Slashdot Mirror
Scientology Critic Flees U.S. Over Usenet Posts, Pickets
"Religious bigotry will not be tolerated in Riverside County," was a Scientology spokesperson's reaction to the verdict.
That's basically the problem right there. The First Amendment gives me the right to be a bigot as long as I don't hurt or threaten anyone. You don't have to like my opinions, but you do have to tolerate them.
If you've ever hung out in an online forum, you'll probably get deja vu reading this Usenet thread. The first message posted is a description of cruising past some Scientology related buildings, complete with GPS coordinates for whatever reason. It's written as a self-mocking, satirical sendup of spy movies. The remainder of the thread is jokes in the same vein.
The question is whether this running gag about "Tom Cruise Missile Coordinates" (get it?) could be taken seriously enough to qualify as a threat under Section 11415 of the California Penal Code.
As I read the recently-passed law, if you go along with the jokes about the "handheld laser guidance system," you might be a terrorist:
Any person who knowingly threatens to use a weapon of mass destruction [including] by means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out ...
The fact that the person who allegedly violated this section did not actually possess a biological agent, toxin, or chemical weapon does not constitute a defense to the crime specified in this section.
The victim of said terrorism must have been in "sustained fear" of the threat being carried out. And how does the law know your victim was in sustained fear? Because he or she evacuated the building -- or took "any other action."
Here's what Henson says. In this case, the Scientology organization's legal team managed to bar any evidence from being presented about why Henson was picketing the Scientology location (because of two unusual deaths within a month).
Nor was the context of the above thread, or context of Henson's other Usenet posts, allowed to be introduced. For example, the jury could not see the context of the above thread; they only saw Henson's contribution to the running gag:
Modern weapons are accurate to a matter of a few tens of yards. The terminal guidence ones are good to single digits.
Of the next quote, the jury was only allowed to see the first sentence, not the second:
The only way I can get clear of this scientology mess is to "destroy them utterly." So: This week I will be back picketing gold base.
And you can decide what you think his third quote means, but again you have the advantage of its context being just a click away:
PPS Killing the organization off entirely is the best way to change the future of Scientology.
Worse still, according to Henson's at-the-time lawyer, whether these statements caused fear in some Scientologists was decided not by the statements he actually made, but by hearsay versions they got from others. He points out that Scientology's censorware package ("Scienositter") would have blocked the original Usenet posts anyway:
...cult members, who are not allowed access to the Internet and are actively prevented (by the Church of Scientology "net nanny") from reading the newsgroups on which Henson posts, may have an unreasonable and irrational fear based on unreasonable and out of context statements of which they were informed selectively, but which they did not read.
So picture Keith Henson's situation. He feels strongly about his particular cause. He peacefully carries a picket sign. He exercises his First Amendment right to post on Usenet about what he's doing and why -- and in so doing he uses sentences and phrases which, in context, clearly are not threats, but out of context could be construed that way.
Dragged into court, all context is stripped away and -- while he narrowly escapes conviction as a domestic terrorist -- he is convicted of using the threat of force against people who may never have actually read what he wrote.
If you're smart, you'll take Henson's case as a warning. You'll think about what your own statements would look like, with their context totally removed, and in the harsh spotlight of a courtroom. Do you really need to post that joke, or wouldn't the judge find it funny?
You'll soften up your opinions just a little, trying not to change what you mean while trying to change what you could be twisted to mean.
Maybe it's not such a great loss for you or me; we're not great writers anyway, and if we censor ourselves before hitting Save, maybe that's not the end of the world. We weren't really going to use that First Amendment right anyway, you know?
But somewhere out there is a Mark Twain who's had it up to here and is poised to pen a caustic attack on a religion which will become an important classic. As of yesterday, Mark's a bit more likely to live in Canada.
Er, ACs aren't "members," right?
The article harps on and on about how these quotes were taken out of context, yet isn't it the job of the defendant's lawyer to give context to those quotes (and to explain his clients actions and why these threats were not real?)
I'm by no means a fan of $cientology, but I have the strange feeling I'm only getting 1/2 the story here. Certainly his lawyer should have explained that the usenet posts were a joke and the jury shouldn't have given it a second thought (the post in the google archive isn't terribly threatning IMHO, you'd need see-through thin skin to be affected by it). All in all, something just isn't adding up here.
Down that path lies madness. On the other hand, the road to hell is paved with melting snowballs.
I read the internet for the articles.
"Be full of faith", and "seek truth" are incompatible goals.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Having faith in something and being right totally by accident is not how one seeks the truth. One seeks the truth by NOT engaging in faith. Columbus' trip was not based on faith. It had already been proven mathematically that the world was a sphere. In fact, if anything Columbus's faith was a faith that the world was small enough to make his trip short, a faith that was proven to be incorrect later. The fact that the world was a sphere was already known. In fact, the greeks had even made an experiment to measure how big the earth was, by extrapolating from the curve of the sea surface. (Put a stick of known hieght a great distance away (or use a ship's mast), than see how far away you get before the top of the stick is lost behind the horizon. Using this, it can be determined how tightly the surface is curved, and if you assume the world is spherical, you can figure out how big around it is from just that fragment. Using this primative technique, the Greeks got a figure that was only about 5% off from what we know today. Very smart people. Columbus's faith COUNTERED this fact, with his assumption that the world was much smaller. In fact, the notion that his exploration was opposed because people thought the world was flat is a myth. His expedition found opposition because learned scholars were telling him the world was MUCH bigger than he had guessed, and they (not he) were right. Columbus is damn lucky there was a continent out there in the way or he'd have died.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Now, as to your second point, even if Canadian colonists were participating, it still wouldn't be the same sort of thing. They declared themselves to be fighting for the Brits, under their army, under their command. The official start of the US as a country was the signing of the declaration of independance, in 1776, which occurred a few years after the fighting began, but well before it was over. Before that declaration, the war was a *set* of splinter groups fighting, that hadn't even declared themselves to be a single entity yet, and the thirteen colonies had no connection to each other at all. New Jersey and New York were just as "foreign" to each other as Maine and Nova Scotia. The signing of that document is what declared the 13 colonies to be one federated nation, and that's why it's the start of the US as a country. The fact that the war wasn't over yet is not relevant. Britain *declared* that the US was still just a set of colonies, but Britain wasn't really in charge phyiscally. They just held a few cities. (And held them well, and won most battles, but in the end it didn't matter because at the time the US was largely agricultural and could function on the large amount of land the Brits were ignoring.)
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
If you ignore the rest of the world and look at just the US and Canada, then it might look like the US started the war of 1812. But if you look at the world, the war of 1812 was merely an expansion of US/British hostilities that actually began at sea, over British trade blockades.
(And if you look at the whole Western Hemisphere, and not just the US/Canada border, the war of 1812 was a draw. No land changed hands, even though both sides tried taking over land. (The US tried invading into some British land (called Canada), and the British tried invading into the south of the US, near New Orleans. Both of these failed. The US capitol buildings were burned (but the city was not held by the British. They just burned some buildings and left.), but at the same time the US Did get what it wanted in the end, which was open trade in the Western Hemisphere. (The war was started over the British Colonial practice of forbidding trade between British colonies and anyone other than Britain herself. It was illegal to sell US goods to British colonies (both Canadian and Carribiean) and visa versa, and THAT was the issue that sparked the war.)
If you seriously think that the skirmishes along the US/Canadian border were the ONLY part of the war of 1812, then I see how you might have gotten your skewed view.
You can't ignore the fact that Canada was British in 1812. That's the only reason why any fighting occurred at all across the US/Canada border.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Fact: The war of 1812 was fought between the US and the British.
Fact: The British made use of their vast colony known as "Canada" as a place to fight the US from (instead of trying to do it from across the sea).
Conclusion: The Canadians didn't burn the white house down. The British did. Despite Canadian patriotic claims to the contrary, the US has NEVER been to war with the nation known as Canada. In 1812, there was NO such thing as a nation called "Canada" yet. The name "Canada" referred to a vast array of British colonies in the north.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Get out! Scientologists abusing people through the legal system?! How dare you make such accusations?! I can't believe any of this garbage. People should stop being religious bigots and accept Scientology for the well meaning organization that it is.
I'm curious to know why you believe Discordianism is a made up religion. Although I am not a Discordian, I do know enough about the Principia Discordia and the beliefs of the religion to know that you should _not_ base your opinion on the perversions of it that you see in the news media. Seeing rebel stoners claiming holy war on others is not what Discordianism is about. Indeed, Malaclypse the Younger was all for peace and love. Read a little before you just lump it in with every religion.
Your point is valid in a lot of other ways though, a belief system is a belief system is a belief system. You'll still kill for it, you'll still put down others in it's defense.
Please do not lick this post.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
- Scientology is the only "religion" (at least in the US) that engages in these kinds of litigious tactics. Please don't blame "religion" in general for the actions of Scientology.
- There is considerable reason to believe that scientology was started as a joke and/or a business. Many countries (e.g. Germany) do not regard Scientology as a religion but as a business.
- By most accounts, one advances in Scientology by spending a lot of money. A Supreme Court case found that this money was not donations, but fee for service.
- Most of all, scientology is in no way affiliated with any world religion. Please don't hold us accountable for their errors.
Disclaimer: I am not an expert on Scientology, and the above statements are based on things I have heard said in other forums over the years.--
-- Slashdot sucks.
Asylum in Canada is an embarrassment to the US if it is granted. Canada is America's closest Neighbor and closest ali (Except for burning that building which had to be repainted and is now called "The White House").
Ordinary American citizens if asked to pick a justice system other than the US they would trust their fates to would likely select Britain or Canada.
Running away to Canada just splatters egg all over the face of the US system.
--
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound.
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
to kill all slashdot members with Phasers and Photon torpedos.
