Google vs. DMCA and Scientology

Uebergeek writes "This article at the NYTimes (free registration, blah blah) details how google is dealing with the many complaints it gets from organizations when one of its links potentially violates a copyright (or just irritates the copyright's owner). Specifically, it talks about how Google is dealing with the Scientologist's complaints about the list of the Operation Clambake site... now Google features a prominent link to another site that shows the complaint that the Scientologists filed, along with the delisted links."

Comments

Just awful

[NickRob]

God Forbid that Google should accurately reflect what's on the internet. People should attack sites if they have a problem, not take other user's right to find the page away from them. This impedes everyone from having an idea of free speech on which the internet was built on. Awful.

Link to the page?

[Andorion]

Where can I find the page that features "prominent link to another site that shows the complaint that the Scientologists filed, along with the delisted links" without registering for NYT? Someone post it, please? =)

-Berj

Re:Link to the page?

[Anonymous Coward]

here.

This took about .5 seconds, try searching news stories on yahoo.

When will it end?

[DMCA]

How long will the DMCA be used to trample freedom of speech, expression, and fair use, until Congress gets it into their thick skulls that this is BAD LEGISLATION, and repeals it?

Maybe the overwhelmingly negative response to CBPTBA (or whatever) will act as a wakeup call.

Re:When will it end?

[mikethegeek]

" How long will the DMCA be used to trample freedom of speech, expression, and fair use, until Congress gets it into their thick skulls that this is BAD LEGISLATION, and repeals it?

Maybe the overwhelmingly negative response to CBPTBA (or whatever) will act as a wakeup call."

All I can say is that if these sorts of laws continue to be passed and abused, methinks the IP hoarders will be "the first against the wall when the revolution comes" (to "fair use" some Douglas Adams).

The fact that the DMCA *IS* most definately being used to stifle free speech, in the terms of POLITICAL speech (as $cientology IS a religious lobby), should ALONE merit review....

But, alas, so long as the RIAA/MPAA/$cientologists, et all, get to INITIATE the cases, they will continue to get to handpick the judges and courts.

Which will get us more sham trials like the DeCSS case.

What is needed is for us to somehow file a CLASS ACTION against those enforcing the DMCA, on a first amendment basis, and based on the copyright/fair use provision of the Constitution.

I had such high hopes for the Felten case, because for once our side would be the initiator, instead of the defendant... I beleive it was a mistake for him to go ahead and GIVE his speech, because to not do so would have made it easier to show that he was INTIMIDATED into silence by DMCA saber rattling.

Re:When will it end?

[ProfMoriarty]

The fact that the DMCA *IS* most definately being used to stifle free speech, in the terms of POLITICAL speech (as $cientology IS a religious lobby), should ALONE merit review....

While I agree that the DMCA should be shot down ...

How will cases that the plaintiff claiming violate the DMCA actually get to court with the apparent collusion of keeping cases using the DMCA out of the court?

I believe that the case that Blizzard had initially claimed DMCA violations, but when the actual case was filed, there wasn't a mention of the DMCA.

If Scientology actually does go through with suing Google (which Google is attempting to avoid), will there be actual reference to the DMCA? Or will they pull those arguements and replace them with trademark/copyright infingements?

Re:When will it end?

[ImaLamer]

How long will the Scientologists trample freedom of speech, expression, and fair use, until Congress gets it into their thick skulls that this is a BAD RELIGION, and repeals it?

The Co$ seems to be all about ruining everything not involved in the Co$. If that is your gov't then you should worry!

Re:When will it end?

[nickyj]

In the end it all sounds like "Prohibition", yeah I'm talking about alcohol. It will all go away because the amount of crimes will rise and I am just waiting for the Internet Mob to start it's reign all over again.

In a few years, music, books, etc. will again be available over the web, at a nominal price.

Re:When will it end?

[kadehje]

I agree that the DMCA is being used to unfairly trample free speech and is being distorted to attack those that the law itself was supposed to exempt (e.g. reverse engineers working on interoperability and ISP's). I also agree that we Slashdotters need to ally with whoever we can to make a strong a legal challenge as possible to this law. However, obviously it won't be easy to do financially, and even if we were to gather enough resources to defend ourselves, victory would be by no means guaranteed.

IANAL, but it seems that you bring up a couple of legal issues that are by no means clear-cut in forming a successful attack of this law. First, to the best of my knowledge, there is no Constitutional guarantee of fair use. Fair use rights have been at times granted by Congress (e.g. the Audio Home Recording Act) and at other times courts have decreed that current American law regarding commerce dictates that certain uses of copyrighted material are in fact legal.

However, if a law were passed by Congress that absolutely prohibited time shifting of television programs, it would probably pass constitutional muster with the courts unless it could be proved that time-shifting materially affected individual Constitutional rights such as the right to free speech, bearing arms, being free from unreasonable searches and seizures, etc. I do think that there is hope of Congress guaranteeing additional fair use rights. Even the Crap-BDTPA would have ensured time-shifting were legal; there are still some in Congress that would be in favor of guaranteeing additional, more important rights like the right to excerpt copyrighted materials in derivative works. The main issue is Congress has been rather slow in awarding additional fair use rights to U.S. citizens, and that laws like the DMCA are being used by technology companies to prevent people from using content in ways that were commonly thought (by both the public and policy-makers) to be fair use but in fact had never been made expressly legal or illegal by previous law.

The second, and more disturbing point, is that large portions of the DMCA may be exempt from constitutional challenges. Aricle VI of the Constitution includes the statement "This Constitution...and all treaties made...under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land." I tried some searches on Google, but could not find any good evidence one way or the other to determine whether treaties could override the Constitution. If treaties can in fact take precedence, anything in the DMCA that parrots language in the WIPO treaties that it was meant to implement would be exempt from constitutionality reviews. If it turns out that such language in fact conflicts with the first Amendment, then in effect the First Amendment's scope will have been reduced. In this case, there would be only two ways to overturn the DMCA: (1) pass a constitutional amendment guaranteeing rights taken away by the DMCA, or (2) withdrawing from the treaty as was done several months ago by President Bush with the ABM treaty. Neither of these actions would be easy, and would be even more difficult than having a court nullifying a unconstitional standard law.

Are there any lawyers out there that could either support or rebut the concerns I made in this post? Hopefully my concerns about the WIPO effectively amending the constitution turn out to be just paranoid ranting. Like I said, I don't mean to imply that getting together and fighting this DMCA in the courts would be useless. It's just that people should understand that there may be legal hurdles to overcome in addition to financial ones involved in lawsuits, and that we should be prepared to do other things in addition to giving money to groups like the EFF in order to get offensive parts and interpretations of the DMCA overturned.

Re:When will it end?

[Odinson]

"How long will the DMCA be used to trample freedom of speech, expression, and fair use, until Congress gets it into their thick skulls that this is BAD LEGISLATION, and repeals it?"

This leads to another question.

I don't know when corruption will be interupted long enough to adress fundemental differances in what property is valuable and it's effect on distribution of wealth, but I do know we aren't comming out of this recession until such an interuption occurs.

This sixy year cyclical downturn will last as long as our government does not represent the people in it decisions.

To put it another way (roughly)...

/*my appoliges for the defines, lameness filter sucks.. :)*/
#Define /* Comment
#Define */ EndComment
while(Years-Democracy)
{
if(((Years-Democracy+RandomGlobalEconomyFact ors()) %60)<=0)
{
while(corruption) Comment recession EndComment
{
corruption=legislation(corruption+RandomSelflessPa triotLuck()); Comment stuck in recession EndComment
Comment this is speculation, never been here EndComment
if(recession>=15)
{
Years-Democracy=-1;
corruption=-1;
}
recession++
}
}
Years-Democracy++;
}

Re:When will it end?

[muldrake]

IANAL, but it seems that you bring up a couple of legal issues that are by no means clear-cut in forming a successful attack of this law. First, to the best of my knowledge, there is no Constitutional guarantee of fair use. Fair use rights have been at times granted by Congress (e.g. the Audio Home Recording Act) and at other times courts have decreed that current American law regarding commerce dictates that certain uses of copyrighted material are in fact legal.

IANAL either. However, note that fair use is something guaranteed by the First Amendment--particularly, the four-part balancing test of Fair Use is a court-designed solution to the way in which First Amendment rights are necessarily in conflict with the grant of copyright. Hence, fair use may not be explicitly guaranteed, but fair use is the means by which First Amendment rights are weighed in a copyright claim.

Re:When will it end?

[Guppy06]

"First, to the best of my knowledge, there is no Constitutional guarantee of fair use."

BUZZ!

Somebody hasn't been reading their Federalist Papers, have they? Fair use is guaranteed by the following line in the US Constitution:

Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech[.]

You'll find it under the section referred to as "Articles of Amendment." It's the first line of the first one.

The use of the writings/creations/whatever of another person is speech, and as such no law can prevent it without being unconstitutional. Copyright sidesteps the issue by being "for a limited time" and therefore it (in theory) doesn't quite go far enough to be called "abridging."

However, in practice the rich self-interests have that "limited time" to be about the average life span of a human being in the industrialized world.

"Fair use rights have been at times granted by Congress (e.g. the Audio Home Recording Act)"

Congress isn't affecting speech per se, Congress was governing the allowed uses of a medium they "own" (in this case the radio spectrum). Note that you can't legally broadcast in the United States over any meaningful distance without first getting an FCC license.

"The second, and more disturbing point, is that large portions of the DMCA may be exempt from constitutional challenges. Aricle VI of the Constitution includes the statement "This Constitution...and all treaties made...under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land."

Do a search for "Bricker Amendment" and you'll probably get more info.

The "Supreme Law of the Land" clause has given Congress rights that would otherwise have been denied to it by the 9th amendment (since the Constitution doesn't say "Congress can regulate hunting and fishing of endangered animals"), but it has yet to be tested to see whether or not it allows Congress to do things that are denied more explicitly (such as the previously mentioned 1st amendment).

Those that have been worried about such a test proposed the Bricker Amendment in the 1950's (Republicans were worried about the UN superceding the US Constitution), and it seems to be popular again with the so-called political right.

"withdrawing from the treaty as was done several months ago by President Bush with the ABM treaty."

The ABM Treaty had a specific clause detailing how a signatory can leave the treaty (essentially it just said "You can't leave without giving x months warning.") This is what the Bush administration did (remember how it was all over the news months before it actually happened?).

BTW, IANAL.

Re:Spineless

[ProfMoriarty]

In otherwords, Google has shuffled responsibility for the fight onto someone else. If they believe it should be listed, they should have the courage to list it themselves.

Are you going to financially back a lawsuit if one is filed?

THIS is what Google is attempting to avoid.

They may be the best search engine around, but like everyone (sans Microsoft) they have very limited "off-topic" funds to fight "pointless" lawsuits.

Re:DMCA sucks ass

[DMCA]

DMCA sucks ass....plain and simple!

I couldn't agree more.

Hey! I learned something from this!

[Indras]

It really makes you ponder after you read this article about why Google did what they did. I'm sure it was just to pass the buck, or lower publicity about it.

The fact is, Xenu.net (the site in question here) is based in Norway. I highly doubt they could use the DMCA to have the links removed legally. Luckily for Google, however, this incident has put the DMCA on the spotlight. Now, more than just geeks care about it, especially when it ends up in the New York Times.

Re:Spineless

[doug]

Huh?

Isn't this what chillingeffect.org was founded to do? I thought that it was some academic lawyer types who were looking for problems, and google was just helping them out.

no need to register, just generate a random login

[haedesch]

http://www.majcher.com/nytview.html

Re:Spineless

[sckeener]

If they believe it should be listed, they should have the courage to list it themselves.

I disagree. Google has the correct proceedure. I don't want individual companies taken down simply because they can't afford the legal fight...

If it was just google doing this, I would have a problem. However I think google has shown other companies how to handle these type of issues....

hyperlinking

[sadtrev]

It's rather Ironic that the NYT article discussing the right to link in such a balanced and enlightened manner, itself contains no hyperlinks to any of the sites that it is discussing.

Re:hyperlinking

[Rick the Red]

And deflects all links to their stories to their registration page. "You're welcome here, as long as you identify yourself to our advertisers."

Karma Whoring

[Kredal]

From news.yahoo.com is the same story, no registration required.

Re:Karma Whoring

[DerFeuervogel]

At least you are honnest! :^)

Google is practicing Tai Chi

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

In karate, you forcibly block attacks. In tai chi, you push at right angles and make the attack fly off into outer space without exhausting yourself.

Google is IMHO doing more to keep ideas flowing than they would in a head-on confrontation.

boom!

