scientologists of brainwashing, intimidation, and extortion.

Jay (=

Travolta has been trying to get this movie made for about 10 years, because of his connection. At first, he wanted to play the role of the hero, Johnnie Goodbye Tyler, but now he's playing the villan, Terl.

According to the Internet Movie Database, Travolta was a producer on the movie.

The folks on alt.religion.scientology have been tracking Battlefield Earth for a while now and this Deja search appears to bring up links to the best bits. a.r.s is generally dominated by anti-Scientologists, 'cuz good Scientologists use special censorware that prevents them from reading that newsgroup (and a hell of a lot of the rest of the 'net) - most scientologists posting to it have either been assigned to do so or are growing sceptical and are likely to end up in trouble.

I used to spend time in a.r.s myself (enough so that I and my ISP are on the banned list), having been pulled in by the COS's forged cancel message of that newsgroup. I've found better things to do now, but just couldn't pass up the chance to spread the word a little further.

Travolta has been trying to get this movie made for about 10 years, because of his connection. At first, he wanted to play the role of the hero, Johnnie Goodbye Tyler, but now he's playing the villan, Terl.

According to the Internet Movie Database, Travolta was a producer on the movie.

The folks on alt.religion.scientology have been tracking Battlefield Earth for a while now and this Deja search appears to bring up links to the best bits. a.r.s is generally dominated by anti-Scientologists, 'cuz good Scientologists use special censorware that prevents them from reading that newsgroup (and a hell of a lot of the rest of the 'net) - most scientologists posting to it have either been assigned to do so or are growing sceptical and are likely to end up in trouble.

I used to spend time in a.r.s myself (enough so that I and my ISP are on the banned list), having been pulled in by the COS's forged cancel message of that newsgroup. I've found better things to do now, but just couldn't pass up the chance to spread the word a little further.

The fact is, brainwashing (more appropriately called "mind control") is somewhat of a myth. Mind control is almost 100% ineffective at converting someone who is not already a willing participant.

An example is the capture and "brainwashing" of U.S. soldiers in Chinese POW camps. They used traditional mind control tactics (i.e. Beatings, humiliation, etc. to induce a psychological breakdown.) They had U.S. soldiers extolling the virtues of communism on TV. However of the thousands of POWs that were subjected to this behavior, only one chose to remain in China after the war.

The important thing to remember with mindcontrol, is that it is horribly ineffective. That is not to say, however, that groups do not attempt to use it anyway.

There are a number of models for Cult formation. The model of Scientology is the entrepreneurial model of cult formation. It started as a business (Remember dianetics?) and evolved into its own religion.

Being a secular humanist / athiest myself, I view religions in general to be somewhat deceptive and counterproductive to humanity in general, but Scientology takes the cake. Check out Operation Clambake at http://www.xenu.net.

Andreas Heldal-Lund who runs Operation Clambake is a first class individual and has no shortage of courage. The sorts of character assasinations that Scientology has subjected him to are scary. -Peter "Ignorance worships mystery; reason explains it; the one grovels, the other soars." --Robert Green Ingersoll (1833-1899)

www.xenu.net
Some of the stuff on there seems somewhat hyped *insert grian of salt*. However they do seem to cover the basics concerns many people have regarding CoS, including copyright enforcement.

• Operation Clambake
• Scientology Lies

Information does not want to be free. Information is a non-breathing, non-living entity with no feelings and no desires.

When people have access to easy means of duplicating and transmitting large quantities of information, they will tend to behave in such a way that any particular piece of information, if it is interesting to even a tiny minority, will tend to spread among people to the extent that it is interesting.

In fact, they will desire to behave in this way so much that it will not be possible to stop the spread of any particular piece of information without causing severe harm to the people interested in it -- as by depriving them of privacy, security, and the use of their personal effects.

These people will resist such harm -- through political activism, boycotts, and technical workarounds. They may well also, when their ability to spread interesting information is threatened, react by spreading it more and more quickly. (See the case of Scientology's persecution of Internet-based critics, or the cases of Napster and Gnutella for that matter.) This is what is meant by "The Internet interprets censorship as system damage and routes around it" -- which is not a statement about the technical operations of the Internet (actual routers and hosts) but about the way people use it.

