Slashdot Mirror
UK Teen Cited For Calling Scientology a "Cult"
An anonymous reader writes "A 15-year-old in the UK is facing prosecution for using the word 'cult' to describe the Church of Scientology at an anti-Scientology demonstration in London earlier this month. According to the City of London police at the scene, the teen was violating the Public Order Act, which 'prohibits signs which have representations or words which are threatening, abusive or insulting.' There's a video of the teen receiving the summons from the City of London police at the demonstration (starting about 1 minute in), and now he's asking for advice on how to handle the court case."
naming an act the "Public Order Act."
The next thing London will do is put up posters saying that you are secure beneath the watchful eyes.
Perhaps they thought Orwell was writing an instruction manual?
Once again, what would seem a basic 'right' is being brutally oppressed by an organization under the cloak of 'religion'. I wonder just how much longer this will continue? Until we are all 'clears' or cleared out of our money from the lawsuits?
Fighting over religion is like seeing whose imaginary friend is best.
Whats the difference between religions and cults? As far as I can tell they really are the same thing.
The boy will surely be let off, but not before the whole world hears--and SEES--the story. All that will do is draw attention to the protest.
I predict: Score 1 for the good guys.
The only way this could be worse for Scientology is if the boy turns up dead anytime soon.
expandfairuse.org
what happens if a real cult actually comes along (if it's not already)? If Hitler was cloned and tried to take over again, you'd go to jail for pointing it out and shouting "Warning, Hitler 2!"
Table-ized A.I.
How long before Slashdot is banned in UK? I may call you a mad pizza-eating hermit nerd with no girlfriend. That's at least as offensive as "cult".
Table-ized A.I.
I think he was quite well-spoken, really.
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
"The City of London police came under fire two years ago when it emerged that more than 20 officers, ranging from constable to chief superintendent, had accepted gifts worth thousands of pounds from the Church of Scientology."
That's comforting. I wonder how many American cops, politicians, etc. the cult has on its payroll? Might as well disband the FBI and enlist Scientology as our intelligence service -- they seem to be much more effective at getting away with domestic espionage and dirty tricks.
...to say David Miscavige raped me?
Would it be even more dangerous to say that he needed a small stepladder to do it?
..of Human Rights.. I'm pretty sure the law is in violation of Articles 10 and/or 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights..
This court actually works and has authority to rule in these cases. Might have to exhaust the legal avenues in the UK first though.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
"I meant 'colt' your honor. Scientologists are as cute as pony."
Table-ized A.I.
Gotta love it! It is disheartening that it seems every European country, and Canada too, seems to have some kind of idiotic anti-speech law(s).
The scientology thing just serves to unmask this rather gigantic lapse in liberty. I think a better question than whether the kid is guilty or not is why you Brits have such laws. Further why aren't you outraged that such laws exist and why you aren't actively trying to overturn them? This isn't a flame but a serious question, since when the slightest bit of censorship rears its head in America we tend to jump all over it - as evidenced by the Youtube article still on the frontpage.
Not legal advice, not a lawyer, but an audit.
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7133867.stm
Ironically, BBC (UK) mentions "cult-type" when mentioning some of scientology's activities.
either way, Germany doesn't recognize CoS as a religion....rather a cult.
Scientology is a cult created by a second-rate sci-fi author on a bet. El-Ron can suck my sweaty ballsack.
The kid should move to Germany, they recognize $cientology as the dangerous cult it is.
I'm speechless. Just contrast the 'cult'-sign to those signs, also held on a demonstration in London:
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2006/08/muslim220806_600x400.jpg
I wonder how they will explain the inaction on behalf of police and justice in the latter case.
If we called a rock some other name would that rock be any different?
Can someone explain to me how this works. Someone can be summoned because they express a non-violent opinion about a group, yet religious groups who advocate the violent over throw of the government and the establishment of a theocracy falls under protected speech. From this side of the pond, Britain clearly needs to get it's priorities straight before the movie "Brazil" because a reality.
He may have been better off advocating the death of all Scientologists because the FSM needs their blood to build the greatest pirate ship of all time.
Burn Hollywood Burn
Why hasn't someone crossed Marijuana with Kudzu yet?
... right now!
Come together
"All governments are liars and murderers" - Bill Hicks
Just spread the word that Scientologists believe Allah is a pig-fucker.
What is insulting about it? I may not call some self proclaimed church a cult? Where is the insult?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Obviously they are headed entirely too much in the wrong direction. I wish I could say you should move to the U.S., but I am not sure we are not headed down that path as well...at least here you can call Christians anything you want with impunity. We just cant say bad about Muslims or the "Church of Global Warming" or Environmentalism. Not sure about the Scientologists, they may not be a protected class yet.
Exhibit A:
...?
Why the heck is this tagged censorship?
Exhibit B:
There's a law against insulting signs.
This is why we need open source governance.
If you help get the Metagovernment established, then it will be up to the people to decide how the people are governed. Weird concept, I know.
Indymedia has a good article about this. The protester, ironically, was objecting to "Fair Play", which is essentially harassment of any and all perceived foes. The citation identifies him and now he faces the same retaliation he objected to.
I am a name troll of Westlake. Visit my homepage to learn why.
I'm not a resident of the UK. However this info has been shared
YT video/a> of an officer explaining the new rule
Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 (c. 1)
I'm not in agreement, but this is the law being sited and enforced.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
- a system of religious worship directed towards a particular figure or object.
- a small religious group regarded as strange or as imposing excessive control over members.
- something popular or fashionable among a particular section of society.
Wave that dictionary page in front of the judge and "I Rest My Case". All of those three descriptives apply specifically and directly to Scientology.Now if the Judge/prosecution want to base an arrest on "when you say that scientology is a cult, you mean it as an insult" it is near-impossible to prove intent in a court of law. (at least, until they work our how to read my mind from a distance in a scientifically verifiable manner)
Anyhow, any defence lawyer would simply declare this "law" irrelevant and illegal - how can it possibly be legal to declare that writing a statement of fact on a sign and waving it around in public is illegal.
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
Actually, colts are an integral part of their belief system.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
I'd also say that cults tend to have more bizarre / possibly insane aspects to them. Am I the only one who remembers Tom Cruise saying he was going to eat the placenta after Suri was born?
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
Well, 4chan and company have often been the target of scrutiny and I applaud the use of the large Internet community for a good cause like this. However, I think the real public face of Anon will be determined by cases like this where push comes to shove (especially how well the group supports an unmasked and targeted member). This can be settled quietly, or a real ruckus can try and be stirred up. I would hope a calm and professionally conducted attempt was made to publicize the case and really demonstrate the strongarm tactics of the CoS. I don't know how British Law works, but perhaps a losing verdict can eventually turn into an appeal about the Church's status as a tax-free religion.
Either way, I hope this law gets overturned as a result of the case, as a favorable verdict to the CoS would help legitimize Scientology.
Now here's a plan. Scientologist and religious fundies trying to destroy each other...
Don't you love win-win situations?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
There isn't a law against insulting signs as such - the public order act is one of those vague laws allowing an officer to ticket you for something likely to cause a disturbance ... it seems to me that the sign shouldn't be enough and probably won't be when this gets brought before a judge.
:-)
If you think it's a funny law, try explaining the concept of a jaywalking ticket to a Brit
...and its a perfectly awful piece of law. As you can always find somebody who will find arbitrary sign insulting.
There are laws protecting monarchs and presidents from being insulted. Predicatbly these laws are mostly used to persecute the oppositon or silence criticism in media. When the potentate makes ass of himself you get in trouble writing about it.
There are laws protecting people from hate speach - and these laws got used against a French author who dared to proclaim in public interview, when asked about Bible and Koran, that Koran is a lousy piece of literature and revulsive for him to read (he got aquitted in court only because Muhahamad is a historic person and he was criticising the literary style not the religion, etc.)
I doubt that we will ever figure out - and I suspect that even if we did figure out we couldn't do much about it
Every church is self proclaimed.
Bert
I can hear the crescendo building...
http://www.writetothem.com/
Contact your friendly neighborhood MP. From my limited understanding the hate speech laws are not intended to prevent people from being critical of a religion, not that Scientology is classified as a religion in the UK, or at least it's not a charitable organization.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
I think I have to stop calling Linux users a cult before I get prosecuted.
If I turn to my Wikipedian Textbook of ye Olde knowledge, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult
It clearly says "Cult typically refers to a cohesive social group devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture considers outside the mainstream, with a notably positive or negative popular perception. In common or populist usage, "cult" has a positive connotation for groups of art, music, writing, fiction, and fashion devotees,[1] but a negative connotation for new religious, extreme political, questionable therapeutic, and pyramidal business groups.[2] For this reason, most, if not all, non-fan groups that are called cults reject this label."
And, yes - I don't agree with Scientology *AT ALL*, and by the definition above and in my dictionary, I'm leaning towards the notion that above mentioned kid should have been given a medal, or at least a pat on the back for pointing out the obvious.
Also, it's called "free speech", innit.
Because a law against "insulting" signs IS censorship, just as a law against "insulting" books or "insulting" speech would be.
Yes. Of course it would. It saddens me that you have to even ask this.
You have the right to stand on the corner with a sign saying "X is Y!" for any values of X and Y. Any values at all. (Dictatorial governments may, of course, not recognize that right; it exists nonetheless.)
"Scientology is a cult". "The Conservative Party is a cult." "The City of London police are a bunch of mindless jerks." "The Flying Spaghetti Monster is better than Jesus." "Tom Swiss is a dweeb."