Vermifax
Vermifax
Logout
If the recognized court of the government determines that he can not express his views on Scientology, then why wouldn't that be prosecution by the government? The court is merely the legal branch of the government in the United States.
This space for rent. Call 1-800-STEAK4U
You can condemn him to your heart's content. You can post to these newsgroups that he will burn in hell for being so bigoted and intolerant and offensive.
I would defend your right to do so, too. It's your opinion, you have the right to express that opinion, no matter how offinsive or misplaces it may be.
But it's not the place of the courts of California or any government to determine what speech in particular should or should not be condemned. That brings us right up the the looming cliff of Censorship, and once we go that way, there will be no going back.
If this case stands, Scientology will have legal grounds to have every non-apprived reference removed from the public eye. If that happens, any group can have anything removed that is offensive to them. ALl these Neo-nazi groups can have information on all the experiments that Himler oversaw removed, because they have nothing to do witht he Nazi political movement and detract from their message. Or orders from the Religious Right because I have pictures fo Diablo on my web page, and we all know that Diablo comes from the Latin for Satan.
Regardless of what you think about what he said, you can not claim that he should be subjected to this without me condemning you as a hypocrite.
This space for rent. Call 1-800-STEAK4U
Better yet, ROT26 (i.e.,ROT 13 twice), or even ROT 42.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
I'm pretty sure that you're a few wars off and that it was actually World War I (one).
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
I wonder if the reaction here to his supposed "hate crimes" and "threats" would be any different.
I strongly suspect that the majority of the posts here regarding Mr. Henson's innocence, or the "harmless threats" he made would be on the other side of the fence...
It's all a matter of "us" and "them".
--
Your Servant, B. Baggins
The "'Fire' in a crowded theatre" analogy was penned in a decision to imprison a peaceful protester whose only crime was to condemn the draft.
Anyone who talks about limiting your write to yell 'FIRE' is talking about limiting your right to peaceable protest. Remember that. The historical context should always remind us that so long as the pwerful and control-oriented can craft "reasonable limits," they will use them to stifle criticism.
--G
For example, the constitution as written addresses "intellictual property rights", and says congress has the power to guarantee them to authors and inventors "for limited times" (where "limited" has a legally significant meaning). The separation between that limit upon the power of Congress and current statutory law is an issue well worth addressing; if you believe the status quo to be preferable, then perhaps you have a consistent argument, but if not, it suggests that current statute and juris prudence are errant, not that the Constitution per se has a weakness.
One significant point on which I think the framers got it wrong was their mistrust of standing armies (see the 2-year appropriation limit), but even in that I see why they did it, and recognize that it was in many ways tied with the logistics of war in the day which are no longer applicable.
I'm curious which of the "first principles" enshrined in the constituion and its amendments you think are out of date and need replacement?
--
Quotations from Ambrose Bierce's ``The Devil's Dictionary'' could be hazardous to your freedom as well.
Canada may not be a safe haven. Are we sure there aren't any obscure clauses in the NAFTA agreement that might apply here? And for the truly paranoid, there's this story on The Village Voice's web site.
--
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
If you want to maintain a strong sense of Hyperbole, might I recommend instead using non-existent science-fiction weapons? Threaten to use a Death Star or anti-matter weapons. Perhaps you should add a further touch of the comedic by threatening somebody with a 747 full of rabid weasels.
Uh, last time I checked, "Tom Cruise Missiles" was a non-existent weapon.
- sigs are for wimps.
--
I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations
And I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners.
Berke Breathed
So my thinking is that the judge saw the context as irrelevant in the case because this law doesn't really make clearance for the "just kidding" defense. Effectively this is being treated similarly to the laws about bomb jokes at the airport. So he forbid entry of that evidence into the record because it would have tainted the jury's perspective.
It seems quite realistic that if you sent an e-mail to somebody and jokingly said, "If you don't come out with us tonight, I'm gonna blow up your house with a cruise missile," you can be prosecuted as a terrorist (assuming they feel compelled to do so). This is a VERY bad law written in the heat of the moment and in desperate need of overturning. So whatever you do in the mean time, if you describe conducting violent acts on anybody in any forum, don't do it in California, and don't use weapons of mass destruction. And ESPECIALLY don't do it to scientologists
If you want to maintain a strong sense of Hyperbole, might I recommend instead using non-existent science-fiction weapons? Threaten to use a Death Star or anti-matter weapons. Perhaps you should add a further touch of the comedic by threatening somebody with a 747 full of rabid weasels.
Disclaimer: If you choose to use advice in this posting, you need to put down the crack pipe. Just say no!
---
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Jamie, I know you've read my critisms before, but please take this constructively. By being so one-sided in your reporting, you're encouraging the people you're trying to persuade to distrust you. Your style might generate a lot of posts, but a mis-guided /. effect launched against an innocent school district, judge or whoever will dramatically damage your cause. (This says nothing of the guilt/innocence of the judge in this case.)
Why would you damage you cause? Remember when fax machines were becoming popular and there were tons of junk faxes. It was spam that cost you a lot due to the high cost of fax paper back then. Legislators started considering legislation to restrict spam faxing. How did the spammers react?
They flooded legislative offices with faxes trying to persuade them to not pass the legislation. Hrm...I wonder how legislators reacted to having to go through rolls of thermal paper a day? A huge response might be a grassroots movement, or it's more likely a bunch of idiots who don't have their facts straight motivated by some muckraker who either doesn't have all the facts or is motivated by one side or the other to mis-represent those facts.
Jamie, I'm saying this as constructive criticism. Whether you like it or not, you're a journalist. People rely on you and take action based on what you say, without realizing that you are only giving one side of the story. Those actions may negatively impact the very people you want to help with your article. As more and more people realize that you let your biases color your reporting, they'll start to distrust you and your stories. Since there will still be a force who'll follow you dispite you bias, you'll lose both ways. Your followers will hurt those you want to help, and you'll lose your reputation with those who see through your bias.
-sk
So, Jamie, to be perfectly clear, are you advocating that we give in and just abandon our right to speak as we see fit?
Actually, all of your posts are already copyrighted by you. I'll direct your attention to the bottom of the page: "All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2001 OSDN." (Emphasis mine). Plus, when something is created, it is automatically copyrighted by the creator, unless the copyright is explicitly granted to another. Now, if you want to make that copyright explicit, that's of course perfectly acceptable, too.
49 20 68 61 76 65 20 74 6F 6F 20 6D 75 63 68 20 66 72 65 65 20 74 69 6D 65 2E
Two things worry me here.
Firstly, this means the best and the brightest are pretty much eliminated as possible jurors. That's not good.
Secondly, I find it difficult to concieve of how to draw the line here on what evaluation of the credibility of evidence is permitted. One divorce case springs to mind where a defendent said that him and the woman he was alone in the unlit room with were playing snooker. That's clearly ridiculous testimony...
However, note my location. What's the situation like over here, then?
Greg
(Inside a nuclear plant)
Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!
Seems to me that Keith had a horrible defense. I took the time to read the penal code, specifically the section which would apply here, and I would think any competent legal defense would have been able to show both that the code itself would not apply to this case and that the code is poorly worded.
Paraphrasing:
11418.5.(a): the threat must be "on its face and under the circumstances" be so unequivocal, immediate, and specific enough to make the person threatened feel that the threatener really means what they say and that the threat is likely to be carried out immediately.
11418.5.(b): "sustained fear" can be identified by any action taken in direct response to the threat, but is not limited to such.
So, for part a, I would think any decent defense would have made clear to the jury the circumstances under which these "supposed" threats were made. This would include making available the context of the Usenet postings. Failure to do so would be a good grounds for appeal.
For part b, I would hope that a defense lawyer would argue that this portion of the penal code is too vague and ill-constructed that it should not be used as a basis for enforcing this code.
Doesn't anyone have anything substantive aside from that poorly updated xenu.net site?
--
Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.
--
Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.
It's not the far left and the far right that think this way. Both sides are opposed to almost all government interference and help in daily lives of the citizen. The side that is most for this is the center, which is why this sort of thing plays so well. If the center was against it, then the whole thing would be mute.
Dear Mr. Vermifax,
We are sorry to inform you, that the post above is a threat to our client, a slashdot member, and an evidence of teroristic intentions.
Not only you threatened to use armed force against our client, you also threatened to disturb our client from practicing peacefully in his slashdot religion.
We contacted some military representatives to inquire how you required an access to top-secret military equipment. Those representative took our inquiry quite seriously but refused to press charge against you. The representative said he contacted the CIA regarding this matter, and they will take care of it using their own methods.
We decided to press charges on you. We filled a class action in the name of all slashdot members. Please stay where you are, and wait for the police representatives to make contact with you and read your rights.
Regards,
Sela & Sela, IANLs attorneys LTD.
PS: We will be more than happy to represent you in court. We advise you to claim for insanity. Such claim is very likely to be accepted, since, as a slashdot member you have threatened to kill yourself as well.
Although it seems clear that Mr. Henson statements where intended as a joke, they also where bigoted, intolerant, and highly offensive.
;) )
Bullshit.
If you want to find offensive posts about scientology, look back in the a.r.s archives to about 1995. The flames were on full back then. I still remember one in particular that began with, "I am going to impale you on my clue stick. Maybe once my clue-bearing sperm chew their way through your clammy insides to your brain, you'll understand why you're such a fuckwit." Now *that's* bigoted and offensive. It was also highly entertaining.
(Go for -1 -- Flamebait, folks; I've got karma to burn.
Mr. Henson's remarks were very reasonable WHEN TAKEN IN CONTEXT, for a man who is spending his life in opposition to a criminal organization. Read the posts; the missle 'threat' was an obvious joke, and the 'utterly destroy' quote was not only in the context of pickets and legal battles, but was originally lifted from the scienos' own scriptures. Every statement Mr. Henson made should have been protected by free speech, and his flight to Canada is a sad, sad reflection on America.