[slug359]

Remember when linking to Xenu.net to use Scientology and not $cientology. How many people use the $ in Google?

Re:I'm not so sure

[GauteL]

Well.. personally I think they did, but the Norwegian authorities claim that whats-his-name was prosecuted solely based on Norwegian law.
I don't think they could actually defend prosecuting him using the DMCA since it isn't Norwegian law.

Where's the government action?

[Loki_1929]

Seeing as Scientology fits all the classic signs of a cult, why has it not been properly labled and dealt with? Simply reclassifying it properly would give law enforcement agencies much greater access to investigate and prosecute abuses within the "church" of Scientology and would serve to protect the members from themselves.

The only people who lose when you call Scientology what it is - a cult - are the profiteering people who run it.

Re:Where's the government action?

[SuiteSisterMary]

What are the "classic signs" of a cult?

Re:Where's the government action?

[KelsoLundeen]

Creepy people.

Leaders who wear sunglasses.

Guys who sit in big chairs.

Vats.

Re:Where's the government action?

[The Good Reverend]

Cults are just religions with fewer members. In the US, it's not really the government's job to deal with religions unless they're a threat to something - they've ignored the big religions for this long, why not ignore Scientology? How is what they do different than what Christianity and Islam do?

(Yes, this is probably flamebait. No, I don't care.)

Re:Where's the government action?

[Loki_1929]

Well, seeing as I'm at work and lack the time to list everything I was told while in college, I think this link here pretty much sums it up.

A couple don't apply (as it's not a "christian" group), but almost all the others hit right on.

Time is also forcing me to use danlging prepositions. :( today isn't a good day for me. :/

Re:Where's the government action?

[The Good Reverend]

Well, Christians don't try to subvert the legal process to their own ends, at least not in an organized way. LRon's bunch, on the other hand, view lawsuits as a club to beat their critics with.

They just move the preists around that commit crimes and have multi-million dollar lobbying groups to affect change.

Re:Where's the government action?

[mav[LAG]]

What are the "classic signs" of a cult?

The acronym to remember is BITE and it's all about control.

• Behaviour control - what the cult member can and can't do.
  
• Information control - what information the cult members are exposed to.
  
• Thought control - how to think and attitudes towards the "outside world"
  
• Emotional control - cults manipulate emotions to a remarkable degree in order to control their followers.
  

I suggest having a look at Freedom of Mind and their resources.

Re:Where's the government action?

[Suicyco]

There is no such thing as a classification of a cult. All religions could be labelled as cults, there is no more validity to catholicism then there is to scientology. The government should stay out of religion all together, which includes protecting their copywrited religion works. Thats why scientology is bad, not what they believe but how they go about protecting that belief. They treat it as a pure business when it should be treated as a faith, if they are to receive the tax benefits of a religious organization.

I know a bit about scientologists beliefs and I do find it hard to fathom how it is a religion. Its psuedo-psychological crap which at the early stages is totally focused on your ability to interact with other people. The religious stuff only comes much later when you start paying really big bucks to learn about the aliens in your head. Whatever, its wacky, but not really religious in my opinion. Its just silly psychology invented out of thin air by Hubbard, with no real scientific background. They do have pretty effective study techniques though, they take learning very seriously and have really hardcore methods for pounding information into your head.

Re:Where's the government action?

[revscat]

Well, Christians don't try to subvert the legal process to their own ends, at least not in an organized way.

That's silly. Of course they do. There are many different shades of Christianity, but the evangelical crowd would be quite happy to see the United States become a Christian nation, and frequently espouse their wish for laws that would establish this. More frequently than not, their tactics are just as unethical as the Scientologists are. From stealth candidates to pushing for so-called "intelligent design" theories, they are well versed in using the political system to achieve religious ends.

Read up on the rise and fall of the Christian Coalition for more information on this.

Re:Where's the government action?

[Mr.Intel]

The government should stay out of religion all together, which includes protecting their copywrited religion works.

The problem with this (while I agree with you) is that frequently groups will use religion as a shield to conduct various anti-government, civil rights breaking and otherwise socially degenerating practices. The Library of Congress holds the texts to which the Scientoligists vehemently protect. It also holds the ceremonies of the Masons, the temple rituals of the mormons and all other religous and mostly secret practices. So you see, the government has a way of making sure all things are kept in the open, even when we can't necessarily see them.

Re:Where's the government action?

[antibryce]

• Behaviour control - what the cult member can and can't do.

• All religions do this. re: Abortion, homosexuality, sex.

• Information control - what information the cult members are exposed to.

• All religions do this. re: The vault of secret church artifacts the vatican hides in Rome.

• Thought control - how to think and attitudes towards the "outside world"

• All religions do this. re: Gays are evil. Jews are evil. Americans are evil.

• Emotional control - cults manipulate emotions to a remarkable degree in order to control their followers.

• All religions do this. re: Uhm...I dunno, look around. It's everywhere.

Religion is just another name for Corporation. Cults are just too small and too early in their development to have the benefit of being based on the words and actions of people long forgotten. For all we know Jesus was considered a cult leader, and if he were around today we'd have the DoJ storm his compound and torch his followers.

Re:Where's the government action?

[Loki_1929]

The list uses most of the same standards that are used by any major college or university in the us. Here, I'll help you see which ones I'm referring to, since my previous comments about some not applying fell upon deaf ears.

Look at: 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 ("or their own message to members? "), 8, 9, 12, 14, 15 (although I'd change "bible" to 'religious scriptures'), 16 (the latter half), 17, 18, 19, and 20.

Those are all the ones not specific to 'christian' groups, and guess what; they all apply.

Read Xenu.net and tell me those don't apply perfectly.

Re:Where's the government action?

[Loki_1929]

You're misunderstanding the context of the word 'control'. When a cult controls someone's thoughts/emotions/etc, they aren't just influencing them, they're completely annihilating any alternative whatsoever to the point that the cult member knows no other way to think/feel/act/etc. There are homosexual members of the Catholic church, despite the fact that the Catholic church generally frowns upon homosexual acts. A member of a cult who manages to think differently in any way would be completely thrown asside, ignored, possibly harmed or even killed.

If you've never seen someone who's locked in a cult, then you have no idea to what an incredible degree of control they're under.

I've seen Muslim fanatics, and I've seen christian fanatics... but they don't begin to compare to someone who's in a cult.

Re:Where's the government action?

[Bootsy Collins]

> Well, Christians don't try to subvert the legal process to their own ends,
> at least not in an organized way.

That's silly. Of course they do. There are many different shades of Christianity, but the evangelical crowd would be quite happy to see the United States become a Christian nation, and frequently espouse their wish for laws that would establish this. More frequently than not, their tactics are just as unethical as the Scientologists are. From stealth candidates [ifas.org] to pushing for so-called "intelligent design" [world-of-dawkins.com] theories, they are well versed in using the political system to achieve religious ends.

Read up on the rise and fall of the Christian Coalition for more information on this.

And you may wish to read up on the history of the Co$ as well. See, for instance, this Time magazine article. While it's true that other religious organizations have been known to use the legal process to further their ends, I don't think it's sane to compare the two, at least in the U.S. I would not be at all surprised if the number of lawsuits filed in the U.S. by the Co$ and its related organizations within the last ten years were larger than all lawsuits filed by all.other recognized religious organizations in the U.S. added together.

Re:Where's the government action?

[Ioldanach]

Religion is just another name for Corporation. Cults are just too small and too early in their development to have the benefit of being based on the words and actions of people long forgotten. For all we know Jesus was considered a cult leader,

I thought he basically was a cult leader, at the time? He was a rabbi who led some people who disagreed with the structure and some of the beliefs of the religious faith.

and if he were around today we'd have the DoJ storm his compound and torch his followers.

Um... didn't the government hunt him down and kill him? Seems pretty parallel.

Re:Where's the government action?

[mav[LAG]]

I agree with the majority of your points - but cults have recognised differences with mainstream religions - nearly always about the degree to which all these controls are imposed and enforced. For instance, Scientologists impose a horrific procedure on anyone wishing to leave - including long periods of complete isolation and what could be described as solitary confinement.

Or compare this quote about Amway (also a dangerously cult-like organisation which happens to be a corporation) on the attitudes you'll enounter when you decide to break free: "On your tombstone will be 'eternally broke'" (literal quote from a Diamond)....Despite the love and compassion exhibited by the people who love you, God help you should you quit. You may be labeled a quitter, loser, "thumb sucking pin head", bone head, idiot, moron, broke guy, wimp, socialist, mentally unstable, ego out of control, maverick non-team player etc..."

As a conservative, protestant evangelical Christian, I'm more than aware of the dangers of mind control and emotional manipulation when it comes to faith - and I fight anything that says I must blindly accept or follow.

Re:Where's the government action?

[petis]

No, Cults are not just religions with fewer members. From the Xenu.net FAQ:

<Quote>
"Is CoS a cult or a religion?"

There are many types of cults. Some are religious cults and others are not, the first term does not rule out the other. Every cult can be defined as a group having all of the following five characteristics:

• uses psychological coercion to recruit, indoctrinate and retain its members
• forms an elitist totalitarian society
• Its founder/leader is self-appointed, dogmatic, messianic, not accountable and has charisma
• It believes 'the end justifies the means' in order to solicit funds and recruit people
• Its wealth does not benefit its members or society

This definition is taken from the CIC homepage and it is my opinion that CoS fits this definition of a cult. Many critics and former members of CoS also describe CoS as a bait and switch racket or the mafia of religion.
</Quote>

That said, I agree that it's not really the government's job to deal with religions. But it is the government's job to deal with criminals.

Re:Where's the government action?

[Bootsy Collins]

In the US, it's not really the government's job to deal with religions unless they're a threat to something - they've ignored the big religions for this long, why not ignore Scientology?

Because they are a "threat to something," and the Federal Government has known it for quite some time, having spent millions to put various heads of the Co$ behind bars.

How is what they do different than what Christianity and Islam do?

While there are frequent horrific actions performed in the U.S. by adherents or even senior authorities of Christianity and Islam (e.g. the recent revelations about Cardinal Bernard Law in Boston), I am not aware of large-scale illegal operations authorized and performed by heads of those respective churches. As just one example, this Time Magazine article notes massive wiretapping and burglary operations aimed at Federal agencies, for which a large number of top-level authorities of the Co$ (including Hubbard's wife) were sent to prison.

Re:Where's the government action?

[dvdeug]

Cults have all the rights of other religions. The problems with labeling something as a cult and taking legal action against is two-fold.

One, cult is very poorly defined. Most definitions I can think of, however, would include most major world religions in their early years. There are many people who would label pretty much anything besides protestant Christianity as a cult; there are others who would label the churches of the prior group cults, not without reason.

Second, people have a fundamental right to choose how they believe and worship. If someone wants to follow Scientology, or Reverend Moon, or Jim Jones, it's not your right to force them to stop. It is their life, and ultimately thier choice, no matter how much someone else might disagree.

Re:Where's the government action?

[antibryce]

Um... didn't the government hunt him down and kill him? Seems pretty parallel.

Exactly.

Re:Where's the government action?

[dvdeug]

Well, seeing as I'm at work and lack the time to list everything I was told while in college, I think this link here [jubilee.org.nz] pretty much sums it up.

That's the exact problem with the government going after cults. That page is a fine example of a "do you disagree with us? Then you're a cult" page. If they "deny the unconditional acceptance of all Scripture", they're a cult? The other way around might be a minor warning sign (it's demanding unquestioning belief in authority.)

Re:Where's the government action?

[antibryce]

As with most "all religions are evil" people, you base your claims on a few widely known religions and ignore many others.

I never said all religions are evil. Just that they all do the things the poster listed.

Nope. Religions promote a system of beliefs which lead one to believe that certain actions are not appropriate. A cult will ban certain actions with or without reason and use its control structure to punish those who disobey. Some religions do this, not all.

So if I repeatedly have sex young boys, which christian denomination won't punish me within their control structure? (other than the catholic church)

So in other words, the Roman Catholic Church does this. Fine. Not all religions are the Roman Catholic Church or recognize it as any kind of authority. Not all religions have restrictions on information that members can be exposed to. Don't spout off about it if you're not willing to research it.

I wasn't going to give examples for each and every religion in the world. The ones I listed were just examples to show mainstream religions doing the same things cults supposedly do. That was my entire point. That cults are no different than any other church with the exception of being smaller and younger.

Really? If you base your observations solely on the Catholic Church and the Mormon Church, then yes it certainly looks like they're a large money-collecting agency.