Anyone who attempts to forcibly stop you from saying any of these things is engaging in censorship.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
You haven't been outside recently, have you? The saying about better having a fast horse when you plan to speak the truth has never been more current than today.
At least if the truth is somehow uncomfortable.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
You're thinking of defamation, where being provably factual (or possibly other things in certain cases) is a defence.
As an American, I'm tempted to go to the U.K. and recieve the same type of summons, too. Then, after I have enough of them to wallpaper my room, I'd return to the United States and dare those Stalinist Brits to come and get me. I guarentee there would be *pleny* of outrage to go around, if not lead.
Scientologists claim that Scientology is just as much a religion as any other religion. I say he difference between the two is you don't have to pay thousands of dollars for spiritual enlightenment with the other religions. Religions shouldn't be allowed to charge for religious or spiritual guidence/help/enlightenment. When you start charging money, it stops being a religion and becomes a business.
The Bible, Koran, and Talmud aren't copyrighted, even though they could be, and are freely available to anyone. Yet, the "freedom-loving" (read: freedom-fucking) Scientologists charge HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of dollars just to look at their "Holy Texts" (read: sci-fi alien circle-jerk), charge HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS to practice Scientology (without being subject to their abuse), and charge HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS to gain "spiritual enlightenment". Plus, as much as people love to bash mainstream religion, none of the mainstream religions practise mind-control, brainwashing, blackmail, slander, libel, or lawsuit abuse.
The charge that this poor kid got hit with could *easily* be challenged and won on Human Rights grounds.
Politicians prefer unarmed peasants. Scientologists prefer just the politicians.
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
Munite - alternate spelling and name for a Moonie, a follower of Reverend Sun Myung Moon (Mun). After all, this IS about cults...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Scientologists have copies of the movie Battlefield Earth.
My money's on the Thetan-freaks...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
The kid should consult a solicitor (Brit-speak for a lawyer) with a background in human rights issues. Liberty should be able to point him in the right direction.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Scientology is a Criminal nut-cult.
Although all cults are nuts, not all cults are criminal.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Scientologists believe Allah is a pig-fucker.
WTF? The Scientologits claim that Allah is one of them?
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
.. he call it the "fruity little club" instead?
---- "Excuse me. Where's the children's gun section?"
engage a pro bono and use your time in the witness box to introduce every single piece of evidence you or anyone else can think of to prove the case, subpoena the entire board of directors and introduce the public to their Naval Division. I should imagine the tabloids will devour this case.
M'lud I would like to submit exhibit a) as evidence for the defense - The McLibel Case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mclibel
I would hazard an ejimacated guess, however, that it will never go to trial. The again, perhaps the present government is in need of a circus to distract everyone from their present poor standings. What could be better than a cult of goats?
Posts, MyBio or Sig, may contain satire, sarcasm, bolded nouns be sardonic or even witty & be Church of SD
Do you have to pay for detailed knowledge about the religion, or is all the information that is available offered freely and without reservation to anyone who asks? If the former, it's a cult. If the latter, it's a religion.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Thats a popular belief but its absolutely false. The truth is, Linux is a completely secular movement with the very secular aim of producing an operating system and computer software with the very secular doctrine of restoring the fair use and individual property rights of computer owners to use computers as they see fit and not as others would see fit. These are secular goals. It is a social reform movement. It is seen as anti-social by some people.
Now, more and more, as time goes on, we are seeing some delusions surround Linux. They get wilder every day.
"Linux is a religion." No, there is nothing super natural about Linux. Its an Operating system Kernel.
"Linux is Anti-Capitalism." No, Linux has absolutely no restrictions on the development of non-free software so long as no "code lifting via linking" takes place where a non-free software author does something that closes off changes in the OS Code like the Kernel. Alot of people think that somehow non-free software developers are "entitled" to steal code from Linux.
I have heard "Linux is anti-American" well, no, again, Linux has nothing to do with resisting the US Government for the sake of resisting the US Government. Linux as a social phoenomena is resisting the DMCA in a way. but not directly. Again, this is an example of a secular social belief due to a concept of private property rights and right to privacy. These are not religious concepts.
I have only ever heard a "Linux is anti-Christian" comment from one person. A southern baptist Helpdesk administrator who was convinced that Linux really was a tool to take teenagers and indoctrinate them into a communist cult, but again. This guy was a southern baptist preacher. He actually told me that Windows was an OS Jesus would approve of.
Now that is crazy.
But still.
Culturally, Linux users have a secular mindset, people like RMS are the minority. I'd say MOST Linux users want a fully functioning Linux computer that:
A. Works.
B. Protects them from the bad practices of specific software companies.
But they may not entirely be opposed to closed source software, just that there should be some accountability and alternatives.
Now, here is the Linux user's fear: That Linux is banned, and MacOSX is banned, and Windows is the only OS sanctioned by the government to run on "A computer" and if you run anything else, you are breaking the law.
Those are secular fears, justified or paranoia aside. You will meet people with varying degrees of worry about this. But these are secular worries about real governments and real people passing real laws to create real consequences in the real world. These are not supernatural occurrences by any means. They are the result of the actions of real people.
I want to add to what cynicsreport said earlier in this topic. The word "cult" has commonly accepted definitions, and if Scientology fits that definition, then the sign was a statement of fact.
In particular, part of my liberal arts studies at Westmont college included multiple classes on cults (it is/was a religious school, so knowing about many flavors of cults was mandatory). We had a lengthy course on the difference between cults & religion. The main difference was secrecy, not legitimacy. A religion -- whether you believed it to be true or fake -- was an institution that had open processes. You could gain access to the teachings freely, and likely audit the finances, too. This means the institutions of Catholics, Christians, Jews, and a handful of others were "religions." Then there were other institutions like Scientology, Moonies, and lots of others that had closed processes. You couldn't audit the finances, you couldn't freely gain access to the teachings, etc. Those were cults.
It's entirely possible that you could feel a particular cult held the truth while all religions of the world were shams. The word "cult" was not intended to imply who was right. If calling something a cult was an insult, it wasn't because the cult was crappy or false; it was because of secrecy, potential for deception regarding finances, and so on. And not surprisingly, when you fall back on the dispassionate definition, it gets really hard to refute it even if you DO take it as an insult. If someone says you're holding documents in secrecy and you say "That's an insult" well... ARE you holding documents in secrecy? If so, you're feeling insulted by the truth. In such a case, I don't really feel that a state should compel people to lie.
My Greasemonkey scripts for Digg &
I know this is a lot to ask, but please get the facts right.
He hasn't received a summons.
He's not being taken to court.
He was warned, by a somewhat overzealous police officer, that he might have been in breach of the law, and he had his sign confiscated.
The Crown Prosecution Service, who are the people who decide whether a prosecution will take place, have been told that these events happened. And will decide whether to proceed. If anyone wants to bet $10 to say they will, I'll gladly take your money here and now.
That's it.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
kid needs a "law talking dude". I really can't see any way that those charges could stick. Certainly if you bring up the opinion of a JUDGE it would have to be thrown out. I am not a lawyer, but isn't that a "precident"? Now there may be some issue because there was a sign involved, and that seems to be the target of the bill. However, free speach IS protected, dispite what missinformed Yanks may think, and your speach didn't fall over into the area of UNprotected speach we call "hate speech". That is, directly advocating violent action or discrimination of a person or people based on race, gender, religion or sexuality.
I belive in this case it would have to be proven that "cult" IS a derogitory term and I think it would be extremely hard to do so. I watch "cult" movies, listen to "cult" music, and I don't think of the word as an insult, but rather a run of the mill discription. On the otherhand, take the word "asshole" or "cunt".. in what case would these NOT be termed derogitory? That is the cutting edge of difference. Scientology will try and claim that THEY find the term offensive, and hense why the law should be enforced, but ANY word in that context could be offensive, should I but declare it so. I can find the letter "E" offensive and insulting all I like, but that isn't going to mean that if someone uses it on a sign that I have the right to have them arrested or the sign taken down.
I wouldn't worry if I were this kid. DEFINATLY get a Barister/Solicitor (You need someone who is both.. not sure which is which, but one just a laywer and the other represents you in court.. think Kingdom, you need a "Mr. Kingdom" =)). You could probibly find someone to take the case Pro Bono, or even legal aid might help. I am sure that after this you will have no shortage of willing helpers =).
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Because they can't handle the truth!
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
This public order law is the one The Prodigy sing about in the track "Their Law" on the "Music for the Jilted Generation" album.
... Fuck 'em and their law.
I have to agree with their sentiment in the chorus:
Section 5
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he-
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour,
or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation
which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment,
alarm or distress thereby.
(2) An offence under this section may be committed in a
public or a private place, except that no offence is committed
where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or
other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a
dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another
dwelling.
(3) It is a defence for the accused to prove-
(a) that he had no reason to believe that there was any
person within hearing or sight who was likely to be
caused harassment, alarm or distress, or
(b) that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to
believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing,
sign or other visible representation displayed, would
be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other
dwelling, or
(c) that his conduct was reasonable.
(4) A constable may arrest a person without warrant ifâ"
(a) he engages in offensive conduct which the constable
warns him to stop, and
(b) he engages in further offensive conduct immediately or
shortly after the warning.
(5) In subsection (4) "offensive conduct" means conduct the
constable reasonably suspects to constitute an offence under this
section, and the conduct mentioned in paragraph (a) and the
further conduct need not be of the same nature.
(6) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable
on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the
standard scale.