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
Uh-oh. Looks like /. has attracted the attention of a Scientologist. Will the nefarious Scientology legal team follow? Let's hope so. I'd be DAMN interested in watching that combat play itself out.
Look man, this guy has no history of violent behavior, he didn't have any weapons in his possession, and the only thing he is guilty of is speaking out of his ass. But if you've spent any time at all in Usenet you know that this stuff happens ALL THE TIME. If he had been saying these things directly to you then I might sympathize with you a bit. But he didn't. He said it in a newsgroup. Newsgroupies are exactly as threatening as you let them become.
The last statement proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Slashdot.org is dominated by people who want to help destroy Scn.
Wrong again, m'friend. /. is dominated by skeptics who virulently detest any quelshing of speech under damn-near ANY circumstances. There is more rancor directed towards the CoS because of their past (and current!) actions against netizens. But they're (we're) equananimous in our loathing of such behavior, whether it comes from the CoS or the Mormons or the government of Paraguay. Doesn't matter. What DOES matter is that Scientology goes way over the top, moreso than almost all other groups, when it comes to trying to silence criticism.
BTW: You might want to go check out the Freepers for some really crazy stuff that is much worse than this.
- Rev.I don't think that the man should be running to Canada. If he is going to commit such inflammatory actions then I think he should take up the responsibility and face the injustice that he has provoked in order to showcase his cause, otherwise, he will just cause the erosion of more of our freedoms.
Yeah what the fuck ever man. You ain't the one facing time in the big house. If I have a choice between being somebodies bitch and bounding over to Bampf, that ain't even a choice. Besides, he'll have a much louder voice outside of jail than inside it. I'm all for martyrdom and sacrificing yourself for principles when it's appropriate, but that only works whenever people give a shit. 99% of America doesn't care about this, so he'd be hard pressed to accomplish anything positive from jail.
- Rev.--
I hate that analogy. It IS a crime once the other, reasonable, person believes that you really do intend to harm him. "Menacing," IIRC. This can occur long before the fist is anywhere near the nose.
A similar restriction applies to free speech issues. Your right to speak *does not* include the right to block me from the private enjoyment of life. This is why there are all sorts of "time, manner and place" restrictions - a speaker on a soapbox in a public park during a Sunday afternoon is a very different thing than, e.g., someone using a bullhorn to screech at your residence at 2 AM.
However, these restrictions should be based on "presentation" alone, not "content."
(Not a lawyer, but a serious student of civil liberties.)
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
So far as I can tell, he is not a political prisoner by any stretch of the imagination. He was accused of a crime, and after a full trial, a jury unanimously found him guilty. If his problem is with the form of the trial, he has remedies in the United States, far more powerful than would any convict in any other nation in the World. He instead decided to abuse the freedoms he had and left the nation.
Time will tell if Canada will offer him any meaningful refuge.
I was under the impression that the charges were federal (1984 deprival of civil rights). Why would he ever end up being held in a county lock-up?
I believe he just did.
If you say so. By fleeing the country as a fugitive, being never able to return absent a grant of amnesty for both the underlying crime AND the crime of running, he simply becomes the poster child that the CoS can muscle you out of anywhere -- even the United States. By doing so, Keith loses credibility with U.S. politicians, lends credibility to the CoS for its claims, and ultimately moves nobody previously on the fence to the side of right and reason.
If that's the kind of thing you think makes for a favorable result, so be it. For my part, I think the cause of CoS critics took a major step backwards if these reports are true.
Belief in one's convictions means standing up for one's rights, not running scared.
The next person who considers cocking a snoot at the Church, I believe, will find herself deterred, not inspired, by this result.
Scientology is a made up philosophy that acts like a religion, which is why it's false as a religion and a philosophy. If it were called "scientism" but had the exact same belief system, it would a religion. I can say this without reproach because I am clear*, so if you are angry with me for criticising Scientology, you need more auditing; you see the part of your brain that can't understand what I am saying is exactly the same part that keeps you from being a better Scientologist.
Now, as to why the poster you are answering can't distinguish context or irony correctly, who knows.
Fnord.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
Is degrading to fruits or vegetables.
War is necrophilia.
And they call it a free country.
War is necrophilia.
He is not even a nazi skinhead.
War is necrophilia.
I don't know if Keith had a lawyer in this case. I sat in on one of his cases some years ago (he was being sued for copyright infringment) and he was defending himself. This is not necessarily a bad thing. But Keith, in his full glory, telling the judge that he was prejudiced and mean, is not a pretty sight. Keith has a tendency (no, I think it's more accurate to say he has a need) to be a rabble rouser. He doesn't do very well at it. But he does have a tendency to not listen to the judge, refuse to answer questions, and call the judge dumb/prejudiced. Now, as a normal human, the judge is not going to react favorably to this. Keith usually causes half the trouble he's in by not knowing what not to say.
Independent side note: A recent (this week) Supreme Court case found that if there is a misdemeanor charge that may result in jail time, the defendant has a right to an attorney. Public Defenders love this stuff. (Except maybe in Riverside, which is definitely conservative...)
I wish he hadn't fled. There are attorneys out there who would help him. (not that he'd listen to them).
Thalia
Seems to me that he has strong grounds for appeal. Fleeing the country seems extreme. Why do he, and presumably his lawyer, think he would lose on appeal? There's something missing here.
Best Slashdot Co
What in the hell was this judge doing disallowing every defense that was going to be presented? Is he in the pocket of $cientology or what?
+++ ATH0 +++
That grand defender of civil liberties? Where was it, when your precious 1st amendment rights are being abused by Scientology?
Or do you just fight the fights you know will get you the best publicity or a sure win?
Alas gallinaceas de urbe bovis volo
Man, do I those damn Scientologists. They just people and their money. What a total . If I ever get my hands on a Scientologist I swear I will until they are red with .
*----- This message has been sanitized for your protection by Scienositter -----*
um, yeah, this was a joke...
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
What about now? The trial is over, is the jury allowed to read the last few days newspapers, jump on Slashdot, do their own investigation? And discovering that they made the wrong decision and performed a gross miscarriage of justice, do they have any recourse? After all, the end goal here is Justice!
How we know is more important than what we know.
heh, in Australia the lawyers get a stat sheet for each person and they get a look at them as they go up to take the oath, but dont get to ask questions. I wrote on my form 'computer programmer' as occupation, I didn't even get out of my chair when they called my name.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Is someone legally liable if they do the same thing, but immediately after their "threatening" sentance, clearly state that they're joking? Or can the statement of non-intent be removed like the rest of the context was?
--
I'm not aware of canada's position on Scientology, but perhaps he should seek asylum in Germany? If i remember correctly, Germany isn't too big on the whole scientology thing.
but I have the strange feeling I'm only getting 1/2 the story here.
I feel that way with almost anything Jamie posts. His writing is so completely one-sided that my natural inclination is to assume he's wrong. Even though I've thought for years that Scientology was sinister and repugnant, my first guess was that this guy must have been a kook. It wasn't until I read some of Keith Henson's postings that I thought Jamie might actually be right.
Really, I'm happy for people to post opinion pieces, but these jumbled mixes of news story and opinion piece just read like propaganda.
... is at:
http://www.operatingthetan.com/
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Keith isn't just a member of the L5 society, he's the guy who FOUNDED the L5 society.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Keith is already picketing the clams again in Toronto.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
These miscarriages of justice have a habit of happening to people the Church of Scientology views as enemies (and not just in the US).
"PPS Killing the organization off entirely is the best way to change the future of Scientology."
I see no violent reference in the above quote. The annihilation of an organization does not involve the death of any humans. If you were to proclaim 'I'd love to kill off the KKK' that does not mean the same thing as 'I'd love to kill off all of the members of the KKK'. And you can not be arrested and incarcerated in a sane world for wishing for the downfall of an organization and even working towards that end. If someone believes christianity is wrong and pickets against it that is their right.
This guy did not make any threats, he was in a forum and within a thread which was making fun of scientology. Last time I checked it wasn't illegal to make fun of a religion.
As for the fact that slashdot is populated by people who wish to see Scientology eradicated, well we have good reason.
Scientologists are well known for their abusive tactics, brainwashing, and even murder of ex-members.
No good has come out of scientology, and much evil has been perpetrated by the cult. There are no redeeming features of scientology, and nothing which makes it valuable to humanity in the least.
Why would we wish to see it continue to blight our cultural landscape?
And guess what, it's perfectly legal for me to wish with every fiber of my being that the Cult of Scientology would vanish from the face of the earth. It's perfectly legal for me to exhort others to speak out against the CoS and it's perfectly legal for me to picket against the CoS.
It's ALSO perfectly legal for me to "threaten" to slay all members of the CoS with my +4 Spork of Mystic Annihilation. So there.
Kintanon
PS. I'm coming after you with my Mystic Spork! Better call a lawyer...
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
a long time protestor against Scientology's on-line spamming
of course - he also said that eagles would come down and take away the cult's leader .... but they didn't try and convict him on that rather more obviously sillyness
If Keith were blocking access to a Scientology place of worship, or discriminating against members by refusing to hire them I think that would be bigotry - but he was posting in a public forum and walking on a public highway carrying a picket sign - I think that that sort of exercise of free speech is what the US is all about - the alternative starts to look more like the Spanish Inquisition and other sorts of state organized anti-religious organizations that caused people to move to the US in the first place.
Everyone has a right to beleive in any religion they like - even the loony haunted-by-space-aliens Scientology stuff - but equally everyone has a right to question religion too
Make the world a better place...
...Kill a Zealot.
Could that be considered a threat?
