Slashdot Mirror


4,000 Anti-Scientology Videos Yanked From YouTube

An anonymous reader writes "From the EFF webpage: 'Over a period of twelve hours, between this Thursday night and Friday morning, American Rights Counsel LLC sent out over 4000 DMCA takedown notices to YouTube, all making copyright infringement claims against videos with content critical of the Church of Scientology.'"

57 of 658 comments (clear)

  1. Legal consequence? by gmack · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Aren't DMCA notice senders supposed to be legally responsible for the accuracy of the notice? Where is the consequences for blatant abuse?

    1. Re:Legal consequence? by advocate_one · · Score: 5, Informative

      this could be highly amusing... just think of all those perjury charges...

      --
      Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    2. Re:Legal consequence? by Dynamoo · · Score: 5, Informative

      I don't know the content of these videos, but yeah.. a DMCA notice is a sworn statement. If the information is false then potentially it could be regarded as perjury.

      --
      Never email donotemail@WeAreSpammers.com
    3. Re:Legal consequence? by Bios_Hakr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What would the process be for having them prosecuted for perjury?

      I assume you would have to file charges at a police station in their local area. Then, you'd probably have to get the DA there to actually press the case. Finally, you'd have to have a judge willing to apply pretty harsh sentencing.

      It might actually be fun to have 400+ people roll up in Podunk Police Station and all file criminal reports against these people.

      It would also probably be a good idea to send a letter to their local BAR association and advise then that their people are perjuring themselves while slandering innocent people.

      --
      I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
    4. Re:Legal consequence? by TheJasper · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem with that is how often are people/organistations charged with perjury? I suspect not much if at all.

    5. Re:Legal consequence? by boarder8925 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If the information is false then potentially it could be regarded as perjury.

      Not with the amount of money they have. . .

    6. Re:Legal consequence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      YouTube most likely knows, yes.

      However, YouTube is required by law to heed these takedown notices, no matter whether they're justified or not; it's up to the videos' submitters now to file counternotices (at which point YouTube will be required by law to heed these counternotices and reinstate those videos, no matter whether they're justified or not). At that point, it becomes a matter for the courts.

      The whole point of this part of the DMCA is to allow places like YouTube to stay out of judging content altogether and simply have a simple algorithm to follow mechanically that will shield them from legal responsibility. Whether the mechanism is really good or whether it's flawed is another question; but for a site like YouTube that mostly cares about not getting involved in proxy fights over copyright, it's a blessing.

      So it's not really a fine line for YouTube to walk. They just do what they are legally required to, and anyone who doesn't like that and complains about YouTube is barking up the wrong tree - they should work to get the law changed instead.

    7. Re:Legal consequence? by ta+bu+shi+da+yu · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, someone has to issue the DMCA notice - somebody is in charge somewhere. I know it may not seem like it some time, but someone will become accountable if you prod hard enough.

      In fact, if they are careful, all those users who had their material taken down could cause so much trouble for Scientology they may never send another DMCA again. I mean, these video posters are dedicated enough to submit anti-Scientology videos, I'm sure if they have enough time and energy for this sort of thing they'll have enough time and energy to fight back!

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    8. Re:Legal consequence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Wonder how the Cult of Scientology would respond to someone spamming Scientology members w/ emails containing the text of the OT3 and having a return address of:

      LRon@hell.gov

      You know, kinda like spoiling the ending of a bad movie for someone who hasn't finished watching it yet?

    9. Re:Legal consequence? by Da+Fokka · · Score: 5, Informative

      Scientology might own the copyright to their works, but the Dutch supreme court ruled that copyright infringement can be acceptable if it is of interest of the general public. Of course, they have no jurisdiction in the US, but if the copyrighted material can be hosted in the Netherlands, it can be made accesible to anyone.

    10. Re:Legal consequence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I would wager that Scientology sees this as a win-win situation. Either the videos come down without reprisals, or the video creators have to file charges/suits using their real names, opening them up to being 'fair gamed'. What I wouldn't give to see them caught downloading Schindler's List or something - they and the MPAA deserve each other.