Section 6
(4) A person is guilty of an offence under section 5 only if he
intends his words or behaviour, or the writing, sign or other
visible representation, to be threatening, abusive or insulting,
or is aware that it may be threatening, abusive or insulting or
(as the case may be) he intends his behaviour to be or is aware
that it may be disorderly.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts1986/PDF/ukpga_19860064_en.pdf
I think he's old enough to be legally independent anyway, but thanks for the offer.
Consciousness is a myth. Trust me.
ISO 8601 has a year 0 (or 0000), corresponding to the Gregorian 1BC. It then goes -0001, -0002 etc for prior years.
I'm not a native English speaker; in Romanian, my mother tongue, we call all religions, including ours, a "religious cult". I really cannot grasp the offensive term in "cult". Does it sound that offensive in English ?
You missed "sited" in the parent. ;-)
Bring back Sirius Punk!
How to handle the court case?
Make sure, in Voir Dire, that no Scientology members are in the jury panel, and make sure the judge is not a member.
Then simply describe what the cult believes...
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
According to this Scientology is not considered a religion in UK, but then what is it, if not a cult? As stated by a lot of other people, their practices shows that they appear more as a cult, than anything else. So what's the crime? What's the charge other than a threat?
What's questionable is whether it was an insult or a fact. It's probably possible to prove that scientology is indeed a dangerous cult.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Was that last case brought to court in Britain or France?
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
No beef on British Airway flights out of fear of offending Hindus?
Funny, because I had beef in my (admittedly crappy) airline meal last time I flew on BA, a couple of months ago.
Anons aren't going to like this 1 bit.
Why the word "cult"? It's not so far from the fruth.
If each mistake being made is a new one, then progress is being made.
I'm sure this kid was arrested due to someone in the Police being a member.
Dramatic or tragic irony is a dramaturgical and literary device. Unless you're claiming that the scene in question was somehow intentionally scripted, the definition you cite has no relevance.
The relevant definition is, "an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected," which I think anyone familiar with Scientology will agree is hardly the case here.
SIERRA TANGO FOXTROT UNIFORM
Jehovah's Witnesses fanatics are JUST LIKE Scientologist fanatics they rant on about how they are being 'persecuted' for the outrage over their own religious rackets that rip off the innocents. Example:Scientologist are most litigious and went ape s**t over their parody south park episode although south park slams everybody equally. I think this shows that these groups are high control and VERY insecure.Just like with David Koresh and Jim Jones. Jehovah's Witnesses are intolerant bigoted fanatics. Yes they DEMAND the 'right' to go knocking on doors to the point of intrusive illegal trespassing on private property but go nuts if anyone questions their bogus dogmas. They are a religion of bigotry to the core. The very inception of JWs was based on hate. They hate the world, they hate other religions, they hate everything about "this system of things http://www.exjws.net/
Tell the truth don't be afraid
At the risk of being wildly un-PC
More like "wildly inaccurate." At least on the Mormon front.
a short list of religions that fit this description would include not only Scientology, but Mormonism and Islam. All three of these fundamentally disallow their members from choosing not to be members, up to and including outright murder.
The Mormon church not only allows people to leave, there is an established process for removing your name from the records. You *will* be hassled about this if you opt to try it -- most leaders will make you ask a few times, they'll ask you if you're sure, they'll try to talk you out of it -- but in the end, they will drop you.
There's also the easier option, which consists of simply not going anymore and avoiding the people who periodically come by to try to reactivate you. I've heard a few outlandish tales of machinations in member's lives, but for the most part, the only tool the Mormon church has is outright preaching and a bit of peer pressure. It is remarkably easy to do whatever the hell you want, especially if you have even the smallest idea of when to keep your mouth shut.
an ex-Mormon in Salt Lake City is going to have a very hard time buying anything, anywhere.
I'd be interested to hear how you came by this the idea that everyday purchases are affected by religious affiliation with any real frequency in Utah, because it's complete bullshit.
There are a variety of problems I think someone who publicly leaves/denounces the Mormon church in Utah is likely to encounter, but with a few exceptions, they're pretty much all going to be directly related to coloring of social interactions with former peers inside of the church. But not only is there a significant enough non-Mormon presence inside of Utah that this wouldn't matter from an economic perspective, I don't believe I've met the Mormon that would actually refuse to sell to an ex-member.
Tweet, tweet.
My advice (knowing that IANAL) is : don't worry. Scientology lawyers are trying frighten people by making this procedure appear in the press. They plan on loosing. UK is known to tolerate public hate speeches of radical imams without prosecution. I don't think the law has changed ever since.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
The prosecution could go further to the UK Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006. However it can easily be argued having a sign that uses the word cult to describe Scientology is simply criticism, which is specifically protected under the Section 26J of the act. I think the prosecution is going have a hard time bringing this to court.
He was charged for carrying a sign saying "Scientology is not a religion, it's a dangerous cult".
Specifically he was charged for carrying a sign likely to cause alarm, distress or harassment. Use of the word "Cult" is largely irrelevant.
It's still a trumped up charge, but saying it's for calling Scientology a cult is completely misrepresenting it. Misleading stories are counter productive when you already have a fragrant abuse of the law.
This is preposterous. Who cares if he called scientology a cult or something else ? He's entitled to his own opinion, he could call any religion a cult or a mass brainwashing illusion if he wanted to, he's not inciting to violence against people, he's trying to raise awareness, that's how freedom of speech goes. At best, what he is doing is making it more difficult for Scientology to gain new followers; well, they'll just have to be more convincing if their purpose is really that pure and honest !
Laws are guidelines for justice but not justice itself, how can anyone be so stupid as to read laws word by word, regardless of the circumtances, without room for interpretation or exception ? To see them wearing V's mask in the video makes the analogy with some of the events depicted in the film all the more eerie.
Apparently it is OK for the Telegraph to call the "Church of England" a cult. "What is the point, they ask, of having a national Church, with the Queen at its head, with Bishops Spiritual sitting in the legislature, when the institution is shrinking to little more than a minority cult, a weekend pastime for those too dysfunctional to take up Pilates?" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/05/09/do0902.xml
Since the 15 year old boy is looking for advice, it should be noted that the case has been referred to the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) whose job is to decide whether there is a viable case to answer here or whether to proceed 'is in the public interest' before committing it to court. My advice to him (and IAFL - oh dear there goes the karma) is to relax and work with Liberty who have lawyers on their staff. I *strongly* suspect the CPS will drop this given the description of Scientology as a cult by the judge the boy quoted. Only reason they wouldn't would be that he refused to take down the sign having been asked several times. GL!
The word "cult" is certainly pejorative. I'm not sure it should be promoted to "insulting".
No need for a dictionary. I've RTFA (before it was posted on /., so I have an excuse), and the kid cited a case in which a judge called Scientology a cult. I've no doubt he'll cite it again if this comes to trial.
Probably. Jesus is a highly respected prophet in Islam.
So why this one? If an individual is accused of murdering someone then a jury of his/her peers should decide if he is guilty or not. That's not 100% reliable, but the system needs to take the decision since you have to either punish someone if they are found guilty or let them go if they are found innocent. And the jury probably helps a bit, since the prosecution have to convince more than one person.
But having government bureaucrats decide whether is a cult or a religion doesn't mean anything. Religions IMO suck to varying degrees. Scientology and Islam happen to suck a great deal.
But still, I don't believe it is up to a secular state to decide how much religions suck. And labelling a group a 'cult' or whatever may lead to members of that group being discriminated against. The process is flawed too since it doesn't allow members of the public to veto a conviction.
I'd prefer to let juries to decide on individual cases and punish those individuals. Elected governments make the laws to try to catch all the anti social behaviour and not catch all the non antisocial behviour. But I think having the government decide which organisations are good and which are bad is dangerous. The people that started America believed in freedom of association and religion, not in established churches. I don't think they would have supported a state, no matter how benign, deciding whether a religion, no matter how malign is a cult or not because that seems to be allowing the state to regulate religion. And the state regulating religion is something they were quite really very skeptical of. The amount of harm religion can do is inversely proportional to the amount of power it has. Allowing the state to regulate it opens up the possibility that one religion might capture state power and use it to declare competing religions cults.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Since these books are hundreds and hundreds of years old and the current copyright term is 70 years after the death of the author (or less, depending on locaction), one can safely say that these books cannot be copyrighted. Don't know about newer translations, though.
Wenn ist das Nunstueck git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput.
Sorry, spelling's bad this morning :P
One swallow does not a fellatrix make
Yeah, I openly call scientology a cult and something I have no wish to have anything to do with it. I just am glad I live in Finland, I can not be sued for calling a cult a cult ^^ Seriously though, this is starting to get really unnerving :O A 15 year old getting sued for such a thing? Geesh!
-Nita
that state unequivocally that COS is a cult. Members were or are even banned from emigration into the UK. It is not recognized legally there as a religion.
