Slashdot Mirror
Scientology Injunction Denied Against "Anonymous"
Anonymous writes "A circuit court judge has denied the Church of Scientology's second request for an injunction against protests by the internet group "Anonymous." The Church sought to prevent Anonymous from protesting on the birthday of the Church's leader, the late Ron L. Hubbard. The petition filed by the Church listed twenty-six individuals allegedly affiliated with Anonymous, but "accidentally" included others who merely work near the location of the first protests held in February and did not participate in them, such as a Starbucks employee. Furthermore, the Church failed to show that any of those listed actually committed any wrongdoing."
Yeah, all those ex-scientologists coming out of the woodwork telling their tales of abuse because they felt empowered by the actions of Anonymous sure don't mean a thing. The mounds of leaked documents and emails exposing the illegal conduct of the "church" aren't worthy of comment. Or exscientologykids.org popping up to tell the tales of the children of cult executives who grew up inside the organization is kind of a pointless story. And the massive amount of public awareness of all of those things, all as a direct result of Anonymous showing support to those trapped inside a horrific cult is just a bunch of hooey. Oh, yeah, and those who have gotten out of the cult as a direct result? Pshaw.
Yup, you're right, might as well not even try.
Here is what Wikipedia said:
This article or section has multiple issues. Please help improve the article or discuss these issues on the talk page.
It needs sources or references that appear in third-party publications. Tagged since February 2008.
It may require general cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Tagged since February 2008.
It may contain improper references to self-published sources. Tagged since February 2008.
I would have a hunch, that the "Church" itself is causing the problems on the page. First The war starts. They impose there beliefs and pull web pages from Google. I have seen a few things that they have done to try and put "Anonymous" in a bad light. I wish I could find the link, and maybe someone out there knows it. It is of a group of protesters getting arrested. The "Church" said it was "Anonymous". This was quickly debunked they the comments around the article, and found that the pictures where taken from a real protest elsewhere, and not an "Anonymous" protest. All and all i think the "Church" is a bunch of bull and don't play fair with others.
I'm now prepared to get buried by the "Church" for my negative comments against them.
Memory is deceptive because it is colored by today's events. - Albert Einstein
Second: The technical, traditional meaning of "cult" strictly refers to the priests and priestesses of a god or goddess in a pantheon. Aphrodite had a cult, Isis had a cult, and, at one point, your friend and mine, Jesus had a cult (he had about three hundred followers on a commune at one point, if I recall.) By contrast, a religion may include more than one god and encompasses those who simply believe as well. The media term "cult" generally refers to what academics call a "dangerous NRM" (new religious movement). "Dangerous NRM" supports your statement that it is a real religion and not something fundamentally different, but it is important to note the "dangerous" part. Wicca is a non-dangerous NRM. Heaven's Gate is a dangerous NRM. The difference is best related through a number of techniques that dangerous NRMs frequently use:
Another strong indicator of an NRM is the presence of a single, charismatic leader figure, like David Koresh or Jim Jones. (Both of whom eventually killed most of their followers, but were extremely well-respected by them. Jim Jones was even respected by main-stream Christian religion during his life time.) For this reason, and possible other reasons, Christianity actually satisfies both the traditional and modern definitions of "cult" (although whether that is a dangerous or non-dangerous NRM is another topic entirely.)
Books are great like that.
In the US at least, theres good reason as well to believe that anti-protest-mask laws are probably unconstitutional. Anything that limits anonymous speech probably is a violation of the first amendment, since losing anonymity can have a 'chilling' effect.
Not sure if its tested in court.
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
No. You missed the point of designed. Others have eveolved toward that direction by the fact that inherently greedy people gravitate toward structures and manipulate them, but SciFientology was designed as a scam.
I've been on the net since gopher was cool and I'll tell you that the Scientology virus is the *worst* infection it's ever gotten. The hell with RIAA or the MPAA, they've done nothing compared to the trampling of net ideals the Scientology jerks have done.
They started by taking down anon.penet.fi, and they've been getting worse every year. The hell with all their supposed abuses, and cult like activity. It's messing with the geek stuff that pisses me off.