Hence, if you look at the communications-system from the point of view of a piece of information, you will see that information spreading in such a way that it appears to "want to be free".

(No, information does not have opinions. But then, neither does a plant, yet plants "want to" grow towards light sources, due to chemical reactions in their cells. Electricity doesn't have opinions either, but it "wants to" seek ground, and follow the path of lowest resistance. Anthropomorphism is our friend.)

Jon Atack writes in "The cancellation of Fair Game":

77. In Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology of California (the "mother church" of the Churches of Scientology at the time the suit was filed), the California Appeal Court ruled, in a decision upheld by the US Supreme Court: "Wollersheim was compelled to abandon his wife and his family through the policy of disconnect. When his mental illness reached such a level he actively planned his suicide, he was forbidden to seek professional help. Finally, when Wollersheim was able to leave the Church, it subjected him to financial ruin through its policy of 'fair game'." (JCA-147, pp.A-7, 15 & 16). At appeal, Scientology asserted that "fair game" was a "core practice of Scientology", and therefore protected as "religious expression". This position was also made on behalf of Scientology in the case against Gerald Armstrong, in 1984, by religious expert Dr. Frank Flinn (JCA-45).

This extract taken from www.xenu.net

When it screws up, religion should be bashed for it. There's nothing wrong with bashing religion, some of it is ridiculous to me, but that's alright; the problem is religions which are blatantly pathological... take scientology. This cult has caused more trouble than comes to enough, and there are many clam fronts around whining about the lack of religious tolerance for their ridiculous beliefs... I would consider ridiculous any argument which says I should respect the quackery of a dangerous psycho-group such as Scn'gy. Sure, respect the people based on their own actions, not by their beliefs; but religions, like political beliefs are Fair Game. People are not, but unfortunately Scientology hasn't grasped this fact. (Scientology's Fair Game Policy)

However, before I piss everybody off totally, where religion does work, it should be congratulated for it. Yes, religion, and Christianity has done a lot of damage to a lot of people; but they have changed over time, and have come to do a lot of good -- look at liberation theology, widespread social programs, etc. I'm still going to bash churches and religions for bigoted behavior, they deserve it because their position is rationally indefensible; I'm still going to bash the RC chuch for its position on contraception because it causes great suffering through increasing poverty and aiding spread of disease; but I will also acknowledge the good that they do as well. Not to do so would be a very sorry form of hypocrisy.

www.xenu.net
Lisa McPherson

When it screws up, religion should be bashed for it. There's nothing wrong with bashing religion, some of it is ridiculous to me, but that's alright; the problem is religions which are blatantly pathological... take scientology. This cult has caused more trouble than comes to enough, and there are many clam fronts around whining about the lack of religious tolerance for their ridiculous beliefs... I would consider ridiculous any argument which says I should respect the quackery of a dangerous psycho-group such as Scn'gy. Sure, respect the people based on their own actions, not by their beliefs; but religions, like political beliefs are Fair Game. People are not, but unfortunately Scientology hasn't grasped this fact. (Scientology's Fair Game Policy)

However, before I piss everybody off totally, where religion does work, it should be congratulated for it. Yes, religion, and Christianity has done a lot of damage to a lot of people; but they have changed over time, and have come to do a lot of good -- look at liberation theology, widespread social programs, etc. I'm still going to bash churches and religions for bigoted behavior, they deserve it because their position is rationally indefensible; I'm still going to bash the RC chuch for its position on contraception because it causes great suffering through increasing poverty and aiding spread of disease; but I will also acknowledge the good that they do as well. Not to do so would be a very sorry form of hypocrisy.

www.xenu.net
Lisa McPherson

Executive Software is not only run by a Scientologist; it is a member of WISE, the World Institute of Scientology Enterprises. WISE member corporations are operated for the benefit of the Church of Scientology, even though the CoS is supposedly a "nonprofit religious organization" and the WISE orgs are for-profit corporations.

Last I saw, the Junkbuster was free software. As I'm pretty sure you know, its sole purpose is to block sites you don't want to see. It can easily be combined with a firewall prohibiting outbound connections to port 80 to force a machine's users (i.e. your kids) to rely on it for web browsing. Sounds like a net filter to me.