Operation Clambake has a just a few of them here; http://www.xenu.net/archive/judge_quotes.html
This should be more than enough fodder to fight the matter on if CPS even decides to press it to test.
http://unspeak.net/cult/
is, by logical and moral extension, intolerance itself
meanwhile, intolerance of intolerance, is, by logical and moral extension, tolerance
now you can say that intolerance is a loosey goosey term that can be applied to anyone's actions. but, no, intolerance is not a random pejorative. it can be concretely and precisely defined in all situations: "i fight against xyz" "what is xyz?" "xyz stands against abc" "what is abc?" etc... your terms can be iteratively reduced to find at the root of any instinct fundamentally intolerant or tolerant impulses
example: at face value, fighting scientology can be called intolerant. but we must iteratively examine what your terms are. here the next object before us is scientology, which most definitely does intolerant things. going further then, can the objects of scientology's intolerance be defined as intolerant as well? no. scientology stands against liberal notions of freedom of expression. so here the iteration ends: scientology fights against tolerant principles. therefore, to be intolerant of that which is intolerant of tolerant principles is, by logical extension, tolerance
so the actions of the teenager in this situation is intolerance of intolerance, which, by logical and moral extension, is a form of tolerance
or rather, its a good definition of tolerance in a better world, a world where those who take real world action against intolerant organizations and governments in this world are supported by liberalism. well, according to a classical definition of liberalism, such freedom fighters are supported
but such fighters are not supported by the inert fungus that has infected the academia and cliquish so-called intellects of western liberalism. these so-called liberals embrace indifference or outright acceptance of real liberalism's enemies: virulent forces of religious fundamentalism and authoritarianism that hold sway over vast parts of the globe. and they do this, with the highest of ironies, in the name of tolerance, of all concepts
i await the awakening of true classical liberalism in the childish naive confused west. virulent religious fundamentalism and authoritarian regimes must make more victories and inroads against the dying west before the old spirit is shocked and awakened, and the current fashionable "tolerance" of vile ideologies is dethroned. you spread tolerance by fighting that which destroys tolerance in this world. do not make any mistake about that
religious fundamentalism and authoritarianism are not going away on their own. on the contrary, they are growing, and they are your enemy if you embrace the ideals that rose in the enlightenment. these enemies must be fought, in the name of tolerance, in the name of liberalism. understand that, or understand nothing about your world
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I'm not aware of any ban on any religious or cult group leaving or entering the UK. Perhaps Scientologists don't qualify for certain special visas that real religious leaders can get to visit on church business, but if they fit other criteria I don't see why they would not be allowed in.
it must be a duck. I mean cult.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Albert Einstein
and then I just realized: Bart Simpson is voiced by a $cientologist. I'll have to fix that.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Albert Einstein
i didn't read the rest of your post after that bit of idiocy
that reaction to what i said is so hysterical its not worth addressing
i'll simply say this: if in your mind what i said turns into "lets kill all the muslims" then you haven't understood or read anything i said. you suffer from some sort of prejudicial replacement for thought due to the presence of an idea or two that smells like something you dislike. next time, try reading comprehension, what i actually say and think, rather than some sort of kneejerk partisan propaganda you function under based on vague impressions. you don't have an open mind. your mind is closed and propaganda-addled
no one, no one is thinking about such a heinous crime as "kill all the muslims" except for one person. you
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Besides, in terms of prediction, what matters is whether the 15-year-old kid would have predicted the outcome. If you'd done the same thing, it wouldn't have been irony, but rather would have been civil disobedience.
Wikileaks, no DNS
I agree. Watching Battlefield Earth is liable to make the suicide bombers go off early.
Would this still be tagged censorship if it were the Conservative Party instead of Scientology?
You must be new round here..
The answer to your question is: Yes, it would.
"Oops, I always forget the purpose of competition is to divide people into winners and losers." - Hobbes
Cults are religious splinter groups. Scientology is not religious and not a splinter group either.
It is a simple tax evasion setup spiced with other criminal activities.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
If you've ever listened to the Rick Mayal, Adrian Edmonton, Nigel Planer 'Bad News' faux spinal-tap album.. they have a hysterical discussion about this.
'That Maggie thatcher, she's a cult, in fact the whole Tory party are a bunch of cults... and the more left wing of them are wet cults!'
I nearly swallowed my toke I was laughing so hard (this was in the late 80's).
"Oops, I always forget the purpose of competition is to divide people into winners and losers." - Hobbes
...if it comes into law because it means that anti-Scientology protestors will be legally obliged to obfuscate their placards so as not to say anything offensive.
SCIENTOLOGY - IT'S A CU*T
WHAT A BUNCH OF CU*TISTS
COME ON YOU CU*TS
N.B. to americans not used to judicious use of the "C" word perjorative, please don't take this post as some sort of sweary troll. It's nowhere near as offensive here in the UK as it is in the states. It's not the sort of thing you'd say at dinner with the in-laws, but it's not the sort of thing that gets you blacklisted as some sort of social outcast. If this is the case in the states as well I apologise for being patonising, since it's the general consensus that saying "cunt" gets you universally reviled by everybody over there.[/derail]
Moderation Total: -1 Troll, +3 Goat
I'm playing devil's advocate here. I believe the kid is in the right.
But just because the word's being used in a way which is consistent with its dictionary definition doesn't mean it isn't hate speech. You can probably find "nigger" in a dictionary.
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
You can't call a cult a "cult" in England?!?
Can you call a politician a "politician", or is that considered insulting, too?
"Lawyer" is probably the most insulting word of all.
"The large print giveth, and the small print taketh away" -- "Step Right Up", Tom Waits
I changed my sig in honor of this young man. Enough is enough. Death to Scientology!
A little L.Ron reading and the judges will recognize the sign as descriptive, not inflammatory.
Mmmm fragrant abuse of the law...
I'll agree though, it does stink.
Muninite?
I just read Slashdot for the articles.
Now is the time for nycl to post out a wall of text full of advice for that kid.
Read radical news here
The First Amendment of the United States Const...
oh wait...
Never mind.
That only computes to a Scientologist.
Velly solly. I must have been typing on a chinese keyboard.
In the UK do churches or religions have "personhood?" because you can't "insult" or harm an inanimate object.
The sign said "Scientology is a cult," as far as I know, that may offend some people, but it insults or intends to insult no actual people.
File suit against the officer writing the summons for false arrest and violation of your freedoms. The cult of scientology should not be protected like this.
If that's true, how come none of them seem to be doing that?
And it really is a troll, whether you think you mean it so or not. Somebody brings it up here every time there is any way to manufacture an excuse for the question, and it really is not relevant most of the time, present context included.
The easy definition:
Religion is what you believe (except sometimes in the case that you claim to be atheist or agnostic) about the world around you and the universe in general, how it ticks and how it all came to be, the bases for determining good and evil and answering moral questions (especially the question of evil), and the bases for your choices of priorities.
Some of those who claim atheism or agnosticism ascribe the same thing to a system or a collection of systems of philosophies and/or cosmologies, which system or collection is constructed so as to avoid reference to superstition, or to a being or entity that would normally be called God
(Others simply use agnosticism and/or atheism as an excuse to not go to the bother of trying to figure out what they themselves believe or why. They claim it should all be obvious, and they tend to speak of science in religious tones, and it's no wonder why.)
A cult is the same thing (concepts, system/collection of philosophies, etc.) for the other guy, if it makes you uncomfortable, gets in your way, or takes something away from you that you, according to your religious or basic philosophical beliefs, believe to be your right.
That's the easy definition, and, while it is not correct, it is meaningful and useful if you let it cause you to think seriously about what you yourself believe and what you think you don't believe, and why.
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
The Pope called all cristians religions that are not catholic, including lutherns, anglicans, ortodox, cults.
Why no one goes and arrest him?
When I was in college, my psychology professor (I think she was an atheist herself) defined various traits of cults for us. I don't remember them all, but some of the key points were secrecy about beliefs, control over members, and a moneymaking scheme. Fanatical devotion to a leader was another - think David Koresh, Charles Manson, etc, who practically teach their followers to worship them.
At the time, there was a quasi-Christian cult on campus which (supposedly) made members confess their darkest secrets, told them where to live and with whom, forbid them to have friends outside the group so that it would become very hard to leave, etc. I can confirm only the latter two statements based on my conversation with a member of the group.
You can see this same control in Scientology: you pay big money to be "audited," i.e. give them blackmail info, and they guard their beliefs closely. Same for the Masons and other groups.
By contrast, the Baptist church I grew up in was not secretive about its beliefs, exerted no real control over me, and never batted an eye when I left - moved to another town and joined a Presbyterian church with (obviously) no ties to them. Presbyterians (PCA) define their beliefs very openly, pointing to explicit documents you can find on the web if you like.
You may think religions and cults are equally silly in their beliefs, but by my professor's definition, they are very different in how they treat their people. (I do think that there are "Christian" churches that would qualify as cults, but that isn't the rule.)
http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=15992
I think you should have said "I read a story about a guy..." because we read it too. And that way when you find out that his conviction was overturned on appeal, you won't look so silly.
"TRAVERSE CITY, Mich. -- The Michigan Court of Appeals yesterday struck down a 105-year-old law against using vulgar language in front of women and children, throwing out the conviction of a canoeist who let loose a stream of curses after falling into the water.
A three-judge panel ruled in favor of Timothy Joseph Boomer. An Arenac County jury had found him guilty in 1999 of swearing after tumbling into the Rifle River."
If you knew the guy like you implied, you'd know that too.
And the obscenity laws you talk about have repeatedly been ruled unconstitutional when challenged.
Bart: Church, cult, cult, church. So we'll get bored someplace else every Sunday. Does this really change our everyday lives?
Cite me
Get up!
Yes, but many churches are also accepted by mainstream society to be churches while others others are considered to be nothing more than commercial ventures looking for a way to avoid taxation. Scientology has exactly that problem e.g. in Germany - the German state does not accept them to be a religious organization, hence no tax benefits. So calling Scientology a "self proclaimed church" seems valid to me - while they call themselves that, many people disagree. That's quite different from disagreeing with their teachings: many people disagree with catholicism, buddhism or protestantism, too - however they would agree that these are churches.