      We can only hope they use Thunderdome rules. Two men enter, one man leaves!

    11. Re:Legal consequence? by ArtemaOne · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I did notice the giant shield that Scientologists are using. Did you notice the LLC tag?

    12. Re:Legal consequence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      The perjury issue with the DMCA is something that confuses a lot of people, obviously including yourself. There are two cases where perjury is cited in the DMCA. First, a person must be authorized to work on behalf of the owner of the infringed property:

      (A) To be effective under this subsection, a notification of claimed infringement must be a written communication provided to the designated agent of a service provider that includes substantially the following: .... (vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

      Note here that they sign that the information is accurate, but not under penalty of perjury. The perjury statement follows the 'and' and only refers to authorized representation.

      On the other hand, if you claim that the material was uninfringing, you have to sign under penalty of perjury that your information is accurate:

      (C) A statement under penalty of perjury that the subscriber has a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled.

      This double standard isn't by accident. The record and movie companies knew what they were doing when they were writing this act up for Congress.

    13. Re:Legal consequence? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 5, Informative

      Scientology might own the copyright to their works, but the Dutch supreme court ruled that copyright infringement can be acceptable if it is of interest of the general public. Of course, they have no jurisdiction in the US, but if the copyrighted material can be hosted in the Netherlands, it can be made accesible to anyone.

      I don't know a thing about Dutch law, but in US law the first of 4 possible factors which determine if fair use applies is:

      (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

      Which would seem to cover the situation you mentioned.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    14. Re:Legal consequence? by Entrope · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The perjury statement for the take-down notice requires a statement "that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed". As I read it, that requires that the notice contain some other allegation that an exclusive right is infringed, and that the work and the exclusive right be identified accurately. If the notice does not accurately identify a work (and right) that the complainer is authorized to act on, the complainer might have answer for perjury.

    15. Re:Legal consequence? by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So start an organization that will fight on behalf of a group of people, funded by contributions from those people. The financial burden is too much for one person, so split it among thousands of people.

      I'm still surprised this isn't happening more often. The internet is the perfect tool to organize something like this, spread the word and secure donations. So short of a few big organizations like the ACLU, why isn't it happening?


      Yeah, there should be an organization, a foundation if you will, that will help us with the battles on this new electronic frontier.

      --
      This guy's the limit!
    16. Re:Legal consequence? by aunticrist · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You've not seen what the Church of $cientology can do in a court room lately, have you? They have so many judges in their pockets that they are able to do crap like this and never see the inside of a court room.

    17. Re:Legal consequence? by Sj0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't want to get sued, so this post ISN'T about scientology.

      It's about a religion called "bob".

      I don't want to get sued, so this post DOESN'T talk about L. Ron Hubbard.

      It'll talk about Ronald L. Oldmother

      I don't want to get sued, so this post DOESN'T talk about thetans or Xenu.

      I'll be talking about tarpnars and Gornak, respectively.

      Now, bobians have a theological reason to believe they're above the law in a democratic republic. According to Ronald L. Oldmother's writings, both voters and elected officials would be filled with the souls of dead aliens murdered by Gornak.

      These "body tarpnars" cause irrationality because of the huge 3d movie theatre where I assume the tarpnars were forced to watch the Spice Girls movie for millions of years until they thought it was a good movie.

      This means that the Bobians don't need to follow the law, because they're the chosen, those who don't have "body tarpnars" affecting their judgement. Any lawmakers that get in the way are only doing so because of their "body tarpnars".

      I'll leave it as an excercise for the reader to wonder why they don't have to follow the law when they don't want to, but why they still use the law when it says things they like anyway.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    18. Re:Legal consequence? by aunticrist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In most other cases, something might happen. Unfortunately, the CoS is an insanely influential group that has gotten members into some of the deepest parts of out legal system and government. They have a tendency to work the system from within and they do it well. Its part of what makes them so scary. That and the amount of money that they have would tie things up in court for so long that the people bringing them their would go bankrupt before too long. They'll also be harassed at every corner of their life by the CoS too.

