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
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.
..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.
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.
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
Just spread the word that Scientologists believe Allah is a pig-fucker.
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.
Germany even put them under surveillance by the "Verfassungsschutz". Usually, something like this is reserved for groups that threaten the state's integrity, safety or the state itself.
So calling the CoS a "cult" seems rather tame by comparison.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
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
Eating placenta is a ritual in some cultures. And it is par for the course among many mammals.
That's utter nonsense. David Miscavige could never do that. Everyone knows he only gets an erection when he kills a puppy.
Circumcision is child abuse.
I think I have to stop calling Linux users a cult before I get prosecuted.
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.
Yep. The only man to enter parliament with honest intentions.
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....
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."
Those people were prosecuted
http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/003342.html
In all, only four people were brought to face charges on Friday June 26 as a result of the Sloane Square demonstration. These included Mizanur Rahman, as well as 26-year old Umran Javed of Birmingham, who denied one charge of soliciting to murder American or Danish nationals and one charge of using threatening words or behaviour likely to stir up racial hatred. 31 year old Abdul Rahman Saleem (aka Abu Yahya) denied one count of using words likely to stir up racial hatred. 23 year old Abdul Muhid was charged with two counts of soliciting murder to those who insulted Islam.
All those charged except Abdul Muhid were granted bail. Muhid, who had tried to flee the country on May 4 with Anjem Choudary, was denied bail and was kept in custody in Winchester Prison.
Muhid, Abdul Rahman Saleem (aka Abu Yahya) and Umran Javed are still awaiting their trials.
Actually the incitement to religious hatred law that this guy got busted under was partly inspired by that demonstration.
It's silly really. Incitement should be illegal and that's it. Then the "Behead those who insult Islam" types would get arrested and this guy wouldn't. Which seems fair enough to me.
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;
.. 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'
Also, in the wild, the placenta being left around alerts predators to tasty, tasty babies being around. As for Cults/Religions, Cults COST you money, Religions GUILT it out of you.
77 HITS
Really Long Off Topic Combo
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.
Yea, I hear about this cult who worship a 2000 year old zombie Jew and believe they can turn bread and wine into his flesh and blood that then then devour in a cannibalistic ritual. Nutters eh?
What if Tetris was invented by Nazis?
More bizarre and/or insane than what? FFS man, talking telepathically to an imaginary friend who is solely responsible for all that happens in the universe (including putting dinosaur bones in place as is to fool us) compares to evil galactic rulers and volcanoes in a better light in exactly what way?
I have often spoke when I shouldn't have, but I have to say that there are far too many people who 'know' about religion, or think they do when in fact they know about some parts of ONE religion.
Yes, the CoS is a cult, so is the CoE, by technical definition all religions are cults. That is what makes the entire censorship here totally ridiculous. It's rather like saying that there are dangerous humans at 1600 Pennsylvania avenue, or 10 Downing street.
Drinking blood and eating flesh? Is that bizarre enough for you? How about sacrificing your own children? Incest? Genocide? The Christian Bible is full of examples of things that would just not work in today's society.
I fail to see how CoS is any more bizarre than Christianity.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
How does bizarreness matter? The cult of scientology believes that evil space aliens murdered billions of other aliens by stuffing them into DC-10 like spaceships and blowing them up in earth's volcanoes with Hydrogen bombs. The cult of christianity believes that you can telepathically communicate with a dead god-fragment and tell him you love him and that he will accept you into his kingdom and cleanse you of a taint that was placed in all humanity by a rib-woman being tricked by a talking snake.
Scientology is insane, but so are pretty much all other religions.
Not a sentence!
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.
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?
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
You obviously have never played D&D.
Animate Dead is a 3rd level spell.
Raise Dead is a 5th level spell.
Resurrection is a 7th level spell.
And true res is a 9th level spell
Don't be insulting God by calling him a low level spellcaster, pls. K? Thx.
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.
true res? well he only lasted 40 days, so that's not really very impressive.
What if Tetris was invented by Nazis?
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.
For all they do wrong, at least Christians believe in something that was always meant to be a religion, while Scientology believes in a science fiction novel.
And of course, it's quite obvious that nowadays, Scientology is more detrimental to their members and to society in general than modern Christianity is.
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.
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.
I fail to see how CoS is any more bizarre than Christianity.
At a 'technical' level you are right, the bible is no less crackpot than the scientology 'technology'.
One difference is that a lot of the various testaments have a good historical basis. For Instance I have no doubt about the existence of Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha etc.. they really existed! - Whether they were the son of god/prophet of god/being of divine light/etc is another question.. I believe they were just charismatic good people who others naturally followed. None of them seem particularly evil; that comes from those who followed them and wanted to assume that power over others for their own.
The difference is in attitude, reputable religions want to spread the word. eg. I have a bible, a translation of the qur'an, and other texts; all of which were given to me for free by believers who genuinely believe that by reading the words I'll become converted.
Compare and Contrast that to how Scientology spreads it's word...
Even the nastiest promoters of mainstream religion (the religious right, jihadists, etc.) are very open about their beliefs. Unfortunately their methods are often similar in terms of infiltrating institutions and crushing dissent.
"Oops, I always forget the purpose of competition is to divide people into winners and losers." - Hobbes
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 ?
Here in the US, at least, the word "cult" implies a large group of followers and a shaggy-haired leader, usually having sex with all the followers. He takes all their money, they live on a commune, and at his word they'll all happily commit suicide in order to transfer their souls to a passing comet. They also stockpile weapons and molest children.