No two censors agree on what should be censored,

Here's the thing: I'm pretty sure that any Scientologist will agree that xenu.net should be blocked. I'm pretty sure that much of PFLAG thinks that godhatesfags.com should be blocked. I'm pretty sure that there are a lot of other small groups who agree about blocking/unblocking decisions, and are willing to spend the time to write their own filter.

They can each have their own filter.

I understand that the Scientologists actually have their own special net filter, to keep their flock focused on acceptable thoughts (or whatever). That's fine. They chose to be Scientologists (dumbasses... but I digress).

I use the Junkbuster to block ad.doubleclick.net. That's also fine. I chose not to be tracked or advertised to. I've also imposed that decision on my girlfriend, who chooses to use my box to access the net, and on anybody else who would (hypothetically) want and get an account on my machine.

Both cases are voluntary censorship, and perfectly valid.

For that matter, as far as the software itself goes, I share many goals with the Scientologists. We both want the software to be an effective blocking agent. We just disagree on what to block. For that reason, we can collaborate on building open-source blocking software, and use different blocklists.

An "Open Source mindset" should be able to encompass a group of interested individuals who choose to block their own access to a bunch of sites. The problem comes in when they block other people's access to the sites. Junkbuster can be just as restrictive as any other Censorware program, if you use it that way. It can be very effective in ensuring that your public library will be safe from http://hottits.com (and http://aclu.org). As long as you can choose your own filter, though, there's no problem -- and since (by definition) you can't control what free software is used for, you'll see open-source filter programs developed for voluntary self-censorship, and used (by jerks) to censor others.

--

Sonny Bono was the congressional shill for the Scientology organization, an international criminal enterprise masquerading as a "church". They sell L. Ron Hubbards mad dribblings and pulp sci-fi as very expensive self-"help" techniques, bleeding people of their money, self-determinism, and self-respect.

They use copyright law (and trade secret law! for a 501-c3???) to obstruct efforts to expose their "courses" for the pseudo-scientific mindfscks they are, and in the process they create huge damage to free speech and civil rights precedents.

Visit xenu.net for more info.

Tackhead dun said:

Now - if you're a God-fearing Christian, why on earth would you rely on a solution advocated by a satanic cult that believes that the whole Jesus story was merely an "R6 implant" - a false memory artificially-implanted into our collective unconsciousness by evil alien overlords?

Maybe because, oh, there are a really surprising number of groups that claim to be "Christian" yet use the exact same coercive tactics as Scientology does? (Caveat--I speak from experience on more than one front here. First off, I'm a walkaway from a "Bible-based cult" which uses techniques similar to Scientology. Secondly, it was (in part) various FAQs on coercive groups including Scientology that led me to realise the general techniques used in coercive groups in general. Thirdly, I've lurked off and on on ARS since the "Cancelpoodle" scandal (I was a reader of the various net.abuse groups, and the whole thing led me directly to ARS)...just so folks know.)

The thing is, most folks who are in deep with the various Religious Right groups like FRC and so forth are also members of various Bible-based groups that use coercive tactics. Not only that, but some of the "higher-demand" Religious Right groups may in and of themselves be borderline coercive groups (I know that concerns have been mentioned regarding Promise Keepers, for one). A lot of the issues re coercive tactics between "Bible-based cults" and Scientology are very similar, so (at least to me) it's no surprise whatsoever that they both push for censorware.

Warning: The following comparison will probably not have a whole lot of relevance unless you are intimately familiar with how coercive groups work, and especially not unless you are familiar with the particular coercive tactics used in Scientology and/or Bible-based coercive groups. If you are not familiar with either of these groups' tactics, I strongly recommend that you read Xenu.net (for info on some of the particular coercive tactics used in Scientology and some of the terminology) and Walk Away (for info on some specific tactics used in Bible-based coercive groups), then come back and read. Otherwise it's probably not going to make terrible amounts of sense, especially in regards to effects of the coercion.

Now...I can give just a brief list of Scientology coercive tactics and their analogues in Bible-based cults:

Scientology: Essentially all of your problems are the result of "body engrams" resulting from when you were dumped into Kilahuea 73 million years ago by the evil Xenu. This includes doubt in Scientology.