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
Throughout history, cults have been branded as nefarious, predatory and corrupt. If one sits down and looks at the facts surrounding the critisims of Scientology and compares them to any of the major religions and the histories of those religions, the differences are obscured. Compare scientology to the preachers on BibleTV, and one finds little difference. Is it a scam, of course. However, freedom of religion carries with it the same burdens of freedom of speech in that you take the good with the bad. If you start to shit on the first ammendment you are shitting on the constitution. On a much more synical note, I'm in favor of things like Scientology in that they weed out (Darwin-effect) societies idiots. Its like the Judas-Priest albumn, or that MTV show that caused those kids to run themselves over. These things should be encouraged to rid our society of the Tom Cruises of the world.
Someone you trust is one of us.
. . . if I had a bunch of aliens stuck to me.
-Peter
Too many midichlorians! Too many midichlorians! Oh damn, wrong religion. What was I thinking?
By the way, for a good time, perform this Google search.
How to Download YouTube Videos
Two words: Salman Rushdie.
--
Lord Nimon
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
Here's the 'freekeith' Google cache
NOTE TO THE CLAMBOTS, WISE, The Poodle Korps and OSA/SeaOrg: Try and cancelbot/DDOS THAT, without tipping your hands to the SEC, the Bundeswehr, INTERPOL, Treasury or the FBI as to your TRUE level of control over Earthlink (NOTE to all others: Mouseover and check the link. It's http://www.netcom.com/pub/hk/hkhenson , one of Keith's sites shut down when they took over the Web!) and what you have planned for the rest of the Net
Who IS Keith Henson? Who is he? A patriot, a thinker, an eccentric, a brave and fearless man. From Caroline P. Meinel's classic, Guide to (mostly) Harmless Hacking That's right! Keith Henson was a member (and continues to develop) of the original Hypertext Projct, Ted Nelson's Project Xanadu. Therefore, it can seriously be argued that Keith is one of the fathers of the Web! (As well as as a thinker on space travel, a Life Member of the L5 Society, an original pioneer in the concept of 'Mega-Scale Engineering', a close friend of Dr. Richard Feynman, and a pioneer in the study of nano- and micro-technology, cryonics/cryogenics and technological Life Extension.) Further proof can be seen when Nelson's Appendix to his updated Xanadu Proposal also thanks Keith, directly, along with the other US XOC visionary, Roger Gregory. Other citations mentioning Keith include a citation from Johnathon Vos Post's 'Letter to the Editor' in response to Wired's 1995 'The Curse of Xanadu' Finally, from Xanadu's (original) timeline Of course, Keith has had troubles in Riverside County before. But because of David Miscavaige (The Poodle), WISE and the other clam enterprises in Riverside County, as well as past allegations of government corruption and bribery (that started Henson on his crusade there), any thinking person can easily come to the conclusion that Riverside County is already in the control of the clams, and is now wholly compromised.
This great and brave man has fought and continues to fight these murdering fascists for us and his neighbors.
XenuBat has some of Keith's call-ins to KGO archived for all to hear. Here's some more of Keith's troubles with the clams, in his fight to get the FDA to admit that the clams were 'practicing medicine without a license.' (the famous San Jose 'NOTS' case).
Some of Keith's site other caches are these Google caches.
As for why Canada, here's a quote from the Google cache as to why: Keith and his family have been banrupted, harassed, threatened and assaulted. The clams continue to 'Fair Game' him (note the allegations of Child Molestation, a clasic of the clams against their enemies). Some other acts of clam terrorism against other individuals, all over the world. Here's Google's Scientology in the courts page.
Scary stuff, huh? That you can be sued to poverty for telling the truth and then jailed isn't the scariest thing, though. It's what they have planned for us wogs and SPs, if we don't knuckle under and begin to accept them for what they believe they are. The FBI still classifies them as a 'paramilitary' organization and, after the Aum Shinrikio incident, watches them for similar behaviors to Aum's, especially in Riverside County, California.
NOTE TO TACO and ANDOVER: Okay, you pussies knuckled under to these assholes once before. GET THE LINKS AND UPDATES OUT NOW, OR _EVERYONE_ IS GOING TO THINK YOU'RE PUSSYING OUT AGAIN!!!! Additionally, get rid of the OSA plants and the max-karma PoodleBots you were forced to accept. Kick these murdering, lying fascist slime out!!! Keep at least part of the net CLAM FREE!!!!!!!!!
Remember guys, this is Amerika. Just because you have the most votes, doesn't mean you get to win.--Fox Mulder
So quoteth Xenu, the "All your base" evil guy.
<---[singularity sig]
I want to be cool like you one day and be able to read an article and never miss anything in it.
Why don't you give people the benefit of the doubt before you flame you fucking coward?
-Ty
It just occurs to me that this could be the start of a large campaign to drive people out of California in order to solve their power problems.
Just a thought.
--Ty
A few posts in here suggest we need a new moderation option for these Cultist ?
-2 Clam (:)
Bad move there, threatening the life of the President of the United States. I expect that any minute now, the Secret Service will be knocking on your door to take you into custody. At your trial, the one nasty sentence in your comment (the one following the phrase "into this:") will be presented as evidence against you (though without the trailing question mark), and the context will be inadmissible because context is not relevant to the crime for which you will be on trial. I hope you like anal sex; I think you'll be getting a lot of it.
Exactly what I've been thinking about this whole issue. It's so bloody obvious that it's the solution.
Create a church in direct opposition... Jyhad!
Why not set up the "Church of Slashdot"? CmdTaco could be promoted to PopeTaco.
Want to distribute DeCSS? Create the "Church of DeCSS".
Napster under pressure from corporate interests? Tell them to fuck off by creating the "Church of Napster".
I've reconsidered and now hold The Church of Scientology in the highest esteem. Thanks to the precedent that they are setting, we will soon be able to overthrow everything that we don't agree with by creating "church" facades to hide behind.
Scientology rules!
-- kwashiorkor --
Leaps in Logic
should not be confused with
-- kwashiorkor --
Leaps in Logic
should not be confused with
Jumping to Conclusions.
Just 'cause someone is an anarchist hardly makes them a leftists. There are plenty of far-right anarchist groups. Kinda reinforces the fact that the whole concept of the "political spectrum" is bullshit, though.
And I actually post from a .com domain; my email address is a .edu one, though.
How did we get to rules of evidence that prevent the defense from introducing key documents and calling pro-defense witnesses? That seems to be what happened here.
..that saying 'all your base are belong to us' is illegal under the law mentioned in the article above?
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
It is widely known to critics of $cientology that this is exactly why Hubard created his cult.
A New York based magazine editor recalled, in 1986,
This seems to echo Hubbard's statements to a Newark, New Jersey science fiction club in 1949:
And consider this quote, from California Superior Court Judge Breckenridge, speaking of Scientology founder, L. Ron Hubbard, in a 1984 legal decision:
Finally, Hubbard himself is quoted in a communication to his followers dated 25 February 1966:
After doing a little cursory research into this (following some of the links), it seems to me that this case manages to violate fully half of all amendments in the bill of rights: I, V, VI, VIII, and IX. It seems to me that his reason for seeking asylum in Canada is to attract attention to this case in Canadian press, and to make this a matter of international concern.
... be be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor". He was barred from obtaining witnesses or evidence in his favor; he was not informed of the charges against him (until they accidentally leaked out). Amendment VIII states that "excessive bail shall not be required." According to his cached web page, he was ordered to jail despite paying $10,000 bail.
This ruling violates the first amendment, obviously, in that it infringes on his right to free speech and free assembly. Scientology argues that the first amendment favors their own case; however, this means that amendment IX would be broken, since enumeration of freedom of religion would be infringing on both free speech and free assembly. Amendment V is clearly broken; it states that "... nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". The use of quotes from the defendant, of which the context was barred from presentation, would seem to be comprise a case of him being forcibly used as a witness against himself, and seeing the circumstances of his trial, he was clearly not given due process of law.
Continuing with amendment VI, the unconstitutionality is absolutely appaling. The sixth amendment states that "the accused shall enjoy the right to
This is a case that everyone should be watching very, very closely. Even more so than the DeCSS decision, the freedom of the States depends on the outcome.
------------------
A picture is worth 500 DWORDS.
If you're smart, you'll take Henson's case as a warning. You'll think about what your own statements would look like, with their context totally removed, and in the harsh spotlight of a courtroom. Do you really need to post that joke, or wouldn't the judge find it funny?
Now that's definitely a good old-fashioned threat like the cops give 'em to the scum on TV.
It's... It's...
"We can confirm that Debian does *not* ship the version with the trojan horse. Our version predates it." [CA-2002-28]
Why don't you do this?
Or are you just an idea rat?
Maybe the state's highest function is to grind out insoluble problems. (Zelazny, Hall of Mirrors)
Take a look at this article. Specifically:
Greta Van Susteren, the CNN legal correspondent, and her husband [...] are Scientologists.
So, what's the last time you heard a scientology story on CNN? I certainly don't remember hearing one in recent history. It is quite disturbing that they have control over people so high up in the "visibility" hierarchy...
// zyqqh
(P.S. Regarding jail conditions: The guy was convicted of a misdemeanor. He very likely would NOT be in with hardened criminals. One goes to prison on a felony and jail on a misdemeanor (yes, they are 2 separate classifications of penal institutions). Misdemeanor criminals are not usually dangerous, anything really serious is usually a felony.)
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
The ruling makes perfect sense. Remember, the case was heard in CALIFORNIA. :/
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Because it might not effect you, today, that does not mean that you should not protest and be aware of it.
Fight Spammers!
hey man, i thought it was fucking hillarious. i was kinda upset too that it was marked offtopic.
:)
oh well
"I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet beer."
Roasted over the First Amendment :)
Hell in a hand basket? Well, at least it will give us excuses to finally use automatic weaponry.
This is a joke. This is a joke. This is a joke.
I'm probably f*cked now :).
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
Now for the two statements:
1. "I AM GOING TO EAT YOUR BRAIN AND DEVOUR YOUR SOUL!!!!"