Hypothetically, if Microsoft were to declare themselves a church - most people wouldn't be prepared to accept that label either. Words have meanings, and someone calling themselves something doesn't mean others have to consider it an appropriate description. If only a minority agrees the label fits, then "self proclaimed" is just what it is.
So what are you going to do when they take a freedom you actually care about, and you can't say a thing about it because that freedom was already taken?
Your point, and by extension your professors point, are crap.
It seems that English speaking countries are in a race to see who can become "Oceania" first. Britain is winning, but then again Eric Arthur Blair was British. I'm starting to believe some of the wags at slashdot who say he was an optimist (I think someone's sig says it too).
The thing is, the fact that this kid was prosecuted says to me that any British subject can be thrown in jail at any time at all for saying anything at all. The dictionary puts no derogatory meaning at all to the word "cult".The only one of the eight definitions posted that can in any way be considered derogatory is fittingly #6, and Scientology is certainly unorthodox and extremist. Then again, so are Islam, Bhuddism, Hinduism, Shintoism, and Judism (not to mention Atheism) in Britain (afaik), and Christianity is unorthodox and extremist in Muslim countries.
It is now illegal to discuss religion in Britain. If you are British and you post a comment in this thread, your government can throw you in jail.
But we in the US don't have a lot of room to talk. As I wrote two years ago,As I argued in the linked story, the US bill of rights in "our" Constitution has become meaningless in the last two centuries.
Welcome to Oceana, formerly called "Earth", number six.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
"As another user has pointed out, the British justice system doesn't work."
Fixed that for you.
This is part of the Church of Scientology's ongoing campaign against the Internet, which traces its roots back to the early nineties and the Usenet newsgroup alt.religion.scientology. Persons interested in the greater picture should take a look at the Wikipedia article on Project Chanology, and the project's material at youfoundthecard.com, among other things. The rest you can find through links at the latter site.
The short of it is that tens of thousands of activists collectively known as Anonymous are taking the cult organization known as the Church of Scientology (aka the Religious Technology Center, among other things) on, originally due to the CoS' being complete dickheads on the Internet but the matter has expanded since. (Warning: link contains graphic material, may shock people who haven't already seen thousands of murders in feature films and prime-time television.)
As for results, insider reports from within the CoS suggest that their leadership are pissing and shitting all over themselves over this. They cannot harass masked protesters, though they do try.
It should also be pointed out that Anonymous is not after Scientology-the-religion, only the so-called Church of Scientology, the organization. This is not about suppressing a religion.
Damn the whole cult religion started with a bet between L Ron Hubbard and Gene Rodenberry!!!
L RON -> Gene I bet you I can create a religion people will be dumb enough to join.
Gene -> People are not that stupid, You are on!
The rest is history.
irony1 -noun, plural -nies
1. the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning: the irony of her reply, "How nice!" when I said I had to work all weekend.
2. Literature. a. a technique of indicating, as through character or plot development, an intention or attitude opposite to that which is actually or ostensibly stated.
b. (esp. in contemporary writing) a manner of organizing a work so as to give full expression to contradictory or complementary impulses, attitudes, etc., esp. as a means of indicating detachment from a subject, theme, or emotion.
3. Socratic irony.
4. dramatic irony.
5. an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected.
6. the incongruity of this.
7. an objectively sardonic style of speech or writing.
8. an objectively or humorously sardonic utterance, disposition, quality, etc.
[slow down cowboy, it's been three minutes since you posted the only comment you've posted so far today. Slashdot is for lysdexic nerds who don't read very fast. Go to some web site where everyone has gone past the sixth grade. Good luck answering all 31 of the "messages" that were left in the "slashdot message system" because of the highly rated comments you made yesterday. Now go away and leave us illiterates alone.
Ok, lets see if this stupid web site will let me post this yet...]
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
As much as I like the sentiment - in which jurisdiction do you have the right to do that for X="My neighbour Mr Smith" and Y="a thief/murderer/rapist"? In any country I know of, there are libel and slander laws which pose limits on free speech. Usually there are exceptions for people who are in the public view (e.g. politicians or movie stars) so you are often free to insult them, but in general that's not the case.
But Scientology is a cult by the dictionary definition, so why are they suing him? It at least fits 1, 4 and 6 (at least the extreme part) and perhaps others from the dictionary.com definition.
From Dictionary.com:
cult
1. a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
3. the object of such devotion.
4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
5. Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.
6. a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.
7. the members of such a religion or sect.
8. any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific.
-adjective
9. of or pertaining to a cult.
10. of, for, or attracting a small group of devotees: a cult movie.
Like all religion. Cults of nonsense.
Anyone should be allowed to follow whatever cults of nonsense they fancy as long as they do not harm or limit the freedom of others.
However, no cult of nonsense should get any legal protection or special status.
And it is time that people do something against the intellectual and non-intellectual abuse of innocent children by parents, relatives and their social peers who are follwers of cults of nonsense, be that Christianity, Judaism, Islam, SoC, or any other such cult.
a lot of Geeks I know.
As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
What's going to lose, honestly?
Scientology is a sue-happy scum-sucking bunch of lunatics.
South Park did such a wonderful job portraying them in one of their episodes...
But, my point is, the kid is a teen - what does he have to lose in all of this?
The first problem is ... naming an act the "Public Order Act."
So if I put up a sign calling the "public order act" a public order, would I get cited as well? If Scientology is not a cult what the heck is it? If I check in the Merriam Webster for the definition of cult, then for definition '2' I get "a system of religious beliefs and ritual". Should I be calling it "an organised group designed to oppress anyone who has anything bad to say about it"?
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
How dare he!
One man's cult is another man's money making machine!
You can't handle the truth.
it's not a cult, it's a scam
prohibits signs which have representations or words which are threatening, abusive or insulting.'
I find Scientology threatening, abusive, and insulting (not to mention idiotic and ridiculous).
So this must mean that Scientology may not display its signs in public anymore, right?
I'm not sure the moderator of the Church of Scotland (CoS) is going to like what you said. The Church of Eritrea might have issues too, dunno.
CoE I'll give you. Call the others Scientologists or Scientology.
Thank God I live in the U.S. where at least we have free speech zones where we are free to speak our minds. We value our freedom of speech so highly that we protect those in the free speech zones with chain link fencing and barbed wire.
My sig points to a chatroom where atheists meet.
Chat with other atheists http://secularchat.org
It's ironic to prosecute a kid for using the word "cult" when in the U.S. the government freely uses the label "cult" to denigrate a group of people in the public's eye. Refer to citizens as "cultists", get the media to refer to citizens as "cultists". Do this enough, and people who don't see the propaganda for what it is will come to view them, not as citizens anymore, but as dangerous Threats to Society.
"Citizens" are good. "Cultists" are bad. Not entitled to the same protections as the rest of us. Then it's not only easy, but proper to violate their Constitutional rights and even kill them without due process, with the public's blessing.
Words are powerful. If, during the months of the Waco siege, the media had referred to the victims there as "Citizens" instead of "Cultists", do you think people would have been so accepting of the government's actions? Hell no! In my opinion, Waco was a test, and the government learned that if it can sufficiently demonize and marginalize people in the public's eye, it can do pretty much whatever it wants to them and people will accept it. So now we have the Mormon raid in Texas, and everybody applauded. Child abuse sucks, but government agents tearing children away from their families without due process is downright scary!
I despise religions that wield their beliefs as weapons to control their followers in destructive ways. But I'm wary when words like "cult" are used to label citizens who live differently from the norm. Next time it could be you or me and and our families, and people will have been conditioned to accept it when we're killed or hauled off to the camps.
For the record, I also despise laws that infringe upon freedom of speech and action. And governments that try too hard to protect everybody from everything. Big Brother is far worse than any ills it tries to protect us from. "Utopia is not an option."
This was my first thought when I heard this story. Their de facto ownership of the Clearwater PD seems to have worked well enough that the program is being expanded globally. I assume, true to style, that most/all of the Co$' "private" security for this demonstration were off duty constables? Lovely legal way to buy the hearts and minds of the cops. If the cops are recruited to the cult they can even count on getting their money back from them.
-- your Web browser is Ronald Reagan
Just wanted to get it out there in case the U.K. wants to bring me up on charges. Come on you authoritarian assholes, I dare you. Scientology is a cult. Mormonism is a cult. Christianity is a cult. Islam is a cult. (and by leaving them out, my intent is that followers of Judaism feel insulted for being excluded (chosen at random) (and yes, they too are a cult))
Aside from the heinous idea that a person feeling insulted should be sufficient to inhibit free speech, how about the anthropological (as opposed to bullshit media bigotted "big means good, small means bad") definition of cult:
cult
In anthropology, an organization for the conduct of ritual, magical, or other religious observances. Many so-called primitive tribes, for example, have ancestor cults, in which dead ancestors are considered divine and activities are organized to respect their memory and invoke their aid. A cult is also a religious group held together by a dominant, often charismatic individual, or by the worship of a divinity, an idol, or some other object. (See animism, fetish, and totemism.)
Thank you, Houghton Mifflin Science Dictionary. Here's a quick note: they're all cults. They all engage in brainwashing too. Look up the definition, then tell me what those repetitive chants and rituals are. If you can come up with a consistent definition of brainwashing that does not include the ritual repetitive chanting at Sunday morning services, I will concede the point. Feeling insulted by the truth is all real sad and everything, but, um, tough shit. Stop being a cult and I'll stop calling you a cult.