Bible-based cult analogue: All of your problems, including doubt in the church or your minister, are the result of demons attempting to oppress or possess you. (By the way, this along with the next two sections is commonly termed "Deliverance Ministry".)

Scientology: The only ones worthy to be called human are clears. Everything that could bring negative body engrams--including Supressive Persons who say Scientology is bunk--are to be avoided.

Bible-based cult analogue: Your group is the only ones who are truly saved--everyone else is lukewarm at best, and most are outright in league with Satan. You should avoid all media not done by us, only do business with folks in our church, and vote for whom we tell you to--because everyone else is oppressed or possessed by demons, and info from outside can lead to demonic posession. Those who say bad things about our church are probably demon-possessed.

Scientology: You have to be constantly on alert for bad engrams. You have to do lots of clearing sessions; if someone is acting like an SP, they probably need an intensive "clearing session" whether they want it or not. (Lisa McPherson being held against her will to be "cleared" is the likely cause of her death.)

Bible-based cult analogue: All doubts are the results of demons trying to oppress you; you must constantly "pray the demons out". If someone is acting rebellious, they are probably demon-possessed and need to be exorcised to get the demons out. (Tens of children each year are killed in such "exorcisms"; many more people are probably driven insane, much as Lisa McPherson was before her death. The Walk Away site, mentioned above, has a rather dramatic [and all too factual] description of an exorcism as practiced by most "Bible-based" coercive groups.)

Scientology: We must Clear The Planet, and those who oppose us must be stopped by any means necessary, including dead-agenting. It is permissible to deceive people to get them in for becoming Clears.

Bible-based cult analogue: We are in a war with Satan, and those who oppose us must be stopped by any means necessary. Deception and libeling are perfectly permissible weapons to use in the war. (This is actually called "Heavenly Deception" in some Bible-based cults; the Bible-based cult version of "dead agenting" can be seen in most fundy literature. Bible-based cults have also been known to use deceptive measures (such as "free pizza parties", "anti-drug talks" by athletes associated with fundy groups held in schools, and "hell house" haunted-houses in which people are forced--as in not allowed to leave till it's over--to listen to sermons) to recruit people, especially teens, into such groups.)

Scientology: You need folks to watch out for you, especially to make sure you don't have any bad engrams and to make sure you keep being an OT. They are expected to check up on you and report if you might be becoming a SP.

Bible-based cult analogue: You are divided into groups of five or so, and expected to meet every week for Bible-discussions and to make sure that you aren't backsliding. Your group is expected to check up on you, and report back and take action in case you do backslide. (This is known as "shepherding" or "Cell Churches"; it is increasingly recognised as one of the single most destructive practices of Bible-based cults. It is this practics which is causing serious concern about Promise Keepers.)

Scientology: OTs are expected to influence their legislatures to make sure nothing negative to Scientology passes, and in fact OTs are supported. Lobbying wings exist to fight things that Scientology may disapprove of, often not revealing their links to the main group (such as organisations protesting "psychiatric abuse"). OTs are the only truly fit leaders and eventually OTs will take over the world.

Bible-based cult analogue: Members are expected to join lobbying groups for "Christian" causes; often, lobbying groups are actually run by deacons or ministers, or based out of the church itself. Voter-guides are provided. Groups are set up, usually "concerned parents" groups or "American heritage" groups, which try to fudge their links to the Bible-based group or the Religious Right at all. Christians are seen as the only fit leaders and it is their destiny to turn the US into a fundamentalist theocracy.

Scientology: Members are often lured in with guidebooks, like "Dianetics", which eventually suggest you come to a processing center to get Cleared. It's not mentioned explicitly that Dianetics is a Scientology book on the adverts.

Bible-based cult analogue: We'll promote books, "hell houses", sponsor rod-runs, etc. that suggest you come to our church to get more info and become a member. We don't mention that we're affiliated, other than being a "Christian" or "Faith-based" group. (This tactic is actually used by the Arthur S. DeMoss Foundation--a hard-right fundamentalist group that supports Christian Reconstructionism and has even supported racist groups--to hawk "Power For Living" as an innocent "guide for getting closer to God" [what it is, in fact, is a book promoting fundamentalist Christianity, and in particular those varieties that go over the line into being coercive groups].)

Scientology: Use famous people to promote Scientology and show how it's made their lives better.