2. "Remember in that weird movie, Army of Darkness (evil dead 3), when that witch said, 'I AM GOING TO EAT YOUR BRAIN AND DEVOUR YOUR SOUL!!!'? That kind of scared me." Obviously, the first statement could be percieved as threatening. Simultaneously, the first statement exists in the second (compound) statement, yet is clearly not a threat.
Not to say this is directly relevant in his situtation, but atleast the context should have been analyzed.
Doesn't matter anyways, as you seem to have written us(whoever the monolithic slashdot community is(I can't recognize it. You must be a good degree smarter than I am to have recognized it)) off anyways.
If this is how you really live, than please leave.We are the children, the dreamers, and the immature.
This is how we do things. This is how we live. And this is how we drive the engine of our economy. Bugger off ;)
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
"Research is what I am doing when I don't know what I am doing." -- Wernher von Braun
Slashdot Itself Has Been Targetted For Being Set Against Scientology. I Wonder If The Scientologists Are Going To Start Seeing Slashdot As An Actuall opponent And Start Doing More Against Them, Things Akin To What They've Done To Poor Keith. All I Can Say Is I Hope So. I Think It's Horrible That The Justice System Can Be Perverted So Easily, Like With These Sort Of Events, And The DMCA, And Many Other Places Where It Becomes An Issue Of Power As To Who Wins The Court Case, Not Who Was Right. The Courts Were Put There To Protect The Little Guy, The Opinion No One Likes, And The Outcasts. If The Scientologists Do End Up Trying To Take On Slashdot, I'm Sure Slashdot, With It's Users And Andover Backing, Help Can To Win A Court Case, And Maybe Start To Put These Cultists In Their Place.
Yes, I Know I Type Funny.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|
`Lex - Find Me Here: Text Appeal
It's not the religion that anti-CO$ people are protesting, though it has more than its share of lunacies. It's the organization itself, which has been spared the full force of the law only by behaving in such a reflexively litigious manner (as per LRH's instructions years ago) that nobody really wants to screw with it.
Scientology investigators and lawyers are very good at their job (which mostly involves creating smear campaigns and running their opponents down in court; "black ops" are suspected to have occured but the evidence is sketchy). The organization is a hall of mirrors -- the real hierarchy doesn't much have anything to do with the way the CO$ and its related organizations present themselves, which I think would probably make declaring the Church a vexatious litigant (which it most certainly is) a bit pointless.
Essentially, what the Church's critics want is the elimination of the organization itself, with those still choosing to adhere to Hubbard's teachings practicing them on their own terms, and not the cult's. It would be a little like saying "Catholicism is a great religion, it's the Church I have a problem with" (I don't agree with that, btw) or something vaguely similar.
FWIW, however, it's not that easy to get someone away from the Church -- from the very beginning they hit you with hypnotic techniques to manufacture loyalty.
/Brian
(*anonymous clam)
They're very good at making enemies, that's for sure.
In all this silliness, one thing is missing: a definition of the concept of "dead-agenting". A dead agent, according to Sun-Tzu in The Art of War, is one of either a double agent (hence winds up dead when caught) or a source of misinformation ("dead" information?). This is part of the whole Fair Game thing -- make the target look as unpleasant as possible with innuendo and dirt-digging so nobody will take them seriously.
/Brian
In other news today, user_xyz was sued today after police raided andover HQ to obtain ip information after a spork threatened to utterly destroy commander taco with nothing other than hot grits, all your xyz are belong to ijk, petrified natalie portman statuettes, and other assorted obselete objects such as phallic beowulf clusters.
Seriously though, this shit scares me? Is there anyway to protect/imdemnify yourselft against such things when you want to desperately desire to abuse some twat that needs it? Can an american sue me even though i am an australian for implying / saying that they are a [insult here][bodypart here if needed]?
How every version of MICROS~1 Windows(TM) comes to exist.
Do the following really mean anything? SCSA MCP CCSA CCNA
--I'm not actually after an answer!
Give me your tired, your poor, Your religiously prosecuted...
---
Copyright © 2002 me
If you don't have anything nice to say, say it often.
If you don't have anything nice to say, say it often.
- Ed the Sock
The whole site should be mirrored there soon, and currently redirects to http://www.operatingthetan.com.
Thanks to jcr, Don NOTS and others. As of 1742 EST the current best mirror is at the google cache in the Topic, but within 20-30 minutes it should be the original URL, http://freehenson.da.ru.
Thank you to the kind folks at dis.org, Don NOTS, and others.
The site is accessible from its original location at http://freehenson.da.ru as well as its new location at http://www.operatingthetan.com.
This site will withstand all traffic.
Freehenson website BACK UP after a savage slashdotting
FREE HENSON
I can't speak for Keith's situation or his personal feelings or financial situation, but, in general, he's done pretty much exactly what the Scientologists wanted him to do: Go away and shut up.
He hasn't shut up, and in the day of the Internet, he hasn't even gone "away" since there is no "away."
In fact, this one action has created more publicity for his case than the months of relatively quiet and local human rights activism which prompted the original charges.
While I can't say what I think of the likelihood of success in this action, and in fact it could end him up in an even worse situation than where he started, going away and shutting up are two things that Keith Henson are not about. He is not about sitting still and having a gag shoved in his mouth, or getting beaten up or killed in a prison with a strong presence of Scientologists in the form of recruitees into the front group Scientology operates in prisons, Criminon.
For months before this verdict, the Scientologists were boasting about how they had total control of the situation and how they were getting Keith "just where they wanted him."
Canada is not where they want him.
Whether or not it's worth the ultimate fallout that it will cause, Henson has managed to turn his local and limited publicity activism, and his prosecution by an obscure and corrupt District Attorney's office (Riverside DA Grover Trask is disreputable) into an international incident and involve more government bodies.
What has happened here will now receive at least some of the scrutiny it deserves. Henson has not fled in a cowardly fashion, otherwise he would not be so noisy about it. How many fugitives post their address and phone number to the Internet and invite press and government scrutiny of their actions? That's not the action of a guilty man fleeing.
What has happened here stinks on ice, and can not withstand broad scrutiny. Even if Henson later gets transported back to the United States and ends up being sentenced, the court which ends up with the case will be under tremendous scrutiny to handle the proceedings fairly, and further kangaroo court tactics will not be tolerated or ignored.
What has happened here was only allowed because it was a backwater court in a corrupt district, with a corrupt District Attorney, who was allowed to get away with murder. Let's see if Deputy District Attorney Robert K. Schwarz is so willing to be visibly the pawn of Scientology with the world watching.
What has happened here was only able to occur because the obscure Deputy District Attorney Robert K. Schwarz was backed up by Scientology lawyers Elliott Abelson and Samuel D. Rosen, who openly coached the DA's every action, standing behind him in court and whispering into his ear, and apparently pumping hundreds of thousands of dollars worth into free legal aid to the DA's office. What the hell kind of situation is it where a criminally convicted organization like Scientology can essentially act as its own private District Attorney's office and use a state actor like a DA's office as a proxy to make its own law?
What has happened here needs this continued publicity lest it continue to happen.
Henson has brought that scrutiny to bear, but it will be allowed to pass without action.
Free Keith Henson!
The hell they caved. They just obeyed the law. The DMCA basically forced their action and I suggest you read it to understand why they did what they did. Incidentally their action, and their full report in the thread caused more bad publicity for the cult of Scientology than leaving the article up would have, and was completely legally protected, so if Scientology sued, they'd lose and get slapped with costs and fees. Slashdot used effective tactics and won.
As for Tripod, what can I say. They're fucking morons. Apparently they either got a bandwidth spike and croaked the site, or a bogus complaint and yanked it without notice. That's fine. Now the site is sitting on top of two T3s at http://www.operatingthetan.com thanks to the nice people at http://www.dis.org. Thanks Don NOTS. http://freehenson.da.ru is the *permanent* URL for the site wherever it goes. That is what I have always used when referring it to people, so that if they linked, the links would not be broken when some dip-idiot temporary free host yanked it. However, people insisted on pointing to Tripod instead. http://freehenson.da.ru will *always* work even if the site gets croaked at one or another location.
Apologies for rant and thanks to the mirrors and dis.org
Protester is subject to arrest1 701/hhens.shtml
THE PRESS-ENTERPRISE
Thursday, May 17, 2001
BY ERIN D. RANDOLPH
http://www.inlandempireonline.com/news/stories/05
A man convicted in April of oppressing Scientologists because of their religion has fled to Canada to apply for political refugee status, the man said Wednesday.
Keith Henson, 58, of Palo Alto, was scheduled to be sentenced Wednesday morning in court but didn't show up. A judge immediately issued a warrant for his arrest.
Henson's conviction on a charge of interfering with a religion stemmed from his picketing at the Church of Scientology's Golden Era Productions in Gilman Hot Springs.
Henson said in a phone interview Wednesday night from Canada that he went there to protest a Scientology event. He then decided he would stay after talking to an immigration lawyer.
Henson said his human rights have been violated because of a recommended sentence that could put him in jail for 200 days and subject him to five years' probation for a misdemeanor crime. He said the sentence would be too harsh.
Probation officer Garry Davis recommended that sentence to the court.
Henson had said he did not want probation because he believed it would give Scientologists a chance to keep an eye on him through the government.
Despite his conviction, Henson doesn't believe he was a threat to the Scientologists. He said Wednesday that he just wants them investigated for one death in the compound and one near it last year.
Court records include handwritten and typewritten letters from some of the Scientologists who work at Golden Era expressing their fear that Henson might harm them. They requested sentencing terms similar to Davis' recommendation.
Friends of Henson don't believe that he deserves the treatment he has received, because they say he would never hurt anyone.
"He is a kind and gentle man," Ida Camburn said. "He is a decent human being."
Riverside County Superior Court Judge Robert Wallerstein issued a no-bail arrest warrant for Henson. The judge postponed the sentencing until Henson is arrested and can explain where he has been and why he didn't come to court.