I look at any religion like that. The decentralized ones are just like smaller mom&pop stores. Or franchises. Most churches have unpaid clergy. But they don't need to be paid since the church gives them a house, food, transportation, etc. The overall value of which is determined by the amount of collections you can obtain from your parish.

(I will ignore the implication that if Religion=Corporation, Corporation=Religion.)

Why ignore it? I'd argue that it's true. The Enron thing is a nice example. Apple fanatics are another.

My only point with this whole thing is the line between "church" and "cult" is a very very fine one.

Re:Where's the government action?

[Tackhead]

> Seeing as Scientology fits all the classic signs of a cult, why has it not been properly labled and dealt with? Simply reclassifying it properly would give law enforcement agencies much greater access to investigate and prosecute abuses within the "church" of Scientology and would serve to protect the members from themselves.

I believe the only reason they were awarded "religious" tax-exempt status with the IRS is because of a denial-of-service attack against the IRS, using individually-filed spurious tax claims as weapons.

Overview: $cn vs. IRS

One analysis is particularly revealing.

As I understand the story outlined in the pages I linked to above, "individual $cientologists" (that is, cult members, under directions from superior officers) filed thousands of lawsuits (that is, individual lawsuits, not a class action suit) against the IRS. The cost to the taxpayer of defeating each of these suits, one by one, would have been prohibitive. As a result, the IRS granted the cult tax-exempt status in a deal whose details are, shall we say, ethically-suspect.

The tactic of using a DDoS-by-lawyer is straight out of cult doctrine: "The purpose of a lawsuit is to harass, not to win".

Re:Where's the government action?

[antibryce]

I would like to take issue with the following: "Gays are evil. Jews are evil. Americans are evil"
MOST reasonable Christian denominations recognize that it is the sin that is evil and not the person. The belief is that the person should be loved no matter the sin (Christian attitudes have not relfected this lately hence the misunderstanding, but hey, don't hate them hate their hypocracy). This is connected to the whole forgiveness thing.

I like to think that most reasonable christian denominations would simply teach "Live life as Christ would" and that's it. But many seem to have trouble doing that. Also, while most major religions today recognize that the sin is evil, not the person, they weren't always like that. That was part of my point. Cults are just religions that lack the benefit of centuries of refinement. It probably doesn't help that their wacko leaders are still around, while the catholics' wacko leaders have been dead for 100+ years.

Re:Where's the government action?

[interstellar_donkey]

Scientology differes from other religions and how they are allowed to act in the U.S. in a few ways.

1. In most religions, you can receive the higest level of spirtual fullfillment for free; If you can afford it, you are asked to donate money, but even if you don't, no church services will be denied to you. In Scientology, you can easily become bankrupt trying to reach any level of spiritual satisfaction.

2. In most religions, you can leave whenever you want. In Scientology, once you're in, they will make it very hard to leave.

3. In most religions, the basic tennents of the religious philosophy can be explained and known to anyone. (i.e., Jesus Christ was God's son sent down to Earth, he died for our sins and saved our souls). I could'nt begin to tell you what that is for scientology, because A: I don't know and I can't afford to find out, and B: If I did know, I could'nt tell you for fear of being sued.

4. In most religions, religious texts are free to distribute to others. In fact, it's encouraged to show the texts to others not in the faith. There is no copywrite on the Bible or the Koran. In Scientology, all religious 'texts' are vigerously protected by copywrites, and just being able to see them requires a great deal of financial expenditure.

Don't get me wrong. Scientology is not compleatly evil. From people I've talked to, including 'ex-Scientologists', the orginization has some pretty sound self-help/life improving methods. (It also has some pretty dangerous ones). But being an (expensive) source of psychological help does not make you a religion. Psychologists, self-help gurus can perform simular services, and yet they are not afforded tax freedom.

Re:Where's the government action?

[dvdeug]

There is no copywrite on the Bible or the Koran.

This is a side point, but there actually is a copyright on any new translations of the Bible, and it is often enforced. If you buy a computer Bible program you'll note that the NIV almost always comes seperately for an additional charge. That's because the company has to pay the translators to include it.

Re:Where's the government action?

[Mandelbrute]

How is what they do different than what Christianity and Islam do?

Because it's so fake that it is obvious, it's entire history is documented, they cheat, they steal, and they tell people to refuse medical and psychiatric help which leads to premature deaths. Posing as rescue workers at the world trade centre must be worth a jail term for a few of them.

Anyway, Xenu.net has more, as do the newspapers.

Most important point missed

[blamanj]

Unfortunately, the article reads like an account of two warring clans in the Appalachians. How quaint. The important point, which is that Google, which does NOT publish the "contested" information, is being forced to delist it.

The current use of the DMCA is like forcing the phone company to delist businesses anytime someone files a complaint against that business. Until the writer's make clear what a travesty this is, Joe Public isn't going to be concerned.

Re:Scientology

[-brazil-]

Scientology isn't really much of a religion at all, really. It's an MLM scheme that has found posing as a religion to be highly conductive to its fraudulent business practices.

Re:No freedom to link?

[Loki_1929]

"I think if they want to get people's cooperation, then they should refute Operation Clambake's information in an orderly and intelligent manner. "

What you fail to realize is that there's no information in the entire church which can be presented in an orderly, intelligent manner. They're claiming that we humans are Gods and that a cosmic warlord has fooled us all into thinking we're not. But we have a science fiction writer (Hubbard) to the rescue, as he's recently discovered the truth and is battling the evil warlord from his plush multi-million dollar mansion, while his followers learn to use their mystical powers.

If you could, please show me how that can be presented in an orderly, intelligent manner. I would suggest a comic book for guidance, but I don't think you'll be able to make it work.

Re:Spineless

[mccalli]

They may be the best search engine around, but like everyone (sans Microsoft) they have very limited "off-topic" funds to fight "pointless" lawsuits.

Agreed, but this one isn't pointless to them. Nothing to do with pro or anti-scientology, any attempt to force controls on content threatens the essence of a pure-bred search engine.

Cheers,
Ian

Re:Scientology (AMEN!!)

[JThaddeus]

Amen Brother/Sister!! Do I hear a "Alleluia"?

But of course the Scientologists aren't the only ones in this game. Just look at the Christian Right. It amazes me (especially as a practicing Christian) that these bozos think that a religion that has managed to resist the efforts of the Romans, the Communists, etc. to stomp it out now requires the protection of the US Government in order to flourish.

Re:Hmmmm

[Jburkholder]

Do a search for 'scientology' first, then this link comes up:

Society > Religion and Spirituality > Opposing Views > Scientology

Links to clambake, steve fishman and the rest come up.

What, you were expecting it to be on the front page?

Re:No freedom to link?

[SomeoneYouDontKnow]

Scientology has been infamous for intimidating its critics for years. Nothing new here, except that they now have the DMCA as a weapon.

Re:No freedom to link?

[slug359]

Remember the Co$ follow Hubbard's teachings:

"Don't ever defend. Always attack"

Here's a cache of a page that goes into great detail about this quote.

This has been nicknamed by the Churches critics as Operation Footbullet for obvious reasons.

Re:Spineless

[richlb]

I agree. Google is using the system against itself. What better way to kill 2 birds with 1 stone (DMCA & $cientology) than to use their own weapons against them. They've succeeded in getting more people talking and asking questions.

Link to xenu.net

[hsenag]

One point the article made is that the original controversy caused lots more people to link to xenu.net, pushing it up from 4th in the Google results for "Scientology" to 2nd. I'd like to encourage everyone who hasn't already done so to also do this - maybe it can be pushed up to 1st :-)

Re:Link to xenu.net

[daviddennis]

Not only that - if you look at the search results for Scientology, you will see it split about 50/50 between pro and anti Scientology sites, which is just as it should be.

I don't think you'll ever get the main Scientology domain name off number one, and that's not unreasonable since it is, after all, the "official" site. But to see Operation Clambake and "Scientology and The Net" and so on linked so conspicuously just warms my heart.

(I was an ardent Scientology critic until I discovered that it was taking over my life, and I'd never even been a Scientologist in the first place!)

D

Re:Help me on this...

[mccalli]

How is it that if some entity puts their information onto the net, where they would like everyone on the globe to see it, that they are bitching that Google is caching their info to ultimately send them to their site

Not the same entity in this case. The people that put it up aren't the people that wanted it down.

Cheers,
Ian

One last request of google-

[echucker]

Move the "In response to a complaint we received under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed one result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the D.M.C.A. complaint for these removed results." notification to the TOP of the page.

Re:woops can't mention a site that mentions it

[dattaway]

Also, be sure not to include their "copyrighted" texts into jpeg or png images we share with friends.

Oh wait, doing such might spread subliminal messages of an evil cult...

Where are the thought police?

[sam_handelman]

I'm having trouble believing that you really wrote that.

The US government is not supposed to be in the business of "labeling" or "dealing with" cults; or small, emerging religions, to use an unbiased term. I like to think that the government shouldn't be "labeling" or "dealing with" anybody.

Scientology, which is no more of a scam than many well established religions, is as entitled to exist without government persecution as any other group. I may not like them, in fact, I despise them, but a line has to be drawn - the government has no business applying any other investigative standard to the Scientology cult than has been applied to the Roman Catholic church.

In Russia, and in much of Europe, where controls on government intervention in the religious/ideological sector of the economy are not so stringent, the government is free to oppress scientologists, and does so. Read about it at the OCRT website. Other governments use these same powers to quell political dissent, which is why in our society we have had the good sense to deny the government these powers.

There is no way to grant the government the right to protect scientologists from themselves without granting the government the right to offer the same "protection" to other dissidents or nonconformers.

Re:Where are the thought police?

[swb]

The US government is not supposed to be in the business of "labeling" or "dealing with" cults; or small, emerging religions, to use an unbiased term. I like to think that the government shouldn't be "labeling" or "dealing with" anybody.

Clealry the tenets of freedom dictate that we don't want the government labeling groups as cults and burning their members alive (*cough*Waco*cough*).

But also there are groups that use the shield of religion to mask some pretty dubious activities -- Jim Jones anyone? Isn't in the people's best interest that the FBI or whoever at least kind of kept an eye on some of the more fringe groups? I think its probably possible for the government to monitor these groups without necessarily infringing on anyone's right to worship as they see fit.

Few reasonable people seem to think that their freedom to pursue commerce is affected by the SEC, and most people want the SEC to monitor business on an ongoing basis. I don't see why religious groups should be all that different.

Re:Where are the thought police?

[pubjames]

In Russia, and in much of Europe, where controls on government intervention in the religious/ideological sector of the economy are not so stringent, the government is free to oppress scientologists, and does so. Read about it at the OCRT website. [freefind.com] Other governments use these same powers to quell political dissent, which is why in our society we have had the good sense to deny the government these powers.

I find it funny to read Americans spout this kind of stuff. From the outside, American society and law seems much less forgiving about people who have different viewpoints that many other countries, such as Russia and European countries. A good example is that girl who was recently thrown out of school for opposing what the US has been doing in Afghanistan. How intolerant does a society have to be to throw a young girl out of school for being anti-war?

It's funny. I live in Spain. Yesterday I was in a bar with some friends and a couple of American tourists. One of the tourists pointed a finger at my friend and in a suprised voice asked "are you legal?" After a bit of confusion we realised that he was asking my friend if she was old enough to drink in a bar. The girl was twenty. You cannot imagine how ridiculous it sounds to us here that in America an adult of twenty years of age cannot drink a beer in a bar. And you think it's the land of Freedom! Ha!

Re:Where are the thought police?

[Loki_1929]

When a "church" endorses or causes harm to members and critics, I say to you, they deserve zero protection from the government. I'm a major fan of free speech and seperation of church and state, but their free expression ends when it causes harm to another.

Talk to a few ex-scientology 'church' members and you'll find some of them fear for their lives. The US government is in the business of protecting its citizens, even if from themselves and against their will. I fully support investigation of any illegal activities by any "religious" organization, regardless of its name or popularity. All citizens are equal under the law and therefore deserve the same protections, whether from a sadistic killer, or from a "church" member/leader. Calling yourself a church does not give you an impeneratrable shield with which to beat your members, even if they ask for and accept it.

Re:Where are the thought police?

[WildBeast]

"I find it funny to read Americans spout this kind of stuff. From the outside, American society and law seems much less forgiving about people who have different viewpoints that many other countries, such as Russia and European countries. A good example is that girl who was recently thrown out of school for opposing what the US has been doing in Afghanistan. How intolerant does a society have to be to throw a young girl out of school for being anti-war?"

Well we didn't hear about that, nobody talked about it in the US but it wouldn't surprise me. Censorship is alive and well around here.

Re:Where are the thought police?