Bible-based cult analogue: Use famous people to promote the group and show how it's made their lives better. (Again, this tactic is used outright by the Arthur S. DeMoss Foundation. Other Bible-based coercive groups have done this too, especially with NFL (American) football players; one player actually seems to have gone insane as a direct result of being involved in a Bible-based cult, and he'd done public speeches on how fundamentalism was a Good Thing beforehand)

Scientology: Psychiatrists, "coercive group info" groups like FACTnet, and folks against Scientology are SPs. One good way to stop them is protests en masse, or suing them into submission so that we own them then keep the site up for folks looking for info on coercive groups. (Scientology actually sued a group that reported on coercive tactics into bankruptcy, then bought the group wholesale.)

Bible-based cult analogue: Gays, women's health providers, anti-censorship groups, and folks who are against us are literally in league with Satan. It is perfectly acceptable to engage in mass protest, or to sue the people claiming that into submission; it's also good to get a name really similar to the group you're fighting so that folks will come to you instead. (This tactic is partly why the American Center for Law and Justice, a group that files lawsuits on behalf of fundamentalist causes, is very similar to the ACLU; it's also why groups like the fundy parents in Paducah are suing nearly the entire entertainment industry (they hope to bankrupt them) and why anti-abortion "counseling centers" get names very similar to women's health providers (sometimes even locating in the same building) so that people will get confused.)

Scientology: It's ok to break the law to advance Scientology.

Bible-based cult analogue: It's ok to break laws to advance the "kingdom of God". (This has shown up everywhere, from outright fraud with the "hell houses", to illegally distributing voter guides in churches, to illegal electioneering IN the churches, to "tax protesters" who refuse to pay taxes because "it supports abortion", to folks who libel and harass people who support gay/les/bi folks being added to civil rights laws, to people who stalk abortion providers...)

Scientology: Don't question what you're being taught. You've got to pay money for each level.

Bible-based cult analogue: Don't question what you're being taught--that's a sign of demonic oppression. You must give at least ten percent, and preferably more, to the church so that we can continue operating. (As an aside--there is evidence that both Scientology and many Bible-based cults are basically money rackets. Hubbard supposedly admitted as much with Scientology; many larger Bible-based cults run networks of TV stations and the like and demand money from their fellowship, and more than a few have been found to be decidedly shifty with their finances.)

Scientology: In Sea Org, you are subject to poor food (beans and rice) and hard work, often doing work around a Scientology office.

Bible-based cult analogue: Members are expected to fast completely (water only), often for long periods (the group I walked away from often had 21-day fasts...to support their damned television station...they also had 40-day fasts that people participated in). "Partial fasts" are done with poor food (the "Mayo Heart Clinic Soup Diet"--which is NOT promoted by the Mayo Clinic, is pretty much nothing but watery cabbage soup, and can actually cause deficiencies in needed nutrients if eaten exclusively for more than two or three days--is often pushed in "partial fasts" in Bible-based cults). Members are expected to participate in church functions (including long revivals extending for tens or even hundreds of days) and are expected to prosyletise often, often going door-to-door.

Want me to list some more examples? ;)

Or, just for fun...get one of the sheets that talks about characteristics in coercive groups. Then compare Scientology to that. Then compare Bible-based cults (as I've described them, and as described on places like Walk Away)...you'll find that the two are nearly identical. About the only major differences are that Scientology has the Sea Orgs (then again, most Bible-based cults are involved in large political networks and have enforcers such as deacons...which is probably worse) and Bible-based cults are even worse as far as deceptive tactics to get you into a group as well as one-on-one mind-control techniques to keep you in and keep you unable to get out. (It also doesn't hurt that there is a very well-funded media industry that caters exclusively to the Religious Right in the US.) The single most destructive practice in Scientology--the idea of "engrams", the constant sessions to clear them, and an almost paranoid avoidance of the non-Clear and involuntary Clearing sessions for SPs trying to leave--is almost identical to the entire practics of deliverance ministry in Bible-based cults (literally the only thing different is the terminology).