    19. Re:Legal consequence? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Note that this doesn't invalidate the notice. Fair use in the USA is an affirmative defence. It doesn't say that copyright infringement hasn't taken place, it says that infringement has taken place but that society has decided to permit this specific case. This rather nasty bit of law means that you can file a DMCA notice against something which falls under fair use without committing perjury, but when you receive a counter notice and then take the original recipient to court you will probably lose.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    20. Re:Legal consequence? by jonfr · · Score: 5, Interesting

      In short, they are terrorist.

      Church of Scientology is a terrorist group. They can be called that correctly. They terrorize people, make threats and even silence people.

      This is not the first time that CoS has done this. But it is a time for the U.S government to arrest the top of CoS and ban the cult. They are dangerous and have been for a long time.

      CoS is also structured like a military organization, they have troops, generals and so on. I guess that they have the weapons too.

      I guess that CoS troops (plenty on Slashdot already) with mod points will rate this as a flame bait.

    21. Re:Legal consequence? by sukotto · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well then, I say they need to prove that Xenu authorizes them to act on his behalf.

      --
      Come play free flash games on Kongregate!
    22. Re:Legal consequence? by Trikenstein · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not a cult. It's a pyramid scheme masquerading as a cult, masquerading as a religion.

    23. Re:Legal consequence? by bugeaterr · · Score: 5, Funny

      The real tragedy is the number of dyslexic diabetics who end up reading that book of theirs.

    24. Re:Legal consequence? by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I wouldn't mod that funny - I'd be worried about making it to my next birthday if I did that.

    25. Re:Legal consequence? by bberens · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's funny because if you replace CoS with a popular American religion, your post still works.

      --
      Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
    26. Re:Legal consequence? by The+Spie · · Score: 5, Informative

      YouTube itself actually has a very good guide in its help section on how to file a DMCA counter-claim, linking to Chilling Effects' Java applet for generating a counter-claim letter:

      http://help.youtube.com/support/youtube/bin/answer.py?answer=59826

      It's been one of the few times when a help section somewhere has actually been of some help.

      --
      If using Linux is about choice, how come people complain when I choose to use Windows?
    27. Re:Legal consequence? by CrashPoint · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But it is a time for the U.S government to... ban the cult.

      No, it isn't, and it never will be. Arrest people for unlawful acts where the evidence merits it, sure, but you do not fuck with freedom of religion and freedom of assembly. Not even for Scientologists. Congratulations, you just sunk to their level.

    28. Re:Legal consequence? by The+Spie · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm not sure of the details, but the church of scientology holds copyrights and trademarks on all its "works." It does this to prevent unauthorized usage of them. Its content is no more or less protected than that of an individual or corporation.

      No, you aren't aware of the details. In none of the four thousand instances was material from the Church of Scientology (technically, the Church of Spiritual Technology, their front corporation that's set up to hold all their copyrights for them) used in any video.

      And CST was NOT the claimant. They used at least five different false claimants to have the videos taken down. When YouTube found out through the counter-claims and various other complaints that these claimants didn't exist, YouTube put the videos back up. Unfortunately, that took as much as sixteen hours from the time of the original takedown.

      --
      If using Linux is about choice, how come people complain when I choose to use Windows?
    29. Re:Legal consequence? by The+Spie · · Score: 5, Informative

      I would wager that Scientology sees this as a win-win situation. Either the videos come down without reprisals, or the video creators have to file charges/suits using their real names, opening them up to being 'fair gamed'.

      Bingo. This actually started a week ago courtesy of porn baron/Scientologist Oliver Schaper. At the time, the possibility of DMCA counter-claim was mooted among Anonymous, and shot down due to this exact reason. Scientology monitors Anonymous message boards, and for this reason, some of us think that they came to the conclusion that they had the green light to do this.