[HiThere]

Actual separation of church and state would mean that churches got no special rights, as well as getting no special penalties.

Do you believe that that accurately describes the current situation?

Re:Where are the thought police?

[poot_rootbeer]

1. The story of the girl who got 'thrown out' of school for opposing military action is not a matter of American law. It's a matter of an overzealous school administrator. Do not take this an example that our entire society feels this way, for it's not true.

2. Far more people drive cars in the United States than do in Spain. There is therefore a valid line of reasoning for limiting people's access to alcohol until they reach 21 years of age... the less irresponsible young drunk drivers on our roads, the fewer alcohol-related automotive fatalities.

Not that I particularly agree with this line of reasoning either.

Re:Where are the thought police?

[dvdeug]

If you want take action against illegal actions by a church, that's entirely different from taking action against a "cult".

Re:Where are the thought police?

[radish]

I can think of lots of ways in which so-called "mainstream" religons endorse or cause what could be considered "harm" to their members, depending entirely on your personal point of view.

For instance (and please, these are not attacks, simply topics for thought) - the Catholic ban on contraception leads to how many unwanted pregnancies/back street abortions, maybe even deaths? What about religions which promote surgery on infants (e.g. circumcision)? I may be showing my ignorance, but isn't the Indian caste system based on religious belief? The list goes on...

Not to mention the countless wars waged in the name of one god or another, that looks to me like "endorsing or causing harm to critics".

I'm not defending the COS, really I'm not, but you have to treat all religions equally. Personally, I'd go for no special treatment for any religions, but that's cos I'm a non-beliver, and frankly the power wielded by the unelected heads of the major religions scares me :)

Re:Where are the thought police?

[pubjames]

1. The story of the girl who got 'thrown out' of school for opposing military action is not a matter of American law. It's a matter of an overzealous school administrator. Do not take this an example that our entire society feels this way, for it's not true.

I didn't say it was a legal issue. It's an example of the intolerance of others that's pervasive in American society. Even though you have your strong principals of freedom of speech, your society is very intolerant of anyone that doesn't to the line, and your media is consistent in it's limited breadth of viewpoints.

2. Far more people drive cars in the United States than do in Spain. There is therefore a valid line of reasoning for limiting people's access to alcohol until they reach 21 years of age... the less irresponsible young drunk drivers on our roads, the fewer alcohol-related automotive fatalities.

(It's a pity your law makers don't have the same attitude towards guns...)

Anyway, I think the statement "Far more people drive cars in the United States than do in Spain" may just demonstrate a tiny bit of a confused view of the world, no? Do you think most people ride around on donkeys in Spain? According to the most recent statistics I can find (from 1995), there's the same level of car ownership in Spain as the United Kingdom, and a higher level than in Japan.

Re:Where are the thought police?

[pubjames]

God knows nothing bad ever happens in Spain [amnesty.org].

Have you looked up the USA on the Amnesty site?:

15/04/2002 USA: Treatment of prisoners in Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay undermines human rights.
28/03/2002 USA: Amnesty International calls for investigation of alleged beating of inmate in Kentucky jail
22/03/2002 USA - Military commissions: Second-class justice
14/03/2002 USA: Post 11 September detainees deprived of their basic rights
04/03/2002 USA: Unnecessary death, injury and pain caused by the use of restraint chairs
21/02/2002 USA: As President Bush visits China, he should reflect on an execution looming at home
13/02/2002 USA: Executions would indicate empty rhetoric of State of the Union address
05/02/2002 USA: Amnesty International to tour jails housing post September 11 detainees - but access to federal detention facility "stonewalled"
04/02/2002 Philippines: Human rights must be respected to secure peace and stability in southern Philippines
01/02/2002 Afghanistan: Urgent action needed on prison conditions
22/01/2002 USA: Amnesty International requests access to Guantánamo base
18/01/2002 Bosnia-Herzegovina: Letter to the US Ambassador regarding six Algerian men
17/01/2002 USA: Arbitrary, discriminatory, cruel, futile -- 25 years of judicial killing
17/01/2002 Bosnia- Herzegovina: Transfer of six Algerians to US custody puts them at risk 15/01/2002 USA: AI calls on the USA to end legal limbo of Guantánamo prisoners
10/01/2002 Afghanistan/USA: Prisoners must be treated humanely
19/12/2001 USA: Mumia Abu-Jamal - Overturning of death sentence falls short of full justice 11/12/2001 USA: Marking "Human Rights Week" with two executions 03/12/2001 USA: Human rights must not be sacrificed for security
29/11/2001 USA: No return to execution. New AI report on the US death penalty as a barrier to extradition
15/11/2001 USA: Presidential order on military tribunals threatens fundamental priniciples of justice
06/11/2001 USA: Seven o'clock shadow - First New Mexico execution since 1960 due; Georgia set to kill mentally ill man
26/10/2001 Afghanistan: Accountability for civilian deaths
23/10/2001 USA: Amnesty International calls for respect of detainees' rights in wake of 11 September
22/10/2001 USA: USA set to break a global consensus - execution of a child offender due tonight
11/10/2001 CIS: Central Asia on the brink of a human rights crisis
10/10/2001 Afghanistan: Amnesty International calls for prompt investigation into civilian deaths
24/09/2001 USA: Amnesty International urges Bush administration to maintain human rights standards in response to 11 September attacks, and warns of looming humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan
20/09/2001 USA/The World: Justice must not be the next casualty

Re:Where are the thought police?

[pubjames]

Drinking a beer is absolutely the most important right that can be had. My God, the restictions placed on that fundamental right here in the US are astounding!

When I first read this I though you were being sarcastic. Then I re-read it and realised you were serious. I preferred it the first time I read it.

Things like being able to drink a beer in a bar are fundamental. They are things that affect millions of people, every day. The fact that it is a "trivial" thing demonstrates how restrictive laws in the USA are.

I'll take my constitutional rights, for a conservative stance on alchohol, thank you.

Apart from being able to carry a gun (which is a right virtually all Europeans don't want), what legal rights do you have that I don't? Please enlighten me.

Re:Where are the thought police?

[pubjames]

When I first read this I though you were being sarcastic. Then I re-read it and realised you were serious. I preferred it the first time I read it.

Sorry I meant that the other way around. My mistake.

Re:Where are the thought police?

[Loki_1929]

Have you looked up the USA on the Amnesty site?:

Pardon me, but if you want to run up and hug someone who's firing a gun at you, feel free, but I've no problem with shooting them in the head. Humanitarian crisis in afghanistan? Are you people serious? Men, women, and children were tortured and mudered every single day by the Taliban. Women were regarded as less than a farm animal. Now there are women in school, and the children are taught mathematics instead of "death to America, kill yourself for Islam." The US dropped food to the afghan people, and some people bitched. The US freed the afghan people from a totalitarian regime, and still some people bitched. We took prisoners to an American base, fed them, clothed them, gave them a place to sleep, all at cost and risk to us, and still people bitched. Amnesty Int would bitch if we put Al Qaida prisoners up at the Waldorf Estoria with room service and a view. If you want to hug the guy with a bomb strapped to his chest, feel free. I find this to be a good thing, as when he detonates himself, it'll quiet the bitching and moaning about our treatment of these murders, and you'll likely shield me from the blast. Thank you, I appreciate that.

As for capital punishment, it's hotly contested even here in the US. Why don't we end it? Because we have a process. If it's decided that capital punishment doesn't fit our justice system, it will be eliminated. People whining at us will not eliminate it. Personally, I'm all for it. It reduces the cost of housing/feeding this person for the rest of their life; it ensure they will never walk the street again (no chance for escaping from prison 10 years down the road); and it most certainly fits the crimes to which it's applied. In most cases, the family of the victim (assuming it's homocide) has enormous pull to ensure the death penalty is not used if they don't believe in it. (Matthew Shepard case)

Now, I'm looking at this and I can't believe it:

Central Asia on the brink of a human rights crisis
Philippines: Human rights must be respected to secure peace and stability in southern Philippines

We're supposed to force everyone in the world to play nice with one another? Whenever we try to ensure that people are treated justly, (Saudi Arabia/Kuwait/Afghanistan/Bosnia/etc) all we get is flak for our "occupation". Everyone wanted the US to come and save Saudi Arabia from Iraq, and now they're bitching because we were/are on Saudi soil? I sincerely hope that we pull out of the middle east altogether, so that when Saddam starts firing off the chemical weapons and people start dieing, we can sit back and laugh at the ignorant folks who kept complaining about us being there.

We're always the first ones everyone calls when something bad happens, and we're the one everyone complains to when anything happens that they don't like. "Please come save me, but get the hell out when I say so." The people who decry our way of life are the same people who gain a large benefit from it. Those in the Middle East who complain about our way of life don't seem to have any problem accepting the money they get from selling us oil. Were it not for the US, the kurds in northern Iraq would still be dieing of the chemical weapons used on them, kuwait would be an Iraqi province, afghan women would still be being beaten and murdered while denied the most basic rights, most of Japan's income wouldn't be there, and WWII would have ended a bit differently (lest you forget the American supplies we sent, the Sherman tanks, the troops, the weapons, food, engineers, etc). Hell, the French still hate the Americans for some odd reason, even though we helped liberate France.

Speaking for the USA, we'd like a friggin 'thank you' some time soon.

Re:Where are the thought police?

[jstarr]

If someone ignores the Catholic ban on contraception , the Catholic church does not try to kill them. Circumcision is a medical procedure that is occasionally done without religious requirement. Nevertheless, circumcision does no more than remove the foreskin.

Remember, we live in the 20th century. A church, or any body except a nation, cannot simply declare war on another body legally. Things that were acceptable in the 13th century no longer apply. The court system, for example, is under government jurisdiction, not church. Thus, in the current controversy with child molesters and the Catholic church, the Catholic does not have the legal right to 'take care of the issue' themselves. Government enforces the laws and enforces them upon anyone, regardless of their religious preference.

In the United States, churchs are allowed to pursue their own form of worship as long as that form does not conflict with other laws. (The exceptions are relatively minor and mostly apply to Indian tribes and maintaining a culture.)

Some church heads are elected. The Pope is elected, for example (from the Cardinal College, I believe.) Furthermore, the church body often has the power to get rid of a minister and request another.

And finally, individuals have a right to leave a religion. Scientology does not hold this right and actively works against it, to the point of harrasement, kidnapping, brainwashing, and murder.

Religions are established within some philosophical or theological premise. Scientology, instead, was established to make money. L. Ron Hubbard admitted as such. Scientology actively lies to its members, discourages any dissent, and attempts to silence its critics.

Germany recognizes that Scientology is a scam, and it is thus illegal there. However, in the US, by hiding behind the tax-sheltered status of a church, Scientology has been able to grow and remain a threat for the past several decades.

Scientology is a scam, not a religion.

Re:Where are the thought police?

[pubjames]

No -- It's a pity you don't bother to research before posting. 21 is the legal age for ownership of a handgun in the US (this is federal law), which is what most of you rabid-anti-gunners are most afraid of.

Well, you don't understand my European liberal weenie mentality. My logic was, your law makers ban alcohol for under 21s because it causes death. Guns cause death. It's a pity your law makers don't ban guns.

Over here, EVERYONE gets a car/driver's license when they turn 16

Really? Wow. That's cool. You don't have to take a test or anything? Great! And I suppose it doesn't matter if you're partially sighted. Cool! Let's all go to America.

The age that you can get a licence in Europe depends on the country. I got mine just after my 17th birthday in the UK.

Re:Where are the thought police?

[scrytch]

Actual separation of church and state would mean that churches got no special rights, as well as getting no special penalties.

Sounds perfect. Why should churches get tax exemptions by mere virtue of them being a church? Let them apply for tax-exempt status as a charitable and educational non-profit organization like everyone else. The first amendment along with civil rights statutes would prohibit any discrimination because they also happened to be religious.

Re:Where are the thought police?

[jdavidb]

Calling yourself a church does not give you an impeneratrable shield with which to beat your members, even if they ask for and accept it.

Ah, but calling yourself a doctor gives you the right to administer fatal drugs if the patient asks for it. At least, many people think so.

There's a very, very fine line to draw between protecting the rights of citizens from the abuses of others and trying to pass legislation to protect us from ourselves. Anyone who claims they can draw that line perfectly is wrong.

Re:Where are the thought police?

[Loki_1929]

Ahh yes, my latest USA rant gets a response! And an intelligent one at that (as opposed to something like "you're gay" or "death to America".) Ok, here we go.

