Slashdot Mirror
Church of Scientology Proposes Net Censorship In Australia
An anonymous reader writes "Submitted by the Australian branch of Scientology to the local Human Rights Commission is a proposal to eliminate anonymity on the net and the removal of critical websites (MS Word document).
The submission is listed as #1931 at this page at the Australian Human Rights Commission." (Read on below for some of the details of what the Scientologists propose.)
"SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS: Recommendation 1: The implementation of Criminal and Civil Restrictions on Religious Vilification. Recommendation 2: Restriction on Anonymity on acts of Religious Vilification: 2.1 Websites created with primary purpose of inciting religious vilification shall be removed or their access to the Australian public restricted. 2.2 Creators of websites whose primary purpose is the incitement of religious vilification shall be prevented from concealing their identity. Recommendation 3: Restriction on Religious Misinformation and
Misrepresentation known or reasonably known to be untruthful in the Media
Recommendation 4: Include a form of Bill or Charter of Rights into the Australian Constitution, which prevents the Commonwealth from making any law, which 'directly, indirectly or incidentally' prohibits the free exercise of religion to the extent of such prohibition."
Are there any Scientologists in the Australian govt? And does this just happen to coincide with Tom's recent visit down-under?
Scientology is a dangerous cult
Scientologists have never been too fond of freedom of speech. Hurts their profit margins.
Why, yes! I AM new here.
I don't see why Scientology is interested in the matter. It's not as if they're a religion. They haven't even suggested the protection of pyramid schemes.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Do they define 'critical' as every website that speaks negatively about Scientology? By the way: There goes Slashdots anonymous features!
Well, I'm not accusing the Co$ of anything, but if I was a group that uses heavy peer pressure and the fact that as a group I have vastly more resources than any individual, monetary and time-wise, I'd certainly want anonymity stripped away so I know which individuals I'd have to silence to send out a message to other individuals.
I just wish they'd do something like this in Europe. It would do a huge service towards net anonymity, considering how many governments react to pretty much anything the Cult spews.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Australia is probably the absolute worst place for them to push this. 30% to 40% of the population is non-religious, and our mindset is one of "suck it up" with respect to shit like this. This reeks of bully boy tactics and that doesn't sit well with Aussies.
Anyway I doubt it'd pass the Senate for other reasons. Between the Greens, Family First, Liberal, and Labour, 3 of those are strong Christian parties, and the other is strongly secular and radically opposed to censorship.
(As an American.) Wow, that is very space opera-ish. It sounds like the fevered mumblings of a burnt-out science fiction author who has indulged in too much alcohol and too many prescription painkillers. Can you identify the source and describe what it has to do with this post?
Anyone reading Scientology material becomes pretty much immune against their brainwash. Its more like a very badly written sci-fi novel than anything else. Letting people read it in a safe enviroment makes recruting more cultists so much harder.
The only way to get rid of stupid cults like Scientology, Christianity and the like is to expose them freely and put them against real knowledge and science. Religion has no place in a modern society.
HTTP/1.1 400
If you publish proposals like this as a MS Word document, you should be censored from the internet.
Why do they need to be so litigious? Why can't they just zap critical web sites out of existence with their super high level thetan powers?
Um, that's the core of the scientology "religion". You should know this.
And yes, it is indeed the fevered mumblings of a burnt-out science fiction author who has indulged in too much alcohol and too many prescription painkillers.
woosh
with a hidden, apparrently gnaa, sub-troll
SURELY NOT!!!!!
It's the first page of the documents of Scientrollogy's supar-sekrit Operating Thetan 3 doctrine.
-uso.
What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
"If you want to make a little money, write a book. If you want to make a lot of money, create a religion." ~ L. Ron Hubbard
~ Ron Fitzgerald
http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2009/09/03/dm-yscohb/
Mods, you've just blown a point on some GNAA flamebait.
For the real version of "Understanding Scientology" by Margery Wakefield, see http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/wakefield/us-07.html
Um, that's the core of the scientology "religion". You should know this.
And yes, it is indeed the fevered mumblings of a burnt-out science fiction author who has indulged in too much alcohol and too many prescription painkillers.
Somebody's sarcasm meter is broken.
And then immediately pass a law that says Scientology is not a religion.
Recommendation 1: Make it illegal to make fun of us so that we have legal grounds to sue.
Recommendation 2: Eliminate Anonymity on the internet so that we know who we can sue.
Recommendation 3: Stop letting the media make fun of us or we will sue.
Recommendation 4: Make a law so that you can not tax us when we sue.
Everybody should be posting on this article Anonymously by the way
A very long time ago, a friend in our share house was given one of their "personality test" questionaires. I asked for a copy too, and got it. Said friend agonised over his questionnaire, and his answers were all over the page. It was a simple mark-sense sheet - remember those? Anyway, I said "watch this..." and I took a ruler and marked every question right down the middle. One to five, I marked three for all of them. I used the right home address, but a false name (my scam-o-meter being active even as a teenager in the late 60's).