You don't hear that much about Bible-based cults, though. Part of it is, well, they've gotten a lot of power. Part of it has to do with, well, the fact they're Bible-based cults--nobody wants to think a Christian group can go coercive, and for some reason "Christian" churches are seen as respectable--they think it's always the WEIRD stuff like Scientology that goes coercive, not the little "Full Gospel" church down the street (that even goes so far as to tell their members who they can and cannot marry, tells them what clothes they can wear, and just happens to be the headquarters of nearly every Religious Right group in the county... :P).

Trust me, though, when I say that the poor sods in the FRC are probably just as brainwashed and lost as your average OT VII is who's spent $300,000 on Clearing sessions and such. :P

Humor is an effective weapon - possibly the best use thereof has been the alt.religion.scientology wars.

Here are a couple of representative USENET posts:
Post 1
Post 2

The effectiveness of humor against the $cieno meme complex has been demonstrated pretty effectively. Of course, it's hard not to laugh at someone who spends $300K to find out that the source of his personal problems involves volcanoes, H-Bombs, and an evil Galactic Overlord named Xenu, particularly when cult doctrine considers "joking and degrading" a high crime. (Solution obvious: Make everything a degrading joke about the cult - then stand back and watch cult members go apeshit, labelling everyone but themselves criminals, much to the amusement of anyone watching. Give a cult enough rope and it'll hang itself.)

And while we're on the subject of the Co$ and censorware, as a followup to my "Censorship is for suckers" thread -- is it any wonder that the very same Cult of $cientology ordered all its members to use it's own custom-branded version of Cybersitter on their home PCs?

For reference:
Co$ Censors Net Access for Members, and The Scientology Net Censor.

Now - if you're a God-fearing Christian, why on earth would you rely on a solution advocated by a satanic cult that believes that the whole Jesus story was merely an "R6 implant" - a false memory artificially-implanted into our collective unconsciousness by evil alien overlords? I'm sure glad my library is following the lead of the Cult of $cientology and using censorware!

This leads to another propagable meme: The only "major" "religious" organization to mandate its members' use of censorware is the Cult of $cientology. Why are we following the lead of a god-denying UFO cult? Do you want to trust your children's safety to a group of software companies, when at least one of them has already demonstrated a willingness to develop a custom version of their product to a nut cult that believes Jesus Himself was merely an fake memory implanted in us by aliens? Do the censorware merchants have no shame? How stupid do the censorware peddlers think we are?

>The bad press surrounding prozac was bought and
> paid for by Scientology marketers.

I hadn't though of this, but it makes perfect sense! [see www.xenu.net to see why].

Ryan Salsbury

If anyone is interested in learning the truth about the of Cult^h^h^hhurch of Scientology, go here.

www.xenu.net

Scientology has it's own gaggle of pet lawyers (there's actually scripture explaining why it's a good thing to sue people into the ground)... one of them decided to rmgroup the newsgroup .... instantly people started shouting all over the net about censorship and what had once been a pretty quiet newsgroup swelled with lots of free-speech computer people anxious to find out out what was up ....

About the same time this went down an anonymous person posted OT3 (the secret scientology 'scritpure' about how we're all haunted by murdered space aliens and why you have to give them 100,000s of $$ to get exorcised) to the newsgroup. Dennis Erlich (who's ISP got news from Netcom) responded to this posting with a post that quoted the original post along with an annotation to the effect 'yup this is the real thing'.

The scientologists showed up with US marshalls at Dennis's house a little while later and took away all his computers, backup disks etc etc - under the same laws they use to get counterfieted jeans and pulled him, his ISP and Netcom into court. Netcom settled early on to get out from under the case - in the end (years later) Dennis did too and the scientologists PAID HIM

This was the opening round in the ongoing scientology vs. the net range war which is still going on (check out www.xenu.net for more info

HAHAHAHA.. scientology... is a bunch of bunk... It's a cult and a dangerous one at that.

If they come after your mirror - shut it down - make a big stink - remember there are an awfull lot more of us than them (DVD lawyers) - we're angry - and they get paid a lot by the hour.

The parallels between this case and the Scientology vs. the net cases (see www.xenu.net) are amazing .... who's going to be the first person to have the source read into the record in the Swdish parliament? or have it published in the LA Times classifieds?

It's very hard to force a large group of people to keep a secret - esp. if they don't want to

PS: the MPAA page is full of broken links to the legal documents - does anyone have a copy they can web?