Deputy District Attorney Robert Schwarz said Henson took pictures of him and posted the names of district attorney support staff on the Internet. Schwarz said in court Wednesday that he believes the moves were an attempt to intimidate him from prosecuting the case.
"He needs to come back here and face up to his charges," said Muriel Dufresne, public relations director for Golden Era. "He can't flee from justice."
Erin D. Randolph can be reached by e-mail at erandolph@pe.com or by phone at (909) 487-5229
No his X is not a Scientologist.
[Libellous smears from an anonymous cultist or troll deleted.]
His ex has denied these charges since then, and the only occurrence of them in a court record is hearsay from a third party entirely. Whatever claims were made, his ex was asked about them after the Scientology smears started, and recanted the claim.
His ex incidentally is Caroline Meinel of Happy Hacker fame. Why not ask her yourself?
For Immediate Release:
May 17, 2001
Toronto Ontario Canada.
Keith Henson today retained the services of Canadian Immigration Lawyer and Specialist:
Mr. Guidy Mamann gman@migrationlaw.com
of Mamann & Associates. http://www.migrationlaw.com
(416) 862-0000
74 Victoria Street, Suite 303
Toronto, Canada M5C 2A5
From http://www.lsuc.on.ca/cgi-data/legal_members_en.sh tml
Law Society of Upper Canada
"Mamann & Associates provides a full range of services for temporary and permanent immigration to Canada and the United states. Guidy Mamann is a former immigration officer and is certified by the Law Society of Upper Canada as a Specialist in Immigration Law. Mamann & Associates is conveniently located in the same building as the Immigration and Refugee Board at 74 Victoria Street in Toronto."
Keith Henson is seeking Refugee Status after having been made a Political Prisoner of Conscience. His "crime" was to peacefully picket and criticize the internationally infamous Cult of Scientology. Unfortunately for Mr. Henson and the reputation of the United States, these protests occurred near Hemet California. Scientology has an extraordinary level of political influence upon the local government. This extralegal influence was clearly demonstrated by the open collusion between the Scientology Corporate lawyers and the District Attorneys Office of Riverside California.
Mr. Henson chose to seek refuge in Canada as that nation has previously criminally convicted corporate Scientology for Breaches of the Public Trust. Mr. Henson also has extensive personal contacts amongst consumer and religious activists opposed to Scientology abuses in Canada.
Wm. Gregg Hagglund
Press Secretary
Refugee Committee,
Temple of At'L'An (TM)
Free Keith Henson http://freehenson.da.ru
What if the FBI/BATF got an annonymous tip that your cult, the CoS had automatic weapons, wouldn't that be interesting?
There's already an on-the-record non-anonymous declaration sworn under penalty of perjury to that effect. The Declaration of Andre Tabayoyon, a Vietnam veteran and their former security chief at Gold Base, attests to the literal armory they have there, including guns and explosives. The Feds aren't interested. This is the same base that claims to be "terrorized" by a 57 year old engineer with a picket sign 300 yards away, across a barbed-wire fence with motion detectors and armed guards. They also run and scurry whenever anyone else shows up with a picket sign, even little old ladies, other computer nerds, and his wife Arel.
Incidentally any BATF involvement in a raid on Scientology would be disastrous. Not because the Scientologists would be likely to display armed resistance (though it's possible as they're getting crazier lately), but because the BATF are poorly-trained idiot goons who would screw up the raid so badly that Scientology's army of lawyers would eat them for breakfast.
They caved.
Why did they not do the same thing when MicroSoft threatened them?
Microsoft, as evil as it is, when presented with a threat of extreme public humiliation and embarrassment, and while in the middle of extremely ugly antitrust litigation, can be beaten into submission when it is made clear to them that they are being completely unreasonable and that future activities of that sort might damage shareholder value and even harm them in ongoing litigation.
Scientology has no such ability to make a sane and rational decision and will gladly throw millions of dollars into the toilet for no other reason than to show that they can. Furthermore, they were actually right on the issue of law. Furthermore, see RTC v. Netcom. They sue over that, they win, Slashdot loses, and a few hundred thousand dollars of Andover's money disappears into thin air with no positive effect whatsoever.
I don't like that situation, but they made the right choice from a legal perspective. If the post they removed had been even remotely defensible as fair use, the argument for yanking it would be weaker; however, the article in question was blatant copyright infringement, the exact same material has been found in numerous courts to be a copyright infringement, and the case would be completely unwinnable. Any lawyer who did not advise their client to remove the material in question would be guilty of malpractice, and anyone who ignored their lawyer giving such advice would be a fool.
Retaining the article would just have been a typical rebellious Slashdot action, no different from saying no to Microsoft, and would have generated relatively little interest. Removing the article was a total bombshell and created one of the busiest threads in Slashdot history, linked to a damning article filled with virtually every major link to Scientology-critical material, including essentially the same material hosted by Karin Spaink, who has won a court case in the Netherlands allowing her to retain a fair use of the materials without quoting them in their entirety.
This created a huge amount of public awareness of Scientology that had only sporadically been aired on Slashdot prior to that. This damaged Scientology's credibility even further and represented a very successful blow against this fascistic cult, and made very clear that they were behaving unreasonably and in a silly fashion, and not only not defending any important interests of theirs, but actually acting against their own interests. This is called "Operation Footbullet," when Scientology graciously agrees to do outrageously malicious and stupid things to damage its own reputation.
There is a principle known in hierarchical structures as "malicious compliance." The Slashdot guys gave a brilliant demonstration of the concept. Did they back down? Sure. Did they cave in? I don't think so. They used their own "reasonable compliance" as a weapon with which to strike back at the enemy, while availing themselves of the invulnerable protection against civil liability given by the DMCA.
Attacking and damaging the enemy while yourself remaining unexposed to attack is the height of strategy. They did good. Anyone who criticizes good strategy as cowardice misses the point. There's no such thing as "bravery" or "cowardice" against a malicious entity like Scientology that wants to destroy freedom of speech in toto. There is winning, and there is losing, and that is all. Slashdot won that round, by ducking and letting the opponent punch himself out.
Karin Spaink's website is at this URL. http://www.xs4all.nl/~kspaink
Henson was arrested at gunpoint today, according to The Register
But what would happen if I dialed a number, got the engaged tone and then said,
"You're on that *** phone again. I'm going to have to cut your tongue out."
I can see how someone who overheard the comment could complain about the language (Substitute suitable words for ***) but I can't really see how a court could consider this to be a threat unless you repeat it to the person it was intended for.
On the radio (BBCR4) on saturday there was a couple who had returned home to discover that the cat was walking round with the budgie in its mouth.
The woman screamed and then the husband shouted "You bloody cat. I'm going to kill you."
The neighbour rushed around expecting (hoping?) to stop a murder but all was well in the end.
Tim.
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
Have I got this right. Can you really be prosecuted for threatening someone even if they couldn't have been threatened by it. It will be thought police next.
In 2001, when the thought police come Knocking at your door. Think? "I'm Out".
Tim.
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
Before you go frothing about those evil, greedy Scientologists(like myself, I guess), think about what would have happened to the guy had he been saying this in relation to a Jewish Mosque.
/.'s membership list, I think I could have YOU prosecuted under this law. And NO, you don't get a chance to explain the context of that remark. It's clear to all, as is your guilt. Turn yourself in now, you terrorist.
If he said anything about a Jewish mosque, it'd be ignored as incomprehensible babble, as Jews worship in synagogues, and Muslims worship in mosques. Talking about a Jewish mosque makes about as much sense as talking about a "Church" that operates like a con game.
intending to obtain Slashdot's membership list, firebombing the building the servers are in and hunting down the staff and members one by one and killing them painfully
Hmm. Taken out of context, this sounds pretty frightening. If I'm on
--
Freeper Logic
Seriously, it now boils down to hitting a Canadian judge who is pissed off enough about the US to risk embarassing the Canadian government by granting asylum to a US citizen, and thus implying that it is possible to be persecuted in the US. Oh, the Horror, the Horror! What next, a crimes against humanity case against Henri Kissinger at the Hague?
On the other hand, the odds are against him.
-- look, cheese ahoy!
Well - how about speaking ill of Ford Motor Company?
Did anyone know that our friends @ 2600 mag are being sued by Ford now? Please see fordreallysucks.com
If you are in Windsor/Detroit you can come to the Courthouse and support them tomorrow.
I read the article on midiclorians.. Interesting...
What really amazes me is the birth of $cientology. $cientology is a 'new religion' invented by Hubbard. Over the next 200 years - if we permit it to grow by giving it tax breaks etc etc and not identifying it as the sham cult it is - what stops it from becoming Christianity for the new age? They have a cool-new-hip techno hook (that emeter thingy), they have aliens, they have copyrights, they have celebrities - Fuck man, they have it down. Will $cientology will grow into a 'respectable religion'. $cientologists know how to play the 'fair game' with lawyers and whatnot to drum up 'popular' support by claiming refuge behind 'religious freedom'. "Middle America" who are Christians, Muslims, Jews and Hindus know how important it is to defend their 'religious freedoms'... they are going to get hoodwinked into supporting these crazies.
How long until the 'jedi movies', stories of 'midiclorians', claims by the Aussies of "jedi" as their religion are all tied together in a grand unified story of their acceptance (and righteousness). 300 years from now, will the fog of history cloud all the real stories behind the origins of these 'things'. Will they be mis-represented by the $cientologists as history (proof) of the birth of their religion. Hubbard's popular faux-pas will be lost - the quotes of him saying 'if you want to be rich start a religion', histories of his family of him being out of control with his drug use, the 'fair game' letters all hidden by copyright...