Yes, the US dropped food ... and followed up by dropping anti-personnel bombs which looked just like the food packets. (After convincing the Pakistan to close it borders and prevent the UN and Red Cross food shipments which were really feeding Afghanistan.)


Followed up? No, we'd been dropping those for some time. This was a simple case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand was doing. You want to make food packets easy to see so locals can get right to them. You want to make bombs easy to see so that any unexploded ordinance is avoided. The problem is that the folks who made up the food packets ended up using a packaging which was similar in color and vaguely similar in shape to the bombs. The people who made the bombs != the people who made the food. Unless you're Steven Segal, you aren't making bombs during the day and veil during the evening. Also take into account that the food would have been handled by different people, flown on different planes, and dropped in different areas by different crews. The two packages probably were never seen near one another before they hit the ground in Afghanistan. It's unfortunate, but it did happen. It was a mistake, we're sorry. All better?

Yes, the US freed the Afghanistani people from the Taliban ... and left them to the tender mercies of the Warlords who were in charge before. Pashtuns, who happen to be the ethnic group the Taliban came from, are being killed in the street because of their accents -- it is assumed that Pashtun=Taliban.

Left them? Ok, now correct me if I'm wrong, but... we're still in Afghanistan. Not only that, but we've helped put the new unified government in place, (even though we didn't set out to build the country again), and helped hammer out agreements for everything from peacekeeping troops, to funraisers, to bringing books to the afghan children so they could actually learn something in school. As for the people killing one another, hey, what can I say? They've been killing one another for hundreds of years, are we to blame for that too? We're being bounced around like a pinball and used in so many ways we lost count when all we want to do is wipe out taliban leaders, and get Al Qaida on the run (or dead, either way). We freed the people, don't blame us for what they choose to do with their freedom. We're like the world's whipping boy. When someone does something to someone else, everyone just yells, "blame the Americans."

Yes, the US is housing prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. In cages most of the rest of the world wouldn't use to house dogs. They have spent the last 4? 5? months in custody without charge, without knowing where on the planet they are, and knowing that they are very likely to be 'tried' in a closed military court with no defence and sentenced to death.

Cages? Dogs? They're called cells. They are given plenty of food each day, and we're even catering to their religious meal requirments. We could hand them a big plate of pork and say "eat, don't eat, I don't give a shit", but we found food that wouldn't violate their religious beliefs and served it to them. When they decided not to eat that, and a few became de-hydrated or malnourished, we hooked them up to IV's to make sure they were ok. We've given them medical care, beds, blankets, food to their liking, and time each day to walk around outside. Let me ask you this, how were the American prisoners in Somalia treated? Let me answer that for you, they were tortured, murdered, stripped naked, then dragged through the streets. How about in Afghanistan? Well, a group of folks watched as a Predator drone got footage of a US soldier who was wounded being led away by Al Qaida soldiers, then shot in the back of the head. So how dare you even begin to question our treatment of these prisoners. As for the military tribunals, it's already been stated that only the upper leadership of Al Qaida would qualify for that little honor. Seeing as virtually all of the prisoners at Gitmo are simple foot soldiers, they'll probably be screened for intelligence, and eventually deported unless we have solid evidence against them. In any event, they're alive and being treated well, which is MUCH more mercy than they've ever shown our troops.

Have you ever bothered to find how long some of these people have been in jail? Some of them have been on Death Row for more than 10 years. How would you deal with ten years of 'maybe next week, they'll kill me'? And let's not mention the number of Death-Row inmates who were convicted on dubious evidence, or the number who have been proved innocent when better evidence came to light ... often too late.

You've just proved my point - anyone sentenced to death in the US has a VERY easy appeal process. The first is automatic, meaning they not only have to be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt by 12 people, 24 people must firmly believe that there's no other way it went down. The person can then spend in some cases the next twenty years going on and on with appeals. They're given every possible opportunity to prove their innocence. Someone given life in prison doesn't get that automatic appeal, and therefore has less of a chance to proce their innocence. To say they were convicted on "dubious" evidence is vague and inaccurate. It's hard finding 24 people who agree what color the sky is, so I think you can rest assured that when 24 people unanimously agree that this person comitted the crime without any reasonable doubt, and that they committed it in such a way as to warrent a death sentence, it wasn't just an on-the-fly 'yeah whatever' kind of thing. As for those proven innocent later on? I hate to tell you, but you'll find that anywhere in the world. No justice system is perfect, but when we put someone to death, we're damned sure we're not putting an innocent person to death. When it's discovered that a mistake was made, I think we're all saddened, but nothing is perfect, and you can't throw the baby out with the bathwater so to speak. As for the inmate sitting in his cell pondering his upcoming death, I think it's fair considering that someone's wife, or someone's mother will never get to see that person again because your inmate took it upon themself to end their life. As far as I'm concerned, if you shoot a cop in cold blood, whatever sentence you're given isn't punishment enough, and if you don't want to be put to death, don't shoot the cop. This mentality that people should be given all this extra care and love is ridiculous. If you can't do the time (or sit in the chair) don't do the crime. All these criminals' rights people seem to have forgotten that the people they're fighting so hard for are the ones who shoot innocent people, rape kids, run over people with their car, murder their kids/parents/spouse, get young kids hooked on drugs, and all sorts of other things. They deserve the most basic rights, nothing more. They cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process. I think two, three, four trials by jury is more than 'due' process. I don't assume that every defendant is guilty, quite the contrary. But when 12 people are convinced, then 24 are convinced, then 36, etc, then I'm convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, regardless of whether I was there or not to see them committ the crime. The death penalty makes a great deterrant. It doesn't stop anyone from comitting a crime, but it sure as hell cuts down on the repeat offenders. :)
Go give Ted Bundy a hug, he needs some love. While you're at it, give all those parents their daughters... you know, the ones he murdered?

Well, maybe an International Police Force and corresponding International Court of Justice would take some of this unwanted pressure off, eh? Such a pity that the number one veto state in the UN Security Council (in charge of that Police Force) is the USA. Such a pity that the main obstacle to the foundation of the Court of Justice was and is ... USA. The reason given was that Americans might be tried for War Crimes. Is the USA 'above the Law'? Because that is what your goverment is arguing.

Above the law? No. But our citizens have a Constitutional right to be tried by a jury of their peers, something an international court might not respect. Our government has a responsibility to ensure the rights of its citizens, and I therefore support them fully here. Now, if a US president ordered the systematic slaughter of a race/group, or was ordering and/or causing the intentional murder of innocent civilians on a mass scale (ie genocide) then I'd be the first person calling for him/her to be tried in the Hague. But you're not about to take a US pilot who makes a mistake and make an example out of him just because you're pissed at us and want to show us up to the world. We'll try our own citizens, thank you. If you'd like to put together a nice little sideshow for one another, feel free, but we'll have no part in it; especially not when we ARE the international police force.

Here's an idea. Ask yourself this: What would someone have to do to make me hate them so much that I would willingly and happily kill myself if it meant they might suffer or die.

That's the classic blame-the-victim mentality. "Well Gloria, you must have done something very terrible to make Bill beat the shit out of you like that. What did you do to make him so mad?" You know, we get bitched at for giving aid to Israel. Guess what, we give aid to a large portion of the world. Finding a country we give aid to is about as easy as finding one we don't give aid to. As I said before, the Middle Eastern countries that bitch when we support something they don't like are awefully quiet when we hand them that nice fat check for their oil. You can't have it both ways, we either help everyone who needs help, or we help no one. Pick one. You also failed to point out the fact that the people with the bombs strapped to their chests aren't attacking the so-called oppressers. I might begin to have some sort of sympathy for someone who's desperate and scared and goes after the person shooting at them, their friends, their family. But they aren't. The 3,000 people killed on Sept. 11, 2001 weren't soldiers oppressing a people. They were office workers, accountants, lawyers, bankers, firemen, policemen, and they were thousands of miles from the countries the attackers came from. The bombers in Israel aren't attacking military outposts, they're planned and executing attacks against people going to work, or people hanging out at a nightclub. They're murdering people who just want to buy groceries at the market, or who want to take a trip to a holy site. The suicide bombers aren't even killing people who are armed. They're killing children in the streets, and civilians on buses. They aren't defending anything, they're murdering innocent people. So your blame-the-victim mentality just falls to pieces in light of the reality of the attacks.

Your government has made itself the new Roman Empire, straddling the world. Read a history of the Roman Empire sometime, and find out why so many people around the world are getting scared

The Roman Empire? We don't conquer; we could - but we choose not to. We could occupy afghanistan, or Iraq, or virtually any other country we choose to (aside from perhaps china, too many damn people :P, or russia... too big and too cold, or australia... too much beer). We don't want to run the world, and we don't want to be the world's hall monitor. But every time something happens (WWII, gulf war, phillipines, etc) we get a phone call saying "please help, please help". If we hesitate for half a second, the whole world jumps on our backs asking how we can just stand by and let such and such happen. The mentality throughout the world really seems to be, when something goes wrong, make the USA fix it, then blame them for it happening in the first place. The world is scared of us? They ought to be, because we've got a pissed off president right now and we're not going to be the quiet little whipping boy like we were during the Clinton years. We're not going away quietly, and we're not backing down. If people want to blow one another up in a foreign country, we'll help (like always) when we're asked to; but we'll be God-Damned if we're going to let people attack our citizens. It ends here, and it ends now. Iraq, Iran, North Korea, the Phillipines, Sudan, Palestine, Somalia, and every other country where people plotting against American citizens are hiding better find a way to get those people out of their country, because we're coming for them and if we have to tear through the countryside to get to them, we will. We'll help you rebuild when we're done, but for now, if you let them hide in your house, you ain't gunna have a house for long.

I look forward to your response ;)

Re:Where are the thought police?

[Andy_R]

"Remember, we live in the 20th century."

I think you are somewhat lagged?

Re:Where are the thought police?

[Rogerborg]

catsidhe covered most of the points that I wanted to make, so I'll limit myself to this:

You're absolutely right that the USA deserves a 'thank you' for all the good you've done. Thank you.

Now stop doing the bad stuff as well. Stop dropping DUP projectiles and cluster munitions all over the planet. Stop targetting civilian populations with economic sanctions. Stop initiating trade wars and applying punitive import taxes whenever it's convenient. Stop projecting your insane IP laws worldwide. Stop polluting. Stop raping local regions of resources, sanctimoniously pouring in investment for a few years, then walking away and letting the local economy collapse, and all the shiny new schools and hospitals fall apart. Stop pretending that capitalism and the free market is the answer, when half your international trade is done over the barrel of a gun. Stop demonstrating that 'mights makes right' by your every word and deed.

Fair enough?

Re:Spineless

[MAXOMENOS]

These days, having moral courage usually means having the cash to back it up. Granted, Google has more cash than most high-tech companies these days, but not enough to shrug off Scientology. Also, Google could face a second, potentially more expensive investor lawsuit, should the Church of Scientology sue. Not taking proper steps to protect your investors' dollars is grounds for legal action; and the ultimate result, if and when you lose both lawsuits, could be the end of your company, with all those jobs lost and all your intellectual property on fire sale. This is the same reason why Slashdot resorted to similar indirect means a year ago.

The simple fact is that corporations exist to increase shareholder value -- not to make moral stands, employ people, heal people, or do all those other fuzzy things that they sometimes do in the process of making money. I don't like it either, but that's the state of the world.

In related news...

[MongooseCN]

The notice includes a link to Scientology's complaint on chillingeffects.org, which lists the Web addresses of the material to which Google no longer links. The result is that a complaint could end up drawing more attention to the very pages it is trying to block.

In related news the sales of bullet proof boots has skyrocketed dramatically...

Re:In related news...

[ethereal]

In case you don't get the joke (like I didn't at first) read: http://www.xenu.net/archive/footbullet/

Re:Spineless

[ProfMoriarty]

As I see it, several precidents need to be set.

1. Linking to another site is ok. Unfortunately, the MPAA v 2600 was bad for this one
2. Linking to another site absolves the linking site from liability of the content to the linked site. This would be where Google would be protected
3. Fair Use is not limited, however, possibly a limit of the amount of material may need to be implemented. IOW, don't paste all 144 pages up to make your point, take selected phrases .. this may keep the copyright lawyers at bay.

Another problem is the current Copyright / Fair use debate. This one is much larger than any of the aforemented possible solutions to the problem.

This isn't a exhaustive, comprehensive fix for all of the woes ... just my thoughts on the issue.

Re:No freedom to link?

[The Good Reverend]

Welcome to the world of religion. They're rarely easy to present in an orderly, intelligent manner because they're more than likely collected myths.