.. is the name usually given to those in a given larger community who grant tacit approval to extreme activities in their name by their silence.

Don't want the 'Christian == Racist|Fascist|Bigot' meme to get around? Speak out against the Religious Reich who blatantly tout these agendas in the Holy Name. 'Silence gives consent' has been in common law since rocks.

Check out www.xenu.net

1. make their banlists open source
2. make their banlists accessible to the installers
3. don't contain some kind of agenda above and beyond blocking pornography

Please just remember, that all material you send to them can and WILL be used against us - if possible! During the $cientology wars the $cn-lawyers have used many time for their benefit Usenet flame-messages with rather vulgar language which looked very bad in courtroom...
Scn court file archive
"$cn vs. Net"
How to support the fight
V, just my 2 euro-cents..
.signature not found

Please just remember, that all material you send to them can and WILL be used against us - if possible! During the $cientology wars the $cn-lawyers have used many time for their benefit Usenet flame-messages with rather vulgar language which looked very bad in courtroom...
Scn court file archive
"$cn vs. Net"
How to support the fight
V, just my 2 euro-cents..
.signature not found

Another thing that is a problem with Scientologists retaliating is that once they've made up their minds, they won't change them... For example, I use Sixdegrees a lot (don't laugh!), and there is a Scientology Discussion Group there. At first I thought they were skeptics, but then I found out they were all bona fide Scienos... OK, so I put my foot in it with a few of my remarks, but eventually they were nice to me... Then this really annoying woman shows up, somehow reads my webpages, and decides I am publishing "bad-PR", and this other guy thinks they should report me to their high hegions...

It's so annoying!

> In fact, the GPL is very compatible with the ideals of Scientology. It may not seem like it is but if you were a Scientologist, you'd know different.

I was that deluded once, but now I do know different. Scientology, especially the organisation known as the "Church of Scientology", is extremely incompatible with the GPL.

> You don't know who I am, but you'd probably change your views on Scientology if you did.

Probably NOT. And you don't know who I am, but you'd definately change your views on Scientology if you did.

> But it is exactly the sort of bigotry being demonstrated by the German nation - not a nation particularly well known for it's ability to maintain a fair and just society

All that was over 50 years ago. The only reason you think Germany is bigoted today is because it won't allow Scientology to do as it pleases, and the cult does not like that and teaches its followers accordingly. I think you'd find Germany to be a very fair and just society today if you'd just look around all the propaganda the cult has been feeding you. Germany has suffered enough injustice, unfairness, and bigotry, and does not tolerate it now. That's what they won't tolerate a bigoted, unjust, and unfair organization like Scientology.

> that leads me to continue my anonymity.

The death threats and "Fair Game" treatment I got from the cult for leaving it is why I'm staying anonymous (I'm really hoping Slashdot doesn't log anonymous posts in case the cult demands those logs). I also think if you are a good Scientologist, like you say you are, you wouldn't even be reading this thread. The mandatory NetNanny software Scientology makes all its members use before they are allowed onto the internet should be preventing you. Since you're not such a good Scientologist, maybe the real reason you're posting anonymously is because you also don't want the cult to find you out. I think that's a much more likely reason for your posting anonymously than the threat of the Germans getting you. Then again, there is another possibility. Perhaps you are only pretending to be an open source software author to shill for the cult. Exactly what programs have you contributed to or worked on?

> You probably know more good Scientologists than you think you do,

I know a few good ex-Scientologists. I try to avoid knowing any current Scientologists, for reasons of my personal safety.

> and one of these days you'll be surprised to learn that what you think you know about us as a group is only what you've been taught to believe.

So, do you deny the existence of Xenu? After all, this is what Scientology actually believes. It doesn't speak well for the sanity of the Cult, regardless of its political agenda.

> you may think you know, but all you know is what you've read. And that's not always the truth.

I know what I paid good money to learn from Scientology. So, just how much do you know about Scientology? I reached OT3 before I realized what a crock it all is. Have you learned about our friend Xenu yet? Probably not. And truth? All the truth you know is what you've wasted good money to be told by Scientology. I know how slippery that sort of truth can be when only seen from the inside. The outside spectator always sees more of the game.