      What Scientology didn't gamble on was the fact that there are some Anonymous whose identities are already known and who were willing to take action. I was one of them.

      I delved back into my Slashdot experiences for this purpose and used the old sysop trick for catching spammers: set up a honeypot. I created a YouTube account and uploaded certain videos which seemed to have a good chance of getting taken down for specious reasons. Sure enough, one of them was. Within thirty minutes, I filed a counter-claim.

      We can only hope they use Thunderdome rules. Two men enter, one man leaves!

      There is a very good reason why we in Chanology call our out-of-control playpen at Enturbulation.org the Thunderdome...

      --
      If using Linux is about choice, how come people complain when I choose to use Windows?
    30. Re:Legal consequence? by ericrost · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not to Godwin the discussion, but this is exactly what is at issue when you deal with the Neo-Nazi movement in the US. The march they wanted to have in the town that is the highest per capita jewish population in the US. I would have liked to have seen that case reach the Supreme Court. The town refused to issue them a permit to march, which is unconstitutional, you can require registration, but they MUST issue on request.

      Unfortunately, Chicago convinced them that marching there was more of an impact.

      Anyhow, I definitely fall on the side of defending the right of people to say things that I wholeheartedly disagree with, since it means that the things that I say will never be the ones on the edge.

    31. Re:Legal consequence? by russotto · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I've seen people complain here that their material was removed and act like they have no recourse. Not only do you have recourse, you don't even really need an attorney to protest a take-down notice.

      You don't need one, but in fact, you'd better have one. Sending a DMCA counter-notification is the equivalent of telling an Old West (movie version) gunfighter that you'll meet him on the main street at high noon. You have to swear under penalty of perjury (and this one counts, unlike the one in the takedown) that the material is non-infringing, and you have to specify a court which you agree to be sued in. Do you really want to say "go ahead, assholes, sue me" to a bunch of lawyers without a lawyer of your own?

    32. Re:Legal consequence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, it's a fascist political organization masquerading as a criminal racket masquerading as a cult masquerading as a religion hiding behind about 150 front groups. See the talk given by lawyer Graham Berry at a conference in Germany held to investigate them. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvMoSsuRVW8

      France has announced that Scientology will be tried for fraud and illegally prescribing medicine.
      http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL820153620080908

    33. Re:Legal consequence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      In order to be a pyramid scheme, the cult members would need to be selling the courses themselves,

      This happens. You do get commission on it as well - a sale is a sale.

      as well as recruiting new members to sell courses; or they'd get paid according to how many new members they were able to bring into the cult.

      I don't think either of these applies, so it's not really a pyramid scheme.

      On the contrary, so long as the person buys a course or material (such as the dianetics book, which was common when I was into this cult), the ronbot gets commission.

      By your definition, scientology fits both as a pyramid scheme and a cult.

      Tbh I tend to think of it more these days as a pyramid scheme, simply because there is nothing religious about it. It was and is a means to dodge tax.

      Posting anonamously as I have no intention of making it easy for them to initiate their fair game doctrine on me.

    34. Re:Legal consequence? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...but you do not fuck with freedom of religion and freedom of assembly. Not even for Scientologists.

      Or Muslims, BTW.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    35. Re:Legal consequence? by commodoresloat · · Score: 5, Funny

      Nah, hell is definitely a subdomain of .gov

    36. Re:Legal consequence? by LithiumX · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Reading the (reasonable) YouTube rules for countering a takedown, a possible motive arises.

      The material taken down is blatantly non-infringing. Any actual takedown attempt, for takedown sake, would just be minor harassment.

      However... the act of countering a takedown ultimately requires that the video's poster actually identify themselves, for the purpose of further legal discussion/action. Any anonymity is lost at that point.

      That is just a possible motive. It's a damned suggestive one, though.

      The DMCA needs to be overhauled. Badly.

      --
      Do not confuse "Freedom of Choice" with "Free Will".
    37. Re:Legal consequence? by MrNiceguy_KS · · Score: 5, Funny

      Not really. If there's one thing we know for sure about Scientologists, it's that their tolerance for bad science fiction is *really* high.