And blow me, England. Hey, there's an idea! What say The Queen blows me? She's got a purty mouth. No, I'm not talking about Charles. I would never use queen as a derogatory term for a poofter - being a poofter like Prince Charles is a personal choice and I fully support his lifestyle (though I am not sure I support his closeting of it).
And with that, a little bow. Thank you for playing, England.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
it is interesting to me how adept the Scientologists are at all of this. Despite the number of critics and the widespread information about the strange beliefs of the religion, not to mention that it was started by a Sci-Fi author, and a whole laundry list of questionable practices, the church has a large following and tons of money at its disposal.
It will be interesting to see how all of this plays out over the course of the next 100 years... Would be a shame to see it emerge as a new world wide religion.
The "Open Source" government may be closer than you think.
The phenomenon of anonymous, whatever you may personally think of their current "war" on Scientology, is something rather unique in human history. We have a relatively well coordinated, well mannered, peaceful "organization" having no membership, no particular leaders, no apparent fund-raising mechanism, and no organizational structure. Rather than being coordinated by a chain of command with structured communication channels, it seems to be organized chaotically by "memes" - ideas that become something like a cliche.
Despite all these properties which, in times past, would have been severe limitations, anonymous has now coordinated an international protest at dozens of cities around the world involving many thousands of people. This is simply incredible!
I believe thisto be an artifact of the Internet age, and a sign of things to come. While anonymous "members" appears to mostly consist of the younger college age, remember that the college kids of today are the first generation to grow up with ubiquitous global telecommunications. Just like hippie movement of the 1960's was the first generation to grow up with ubiquitous global communications in the form of television, so does the current new generation of anonymous represent the first generation to grow up with the Internet.
As a self-proclaimed Internet addict, I've watched anonymous with interest - the "memes" that provide so much power within anonymous apparently comprise nothing more than an idea posed by someone that others enjoyed and repeated. Anybody can throw up an idea, and the classic value of "reputation" seems to be lost, here. Ideas are presented by anyone, and when repeated by others who like the idea, they become memes. And memes are, as much, a way of doing or presenting information as it is the information itself. For example, there's a common theme in Digg articles of repeating adjectives. EG: "The lame article is lame". Of course, there's Rick-rolling, variations of "LOL", and a few others.
Could this meme-based anonymous evolve into a world government? In a sense, it already has, because this structure of memes is already coordinating the behavior of thousands! Why couldn't this evolve into a new way of governing? My guess is that anonymous evolves into a sort of meta-government. Rather than directly become a government agency, it becomes a sort of unstructured political party that exerts considerable power at the voting booth, and is able to reinforce its power through real-life protests and events, much like those going on against Scientology today.
Fascinating times! Watch and see!
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
I've gotta read that book! Sounds awesome!
On a side note, anyone watch Stargate SG-1 and notice a HUGE similarity between the Ori and Christianity?
I think you are all missing the point. Protests are only a useful tool of public disobedience if it garners media coverage. Protests of 10 or 20 people are gigantic wastes of time. In this case, I think we should look at this as a HUGE victory. I've read about this story on just about every major media related Web site. The majority of them mention the police received gifts from the church, and the basic violation of human rights. Regardless of whether this person is fined or not, big victory in the court of public opinion.
...have noodly appendages, so I can see some validity in their fight.
"Quote me as saying I was mis-quoted." -Groucho Marx
What if you give them the rifftrax version?
Cynical Idealist
Check out http://www.churchofmyconology.com/
Excerpt:
Myconology is the worship and consumption of huge mounds of manure while living in a stale, lifeless environment and giving yourself entirely to some relentless moron. The Mycon system of belief firmly embraces all of the following:
Mushrooms have it good. They are kept completely in the dark and eat whatever is laying around, with no need for conscious thought. Mushrooms can be harvested for the sole benefit of the reaper without the need for compensation. Why can't humans be more like that? The truth is... they can.
In Myconology, there are no worries about social pressures or making correct decisions, because all the decisions are made for you. Just keep your mouth shut, produce for your owners, and pay the money on time. Anything else is counter-productive and will be punished.
I think it's fair to say that if you're protesting a dangerous cult and are arrested for identifying them as such, then you have no rights. Seriously, why is this guy in anymore trouble than the Church of Scientology?
Ethically, the right to free expression ends when it infringes upon the rights of another person. Traditionally, slander and libel were considered such when they damaged the other person (such as causing problems getting a job or anything else provable). I think this is important to mention because most people don't understand the difference between a law that restricts freedom and a law that mediates conflicting freedoms between different people. As for people in the public view, laws are both more and less strict depending upon the damages. For example, lying about a politician in such a way that they lose an election is a greater crime in most jurisdictions, whereas lying about a regular person may well cost them nothing and cause no damages.
Not all restrictions on free expression are censorship. For example, a law against yelling "fire" in a crowder theater (classic example) simply weighs the right of the theater patrons to live without injury over another person's right to speak in an inaccurate way. Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. So I agree with your sentiment. I just wanted to clarify the reasoning so it can be applied to the general case, not just to slander and libel.
I would have said that's ironic, but now I'm not so sure....
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
the answer is right in front of you.
Mod points!
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
So certain groups can stage public displays insulting everyone and others can't. I suppose it's all in whether or not you've claimed the victim mantle in the media's eye.
My sign said "Cult" but I sometimes confuse 'l' with 'n'. Sorry! Where's the exit?
Rather than that why not a sign reading "cu*t". If the police stop you you could explain that you always find Scientologists somewhat curt but didn't want to hurt their feelings by spelling it out. After all it is not your fault if there are at least two other appropriate letters.
I fail to see how a protester claiming Fur or Abortion as murder is any less "abusive and insulting" to the receiving party.
This seems to be a revival of the McLibel case, albeit in criminal law as opposed to civil law.
- RG>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
in the name of fighting exclusivity and those who spread "us" versus "them"
you see me committing the very crime i fight
my head asplode
how the hell do you arrive at that conclusion?
no, seriously: in your mind, there is no conflict in this world between intolerant groups and tolerant groups in this world? there is no conflict between tolerance and intolerance in this world? you sincerely believe that?
and, yes, you fight intolerance. how the hell does this become the same thing as intolerance?
have even thought about the subject matter?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
(rot13) rpbzbab@tznvy.pbz
someone understands what is at stake in the world
others imagine no conflict, and no threat. and therefore to even defend the idea of tolerance, perversely, in their minds, becomes intolerance
its insane and bizarre. and yet a very much real and en vogue way to think in certain ivory tower segments of western society that don't understand the world they live in. it blows my mind how some people can be so sheltered
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
There's only one man in the whole of England powerful enough to save this kid from the clutches of the evil Scientologist thugs. I think we all know who I'm talking about...
The indifference of a million teenagers is actually a remarkably difficult force to subvert.
That might be what gives this movement its power; if these protests were being carried out by a small cadre of dedicated, passionate ideologues, then the CoS would have people to retaliate against.
When the raid is huge and each individual's contribution to the raid is small and disinterested, then a campaign of retaliation becomes prohibitively expensive. No one person has done enough to warrant fighting back.
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
Whoa, that's totally the opposite conclusion from what I would've expected!
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
He had a lot to say.
http://www.amazon.com/Country-Right-Left-1940-1943-Journalism/dp/1567921345
My favorite though it is most hated by some political persuasions is this.
Even as it stands, the Home Guard could only exist in a country where men feel themselves free. The totalitarian states can do great things, but there is one thing they cannot do: they cannot give the factory-worker a rifle and tell him to take it home and keep it in his bedroom. That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage, is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
During the which period? Do you mean the now secular nations, that have a Judeo-Christian heritage? Or back when the church had real power, and could burn witches or condemn people to death for saying the sun is the center of the solar system, etc. Christianity has some very dark history. Apparently much, much more evil than you are aware
Whichever religion has had political power has behaved in morally atrocious manners. That's the difference I see.
It's a point, but libel and slander laws are civil restrictions, a different sort of beast. They don't place prior restraint on speech, they make me responsible for certain consequences of such speech.
If I walk around with a sign saying "My neighbor Mr Smith is a thief/murderer/rapist", Smith doesn't get to have me arrested. He can sue me; if and only if he proves that the charges are false and caused him harm, he can get compensation. Mere "insult" does not make for slander or libel. (At least in the U.S. I understand that the U.K. has insane libel laws.)
He can't, as the Cult of Scientology did here, send the cops over to take away my sign and bust me.
This leaves open the question of whether libel and slander laws are a violation of free speech. If I own a major newspaper and deliberately publish false information to harm my neighbor,he or she probably doesn't have a major newspaper to respond, so maybe there's justification for placing restrictions on me - or rather, on my ownership.
But if I'm just holding up a sign, my neighbor can put up his own signs saying "My neighbor is delusional; see www.SmithIsNotACrook.com", and we can equally make our cases. I'm not sure there's any need or use for the government to become involved. At least, not at this point - if it progresses to harassment, with me following him or her around, bothering their friends and co-workers by sticking my sign in their faces, then that's a real crime.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
"i hate black people"
is intolerance. is evil. absolutely
now you are going to tell me, that someone somewhere thinks its good to hate black people. therefore, because someone out there believes that, i have to accomodate him. and if i don't, then i am just like him!
this is what you are telling me
that his belief is equivalent to mine. just because it exists. i can't fight him, i can't condemn him, because, in your view, i'm just like him when i do that!
so someone comes in the room: "i think muslims should be our slaves"
if i were to condemn him for that, i am automatically intolerant
OF HIS INTOLERANCE!
you sincerely believe that we are equivalent?!
in your world view, there is no value definition of what someone believes. or, there is in your wordlview: the only value definition is the effort one takes to defend their values. that that, that alone, makes one as bad as someone else, completely regardless of what they actually value! therefore, in your world, the only person of any worth is someone who will not defend their values at all. well genius, what does that say about the passion behind what that person actually values?
you're insane. i can't believe people like you exist. and yet there are thousands of dunderheads like you walking around spouting this nonsense: "an attempt to defend your values is the worst sin. it doesn't actually matter what you value"
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
FGD 135
I'm quite aware of religious history, thank you. Do you imagine we allow the adherents of one religion to run rampant because our forebears have done atrocious things? I expect you to realize that it has nothing to do with this one religion as the history of your forebears clearly shows.
