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.
to kill all slashdot members with Phasers and Photon torpedos.
Vermifax
Vermifax
Logout
Speaking of the last point, Hubbard is quote as saying:
L. Ron Hubbard, Science of Survival
Now, Keith said the following in the USENET post:
You see, Keith was just quoting Scientology scripture. Any critic would have immediately "got" the joke. However, Scientology was able to act like their own scripture was coming out of Keith's mouth and try him on that. Furthermore, KEITH WAS NOT ALLOWED TO SAY WHERE THAT QUOTE CAME FROM!!!! The defense was under strict rules that none of Scientology's internal practices or even the name of the church he was picketing could be entered into evidence.
Scientology's abuse of the court system is scary. Remember people, these are the people who scared Slashdot with litigation. Not even Microsoft could do that!!!!!
---------------------------
That's not what I meant.
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.
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 don't mean to drift too far off topic, but your comment reminds me of something my wife told me a while back about expert witnesses, etc.
It's not just that juries cannot do extra curricular investigation, nor can they consider any evidence that was not brought out during the trial.
As a member of a jury, you cannot bring in your own special expert knowledge into deliberation!
Say you could do your own calculations in your head about what the probability is of a gun going off that hits the floor expelling a bullet that hits an individual 20 feet away, and that your estimate of the facts conflicts with what you and the rest of the jury heard from the expert witness on the stand. If that becomes known, it is grounds for declaring a mistrial.
Practically, this isn't much of a problem.
Lots of readers here probably have too much education and too much of an ability to sift between emotion and fact (oh--wait--this is /.) to get themselves past disqualification from most jury selection. For that reason, it's not an issue that would come up often in our current justice system.
But, I found it interesting, and I thought you might like to know...
"Provided by the management for your protection."
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
Give me your tired, your poor, Your religiously prosecuted...
---
Copyright © 2002 me
The jury was absolutely prohibited from doing their own investigation into the facts of the case, just as they are prohibited to do so in EVERY trial. Juries may only consider the evidence that is admitted at trial, and the judge gets to make the determination about which evidence is admissible (subject, naturally, to appeals).
144l. ph34r my 133t l3g4l 5k1lz!
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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