Slashdot Mirror
Scientology Uses DMCA to Delist Critic's Website
touretzky writes: "Scientology has used a DMCA threat to force removal of a large number of pages from xenu.net from the Google search engine. Some of the pages Scientology is objecting to contain no material owned by the cult; other pages are clearly covered under "fair use". Scientology's ongoing abuse of Google is documented here. Of course, the Norwegian owner of xenu.net could write a counternotification letter, but that would require him to agree to the jurisdiction of a US court in a district of Scientology's choosing." The posting by Heldal-Lund agrees with what we can observe at Google - the pages listed in the posting aren't in Google's database, though many others are. Update: 03/21 14:16 GMT by M : Paul Wouters of xtdnet.nl (which hosts xenu.net) submits this page documenting Scientology's attacks against the ISP for continuing to host xenu.net.
It's not really all that surprising. They have a long history of threatening anybody who critises them. They drove one critic out of America, sued the creator of this site, to name two of the more well known actions.
They have no choice. Their creater, L Ron Hubbard, said that they were to never defend, always attack. They can't help themselves. I run a small web site, with some critical information on it, and I've had legal threats.
Alas gallinaceas de urbe bovis volo
Unfortunately, it is completely in sync with their overall strategy.:-(
One major leg of their operations is to get the managers of companies. Through them, they then infiltrate the rest of the company. For that, they offer "management seminars" and the like, which are not visibly scientology-seminars, if my memory of the news doesn't fault me here...
This top-down approach is, as far as I know, unique to them. No other religious grouping that I am aware of does that.
Of course, their seminars are so hideously expensive that they need financially potent customers, so it is understandable.
What I find dangerous about that presence is not that they're "here" but that they are allowed to bully people into believing that their claims hold some validity...
After all, google did remove the links, so there must be some valid claim behind it.
Of course, there isn't... but the impression is created... and impressions are mightier than fact on the web (and most other places in the world).
The fact that scientology has never filed any infringement suit should make it obvious that there is no validity in their claim.
That is not the case though...
After all, this is a possible way to look at things:
The google lawyers looked at the allegation, found it valid, acted accordingly.
And thus, it was not neccessary to file a suit.
This is the classic "I can turn my weakness into a strength" trick... and again, perception is mightier than the fact.
"Google views the quality of its search results as an extremely important priority. Therefore, Google stops indexing the pages on your site only at the request of the webmaster who is responsible for those pages. This policy is necessary to ensure that pages are not inappropriately removed from our index.
"Since Google is committed to providing thorough and unbiased search results for our users, we cannot participate in the practice of censoring information on the world wide web."
Wow... I'm very surprised. Google is usually very good at practicing what they preach.
Are they convinced the way to expand their membership is to make enemies with... everyone?
Yes, in a way that is a good summary of their world view from _out_ perspective. They, of course, think that it's the other way round...
Scientology is, in a way, similar to a doomsday cult, although they don't believe in a soon-to-come end of the world. They believe that humanity is on a path to immediate self-destruction and that Scientology is the only way to "save" and "free" the world. They believe that they are superiour beings (members claim to have gained superhuman powers by their Sc.-training). We, the non-members, are just stupid "wogs", who can be cheated, lied to, even killed at will. Hubbard actually promised his members the superhuman power of killing such enemies by mere thought.
They also believe to be in a constant state of siege by the outside world, surrounded by enemies trying to enslave them. The outside world is seen as hostile, non-members are a grey goo of stupids and critics are evil enemies who can be attacked with every means possible. Sc.'s favourite weapon is lawyers...
Of course, Sc. sees this as pure self-defense against the hostile outside world. However, someone who dares to say something remotely critical of the cult is instantly labeled an enemy and handled as such, making the small critic an even fiercer critic...
So, yeah, Scientology is making itself is making enemies from people who just expressed doubt. And this helps Scientology, because *having* enemies is proof of their worldview and is what keeps the cult together.
------------------
You may like my a cappella music
Check out that thread... it tells about them scheming to get the story onto Slashdot.
I worked for a bookstore once, and they called us to ask if we'd be interested in carrying thier books. We told them no. They weoman on the line then got very aggressive and argumentative, insisting to know why we wouldn't carry them (hatred of stupid cult + no money), wanting our names and addresses (home address, not just the store one) and lots of other ridiculous stuff before we hung up on her. Was kinda scary, really.
One example is Narconon which is little more than a scientology front designed to seperate addicts and their families from their cash while simultaneously indoctrinating them into the Co$. There have been numerous testimonials that the last thing Narconon is interested in is seeing people get better.
And of course they also hawk their ridiculous "self help" Dianetics book in informercials and flyers (never mentioning the Co$ of course) as well as the usual "personality tests" and other sleazy means they con people into visiting their premises. They'll do anything to get vulnerable, troubled and most importantly solvent people caught up into believing their lies. They even stooped so low as to do a recruitment drive for WTC victims, under the guise of offering counselling of course.
Whatever the means, the "raw meat" (the mark) gets a few "free" intensive audits, after which their reasoning faculties are sufficiently suppressed that the Co$ can start milking them for cash by selling self-improvement courses and so on. The higher up this "bridge" they get, the more money the courses cost. The Co$ doesn't like people knowing about their courses because it deprives them of money and exposes them to ridicule.
It is actually worth reading Dianetics (don't buy it though) to see how ludicrous it all is. The author L Ron Hubbard and Co$ was a nut, a criminal, a pathological liar, a sadist, a control freak and a conman. Diananetics and his other works (e.g. A History of Man) are like an attractive lure on the end of a fishing line. Promise the reader the answer to all their problems can be found in the Co$ and then reel 'em in. It's quite tragic to think how many lives this man has ruined.
If you want to write to Google about this, comments@google.com is the address to use.
Danny.
I have written over 900 book reviews
The more this turns over in my little head, the more I wonder if this wasn't a carefully planned move on Google's part to attract media attention to the ill effects of the DMCA. Obviously hurtful compliance with the DMCA could possibly speed its demise more than ignoring it outright.
Why remove those specific pages?
The answer I've come up with is simple. Removing the pages listed got rid of all the xenu.net links on the first 3 pages of google results for a search for scientology. Even if they reinstate the links, it will probably take a while for them to resume their former place in the index. This is just like the tons of domain names all run by the Scientologists, it's a ploy to make it harder to find info about them. They know they can't stop it completely, but that's OK, as long as they can make it so that the average person won't see anything bad about them without specifically looking.
Yah, well, the problem with having Scientology sue you is that the organization has no scruples at all.
If Google didn't toe Scientology's line, the following would happen:
* pickets outside the founders' homes, claiming that they're pedophiles and hate-mongers.
* their pets would be drowned.
* their family and friends would be harassed.
* their telephone, cableco, banking, and other accounts would be subjected to social engineering attempts to shut 'em down.
* the Google HQ would be picketed.
* the US Government would be petitioned to intervene against Google.
* there would be endless court time, made as expensive as possible by Scientology.
There are all tactics they've used in the past against their "enemies," both in court and outside of court, against critics and ex-Scientologists who start revealing the truth about hte organization.
Scientology is an 800-lb gorilla with bad intentions.
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.