Religions, of all types, have promoted immorality. It takes a religion to make someone feel morally just and good about killing someone for drawing a picture of Mohamed or forcing a terminally ill person to live for years in incredible agony as they beg to finally be allowed to die. This happens whenever questioning faith is not allowed. Realizing history shows that the particular religion is not the problem, is very important in realizing how to address it.
Heil Hitler!
It feels good to be able to say that again in public and not be laughed at or punched into the face. There has been a lot of badmouthing of "Nazis" these past decades. Now thankfully there is powerful legislation in place that protects us from your hate speech!
Sieg!
FYI
Scientology actually has its own Intelligence Agency... The Office of Special Affairs (OSA) formerly known as the Guardian Office (GO).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Special_Affairs
Ok, fair enough. There is such a thing as being too harsh on the pig-fuckers.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
mob rule? The 'mob' as you and Plato himself would call it isn't as bad as you think if one could do a cursery elimination of certain factors, the primary being people who can control and sway the mob to their own ends.
What you are refering to, or what you seem to be referring to, has never happened, you can say it has, but a historical anylisis will hold that most cases involved a charismatic leader, an oligarchy, or some other such entity driving the mob entity to a very narrow and disastrous end.
As industrialized nations become increasingly populous and educated it more likely a beneficial element to have 'mob' rule, an educated citizenry participating in the workings of government, than an elite or moneyed group of people sowing fear, distrust, and anxiety among the 'mob'(more commonly known as yourself and your neighbors). Basically the only way, in todays world, that you can condemn mob rule is to say "The mob, or the group of people I am in, is too stupid to guide itself. I am therefore of the opinion that someone should tell me what to do," at which point in time logicians heads start exploding.
Who cares if it's twitter or not? GP was informative and moderated as such.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
I am a customer. You are a business owner. Your business is seen by me to be hurtful to the environment/freedoms/poor people/cute kittens. I thusly get a placard and go protest your business front in an obnoxious and disruptive way. People can't go into your establishment without seeing me, and they can hear me inside.
Do I have the right to continue if a policeman has informed me of the disruptive nature of my act? I am protesting in a public place in a non-violent albiet loud and obscene manner.
Further information, I (the protestor)am in fact shit nuts and off my meds. The business I am protesting is a maker of enviromentally safe teddy bears that make children smarter and more confident through learning programs and encouragement. My speech borderlines on the point that if people aren't incited to destroy the ediface of the complex I very well might do so my self, and seeing this, various customers and clients have decided that they'd rather let kids be stupid and self-concious than brave a mad man.
So in closing. Freedom of speech is assured in this country. Trying to be like Ghandi, or MLK Jr. is admirable, but if you're resorting to being a loud and obnoxious prick yourself then you have more or less failed and faultered in their footsteps. Words are incredibly powerful, but despite a prevelance of places to practice and perfect speech most people just resort to being somewhere they can't be missed and raving like a lunatic. If you are less eloquent than a stand up comic, don't bother showing up to a protest, no one needs to hear you be a retard in person, and no one will cry when you're beaten over the head in attempt to remove you from our everyday lives.
While someone listed other designations in a more technical manner (ie, a list), I find that the only organizations that spring to mind as a "cult" to me are the ones that have an overbearing control on their members. It's really hard to call a lot of buddists cultists, and if you were to inform a catholic that his religion is and was a cult, you'd first have to find him, and if you waited at church on sunday or saturday you'd still be hard pressed to do that.
People by and large don't have time for religions that double as cults. Religion is fine by itself, it releaves a lot of the stress caused by metaphysical questions most of us can't answer or would really rather not. That's everyones right and more power to them. Going the extra step of telling people you are right and they are wrong is saddening, but also AOK, they have their opinion and you're an asshole, fair enough. It's the additional effort of keeping people who listen to you indoctrinated and controlled for the duration of their life with no escape and no agency that scares the shit of most free thinking people, and it also happens to be something scientology has shown itself capable of doing.
Not even a fucking paragraph setup for the obligatory christian jesus joke and this gets modded to five? Insightful of all things? How? What cave have you people been in? Can I get modded 5 insightful if I start ripping off Jim Carry jokes?
Sorry what I meant to say wasy "Oh ho ho, rather good shot that was. Quick, hit me with one about creationists before 2005 rolls about."
Ok, so you can all say your clever little "all religions are cults" lines. Yeah, we haven't heard that a BILLION fucking times before (insert roll-eyes emoticon here). The true difference between a religion and a cult is the ability to leave said movement without being vindicated. Anyone who leaves Scientology is harassed to no end. Leave a REAL religion and they'll wish you well. Leave a cult and they'll condemn you. That's the difference. Please remove craniums from rectums now.
Never monkey with another monkey's monkey.
The story you link to is completely different from the account I relayed.
A majority of the events based in the Old Testament could have been based on some real events, mind you I am obviously excepting the talking bushes, donkeys, and other supernatural encounters. Even then there are some spectacularly strange phenomena that can be observed in the desert and certainly could merit an inclusion in embelished fashion in someones spiritual life prior the age of science. The rest is dramatic exposition that has a certain timeless quality with various influences from more existential fare to the fantastical both with their own peculiar logic at times but often lacking glaring points of outright insanity, in or out of context.
Scientology by contrast was concieved entirely by a SCIENCE FICTION AUTHOR. It includes, among other things, provisions for erradicating a field of science (psychology and psychiatry), broad application of questionable behavioral improvements (various techs), and violence/agression towards even the slightest detractors.
Mind you I am perfectly aware that there are Christian Cults that are very close to the same thing AND worse. The thing people are protesting against is that Scientology is on a campaign to be what the Catholic church USED to be through influencing public and political leaders to forward their agenda.
Dismissing the criticisms of Scientology by saying "Christianity is just as crazy" is not only a remarkably questionable bit of reasoning, but it's a stubborness combined with a lack of history that seeks to silence those trying to raise the alarm.
In short, research your generic point before posting it and getting it modded 5 insightful by people that have the same fetish for "edgey" yet oft-repeated irony.
That was how long ago now? 600 years? Didn't they precipitate a massive divide in Christianity, various reforms, people speaking against purportedly infallible authority?
Current Events are just a fad to you aren't they?
Seriously, that I could get behind.
Your whole arguement is based on scemantics with someone who is telling you the meaning of what they believe. If you were to open up a dictionary, and read the definition of "dog" and you said "It could just as easily be a cat" and an English speaker said "No it's a dog" and you persist then you're really just being a douche for douches sake now aren't you?
Furthermore going on with historical points that do not describe current status, and then insisting in some abstract way that it does or that it should, is equally contrarian. When you describe how the catholic church or christianity was to justify how something is, and it is mutually agreed that it was bad, and that something currently is bad, then you're basically saying that finding a historical equivilant that dominated a period justifies it's existence in the modern world. Hey remember serfdom? Lets do that, AGAIN. Fun times.
And you're also incorrect, he is trolling, and you're trying to defend him on the basis of your own belief that all of religion is hogwash. You didn't say it explicitly, but he and I can read between the lines. You don't have to lie to someone because they are offended by something that is meant to offend them. Notice I'm not telling you should grow a bigger brain because you misunderstood the fellow, I'm saying you did so deliberately and you should stop.
Edit:And you're also incorrect, that person is trolling, and you're trying to defend that person on the basis of your own belief that all of religion is hogwash. You didn't say it explicitly, but the fellow you attacked and I can read between the lines. You don't have to lie to someone because they are offended by something that is meant to offend them. Notice I'm not telling you should grow a bigger brain because you misunderstood the fellow, I'm saying you did so deliberately and you should stop.
the Catholic church and various Christian denominations have nearly taken over the country, killing those that would denounce them, suing others, and basking in the glow of righteous power. MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Godwin's Law somehow. Additionally there should be a contemporary SNL skit to parody "The chuch lady" but instead of an overweight forum poster say "Hitler!" instead of "Satan!".
Well, I might be wrong, but isn't there supposed to be a separation of church and state (SCS) in most of Europe? Seems like the lawyers of our demonstrator will have a pretty strong case:
(a) Either scientology is a 'real' religion, in which case you might wonder if it is acceptable that a police officer in function is so emotionally involved in Scientology that he feels insulted by the use of the word 'cult'. That's a violation of SCS, which is in most non-dictatorships a pretty basic constitutional principle.
(b) Or Scientology is not a real religion and the SCS is not applicable here. In that case, demonstrator guy is right: every religious group not accepted by mainstream society is per definition a cult (see source of all wisdom; also in OED).
My favourite one was the huge tube poster they did, it was as wide as about three train carriages, IIRC, and pasted onto the wall opposite the platform.