We are all truly lucky to live in these days - we may be witnessing the birth of a religion that will explode over the next 1000 years. We may sit back and think - smugly - at what a joke it is that this cult is taken seriously, how bizarre their 'tactics' are. Anyone who recounts these stories will be marginalized as a 'religious bigot' and put in jail (article shows its already happening). The 'Operation Clambake' event will be shown as a moral victory - a testament to the conviction of the founders of the religion to overcome religious persecution. But make no mistake; this is a very fucking big deal.
What do you do when humanity grows out of our old religions.. the old emotional crutches and fairy tales -- you create new ones with stories based on the times, one appealing to modern people - with technology, stories of aliens, religious-technology devices..
is anyone else as amazed at the whole event as I am? It tells as much about Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism and their origins.
I am glad Martin Luther King did not think like you.
I'm glad the Dali Lama did think like him and fled Nepal. Otherwise, instead of alerting others to the illegality of the events that befell the Nepalese, he'd be assembling Nikes and burning counterfeit copies of Office2000.
Sorry, that's 234 characters. You only get 120... Why not just copyright all of your posts? Like the copyrighted laws discussed a few days ago. Then you can limit who is able to reproduce them and who can (and cannot) bring them into court.
Well, if you can copyright the law, why can't you copyright the evidence?
Be very afraid. Our right to free speech is almost gone. Even (y)our president thinks that "there ought to be limits to freedom." We can barely express an opinion without the fear that we will offend someone. How long before Bill Gates himself sues everyone here for speaking ill of Microsoft?
- - - If the sun is a star, why can't I see it at night?
The constitution says nothing about individuals interfering with religion. It only says the government may not. But since most people don't have the first clue as to what the constitution actually says it is not suprising that this verdict came down the way it did. Today, free speech covers everything except what is deemed "politically incorrect", and this guys speech was apperently deemed "hateful". I say keep saying what you want. They can't throw everyone in jail.
I'd also like to point out the correct citation for Henson's "destroy them utterly" quote. It comes from L. Ron Hubbard's 1955 article "The Scientologist, A Manual on the Dissemination of Material". Hubbard wrote: The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly.
This is one of the most famous of all Hubbard quotes, having been cited in dozens of legal cases against the Scientology cult. It is a reflection of Scientology's "fair game" policy, which is still in full effect today. Keith Henson is just the latest in a long string of victims. But he may yet have the last laugh.
First, it's got to be a religion, rather than a ponzi-scheme-like business.
-- .sig are belong to us!
All your
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
That Tom Cruise doesn't come on up to Canada and kick his ass John Woo-style!
--
--hongpong.com
Scientology has had critics online for a long long time. They routinely pursue them more vigorously than any other organization in modern times. The msot notable of online criticisms of Scientology is called Operation Clambake and has been around for many years. The proprietor of this collection of information has helped several people high in the Scientology organization 'escape' the clutches of that organization. It's a vary interesting read, and it gives insight into why it's in the vested interest of the organization, not to tolerate descenters.
--CTH
--
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
Be full of faith, seek truth, and stand for it when you find it.
People who fear God are in on the secret that fear of God is love of one's neighbor. That would be the only fear worth advocating...
information is immaterial
We must be careful not to INVITE Scientologists to take us on. Why? Because they will, whether we invite them or not. We must not have the hubris to think that we might succeed in a court case because we have many people on our side. No, Scientologists keep secrets, which means they accept the premise that it is permissible to lie. We Open Source folks cannot tolerate lies as easily, and are thus handicapped in the arena populated by attorneys, where lies are fabricated willfully. Scientologists also have nearly inexhaustible financial resources, because they demand money from their followers. They also can be protected in many legal systems as a RELIGION, while Slashdot cannot be so protected. Thus, it may be said that Slashdot _might not_ win any arbitrary court case against them. Thus we should not specifically invite them to sue.
The reality that they will sue us someday is quite tenable. What we must realize is that when Scientologists sue or attack something like Slashdot, they make a LOT of people aware of their faults. This realm of philosophy is where we win; an actual court case may or may not be ours for the taking. The beauty of Open Source is that anyone who criticizes it soon finds that Open Source is a better way than criticism...
Who can criticise one who publicizes all criticism?
I believe this is why Jesus kept no secrets; he knew that he would die because of his teachings, but that his teachings would live forever, because he never taught in secret.
We are into Open Source for the nobility of idea alone, not for the supremecy of the mortal courtroom. Thus, we, like all martyrs, must be willing to die for our ideas, that our ideas might live forever. They live longer depending on how purely we held to the idea of "No Secrets." For when the carrier of No Secrets dies, the idea is reborn in a thousand new forms, made durable by yet another death of innocence and purity, that one single thing which causes all men to weep.
information is immaterial
I cannot remember where I found them, if you have ever read their OT texts(for example if you pay 300,000 dollars, they will teach you how Jesus was a pedophile). A million dollars and you get to hear about when they are in control of the world, non-converts will be put in facilities to be re-educated. It is pretty scary stuff, and cannot see intelligent people getting involved in it. Even alot of bib time hollywood scientologists (many of whom owe their jobs to scientology) are finally speaking out against it(Tom Cruise for example.) I just found this site: http://www.scientology-kills.org
Unless:
[SNIP]
Am I forgetting something?
That there is no God...
Dave
is a God-given right that Americans enjoy.
Unless:
It causes harm to someone.
It is a direct threat to personal well-being.
It violates someone's intellectual property.
It could possibly be used to violate someone's intellectual property.
It is construed by someone to be offensive in some way.
It is degrading to some group of people to which you do not belong, unless it is derogatory to a group that is the majority. Then it's ok.
It is, in some way, derogatory towards a corporate entity.
It somehow inhibits someone else from possibly making some money, in some way, at some time, at some place, that will be disclosed at your trial.
Am I forgetting something?
You can tell a college man, but you can't tell him much.
A number of people have asked why the defense was not allowed to reveal the full content of the usenet posts.
The fact is that the defense was forbidden from revealing anything to the jury that would show that the "religion" in question was Scientology since this would have (rightly so) prejudiced them. In fact, there was one post where Keith quoted L. Ron's babbling. Because the jury could not discover that it was Hubbard's quote, they could only assume that the quote was actually Keith's!
The Co$ lawyers also put into evidence pictures of Keith picketing, but with the words on his sign removed from the picture.
"Scientology is both immoral and socially obnoxious. It is corrupt sinister and dangerous...."
Justice Latey, ruling in the High Court of London
Why did he run?
Scientology runs numerous front groups that serve to indoctrinate people into their cult. They have over fifty years experience in mind control.
One of their front groups is called Criminon and pretends to rehabilitate prisoners. The Co$ has mentioned that their Criminon program is operating in the county jail where Keith may be incarcerated.
L.Ron said that the thing to do with critics was to "dispose of them quietly and without sorrow".
Would you want to end up in jail under these circumstances?
I hope Mr. Henson finds the asylum he seeks (I'm Canadian). The Free Speech issues seem self-evident here. However, he should be aware that we have some Hate Crime laws in the Great White North that (sometimes) are heavy-handed - although not likely to the extent to which Mr. Henson is currently experiencing.
As well, the Scientology folks have no right to claim any injury here. I had a personal experience with these twits when I was in my teens. While walking down the street with a friend one day, some clean-cut guy (looked exactly like a mid-level manager-drone from M$ - complete with Dockers) jumped out from around the corner and offered us a free "personality test". Upon learning that we were minors, he offered to give us the tests and then discuss the results and "possible remedies" with our parents - just to be above board. Very spooky.
CrazyLegs
"Pork!!" said the Fish, and we all laughed.
"A perfect defence in this case would be to take quotes out of context out of the bible (or, barring that, various world leaders, the procecuting DA, the Judge himself, fairy tales, whatever) and ask if they sound like "terrorist words" then reveal the souce is "Mother Goose" or whatever... "
ROFLMAO! Yep. But apparently his attorney wasn't Clarence Darrow... However, they'd likely not have gotten away with it. Judges are very egotistical these days, most of them seem to suffer delusions of "Napoleonic Complex" and likely BOTH he and his attorney would have been jailed for contempt.
Judges have a practially unlimited power to jail for contempt anyone in their courtroom (and this is a MUCH abused power that should be taken away).
The judge in the Scopes Monkey Trial, though heavily biased towards Williams Jennings Bryan who was arguing the state's case against Scopes, had enough honor and decency to give the lightest possible punishment to the teacher after Darrow's stunt.
I don't think many judges of today are as principled. For one thing, judges are FAR more powerful today than 50 years ago. 50 years ago, judges INTERPRETED law, and didn't make law.
Today they make law all the time. Such as "Kaplan's Law" extending the DMCA to outlaw links.
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
"Nice troll, you don't supply any proof that scientology is the favorite religion of the far left, in fact, that's bullshit."
Really? John Travolta, Tom Cruise, the poster children for $cientology are of WHICH side of the aisle?
They are confirmed left wingers. I've yet to hear of any conservatives or libertarians mentioned as $cientologists. The anti-freedom, "secret torah" nature of it would seem to preclude the individualists, whom mostly are from the ranks of libertarians (which is what I am) and conservatives from being interested.
$cientology is the dominant religion (such as it is) of Hollyood, and Hollywood is also dominated by leftists.
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
Or, if you're actually brave, you'll refuse to cow under the perceived threat of rare circumstances like this. This is a horrible miscarriage of justice, but I find it hard to believe it to be a common occurrence. On the other hand, if I were to watch everything I say in a public forum from this day onwards because of this incident...well, that would be a common occurrence, and greatly magnify the damage caused by this. Furthermore, I have enough faith in this country and our Bill of Rights to think that the better choice is to accept the risk, and aim to set a precedent against such abuse of the law in the future.