Also, you seem to claim that the GPL is not incompatible with Scientology, yet you never demonstrate exactly how it is compatible. Things aren't compatible just because someone says they're not incompatible. Where's the proof?

I've seen this sort of arguement from Scientology before. Scientology also claims to be compatible with all other religions. Once you get inside, you find it really isn't. And before you tell me this isn't how Scientology really is, you can hear it in Hubbard's own voice . Everything L. Ron ever said is the complete truth, right?

Finally, if you actually are currently involved in the Cult of Scientology, I urge you to get out! You have no idea what danger you are in. The value you place in open source software and the values of Scientology are completely at odd, and the cult will eventually destroy you for it. The world needs more open source programmers, not more Scientology drones.

> In fact, the GPL is very compatible with the ideals of Scientology. It may not seem like it is but if you were a Scientologist, you'd know different.

I was that deluded once, but now I do know different. Scientology, especially the organisation known as the "Church of Scientology", is extremely incompatible with the GPL.

> You don't know who I am, but you'd probably change your views on Scientology if you did.

Probably NOT. And you don't know who I am, but you'd definately change your views on Scientology if you did.

> But it is exactly the sort of bigotry being demonstrated by the German nation - not a nation particularly well known for it's ability to maintain a fair and just society

All that was over 50 years ago. The only reason you think Germany is bigoted today is because it won't allow Scientology to do as it pleases, and the cult does not like that and teaches its followers accordingly. I think you'd find Germany to be a very fair and just society today if you'd just look around all the propaganda the cult has been feeding you. Germany has suffered enough injustice, unfairness, and bigotry, and does not tolerate it now. That's what they won't tolerate a bigoted, unjust, and unfair organization like Scientology.

> that leads me to continue my anonymity.

The death threats and "Fair Game" treatment I got from the cult for leaving it is why I'm staying anonymous (I'm really hoping Slashdot doesn't log anonymous posts in case the cult demands those logs). I also think if you are a good Scientologist, like you say you are, you wouldn't even be reading this thread. The mandatory NetNanny software Scientology makes all its members use before they are allowed onto the internet should be preventing you. Since you're not such a good Scientologist, maybe the real reason you're posting anonymously is because you also don't want the cult to find you out. I think that's a much more likely reason for your posting anonymously than the threat of the Germans getting you. Then again, there is another possibility. Perhaps you are only pretending to be an open source software author to shill for the cult. Exactly what programs have you contributed to or worked on?

> You probably know more good Scientologists than you think you do,

I know a few good ex-Scientologists. I try to avoid knowing any current Scientologists, for reasons of my personal safety.

> and one of these days you'll be surprised to learn that what you think you know about us as a group is only what you've been taught to believe.

So, do you deny the existence of Xenu? After all, this is what Scientology actually believes. It doesn't speak well for the sanity of the Cult, regardless of its political agenda.

> you may think you know, but all you know is what you've read. And that's not always the truth.

I know what I paid good money to learn from Scientology. So, just how much do you know about Scientology? I reached OT3 before I realized what a crock it all is. Have you learned about our friend Xenu yet? Probably not. And truth? All the truth you know is what you've wasted good money to be told by Scientology. I know how slippery that sort of truth can be when only seen from the inside. The outside spectator always sees more of the game.

Also, you seem to claim that the GPL is not incompatible with Scientology, yet you never demonstrate exactly how it is compatible. Things aren't compatible just because someone says they're not incompatible. Where's the proof?

I've seen this sort of arguement from Scientology before. Scientology also claims to be compatible with all other religions. Once you get inside, you find it really isn't. And before you tell me this isn't how Scientology really is, you can hear it in Hubbard's own voice . Everything L. Ron ever said is the complete truth, right?

Finally, if you actually are currently involved in the Cult of Scientology, I urge you to get out! You have no idea what danger you are in. The value you place in open source software and the values of Scientology are completely at odd, and the cult will eventually destroy you for it. The world needs more open source programmers, not more Scientology drones.

I've had Mormon friends, and I read the chapter that got Deborah Laake excommunicated for writing about her Temple marriage ceremony. (What is it with that doubled "aa" in Mormon names, BTW?) So I know that the LDS church is kinda out there.

But for sheer goofiness, head over to Operation Clambake and groove on the upper-level super-secret madness that LRon cooked up! It's NUTS!