It showed the skyline of London at night all lit up with hundreds of those eyes looking down; The "SECURE BENEATH THE WATCHFUL EYES" tagline went right across it. When you were stood opposite waiting for a train it totally filled your field of vision - a masterpiece of totalitarian art!
Stuff like this makes me proud of our system of Ingsoc, always keeping us safe!
Nick
your children won't have the same values as you. they will have my values, or your wife's values. so you don't represent a valid coherent belief system. simply because all belief systems must be defended, or even better, aggressively proselytized, in order to survive. if a belief system doesn't have a will to survive, if it won't exert action or even violence to defend itself, it will simply die, becauser some other belief system will act aggressively towards your belief system, and simply kill it, because it isn't defended. killing your belief system, in this analogy, means that it will impose upon your children or your grandchildren how to believe. and since you won't defend your beliefs from that type of activity, your children or grandchildren will simply not believe as you believe. and your beliefs will perish from the earth. your beliefs therefore are simply incompatible with reality, and are therefore pointless
is that right? is that wrong? doesn't matter, it is simply an undeniable ugly truth of the world you live in. reality doesn't care about some sort of absolute right and wrong, as you assert. therefore, it also doesn't care if a violent belief system that does assert an absolute right and wrong forces its way into the world. reality doesn't care if that belief system grows and spreads. the reality about the artificiality of human moral constructs works against your logic, it doesn't support your logic. you are attempting to hew closely to the indifference of reality towards human belief systems. except that human beliefs systems never needed reality to support them, and never will
if you understand the concept of memetics, that is, that the competition between ideas and their spread between humans and societies functions sort of like genetics and the darwinian struggle for survival, then what you represent is a failed mutation. a stillborn child. you're missing a chamber in your heart, or your kidneys are unable to remove a toxin from your blood: your conception of morality is a flawed darwinian unfit memetic mutation. a novel memetic change that represents instant failure. a novel new idea that does not provide any survival advantage, and in fact, a severe survival deficit in the ecosystem of ideas and values of the human society in which you attempt to frame what you believe
an interesting thing about a set of beliefs or values is that they are always challenged, and must be defended. the same way a biological organism is challenged every day to survive: an organism must reproduce and eat. sex and eating are both ugly, but necessary functions. that they are ugly doesn't invalidate their necessity. that they are repugnant does not change the fact that they are intrinic aspects of the need to continue existing. similarly, rejecting the notion that all belief systems must be defended with action and adhere to absolute ideals simply means you embrace the death of your beliefs. its ugly. but its also true
rejecting sex, or not eating food, simply means you die. same with memetics. rejecting the basic necessity of believing in the absolute value of your set of beliefs and therefore aggressively promoting and defending them, is an essential component of any valid belief system. "valid" means, in this scope: that the belief system can survive
so you spout all this wonderful nonsense, but you do it like the guy who says "sex is ugly and interferes with an ascetic pursuit of life". ok, fine. and his genes and his memes die with him. history is replete with various dead end beliefs and utopians societies that fade away simply because they are maladaptive to human nature and the way things work in ugly ways in the real world
here's the truth about the world you live in, regardless of whether you accept it or not:
the only belief systems that grow and spread and therefore survive are the ones that believe they are absolutely correct, and will defend their right to exist to the violent death. that's ugly. it's also 100% undenaibly true about the reality you find yourself
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Actually, years ago I was surprised at how far the protective detail for POTUS, VPOTUS, FLOTUS, etc will go to protect the hecklers' right to free speech.
My rebellious little brother was at a Dan Quayle speech in Wyoming many years ago and was with a group of obnoxious rebels without a cause shouting miscellaneous non-sense. They apparently did a good enough job to annoy the Young Republicans (YPs) and were harassed. One of the YPs blasted an air horn in their face and attracted the attention of the Secret Service detail. The agent informed the YPs that if that happened again they would be arrested for assault and, furthermore, that the hecklers had a constitutionally protected right to be there and say almost anything they wished.
Little Brother, and his band of hecklers actually were so impressed by this that they ceased and went home. It was probably his first patriotic experience and he tells the story teary eyed as an affirmation of "His America".
There is a lot to be proud of in our country (USA), we simply take A LOT for granted.
No, it's not. You quite clearly were recounting a story you read and passing it of as something you actually witnessed.
Please stop pretending otherwise, it's even more embarrassing than lying in the first place.
Not to mention, you were factually wrong in any case.
They don't place prior restraint on speech, they make me responsible for certain consequences of such speech.
Not an invalid point of view, but I'm not sure if it's useful. Once you go with that line of reasoning you have the right to commit murder in the US (you just are responsible for the consequences) and a citizen of Burma has freedom of speech, too. There are things you can do, and the government has no lawful power to stop you - those are rights. If doing something can get you sued or arrested - then the right to do it, is not available to you (regardless whether it should or should not be).
Smith doesn't get to have me arrested. He can sue me; if and only if he proves that the charges are false and caused him harm, he can get compensation.
Sorry, but you'll find the burden of proof doesn't work that way, in this kind of cases. (Makes sense to an extent, too: you may somehow be able that you didn't murder a specific person, but you'll find it's impossible to prove that you never murdered anyone.)
He can't, as the Cult of Scientology did here, send the cops over to take away my sign and bust me.
Please don't try that... You'll find that all sorts of other laws will pop up and interfere with your sign...
I'm not sure there's any need or use for the government to become involved.
Be that as it may: the US has long since decided that the government is involved there.
if it progresses to harassment
I'm sure that Scientology will take the view that it does. Not that I agree with them, but they'll likely argue that.
This leaves open the question of whether libel and slander laws are a violation of free speech.
Does it? It clearly places restrictions on free However libel and slander laws predate freedom of speech, so the case can certainly be made that the first amendment was never meant to not have these restrictions. Unfortunately that also means that there are restrictions to the freedom of speech right, but nowhere does it specify what those are and where the boundary between a legal and illegal restrictions would be. As a result it has been left to the courts to define them. These days you even have an FCC with the authority to fine people for using swear words, and there are obscenity laws on the books, too. (BTW: the first amendment protection for freedom of the press is also absolute. Well, in theory, in practice - unsurprisingly - it's not.)
I'm one of the people who think an organisation should not have the right to defend their outdated business model through frivolous lawsuits. I'm a firm believer in free market. Can't survive on your own, get out of the way for something new. If there is a market for something, someone will come up with a way to make money from it. If there is none (anymore), it's not your god given right to continue your business like nothing changed just because you've always done it that way.
Else we'd still drive around in hackneys because cars cut into the business of those hack cabs, thus cars would have to be banned.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Religion, money, care to explain the difference? Both were created to make life easier for the people and both were finally abused to gain power over the people.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
A citizen of Burma does have the right of free speech. As I said upthread: Dictatorial governments may, of course, not recognize that right; it exists nonetheless. This is the notion of "natural rights" on which our theory of government is based.
If by "right" we mean "right recognized by the government", then the concept is useless - abolitionists in the 1800s couldn't have argued that persons of African decent had a right to be free.
A citizen of Burma - or of the U.K. or U.S. - has a right to free speech, though that right is not fully recognized by the governments in question.
To your other point: speech is unlike murder, in that every act of murder is a violation of someone's rights, whereas few acts of speech or other expression are. And you can't tell generally tell if an expression is a violation of someone's rights until it occurs. If you catch someone about to commit a murder, you can and should stop them by any means necessary; if you catch someone about to commit an act of speech, if you attempt to stop them by force you're committing assault.
The fact that the U.S. Government - or any government - has decided that it is involved in something, does not in any way indicate that it has a legitimate authority to be involved in that thing, or that people don't have a right to do it.
Freedom of speech is a natural right. It predates law - as soon as the first hominid grunted, he had freedom of speech. Amendment I did not create it, only promised to recogize it. (A promise the government broke only seven years later with the Sedition Act.)
Neither of which are ethically - or Constitutionally - justified.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
and it is irreduceable, that is, it isn't pointed at someone else's intolerance, then defying it, fighting it, has the effect of spreading tolerance
example: "i hate black people" if you hate someone because of an intrinsic aspect of their identity, nothing to do with their behavior, then this is irreduceable intolerance. therefore, there is no logical or moral inconsistency, with the concept of tolerance, to fight people who hate people just because they are black
dude: you have not become intolerant if you fight racists. truly you can understand the simple logic here
"The point of my last post was to show how "tolerance" in its modern definitions cannot do this. To survive, it has to violate its own definitions, to become something quite different from what people tend to think it is."
you mean quite different from your own malformed understanding of the principle of tolerance. your average joe understands what i am talking about. its not complicated. you have a malformed conception of what tolerance means. your average person doesn't. you think fighting intolerant people somehow makes you intolerant as well. no, it simply doesn't. its logical and morally sound, and anyone can easily understand the delineation. except you
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Read the article - their second largest market for economy-class long-haul flights is to India. Presumably, then, it makes some sort of economic sense to stop serving beef on flights largely full of people who have a religious objection to eating beef. Would you serve pork in your airline meals if a major market segment was flights to Israel?
Because of 16 flights a week, you're going to take all of your beef from all your flights?
Did *you* read the article? It's removed from pikey-class flights.
Personally I'd rather see all airline meals be vegetarian - not because I'm a vegetarian (I think vegetarianism is stupid and deeply ecologically unsound, but that's an argument for another day) but because the risks inherent in reheating cooked meat correctly in the primitive facilities of an airliner galley outweigh the benefits of serving meat.
BA stopped serving pork, ham and bacon *years* ago, to stop Jewish passengers complaining. Is that "groupthink" too?