To See the Link from Google to Chilling Effects

[knuth]

The NYT story recommends searching for "helatrobus." Or you can search for Xenu vainquit (no quotes). Then look at the bottom of the results.

Re:To See the Link from Google to Chilling Effects

[leuk_he]

ANd he has the good answer. good reading is hard. I missed it in the nyt story.

at the bottom of google it says:
In response to a complaint we received under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint for these removed results.

I was first afraid after searching for thethan it would not show up in this non us county.

Re:Help me on this...

[david duncan scott]

Because you have it exactly backwards: the Church of Scientology didn't put this stuff out there. It was posted years ago by some of their critics, and CoS has been chasing it ever since, trying to stuff it back into the bottle.

If you're not either too young or not an American, think "Pentagon Papers", except that in this case the CoS is (obviously) a non-governmental (just mental) organization, so "national security" isn't an option. Instead they've claimed copyright on the materials in question, which were, they say, internal Church documents.

What about the Usenet archives.

[nolife]

The most recent complaint given to Google from the COS deals with Googles own Usenet archive. The process of transferring the burden over to the original web site owner works for web pages. What about the potential for copyrighted material in Google's own Usenet archive? Do they have to contact the original author of the messages which in turn would have to file a counter complaint to keep it in the archive?

This whole thing seems to be going in the direction of the MS case, abortions rights, and campaign finance reform. A lot of time and money put into both ends but nothing coming out. The winner will be the one that had largest resource pool.

Re:What about the Usenet archives.

[gsfprez]

nothing coming out of all this?

I think all the lawyers in their new Jags and Kompressor Benzs would disagree with the notion that all of this litigation is for nothing.

Re:Spineless

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you going to financially back a lawsuit if one is filed?

THIS is what Google is attempting to avoid.

On the other hand, if you do a Google search for Scientology, several Google ad-word ads show up, all from pro-Scientology sites. If enough Slashdot people clicked on those links, maybe Google could afford the legal fight. And maybe COS couldn't.

don't blame google

[fermion]

It is no ones responsibility to single handedly take on an injustice. Everyone who sees the injustice is responsible for fighting it. Also, it serves no purpose to taunt fellow members in the struggle for justice. There are times when others need to pull back, either because they are tired or because they can more be more effective using other means. At these times, an opportunity opens for someone else to enter the fray. Google has decided what it can do best, and is doing it.

This also illustrates why we need many search engines. Google, whose size and popularity makes it a prime target, also makes them a prime place to publicize the censorship. Other engines can still link to the articles. For instance, it is still possible to find these links.
http://www.scientology-lies.com/
http://www.primenet.com/~cultxpt/cos.htm
http://www.xenu.net/
If we have many search engines, and other places to find links, it will be difficult for the oppressor to squash the resistance.

Re:Spineless

[sphealey]

Also, Google could face a second, potentially more expensive investor lawsuit, should the Church of Scientology [xenu.net] sue. Not taking proper steps to protect your investors' dollars is grounds for legal action; and the ultimate result, if and when you lose both lawsuits, could be the end of your company, with all those jobs lost and all your intellectual property on fire sale.

Of course, they could face a similar investor lawsuit if they fail to accurately catalog the Internet as they advertise, and as a result their credibility/number of hits/sales begins to drop.

Cryptonomicon notwithstanding, does anyone have some links to these myriad of investor lawsuits that everyone in Silicon Valley is so terrified of? Because in 15 years of reading the WSJ daily I have read of one or two, all of which were thrown out by the court. US corporate law seems to be pretty much "pay your money and take your chance" when it comes to investors and their ability to actually affect the direction of a firm that they have invested in.

sPh

Spineless? Nonsense

[DoctorFrog]

Spineless would be to roll over and simply accept that they couldn't link to the Clambake site. Instead, Google have used the provisions of the DMCA against itself, by linking to the very documents which try to censor Google.

I call that a clever legal hack. It is legal and imagistic judo at its finest; the more the CoS tries to chill free speech about their actions, the better this technique works (using your enemy's strength against your enemy) and it is all specifically allowed under the current DMCA rules.

Furthermore, it is a technique which even the least-funded pointer site can use. If and when challenges to this method of fighting for free (linking) speech hit the higher courts, I have no doubt that Google will contribute financially as well to the cause, if only through self-interest.

And so will I, through the EFF.

The rest of the world

[DataSquid]

Why do these companies/sites always spring up in the USA? It's a shame. Perhaps moving someplace else would be an attractive option for some of these people (Google, Napster etc.) Just don't come to Canada. The US can find a way to throw you in jail if you do so much as sell a Brita to Cuba, I'm sure they can do more.

Re:Spineless

[ethereal]

If you'd read the whole article, or informed yourself about the DMCA, you'd know that delisted sites can file a countercomplaint and be added back into the listing. The countercomplaint just says that the posting site (not Google) is legally responsible for the content. So there is a mechanism for the real protest sites like xenu.net to shoulder responsibility for their content, rather than letting Google shoulder it all.

This case is a little weird, since the site proprietor is saying that filing the counterclaim would put him under U.S. jurisdiction. I'm not sure if that's a legal interpretation, or if the DMCA says that, or what. I don't see how just affirming that the contents of your site do not infringe on the DMCA somehow automatically renders you liable to suit under U.S. law, but maybe that's just me.

Really, Google is showing a lot more spine than most ISPs/publishers/etc. - at least they are informing people about the DMCA and the complaints at the same time that they are following their legal responsibility to delist the items. Most publishers would just drop the whole thing without a trace and go on with their lives.

Re:Spineless

[Surak]

Are you going to financially back a lawsuit if one is filed?

Someone ought to. Seriously. We need court precedents to say that search engines are not liable for linking to sites...a search tool is just that ... a tool to find stuff. Nobody should be help liable if the search engine turns up stuff that someone doesn't agree with.

Hello? EFF? CDT? CPSR? Are you guys listening???

Google should use their power

[kcbrown]

And they do have power -- a lot more than they're using right now.

They're the premiere web search engine right now, with multiple companies (like Yahoo) using them as their own search engine.

What kind of power does Google have? It can make a web presence disappear.

Think of it like this: how do most people find sites on the internet these days? Search engines, right? Sometimes they'll find them indirectly but that's only by chance. When they're actually looking for something, they'll use a search engine. Which usually means they'll use Google.

So by removing all references to a particular site, Google can essentially make that site disappear.

And so Google should do exactly that to any web site that belongs to any entity that threatens Google with a lawsuit.

It should prove especially effective against companies, which rely more and more on their web presence.

Re:Google should use their power

[crawdaddy]

If you REALLY were for freedom of speech, you wouldn't have even given your kooky idea a second though! You would be doing exactly what you're opposing.

It is the Church of Scientology's right to complain about the links without any harmful repurcussions (such as discrimination...exactly what you are proposing). Delisting all those that oppose or threaten to oppose Google is basically a form of discrimination purposefully meant to harm their business. IANAL, but that sounds like it might just be illegal...if not just a shoddy business practice. Although I think they're showing that they aren't very secure with themselves as a religion, the Church of Scientology is well within their rights to complain to Google, ESPECIALLY since they did it in a manner that is following the process of the law. I don't like the fact that it's the law, nor am I proud of my country for passing such a law, but it is and they did. Deal with it, but don't suggest solutions that violate others' rights in the name of upholding the rights of others.

I have a idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's revoke the church of scientology's tax exemption.

Silly? I don't think so; consider:

Churches in America don't pay taxes. They're recognised as non-profit, socially befeficial institutions and as such, it's historically been seen as worthwhile to afford them tax free status (given that they meet certian requirements).

The Church of Scientology is tax exempt. This despite the fact that they charge for their teachings and venomously attack those that provide these teachings for free (unlike other religions). This makes them more like corporation than a religious organization. Thus, they should be treated as one. Require them to file tax documents like any corporation and be subject to audit by the IRS.

The CoS is a cult; and there's nothing wrong with that. Cults have existed for years throughout the world, and the distinction between "legitimate" and "cult" beliefs is at best a tenuous one. But the behaviour of the church of scientology is that of a corporation (evil and vindictive, but a corporation). Let's let them have their trade secret teachings and go after people with lawsuits for publishing secret teachings and critical views of their religion; but let us also not passively fund this corporation by making it tax exempt.

Re:I have a idea

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure the IRS tried this, but the Co$ declared war on the IRS and won, or at least negotiated a truce (whose terms are secret.)

I read about this years ago in some magazine. Don't remember which one.

Also, I don't think cults are "OK." There actually *is* something wrong with cults (they brainwash and manipulate their members), and the distinction is not that tenuous.

But it is for individuals to fight against cults (by not joining them and by speaking out against them in public and so on).

It is wrong for the federal government to single out cults and harass or persecute them, particularly if they are religious cults.

Although, naturally, there is nothing wrong with law-enforcement agents prosecuting lawbreakers.

What silliness

[gdyas]

First, if Google's management has any sort of head on its shoulders it's not going to compromise its integrity as a web-searching tool in such a way.

Second, if they ever did that to /., say, in response to disparaging comments about them, we'd all scream bloody murder.

Why would you want to advocate "disappearing" scientology websites? Like our civil liberties, what you let them do to the scientologists, you let them do to us. Fight their misuse of the DMCA and the injustice of the DMCA itself to preserve our freedom to speak, don't advocate shutting them up because they want to shut us up.

Re:What silliness

[vidarh]

I agree entirely. Googles approach of informing people of pages that have been removed is a great example of their integrity, and serves much of the same intent of warning people about what Scientology is up to.

They could perhaps take this a step further and add warnings to all pages with a query on Scientology etc., pointing out (in a clearly labeled section) that because CoS is using a tactic of intimidation etc. to keep material out of Google and elsewhere, it is likely that the links returned in the search give an incomplete picture of the information about Scientology. Then they could (still in a clearly labeled section) give a set of links to CoS critics.

The key point here is: If the material is editorial (Googles opinion, as opposed to the relatively objective result of their ranking algorithm), its ok for them to put it on their site, as long as there's no way people can mix up the editorial content and the search results.

Re:What silliness

[kcbrown]

You guys don't seem to quite follow my point here.

I'm not advocating that Google use this tactic as a means of offense, only as a means of defense against DMCA lawsuits and other lawsuits that would stifle free speech or would otherwise compromise Google's integrity as a search engine (guess I should have made this point clearer).

See, the deal as I see it is this: if some company or organization is going to insist that Google compromise their integrity as a search engine and force the point through force of law, then shouldn't Google comply in such a way as to maximize the damage to the entity that is making such demands? I mean, the DMCA requires them to remove their cached entries. What Google is currently doing is good, but in my opinion not good enough. They can do that and do what I suggest at the same time, see? By doing so, they would make it as expensive as possible for the Bad Guys to use the DMCA as a bludgeon.

Re:What silliness

[kcbrown]

You do have a good point, so I thought of another alternative.

How about this: instead of doing what I suggested previously, they set their cache up so that instead of the cached entry coming up initially, it comes up with a statement that the owners/operators of the site are attempting to stifle free speech through abuse of the DMCA (or whatever), and on that page is the link to the cached entry (along with a link to the text of the lawsuit in question) so that the viewer can get to it if he really wants.

That way people who hit Google's cache will know that the Bad Guys really are Bad and why, but will still be able to get to the information they're after if they really want it. And it still does damage to the Bad Guys.

New Twist on Ongoing Story

[knuth]

The story you mention is in the Linux Journal. Which is fairly cool for those of the geek persuasion. A hated law (DMCA), free speech issues, and a search engine favored by many.

There has also been a roundup story about Scientology v. Google at Search Engine Watch. Possibly before Google started directing censored results to Chilling Effects. This is of interest to SEOs and, more generally, to those who are curious about search engines.

The story today is in the New York Times. Essentially the same story, but the audience is different. PHBs might read the NYT. Academics read the NYT. It is a mainstream publication with a reputation for quality.

Re:Spineless

[Performer Guy]

Google is suffering under the yoke placed on them by US elected representatives. If you want a change then change who you vote for. In the mean time don't expect Google to fight every battle for you. There is a procedure under the law, it specifically states that Google only has safe harbour if they get a counter request from the site owner, which as has been pointed out in the scientology debacle, a foreign site owner may want to avoid making lest it brings them under US jurisdiction. This is censorship of the worst kind, but it is the elected representatives who have imposed it not Google. It is quite disgraceful that when I perform a search on the web my request for information on what is out there has been censored even when the original site hasn't. This is as insidious as schemes like the great firewall of China, but it's under the control of any pissant corporate little hitler who sends Google et.al a note. I think that may merit a class action law suit against people who are restricting my freedoms by gagging search engines. Maybe it's time to move Google to sealand.