Yes, this is all stereotypical and there are plenty of cults that are simply communes, but there have been a decent enough number of the bad cases that it's not exactly a stretch to not want your cult to be called as such.
Pulp Audio Weekly - Geek News and Reviews
I think I just threw up a little in my mouth. Let me start by saying that I'm by no means religious. However, when I read such short-sighted and superficial comparisons between Scientology and mainstream Christianity I really want to smack somebody. The thing is this:
Scientology makes its members pay to be involved in the church and to gain access to their "teachings." For example, modern Catholicism does not do this. You can go right now to your local church, go in, pick up a copy of the bible and there it is, free of charge. You can ask the priest pretty much anything and guess what, you are likely to get halfway straight and honest answer, without coughing up hundreds of dollars.
Further, most people don't really buy into the whole cannibalism thing or take everything the bible, especially the old testament, seriously. Rather they tend to use the bible as sort of a set of guidelines. Of course were making points on Slashdot so it must be the case that the most extreme members of anything == all the members of anything.
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.
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
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.
At a protest outside a Scientology building, I saw a rather appropriate sign:
Ask a Christian about the Bible, and he'll tell you.
Ask a Jew about the Torah and he'll tell you.
Ask a Muslim about the Koran and he'll tell you.
Ask a Scientologist about HIS holy books and he'll tell you... after your check clears.
Say what you will about Christianity and other modern religions, (and I will) they're not, at their core, pyramid schemes for making profits. Scientology is.
For all they do wrong, at least Christians believe in something that was always meant to be a religion, while Scientology believes in a science fiction novel.
:)
Not meaning to be disrespectful, but how do you know the bible wasn't supposed to be a sci-fi novel?
http://blog.nexusuk.org
There's a whole bunch of stories, that have a a bit of 'what if' to them, including a few where something believed impossible becomes possible.
They're all in some degree a matter of society and human reaction, as that's what Sci-Fi is mostly all about - new possibilities, and it's impact on everyone else. Some have mysterious happenings, and stuff beyond the understanding of man.
Some are carrying an interesting underlying message, moral or otherwise.
*shrug*. There's a certain basis of argument that the Bible isn't the literal truth, but has value as fiction which educates. Not so very different to a Sci-Fi short story anthology.
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.
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
Actually there's a good chance the Human Rights Act will provide much the same defence (although it may not even be necessary to cite the HRA as the Public Order Act itself has a defence of "reasonableness" which I'd expect to apply to most political speech).
Hopefully the guy involved will stop asking for advice on bulletin boards and find himself a decent human rights lawyer (many of which I am confident would take this on for free).
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.
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.
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 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
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.
"Oh, Scientology is not really any more far out than Christianity" (Subtext: this makes it "ok", it's like other bona fide religions and we let them stick around, right?)
I have heard this notion cast about for some time now, here at Slashdot and elsewhere, and it disturbs me that so many people miss the important point here. The issue is not whether Scientology is any weirder than other religions. Their bizarre beliefs are not in and of themselves the danger. The real danger is of the same kind we have seen before. It is very familiar, everyone here has probably read about it at one point or another, perhaps in a history book, or a newspaper.
And that danger is that to the average Scientologist the only hope for the world is through the philosophy of Scientology. It MUST be spread to every corner of the globe by whatever means necessary. Our society MUST be rewritten according to its standards and methods. And its current standards and methods are clear that any means are acceptable to reaching that end. ANY means. The laws, morals, ethics, etc. of the rest of the world are secondary and can be ignored if it means furthering the aims of Scientology.
THAT is the danger in a nutshell. As I have said, we have seen this sort of thinking before:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jones
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Koresh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism
And we have seen what happens when Scientologists are allowed to practice this "philosophy":
http://www.whyaretheydead.net/
http://www.scientology-lies.com/investigation.html
http://www.xenu.net/archive/go/index.htm
There are still other dangers to be considered as well. They turn people away from doctors, medicine and real mental help while giving pie-in-the-sky promises of curing all your problems (up to and including things like cancer, diabetes, schizophrenia, and homosexuality, which they consider a "mental illness"). Many have died believing Scientology would cure them.
Then there is the fact they their "disconnection" policies have, and are continuing to rip families apart: http://www.scientologydisconnection.com/
Children of Scientologists are often denied education, either by being discouraged to go to college (and in many cases any non-scientologist school), or if the parent is a staff member (or if the child is), they may be forced into a Scientology children's organization of one sort or another where they will receive a substandard education, if any. In my experience (which others shared with me and I have found out is all too common elsewhere), I was recruited at a young age and told that my education would be provided for. I and all the other children at the location I was at were given a 4-5 hours a day in a classroom-like environment in which we were to pair off and study "whatever". There were math books, science books, books on spelling and such. But there was no teacher, no curriculum, no grades, no structure of any sort. Often the class was cancelled if we were needed for more important matters (meaning anything to do with Scientology's well-being). To get around this we were all instructed and trained in how to lie if the city sent someone by to check on conditions there, and we were to tell them that we were always getting our study in.
I understand that there are some similar practices in other religions as well. I oppose these too. Religions that forbid surgery or blood transfusions, those that sucker people into "faith healing", all are doing a tremendous disservice and must be opposed.
Scientology too must be
FGD 135