      --
      Redundancy is good And also good.
    38. Re:Legal consequence? by Creepy · · Score: 5, Funny

      Not to mention satire, no matter how poor taste it may be - is protected. That gives us the right to mock Xenu and Scientology as much as we want - or heck, why stop there? How about that white Jesus shown in every church I've ever been to? I imagine the dude looked a lot more like Osama bin Laden than any white guy. I think the conversation with Bush would be hilarious -

      Jesus: I am not a terrorist!
      Bush: with a name like Jesus bin Nazareth, you are obviously a terrorist. All you 'bin' guys are terrorists.
      Jesus: bin means 'from' you idiot!
      Bush: tell that to Allah you turbanhead
      Jesus: but I'm Christian you moron!
      Bush: you guys would say anything - I am the DECIDER, and I decide you go to Guantanamo bay - take him away boys!
      (feds drag Jesus off)

    39. Re:Legal consequence? by Warbothong · · Score: 5, Funny

      I find it rather amusing that an anti-Scientology YouTube video is linked to as a comment on "4,000 Anti-Scientology Videos Yanked From YouTube" :D

  2. Actually... not a bad thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    By abusing the DMCA they can get slapped pretty heavy. Especially in light of the latest ruling that copyright owners must explicitly consider whether a suspected violation is fair use. Certainly if any of the folks that got harassed decide to litigate back they may well have a decent case.

  3. Re:It's Simple by TFGeditor · · Score: 5, Funny

    For reasons I do not understand, Xenu and clan seem immune to reaping the consequences of their actions.

    Scientology: The Teflon Religion

    --
    Ignorance is curable, stupid is forever.
  4. Some videos back up by fprintf · · Score: 5, Informative

    From the article: "YouTube users responded with DMCA counter-notices. At this time, many of the suspended channels have been reinstated and many of the videos are back up."

    Good for those YouTube users for responding with the counter notices.

    --
    This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood MBA.
    1. Re:Some videos back up by forand · · Score: 5, Informative

      IANAL but. Legally they did the right thing. They have to take it down if someone makes a copyright claim. However, if there is a counter claim then they can reinstate it since it has then become a problem for the courts.

  5. Re:It's Simple by Nursie · · Score: 5, Informative

    Yes, DMCA takedown notices are supposedly sworn, under penalty of perjury, to be from a person/organisation with a good claim to owning the copyright.

    Where this gets tricky is proving they were used to quash criticism and not in good faith. IE if they say "we thought we owned it and had a good claim", that may be enough to get them out of it. Depending on how blatant they were, of course.

  6. Re:Quick action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    We should handle this like the Romans did. Let the Scientologists plead their case for their "religion" in a Colosseum in front of a jury of their peers*.

    *Slight change in programming, "a jury of your peers" will now be played by lions. Enjoy the show!

  7. Re:Why? by Butterspoon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Out of curiosity, why is it that people get bent out of shape about this 'religion'?

    I got to witness an anonymous rally in San Diego about a year or so ago and it was just silly. Yes, you and I may know the whole thing is a crock, but isn't there supposed to be freedom of religion?

    Not looking to start a pissing contest, I'm just wondering where people get their priorities.

    Just go to http://www.xenu.net/ and all will become clear.

    --
    pi = 2*|arg(God)|
  8. Re:Why? by Kierthos · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Here's a short breakdown.

    If you go to a group of Christians, and ask questions about their beliefs, they may engage you in a debate on Christian theology, they may give you a Bible to read, and so forth, but you can generally access these materials for free. If you go a group of Muslims and do the same thing, you will likely get the same results. Same goes for the Jewish religion, or Mormonism, or Hinduism.

    If you go to a Scientology center and ask questions about their beliefs, what it will come down to is "Here are some classes you can take, they cost many thousands of dollars". Scientology is not willing to give away their beliefs just as every other major religion is willing to do so. Scientology is not willing to discuss their beliefs in an open and free environment, as the other major religions are willing to do. And Scientology hides many tenets of their beliefs behind copyright and trade secret laws.