What about congress representatives?

[issachar]

Now here's a thought...

What if you could convince your Senator or Congress-person to mirror the material? Do they have immunity for this sort of thing? Even if not, I'm sure there's more than one Senator out there who would enjoy ticking of the Scientologists.

I seem to remember that Canadian MP's have immunity for anything that they say in the House of Commons. While this probably doesn't extend to their official websites, it probably hasn't been tested. They could also table the offending material as part of a debate on the subject which would give them a reason to post it. Again, I don't know if any of this would be legal, but it would certainly be interesting to find out. (And I believe that both the US and Canadian governments have more money and more responsibility to do this that google does).

Re:Spineless

[cduffy]

Well, if these folks want to get the links taken off chillingeffects.org, they can sue the EFF and the law clinics that run it. They'd certainly be glad to fight.

Re:Scientology

[markmoss]

[Scientology is] an MLM scheme that has found posing as a religion to be highly conductive to its fraudulent business practices.

I suspect Multi-Level Marketing was copied from proselytizing religions rather than the other way around. I'd match my grandparent's Jehovah's Witness study group of about a dozen fanatics against an entire Amway marketing convention. (Of course, there's no financial payback for recruiting more JW's, but it gets you higher in the queue for those 144,000 seats in heaven, and JW's should be so focused on heaven they don't mind a little poverty now...)

From what I've heard of the origins of Scientology, it began approximately 1950 as an alternate form of psychotherapy (Dianetics) invented by science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard. The medical profession tried to get it banned. I don't see any scientific basis to Dianetics, but then I don't see any scientific basis to the medically approved psychotherapy of that era either, nor anything to indicate that Dianetics was more harmful than orthodox treatments of that time such as lobotomies, electroshock, or endless discussions of the patient's toilet training. So it's possible the MD's just didn't like the competition...

When L Ron Hubbard found out he wasn't going to be able to beat the AMA in court, he reconstituted Dianetics as a "religion", making it untouchable by the law. The problem is twofold:

To make it qualify as a religion, Hubbard apparently felt it had to have beliefs just as wacky as Christianity (Noah's ark, for instance). So he tossed in a bunch of science fiction about ancient alien civilations (like running the worst of Doc Smith through a blender 8-). The problem: some people actually _believe_ this bull****.

As a religion, Dianetics doesn't need any scientific research to back it, and AFAIC no research has been done. The only obvious change in 50 years was more sophisticated versions of the "e-meter" (sort of a single-channel lie detector) used in "counseling". Meanwhile, psychiatry has done a lot of real experimental research, and is much more effective than it used to be. In 50 years, medically approved psychotherapy has gone from the equivalent of leeches (just 200 years ago the leading doctor in the USA thought bleeding cured _everything_, but at least he didn't do lobotomies), to the equivalent of sulfa antibiotics (pre-penicillin, dangerous and only sometimes effective, but a hell of a lot better than nothing). Meanwhile dianetics has pretty much stood still.

Re:Spineless

[4of12]

>>Are you going to financially back a lawsuit if one is filed?

>Someone ought to.

This has come up before, I'm sure of it.

While I agree that linking out with an extra layer of indirection to chillingeffects shows less balls than either showing the anti CoS links or showing the cached contents of the anti CoS links, I can see where the mere threat of the costs of the legal battle are enough to cast a chill on Google's management.

I thought there has been legislation, at least proposed, in various states that is intended to combat such legal tactics.

Essentially, if someone uses suits that turn out to be dismissed as frivolous as a way of encumbering you with legal bills to the point where your behavior effectively becomes constrained to their wishes, then you have an additional legal recourse.

But you can tell IANAL, and I don't know which states, if any, have statutes like this, nor do I know how far you have to go before you get to take advantage of them. I doubt they apply to the problem of intimidating DMCA letters, though.

Offtopic rant

[Glytch]

More info here for those of you who aren't familiar with the case. Short story: Canadian citizen living in the US was convicted of the horrible crime of selling water filters to Cuba.

A damn shame. If only he sold guns to South American terrorists, he'd have been fine.

I used to have sympathy for you Americans. Sept 11 was a terrible crime, and hurt so many people. But between the Cuban embargo, crippling our industries for being too efficient and too high-quality, and violating the basic human rights of our citizens because they're not Americans, continuuing to use anti-personnel land mines, and basically pissing all over the Kyoto treaty and anti-ballistic missle treaty, you're doing your damnest to screw the world. You can all go fuck yourselves. (For those of you who actually vote and try to change how the US government acts, I apologize. But you're in the minority.)

And that's not even mentioning the DMCA and SSSCA, which have gotten plenty of airing here and don't even need explaining.

Do your worst moderation, you jingoistic sheep. I've got plenty of karma to burn.

Re:Offtopic rant

[dvdeug]

Short story: Canadian citizen living in the US was convicted of the horrible crime of selling water filters to Cuba.

Gee, a citizen from one nation comes to another and does something that's against the law in that nation and sent to jail for it. What a horrendous, vile act.

Re:Offtopic rant

[Glytch]

You didn't read the article. Offshore subsidiaries of the company he worked for made the sales, not the US company directly. He was a scapegoat. He didn't violate one goddamn law, but the court was so eager to prove it's collective patriotism that the truth was conveniently ignored. His conviction is a symptom of the injustice of the embargo.

But I guess all those little kids in Miami will be safe now from the big bad Cuban Army attacking them with water purifiers.

Re:Offtopic rant

[dvdeug]

You didn't read the article.

Actually, I did.

Offshore subsidiaries of the company he worked for made the sales, not the US company directly.

The remaining 12 counts [of 20] involve shipments from Bro-Tech offices in Canada, Mexico, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom

So most of the counts were related to an American corporation directly. American corporations, American citizens and those living in America are subject to American law. Same as any other nation. Americans who put Nazi webpages have been arrested the instant they set foot in Germany. If you don't want to be subject to those laws, don't enter the country.

His conviction is a symptom of the injustice of the embargo.

Non-violent means of persuation are to be discouraged, then? If you really care, convince Canada to embargo the US until we release the embargo on Cuba.

Re:Spineless

[edremy]

Cryptonomicon notwithstanding, does anyone have some links to these myriad of investor lawsuits that everyone in Silicon Valley is so terrified of?

Here you go Lerach and his copycats file hundreds of them a year.

Amusing note for /. Lerach wants to copyright his lawsuit filings, since he claims people are taking them, replacing the names and refiling them. Heh.

Re:Hey! I learned something from this!

[vidarh]

What matters isn't where xenu.net is, but where Google is, and Google is most certainly within the reach of US law.

Re:No freedom to link?

[rabidcow]

Has anyone ever told you you're a particularly poor reverend?

I Don't Know Who To Attribute It To...

[krmt]

"The difference between a cult and a religion is about a hundred years."

It's more than that....

[NFW]

That text is not just a 'censored notice,' it's also a means of defeating the Scientology's legal attack. In their complaint, Scientology provides the list of URLs they want censored. By linking to the complaint, Google provides end user with a list of the removed links. It's such an elegant way to defeat the legal attack - use the complaint itself to provide what the complaint seeks to take away - I couldn't help but laugh out loud.

But yeah, putting that notice ("you can find the censored links here...") at the top of the page would be the icing on the cake.

Hubbard as Prometheus?

[krmt]

I hadn't thought about this before, but this draws from a long line of precedent. I'm taking a class in late Romantic Literature right now, and we're studying Pierce Shelley. We just read his epic "Prometheus Unbound", which actually shares some of the same tenents. The idea that we are masters of our own destiny, and that we have created our own God in order to enslave ourselves was formulated here as a refutation of Christianity. While Shelley's work would also defy Scientology, which places the external force of an cosmic warlord from "outside" as enslaving us, the idea of breaking free from enslavement is still present.

So while Hubbard's load of crap may seem funny and stupid, it does bear some baggage from the best thinkers of the Enlightenment. I think this is some small part of what makes it attractive to many people now, despite its obvious stupidity.

That said, Shelley and all his ilk would have hated Scientology because it degrades its members in to the lowest form of slavery imaginable, which is why we need great sites like xenu.net (which I've been telling everyone I can about) in order to really get the word out.

a prediction

[NFW]

I wonder if Scientology's next complaint will include a footnote that says something like, "this complaint is copyright (c) 2002 Scientology Inc. Redistribution of this document, posting it on the web, or linking to it if it should appear on the web, is expressly prohibited...."

But I spoze in that case Google could just pretend the complaint didn't exist, wait for the scientologists to file a complaint with the court (read: in public) and then link to that document as they comply with the request to remove the links.

It will be interesting to see how this develops.

Re:a prediction

[markmoss]

I wonder if Scientology's next complaint will include a footnote that says something like, "this complaint is copyright (c) 2002 Scientology Inc. Redistribution of this document, posting it on the web, or linking to it if it should appear on the web, is expressly prohibited...."

That's funny, but I would think (IANAL) that when a complaint is submitted to the court it becomes a public record and so can't be copyrighted. At least, if you don't draw a judge that's a Scientologist...

Re:Spineless

[Rick the Red]

There's still the issue of Google's cache. Because they cache all pages, including those that copyright holders claim violate the DMCA, the pro-DMCA folks would argue that Google is an accessory after the fact.

You answered your own question

[Rick the Red]

Q: How long will the DMCA be used to trample freedom of speech, expression, and fair use?

A: Until Congress gets it into their thick skulls that this is BAD LEGISLATION, and repeals it.

Any press is good press.

[chicks.net]

The best part of the whole article was the closing line:

Scientology's complaint set off a flurry of linking to the critics' site, pushing it up two spots to No. 2 in the search results for "Scientology" - just below the church's official site.

Bru-hahahaha!

If we keep going we can push the critic's sites to #1-#10 and land the official scientology site on page 2 of the listings. :-)

Why don't we all just link to...

[GeneralEmergency]

...www.clambake.org and push the church DOWN in the listings?

Re:No freedom to link?

[The Good Reverend]

Kinda depends on your definition of "Reverend".

Re:I'm not so sure

[shaldannon]

Well...the Norwegian authorities can claim what they please, but I don't think the big cahunas in Hollywood took special note of Norwegian laws to have him hauled in...do you?

Re:Hey! I learned something from this!

[Ed_Moyse]

I don't really understand your point: I think it's extremely clear what Google did. They were put in a difficult situation by an ill-thought-out law and responded in a way that was both elegant and appropriate: they removed any possibility of legal action towards them, and yet made it possible for people to still find the information ... which is after all the whole point of google. I'm impressed.

Scott Peck's 10 Criteria

[istartedi]

M. Scott Peck, MD in his book, Further Along the Road Less Traveled came up with these 10 criteria for a cult:

1. Idolatry of a single charismatic leader
2. A revered inner circle
3. Secrecy of management
4. Financial evasiveness
5. Dependancy (followers become dependant)
6. Conformity
7. Special language
8. Dogmatic doctrine
9. Heresy (Peck's definition of this is a little vague; something about the relationship between God and man not being proper)
10 God in captivity (Peck defines this as claiming to know everything about God)

I would add an 11th criterion: You have to give an excessive ammount (perhaps all) of your personal wealth to the organization. Maybe Peck would fit that under conformity or dependance.

Peck notes that prior to Vatican II, the Catholic Church met most of these criteria, and still meets many of them. I suppose that one of the dangers of trying to find an objective measure of something is that you risk placing things you hold to be of value in a less positive light. Exercise for Slashdot readers: Apply these criteria to the Free Software Foundation, and/or the Free Software movement in general.

Re:Scott Peck's 10 Criteria

[dvdeug]

I suppose that one of the dangers of trying to find an objective measure of something is that you risk placing things you hold to be of value in a less positive light.

I seriously doubt the author of this list found that a problem. It seems fairly clear that he considered Protestantism good, Catholism bad, and wrote his list to describe those which he considered bad. Trying to use his list to determine anything isn't of interest to me; all it is an encoding of his biases.

Re:Scott Peck's 10 Criteria

[Kaiwen]

Peck notes that ... the Catholic Church met most of these criteria

So does Nazi Germany, for that matter, or Iraq. Of course, many if not most of Peck's ten criteria are open for debate, at least in their application. For example, vis a vis the Catholic Church:

1. Idolatry of a single leader - did he have in mind here the Pope or Christ?

2. A revered inner circle - presumably, say, Cardinals, or the Vatican? Or does he mean local parish councils?

3. Secrecy of management - this could apply to any privately-held business - minutes of board meetings aren't released, business practices are locked away as "trade secrets", and any given management decision is not generally made available to the public. By comparison, one might argue the Catholic Church's management procedures and structures are quite open.