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
God bless Google
-Henry
"Useless organic meatbag" -HK-47
Anyone on the far Right or far Left tends to think this way. The far Right (I'm a conservative, but I'm not a religious zealot.) thinks that all "bad" language is evil, and everyone should be shielded from it. The far Left thinks that it's the government's job to control what you see, hear, & say. As long as someone's not physically attacking, or disrupting the place, (or someone personally) I don't get my feathers ruffled. Well, as long as apathy reigns, things will get worse.
-- Liberalism is a mental disorder.
...unless it has a nuclear warhead on it.
There are only 3 non-scifi weapons of mass destruction:
1. Nuclear
2. Biological
3. Chemical
The famed "NBC" style of warfare.
How could he be prosecuted for that?
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
Yeah, because when the Scientologist lawyers see that, they'll stop their legal wrangling and play nice, right?
And, who do we think we're fooling anyway? Oh sure, you can point to the very few cases where someone was going to do something terrible (say, shoot up a school) and announced thier intentions and no one paid attention... but compare and contrast that to the 100's of thousands of times that nothing happened at all. That's why it's such a shock. And how exactly does making voicing that sort of idea a crime solve the problem? Do you think that if language and communication is sanitized people will continue to announce that they are planning to commit violence? I doubt it. The reason they do it now is becaue it's reasonably 'safe'; no one takes them seriously.
But I digress. The whole purpose of free speech is that (within some very broad boundaries) you shouldn't have to fear prosecution for expressing your opinion. Those bondaries are getting awfully narrow.
It's hard to say what's the most outrageous and insane part of the persecution of Keith Henson.
The core of this conviction is that the 'fear' expressed by a 'religion' requires no basis in reality whatsoever. Only the subjective claim of fear of cruise missles and notoriously diminutive Cult fuehrer David Miscavige's abduction by eagles was necessary.
That and a paraphrase from Cult 'Source', Hubbard himself, to 'destroy them utterly'.
"The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than to win. The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly."
- L. Ron Hubbard, A Manual on the Dissemination of Material, 1955
If the law were applied evenly, the Riverside DA would have to criminally prosecute his own City Planning Commission if an obsessive-compulsive claimed to be in fear of sidewalk cracks.
Certainly, all non-scientologists have a more reasonable fear of the intentions of the Scientology Cult, based on their own dogma, after all, even the FBI Threat Assessment Designation for the Cult of Scientology ranges from 'Organized Crime' to 'Paramilitary'.
"You want to know what happens when you clear everybody in that neighbourhood, the only thing that [Scientology] center can become used for is a political center. Because by the time you've done all this, you are the government..."
-- L. Ron Hubbard, lecture 9 January 1962, "Future Org Trends"
"Once the world is Clear - a nation, a state, a city or a village - the Scientology-organization in the area becomes its government! And once this has taken place the only policy accepted as valid is Scientology policy."
-- L. Ron Hubbard, taped lecture 9 January 1962, "Future Org Trends"
"There are men dead because they attacked us." - L. Ron Hubbard
"Somebody some day will say 'this is illegal'. By then be sure the orgs say what is legal or not."
- L. Ron Hubbard, HCOPL 4 January 1966
"This is the correct procedure:
1.Spot who is attacking us.
2.Start investigating them promptly for felonies or worse using our own professionals, not outside agencies.
3.Double curve our reply by saying we welcome an investigation of them.
4.Start feeding lurid, blood sex crime actual evidence on the attackers to the press.
Don't ever tamely submit to an investigation of us. Make it rough, rough on attackers all the way."
- L. Ron Hubbard, HCOPL 25 February 1966
In the few years I've known Keith Henson personally, he's been:
Physically assaulted by members of Scientology's OSA (Office of Special Affairs - the secret police)
Sued into bankruptcy for revealing 'secret' Cult doctrine that proposes removing space cooties to treat medical
problems, and trying to send that same information to the FDA.
Been himself, his wife and children, harasssed, stalked and threatened by officers of the cult.
Certainly Keith should have more fear of a multi-billion dollar UFO Cult than they of him.
Fortunately for society in general, and the freedom of speech we enjoy and want to continue to enjoy, Keith has been consistently brave enough to exercise his own constitutionally protected right to speak and protest the outrages of Scientology.
My level of respect for him is only matched by my level of disgust for the Cult of Scientology, its megalomanic leader, David Miscavige, and his henchmen, not to mention the Riverside district attorney who so cravenly allowed himself to be used as a stooge by an organization that despises everything democracy and justice stand for.
Zinjifar
Keith Henson's defense wasn't allowed to introduce any evidence of:
Who he was protesting against
Why he was protesting
The context of the usenet replies he made
The history of Scientology legal manipulation
The history of Scientology crimes and abuses
The 'Church' dogma requiring such abuses
Certainly, the fact that even the mention of Scientology® was forbidden, says much about what any reasonable juror, with all the facts, would have decided.
Zinj
Keith has over years done more 'sticking it out' in the courts than almost anyone else.
That has less to do with him being litagous, than being courageous enough to trust in a legal system that finally let him, and us, down entirely.
Of course Scientology® wants him to 'shut up'.
What makes you think they're any closer to that now than 5 years ago?
Last time I looked Canada had internet access. (More so than the Riverside County Jail anyway)
For some reason the ACLU has no interest in supporting civil liberties when the $10 billion 'church' of Scientology is involved.
Attorneys willing to invest their own effort and fortune in defending targets of the 'Church' such as Graham Berry, become targets themselves.
When a cult is willing to spend millions to force a $75k 'judgment' there is little to no financial motive for contingency attorneys. Criticizing Scientology is something someone does for the same reasons people object to genocide - because it's right.
Zinj
I would hope that, sooner or later, somebody that the Scientologists try to be heavy-handed with will be able to stick it out in the court system (perhaps with help from the ACLU or other such groups) and/or inform the local media of their plight and cause exactly what the Scientologists DON'T want: Publicity. I doubt they'd be all that happy about this story appearing on, say, CNN.
Speaking of ACLU-like organizations, are there any specificly anti-Scientologist lawyer groups?
Coupled with the organization's stated and written policy to destroy and "dispose of quietly and without sorrow" all who criticize them, I hope it's not too hard to see why it's not as simple as you're saying it is.
Being a political prisoner is only valuable if you live long enough to publicize your cause, particularly if it's not a well-known or sensational one.
And I fail to see how seeking asylum in another country is ipso facto a "grave error... legally and morally." We encourage others to come to the US under similar circumstances (i.e., the accused believes they are dealing with a kangaroo court and have been prosecuted for political reasons). Isn't it hypocritical to brand asylum seekers as morally wrong when they happen to be coming from the US?
colette
> Now this is libelous - open and shut. You should file suit, then submit a /. story and ask for donations to your legal fund.
Heh. Don't think it hasn't occurred to me.
Of course, the courts are Scientology's favorite playground, so a person who's been libelled has to think twice (at least) before pursuing matters there.
But it's certainly an option I continue to consider, and of course every month, at every picket, they hand out more libellous fliers, resetting the clock on the statute of limitations.
I've had a very interesting chat with the Small Claims Court advisor on just that very thing. And my handlers' regular presence at my pickets would certainly make serving papers easy.
Kristi
Scientology Lies
I currently picket Scientology once a month (first Saturday of every month); I picketed a little more often when I started out.
I make every effort to be courteous, cheery, and non-confrontational when I picket. I greet the Scientologists I know, especially the handlers who come out to try to distract or provoke me, with a friendly "Hi! Nice to see you!" but I don't try to discuss confidential Scientology doctrine - or indeed, anything - with Scientologists who don't want to talk to me. I'm there to educate the public and to encourage people to contact public officials about Scientology's continuing pattern of illegal acts.
Although I have never had any legal hassles over my web site - no claims of copyright infringement, despite my tiny bits of fair-use quoting, and no trademark or libel threats - I have been followed after pickets (both by car and on foot), been verbally provoked (including being slandered with accusations of hate crimes and statutory rape and of being on "psych drugs", and being called a bitch and told "you can suck my dick") (... and frankly, the obscenities don't bother me - I just think it's strange behavior for representatives of a church to display to the public), and had regular revenge pickets at my home, with Scientology reps videotaping anyone who came and went from my apartment building. (My home address has never been publicly available, not in the phone book, not on the web.) Scientology reps have distributed libellous fliers to my neighbors. As part of the biggest denial-of-service attack in net history, they forged disgusting racist a.r.s. posts in my name (which, of course, they did to dozens of other critics as well). Those posts have been resurrected at google.
Recently, three different Scientologists have implied that I'm next to be charged the way Keith was. The first was in e-mail.
The second was at a picket; as I was leaving, I playfully called out to my handler, Craig, "Will I see you later?" (asking if he was planning to come revenge-picket me, as is his wont). He asked, "Is that a threat?" I said, "How could asking if I'll see you later possibly be a threat?" He said "It sounded like a threat to me."
(After what Scientology did to Gerry Armstrong, I carry a visible tape recorder with me at all pickets. Some day I might get a helmet cam, but for now at least I have audio of these types of exchanges.)
The third was in a recent post to a.r.s., which you can find by searching "kristi slatkin thetans outfit" on Google. In part, it says,
"We all know that Kristi is one of your criminal gang and very active in
committing hate crimes like you. Her postings and her website are loaded with
hatred against the Scientologists. Now that you are passing out her hate
propaganda, look likes she'll be the next one to face 422.6."
I have a page at my web site explaining that I don't hate anyone; Scientology disagrees.
I believe that informing people about Scientology's dark side - and criminal acts - is education, not bigotry; Scientology disagrees.
I think people should have access to all the information, so they can come to their own understanding of an issue (which is why I link to Scientology's own site from Scientology Lies); Scientology disagrees.
I consider peaceful public protest to be constitutionally protected free speech; Scientology disagrees.
I believe everyone has the right to express their opinion.
Scientology disagrees.
Kristi Wachter
Scientology Lies
I'm friends with the web master, and i've put up a mirror of the site at http://www.geocities.com/goonetics