    That last one is the big one. You don't officially learn about their secret beliefs until you have paid many thousands of dollars and been sufficiently indoctrinated into the Church of Scientology.

    Compare that to the other religions. To the best of my knowledge, there is no super-secret ultra-eyes-only version of the Bible that only the elite Christians get to read. There is no "not for the viewing of non-believers" version of the Qu'ran that only the most devout Muslims get to read. But there are secret Scientology documents which explain core beliefs of Scientology that the general rank and file of the CoS do not have access to.

    And then, when people try to promulgate that information, it irks the CoS leadership. Because, for some reason, they don't want it spread that they believe that a galactic overlord named Xenu did all the wacky poor-scripted science-fictiony things he did many millions of years ago, here on Earth. (Excuse me, it was called Teegeeack then, according to these docs.) Because then people would go, "Wow, this reads like it was written by a hack science fiction author." (Which, you know, is what the guy who founded Scientology was.)

    --
    Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
  9. Re:Why? Exactly. by dosius · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They have an explicit doctrine of destroying critics through the legal system. They also believe that if a person is deemed "Suppressive" to the cause of Scientology, they have the right to lie, deceive, or even kill the person with impunity.

    -uso.

    --
    What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
  10. Is this a fishing expedition by Scientology? by Kenrod · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Do the anti-Scientology posters to youtube have to reveal information about themselves to Scientology Inc. through their counter-notices? Isn't this just a way for Scientology to get the identities of the posters?

    --
    Good heavens Miss Sakamoto - you're beautiful!
  11. Re:Why? by Nursie · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Ooh, let's see...

    There's the fact they separate their adherents from their families and then extract money from them.

    There's the whole forced labour, separation from family and cruel punishment of children in their care thing (particularly look up Jenna Miscavige-Hill, neice of the current head of the CoS)

    Umm, there's the fact that people have died in their care whilst being locked up and denied medical care

    There's the fact that they have managed to get some state and national backing for their joke of a rehab scheme. Which, by the way, they claim is the most successful rehab scheme on the planet (without providing figures or evidence), whereas in fact its techniques basically involve a lot of the same psychological breakdown and cod science as scientology itself. This is sick, IMHO.

    There's a lot of other stuff.

    This is NOT about freedom of religion, or who believes what. This is about a dangerous organisation that have comitted felonies to try and wipe their record from government agencies and generally display a lack of respect for laws and lives, and yet is still in many coutries treated as a tax-exempt, legitimate religion.

    Believe what the fuck you like, but you can't support the continued existance of the church of scientology.

  12. The real story: To get info on Anonymous critics by Cookie3 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Consider the possibility that the main aim of CoS was not simply to remove those videos, but to gather information about the people who posted them. Google DMCA Counterclaim information: http://www.google.com/support/youtube/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=59826

    2. Provide your full name, address, telephone number, and email address, and the username of your YouTube account. ...

    What happens next?

    After we receive your counter-notification, we will forward it to the party who submitted the original claim of copyright infringement. Please note that when we forward the counter-notification, it includes your personal information. By submitting a counter-notification, you consent to having your information revealed in this way.

    CoS files false takedowns, Anonymous critics file counter-claims, CoS gets all of their personal information.

    And yes, they do collect personal information and do exploit it to threaten and silence their critics. See, for example, the case of G. Allen. Allen was a regular guy who stopped by to look at the Anonymous protesters in February, with no real interest in the group, and then received a threatening letter from CoS because they ran his license plates and dug up his information to harass him.. and harass him they did. http://blackfish.biz/allen/?p=246

    --
    present day... present time... hahahaha...
  13. Re:Why? Exactly. by Zombywuf · · Score: 5, Informative

    Try visiting whyaretheydead.net, it will tell about the people Scientology has killed.
    Try googling Operation Snow White, you'll find out about how Scientology infiltrated the IRS and shortly afterwards gained tax-exempt status.
    Try visiting Tory Magoo's website, she's an high ranking ex-Scientologist. Read about how she was denied her epilepsy medicine by Scientology.