4. Financial evasiveness - Every parish I've ever belonged to releases full parish financials at least once a year, fully audited by independent reviewers. No comparison here to, say, the CoS.

5. Dependency - all of us experience a broad range of dependencies in our lives. It's part of our natures. At what point does one cross that invisible line between normal and abnormal dependency? Certainly religious people are dependent on religion for a part of their emotional well-being. How does one decide when that becomes abnormal and unhealthy?

6. Conformity - ANY association to which one belongs exhibits a certain amount of conformity - right down to your bowling league uniforms. Anyone who has ever been a teenager can tell you about pressures to conform. Again, where's the line?

7. Special language - well, ANY religion has its own set of jargon. So does the local chess club. I assume here Peck has in mind special SECRET language which is open only to the initiated?

8. Dogmatic doctrine - EVERY major - and most minor - religion is guilty on this point.

9. Heresy - Heresy is not defined in a vacuum. Does Peck here mean the cult's teachings are heretical? As compared against what? "Established religions"? On that criterion the Catholic Church is by definition not the standard, not the heresy. Or does he mean the cult defines what it heretical? In that case, this is just the flip side of dogmatic doctrine.

10. God in captivity - Does Peck mean by this there is nothing about God that the cult doesn't know, that all that is knowable about God is known by the cult (leaving room for the transcendence of God), or merely that ONLY the cult has reliable knowledge about God? These are widely differing claims. There are some interesting cultic elements that don't seem to make Peck's list, as well. Such as tight control over the members' lives -- from social relationships to the member's information sources, to assignment of spousal relationships, to the controlling of members' finances. A siege mentality -- a small band of believers surrounded by a hostile world -- which leads either to an overly-fanatical emphasis on proselytism, or a withdrawal from the world. A pervasive emphasis on apocalyptic imagery and a belief in the imminent arrival of the "end times". A special gnosis -- or secret knowledge -- available only to the "initiated" (I suspect Peck was trying to get at something like this in points 8 and 10). And so on.

While an point of departure for discussion purposes, Peck's criterion are not the final word on the matter.

Scientology and copyright

[Phrogger]

Irrespective of the validity or not of their claims (clams? :-) Scientology claims to be a legitimate religion. And I'm wondering what might be (or should be) the implications of that. As far as I'm aware, churchs in the US, Canada and Britain enjoy a tax exempt status. Scientology also claims copyright over their beliefs and writings and uses copyright as a weapon to silence their critics and apostates.

What I'm wondering is if official religous writings should even be entitled to copyright protection. Society is providing a benefit to the churches in making them tax-exempt. Thus I think that their beliefs and official exegesis of those beliefs should automatically be in the public domain, open to scrutiny, discussion, publication and criticism.

Spirituality seems to be a fundamental need for many, if not most, people and liberal democratic societies have set up strong constitutional protections and freedoms for the expressions of spirituality. But those protections and freedoms must go in both directions by organised religions or we wind up with abuses such as Scientology.

Re:no need to register, just generate a random log

[Electrum]

Very nice! The gender box isn't randomized. They're going to be getting a lot of female registrations :)

Re:Spineless

[Misch]

That's because they're not allowing ads from the anti-$cientology crowd.

See post on alt.religion.scientology

"At this time, we are not running ads for sites that promote hate against another group or business."

Re:No freedom to link?

[Misch]

I think if they want to get people's cooperation, then they should refute Operation Clambake's information in an orderly and intelligent manner. attempting to completely strike out an opposing veiwpoint in this manner to me just smacks of censorship and fascism. Two things i'm sure most people are against.

"The purpose of a lawsuit is to harrass and discourage rather than to win"

"Attack! Attack! Attack! Never defend!"

Guess who said those things? L. Ron Hubbard, founder of $cientology.

Re:Spineless

[sphealey]

270 lawsuits successfully filed (which is not to say "won") in a year, out of 5 million corporations registered to do business in the U.S. of A? And the standard for filing raised to "substantial evidence of fraud"? I don't think that is an indication of companies being sued at the drop of a hat.

Now, I grant you the Enron situation may have changed things a bit...

sPh

linking to the site in question

[pressman]

a simple act to help fight those criminal nut jobs!

D'oh! Another good site.

[pressman]

Fact Net Dot Org

Don't mod me down for redundant!!!

[spike hay]

Here is the article. I have copied it for your reading pleasure in gross violation of the DMCA.

Google, the company behind the popular Web search engine, has been playing a complicated game recently that involves the Church of Scientology and a controversial copyright law.

Legal experts say the episode highlights problems with the law that can make companies or individuals liable for linking to sites they do not control. And it has turned Google, whose business is built around a database of two billion Web pages, into a quiet campaigner for the freedom to link.

The church sent a complaint to Google last month, saying that its search results for "Scientology" included links to copyrighted church material that appears on a Web site critical of the church. Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, which was intended to make it easier for copyright holders to fight piracy, the complaint meant that Google was required to remove those links quickly or risk being sued for contributing to copyright infringement.

The site in question, Operation Clambake (www.xenu.net), is based in Norway, beyond the reach of the United States copyright act. The site portrays the church as a greedy cult that exploits its members and harasses critics. Andreas Heldal-Lund, the site's owner, says the posting of church materials, including some internal documents and pictures of church leaders, is allowable under the "fair use" provisions of internationally recognized copyright law.

When Google responded to the church's complaint by removing the links to the Scientology material, techies and free-speech advocates accused Google of censoring its search results. Google also briefly removed the link to Operation Clambake's home page but soon restored it, saying the removal had been a mistake.

At that point, according to Matthew Cutts, a software engineer at Google, it started developing a better way to handle such complaints. "We respond very quickly to challenges, and not just technical challenges but also these sort of interesting, delicate situations, as well," Mr. Cutts said.

Under Google's new policy, when it receives a complaint that causes it to remove links from its index, it will give a copy of the complaint to the Chilling Effects Clearinghouse (chillingeffects.org). Chilling Effects is a project of a civil liberties advocacy group called the Electronic Frontier Foundation and several law schools. It it offers information about Internet rights issues.

In the new procedure, Google informs its users when a link has been removed from a set of search results and directs them to the Chilling Effects site. For example, a search for the word "helatrobus," which appears in some Scientology texts, brings up a page of results with this notice at the bottom: "In response to a complaint we received under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed one result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the D.M.C.A. complaint for these removed results."

The notice includes a link to Scientology's complaint on chillingeffects.org, which lists the Web addresses of the material to which Google no longer links. The result is that a complaint could end up drawing more attention to the very pages it is trying to block.

Mr. Cutts said Google started linking to chillingeffects.org early this month but made no announcement, so it took a while for word to go around online. Meanwhile, Scientology sent Google two more complaints, citing pages within copies of the Operation Clambake site on other servers. All three complaints are now on the Chilling Effects site.

Don Marti, the technical editor of Linux Journal, first wrote about Google's move on the magazine's site. He said he had been so upset about the company's initial response to the Scientologists that he organized a small group of protesters who visited Google's headquarters in Mountain View, Calif., where he also lives. Mr. Marti says he now applauds Google's efforts to make the process more transparent. If a letter of complaint simply makes a site more popular, "only a fool would send one," he said.

Helena Kobrin, a lawyer representing Scientology at the law firm of Moxon & Kobrin in Los Angeles, said that Google's use of the letters of complaint would not discourage the church from pursuing further complaints if necessary and that there was nothing in the letters that needed to be hidden. "I think they show very graphically to people that the only thing we're trying to do is protect copyrights," she said.

As part of its new process for handling complaints, Mr. Cutts said, Google added more information on its site explaining how site owners could have their links restored by filing a countercomplaint with Google. (The required forms can be downloaded from chillingeffects.org.) If site owners take this step, he said, they accept responsibility for the contents of their pages.

Mr. Heldal-Lund, a Norwegian citizen, said he would not file a countercomplaint because it would put him under the jurisdiction of United States law. He said that he regretted making so much trouble for Google but was glad that the incident had highlighted the church's pursuit of its critics.

The church, which has beliefs based on the idea that people need to release themselves from trauma suffered in past lives, has taken a keen interest in the Internet since 1994, when someone posted secret church teachings on an online discussion group. Critics say the church guards its teachings closely because it wants its followers to pay for access to higher levels of instruction. The church says that these payments are donations and that it is simply seeking to protect its rights online.

With its Chilling Effects partnership, Google is subtly making the point that the right to link is important to its business and to the health of the Web, said David G. Post, a law professor at Temple University who specializes in Internet issues.

"This is an example where copyright law is being used in conflict with free connectivity and free expression on the Net," he said. Dr. Post said Google's situation highlighted the need for more awareness of copyright issues, including pending legislation that is more restrictive than the 1998 law. The measure is backed by entertainment giants like Walt Disney, but technology companies like Intel have come out against it, saying it would hurt consumers and slow innovation.

Mr. Cutts said that the links to the complaints were not a political statement, just a way to "make sure our users get all of the information that they need." He said that Google had no official position on the copyright act and that so far it had not been involved in political activity or lobbying. But he said it "might take an interest in more of those issues."

The copyright controversy has had an interesting side effect for Operation Clambake. The Google software judges the importance of a page in part by looking at how many other pages link to it. Scientology's complaint set off a flurry of linking to the critics' site, pushing it up two spots to No. 2 in the search results for "Scientology" -- just below the church's official site.

Re:I'm not so sure

[GauteL]

He is prosecuted by the norwegian government. THEY are the ones that should take special note of Norwegian laws.

Interesting Scientology Secrets

[Sloppy]

Your link is fundamentally boring, because nobody goes out looking for information about xenu.net. What people probably want to learn about is Scientology.

Re:Spineless

[Misch]

California has one, and it's called SLAPP. Here's a good resource on SLAPP

Re:Scientology

[Mandelbrute]

So it's possible the MD's just didn't like the competition...

Scientologists are rabidly opposed to Psychologists, Psychiatrists, and anyone that treats cancer - according to them, having cancer makes you evil, but treatable by paying $ for meditation training.

reconstituted Dianetics as a "religion"

I suspect that was done for tax reasons.

Apparently Hubbard was also an associate of another big conman - Alistair Crowley, hence the badly scripted mystical stuff.

Re:Spineless

[Guppy06]

"Fair Use is not limited, however, possibly a limit of the amount of material may need to be implemented. IOW, don't paste all 144 pages up to make your point, take selected phrases .. this may keep the copyright lawyers at bay."

If this doesn't scream "overbroad" I don't know what does. So 144 pages is too much. What about 143? 142? 141?

Let's skip a bit. 3? 2? 1? Arguments could be made for copying one or two pages of a work, but that all depends on the work.

So maybe we should go by percentage instead. 10%? 9%? 8%? What if the work you're copying is raw data (say thermodynamic steam tables) and makes up the bulk of the work? Wouldn't that seem to require a larger percentage of "fair use" than Dianetics?

This is something that can ONLY be determined on a case-by-case basis. This is why we have courts. If we were to make a law or set a legal precedent that applied to all works instead of to the works in question then you'd see legal abuses of copyright law far worse than what you're seeing now. I mean, heck, it'd take a decade to figure out how you measure a work (Words? Sentences? Paragraphs? Characters? Pages? Ideas? Concepts? Dots-per-inch?), and probably another decade before it becomes vaguely enforcable.

Like it or not, fair use is up there with pornography; it's something about which the judges are forced to say "I can't put my finger on it but I'll know it when I see it."

Repeat the answer - it isn't real

[Mandelbrute]

But your criteria also fits other religious organizations

No - it is very recent, half the mysticism comes from A.E. Van Voght short stories and other documented sources. There appears to have been nothing special about Ron Hubberd, no miracles or even documented evidence that he gave a penny to a begger, so he differs from every prophet or saint ever written about. We can ask people alive today about how the con turned from fake psychology to fake religeon.

On that basis I think I can safely say that there is less reality to it than the average X-Files episode. I like my science fiction in print or on the screen, not from people hassling me on street corners.

I will continue to be sceptical of anything that calls itself a religeon that spontaneously appears and seems to only benefit it's leaders. I was sceptical of the "Magnificat Meal" group that split off from the Catholic church near where I live, and it turned out to be a scam benifiting only it's leaders (it imploded last year). On a related note - the Japanese movie "A Taxing Woman Returns" is a very entertaining look at a cult set up to launder money

Not according to Merriam-Webster

[MongooseCN]

Look up mongeese on http://www.m-w.com/

Re:Not according to Merriam-Webster

[jockm]

Yes an you will see that mongooses is listed first, thus it is the preffered plural.