Get off my f*ckn net! On my f*ckn net we don't tolerate: censorship, copyright abuse, trademark abuse, bogus DMCA notices, intimidating lawyer letters, or stripping our anonaminity for no good reason.
People have been scared to fight back for nearly 20 years. No more!
* Posting anon not because it's cool, but because these jerks still scare me enough not to use my nick.
Scientology is a lightweight compared to Synanon in its heyday in the early 70's. It went from a respectable drug program to a wacky cult. Everyone was compelled to shave their head and they were also compelled to change sex partners every night and then the next day report on what it was like.
These are the people who put rattlesnakes in the LA DA's mailbox. I think the Synanon founder was sent to prison for attempted murder on that one.
They also at one time had over 100 attorneys working for them and would sue anyone just like Scientology. They even won a lawsuit for defamation or libel against Hurst Publishing. It had never been achieved before. They had a tactic where in lawsuits they would depose people for hours asking them stupid questions like "what has the consistancy of your stool been lately?"
Just wait. Scientology will eventually get nutty enough to do something similar to the rattlesnake bit and then they are done for.
check out this firehose story, and click the + top left to give it your support so the /. editors write it up!
;o)
http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=573326 "Church of Scientology violates Federal Law"
You'd never guess who might be voting THAT one down
There is nothing magical about religion that makes it exempt from attack and ridicule.
It is NOT good that you can't attack something because it is a "religion" and would ONLY for that reason deserve respect. People's deeply held beliefs are not OK just because they are deeply held beliefs, they can just as well be ridiculous, and wrong. The fact that you ridicule them isn't even necessarily respectless, not challenging people's delusions, and leaving them with these ridiculous beliefs can be much more respectless.
I agree with your post. I assume you live in the US. Since the majority of the Slashdot seems to be there. I found it interesting because it touched an issue that is hot right now in The Netherlands. Where there is a law that makes an offense to mock religious belief. People are right now, trying to strike it down, but the "Christian parties" are against.
Since the prime minister of the country belongs to one of these Christian parties, it is still uncertain whether this will work out.
I found it quite funny to discover that, since it makes ridiculously hypocritical all the talk about having Mohammed in comic cartoons that took place in Europe. I mean, everybody was "pro" support for freedom of speech, but now two major political dutch parties (including the prime minister) seem to see this law as an entirely different story.
Funny, eh?
It might be interesting if the Anti-Defamation League were to find itself at odds with the CoS. If nothing else it would be good entertainment to watch two groups with a history of using similar tactics fighting with each other :)
You obviously have no idea how far the CoS goes or you wouldn't even make that comparison. To someone I know personally they have hired folks to go around their neighborhood informing people that the guy was a convicted sex offender and they were informing them according to Megan's Law (not true). They called the news and told them he was under investigation by the FBI for terrorism (which they reported on the air but wasn't true). They looked at the return address of all the mail and sent anyone who sent personal correspondence a threatening letter. They called his ISP and tried to get everything he'd put up removed. They contact his employer and told them they'd be sued unless he was terminated. What was his crime? He put a copy of some text up on his website that was purportedly one of the higher-level training manuals for Scientology discussing Xenu et al.
I have no problems if people want to believe in Xenu, or even that submitting to weekly lie detector tests and giving the CoS lots of incriminating evidence is the way to salvation. But when you start attacking your detractors and ruining their lives, you cross the line into a violation of the principles of free speech and free association, and thus it's very anti-American.
>I'll bet neither have the fundie Christians or Islamists done anything directly to harm you and yours. "Nuts" and murder, extortion, false accusations, kidnapping and other activities are worlds apart.
Well the IRA tried to blow up my mother at the Ideal Home Exhibition in Birmingham. She got away unscathed but she saw someone's foot blown off. That's the catholics for you.
Evil people are out to get you.
You'd better substantiate how they "kill" people.
Limina.Log
Sure, people do good and evil things immaterial of religion - but systematic harm to society by converting perfectly, normal good people into doing things that are harmful to society? No, that's something only religion can do.