    Want to know what they've done to me personally? I'll give you a clue, us non-Scientologists give a damn about each other.

    --
    If you can read this you've gone too far.
  14. Re:isn't this a cult? by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Calling $cientology a cult is like calling the Spanish Inquisition a mild theological disagreement.

    --
    There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
  15. DMCA this, bitches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The head of the Galactic Federation (76 planets around larger stars visible from here) (founded 95,000,000 years ago, very space opera) solved overpopulation (250 billion or so per planet, 178 billion on average) by mass implanting. He caused people to be brought to Teegeeack (Earth) and put an H-Bomb on the principal volcanos (Incident II) and then the Pacific area ones were taken in boxes to Hawaii and the Atlantic area ones to Las Palmas and there "packaged".

    His name was Xenu. He used renegades. Various misleading data by means of circuits etc. was placed in the implants.

    When through with his crime loyal officers (to the people) captured him after six years of battle and put him in an electronic mountain trap where he still is. "They" are gone. The place (Confederation) has since been a desert. The length and brutality of it all was such that this Confederation never recovered. The implant is calculated to kill (by pneumonia etc) anyone who attempts to solve it. This liability has been dispensed with by my tech development.

    One can freewheel through the implant and die unless it is approached as precisely outlined. The "freewheel" (auto-running on and on) lasts too long, denies sleep etc and one dies. So be careful to do only Incidents I and II as given and not plow around and fail to complete one thetan at a time.

    In December 1967 I knew someone had to take the plunge. I did and emerged very knocked out, but alive. Probably the only one ever to do so in 75,000,000 years. I have all the data now, but only that given here is needful.

    One's body is a mass of individual thetans stuck to oneself or to the body.

    One has to clean them off by running incident II and Incident I. It is a long job, requiring care, patience and good auditing. You are running beings. They respond like any preclear. Some large, some small.

    Thetans believed they were one. This is the primary error. Good luck.

  16. Once there was a place called Camelot by MarkusQ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'd like to think the U.S. is a stronger democracy than that, but I dunno as I'm an Aussie.

    I'd like to think we were a stronger democracy than this too.

    But I gotta believe my eyes. We The People are allowed to play our little game of self rule so long as we don't get in the way of Big Oil, Big Pharma, the Telco Gang, and the *IAAs, and so on. Which leaves us precious little to play with.

    --MarkusQ

  17. Re:Shooting self in foot by The+Spie · · Score: 5, Informative

    Not sure what they actually expected to gain from doing this. They will likely be in legal trouble and now they have just made the anti-Scientology videos more popular than ever. What asshats.

    I'll tell you why, but it'll be a little tl;dr:

    1) Scientologists are required to attack any criticism of the Church, by holy writ of Hubbard.

    2) The timing was critical. On September 3rd, a large, well-publicized anti-Scientology conference was held in Hamburg. A whole boatload of high-powered Scientologists were sent there to try to stop it, and failed. They tried to get into the conference, and failed. They knew that Anonymous was attending with their video cameras. They knew that these videos would be going up as quickly as possible. This was a preemptive strike to a) take down as many popular anti-Scientology YouTube channels as possible and b) create an atmosphere to make Anonymous members afraid to upload those videos.

    2a) They did this once before recently. Actor Jason Beghe left the Church and was ready to speak out in full to popular critic Mark Bunker. A teaser of the interview was released on YouTube. A few days before the full interview was to be released, Bunker's YouTube account was taken down, and it took over a week, with a lot of effort by Bunker and the critic community (including Anonymous) to get it back up. That's when Anonymous discovered Vimeo.

    2b) Speaking of Vimeo, the takedowns also affected some videos there too. They didn't limit themselves to YouTube, but they did concentrate their efforts there.

    --
    If using Linux is about choice, how come people complain when I choose to use Windows?