I bet my friend my share of the utilities for that month that the "analysis" response would be identical.
The written response we got some days later and indeed, they were identical. I had won. And apparently, we were both "quite unique". And I had the joy of writing "not at this address" on all the mail sent to the false name I gave at that address. Unless they've razed that house, they're probably still getting letter spam.
Biggest damn con on the planet until Nigerian 419 arrived, in my opinion.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
I noticed that the document against anonymity was written anonymously. (Names, people. I need names!)
So pretty much, the Scientologists are pissed because their own tactics are being used against them...
L. Ron hubbart said one day "If you want to make a little money, write a book. If you want to make a lot of money, create a religion". Then he proceded a few year later to make up the CoS. I guess he really wanted to become rich, whether it was through mroal or immortal ways.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Actually, there are numerous books that go into thorough detail, although not with the (questionably copyighted) inner documents fully quoted. "A Piece of Blue Sky" is amusing, and if you can find a copy, "The Scandal of Scientology", and there was an old Time Magazine article that got it basically right in less than 0 pages. You can also find much of the material through websites like www.xenu.net and www.factnet.org, although the documents are fragemented. It's hard to know what is complete or not, but it's enough of the inner material that the cult has been going off their rocker for decades about the general availability of these.
Look up what happened to Susan Meister for writing "The Scandal of Scientology", by the way. Mary Sue Hubbard's minions forged bomb threats to try and discredit Susan, and the related craziness got Mary Sue convicted along with some of the most devoted leadership of the cult, but the cult _still_ managed to wind up with the copyrights on the book to halt further publication.
"I normally don't respond to flamebait, but someone modded you insightful."
What a coincidence. It's the same reason I'm responding to you.
"Maybe you were reading straight through and didn't finish until you got to the game-changing peace and love hippie stuff?"
If you think Christianity is all hippy peace and love stuff, then I'd suggest you finish reading the Bible, or take a second look. Even in the New Testament, God (and Christ) often got angry and displayed wrath. Jesus wasn't some Ghandi-ish peace and understanding guy. He said that if you didn't believe he was the Messiah, you were in for an eternity of sufferning. He often told people that it was better for them to suffer some horrible Earthly fate than to violate his teachings, because the punishment for that would be worse.
Turn the other cheek? He also said not so nice things.
"He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." - Luke 22:36
In the book of Matthew, one morning Jesus wakes up and wants some breakfast. He comes to a fig tree, expecting fruit. When he sees the tree has produced none, he becomes angry, and curses the tree, causing it to wither and die, never to produce fruit again.
"And as they passed by in the morning, they saw the fig tree withered away from the roots. And Peter calling to remembrance said unto him, âRabbi, behold, the fig tree which you cursed is withered away." - Mark 11:20
Anyone that thinks Jesus was some hippy "I'm OK, You're OK" kind of guy really has never read the Bible.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
With legal chicanery I mean e.g. leveling a barrage of nuisance lawsuits at an opponent with the objective of bankrupting the victim by forcing him to expend ruinous sums on legal counsel, or alternatively by securing unfounded convictions against the victim where he has been unable to mount an adequate legal defense (See e.g. http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Fishman/Declaration/exhibg.html).
An additional form of chicanery is to drop charges against a victim who does mount an adequate defense in order to avoid unfavorable precedents from being set against the sect (see http://www.rechtspraak.nl/Gerechten/HogeRaad/Actualiteiten/Hoge+Raad+verwerpt+het+cassatieberoep+in+de+zaak+Scientology+providers+en+Spaink.htm (in Dutch)).
Of course the wave of counter-harassment and even threats (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Chanology) goes too far. But what the Cult now pleads for is to introduce a totally ambiguous definition of "Websites created with primary purpose of inciting religious vilification" (read: "anybody who says something to the effect that the Scientology sect is a nasty, dangerous, for-profit outfit") and strip those of anonymity or even the right to exist at all. In plain text: anyone who writes anything against the Scientology cult will now be exposed to harassment lawsuits, career wrecking, and intimidation (see the Fishman affidavit in one of the links above).
The full text of the "recommendations" I reproduce below:
What part of this looks as if it provides any safeguards against the most appalling abuse? Where are the checks and balances? Who determines what is "misinformation", or "incitement of religious vilification"? Would quoting court documents that state the Scientology sect pr
I don't believe that. I have a hard time labeling any belief system as a cult if its members freely and openly offer to tell non-members everything that it believes. For instance, go into a Catholic or Baptist or Hindu or Islam or Buddhist place of worship. Ask the first person you see if they'll tell you what they believe. Chances are strong that they'll invite you in, answer any questions you have in as much depth as you request, give you a free copy of their holy book (if they have one), and offer you as much free literature as you can carry to take home and read on your own.
I wouldn't consider any of those a cult for that reason. You can find out up front exactly what they believe, and choose to join or walk away.
Now, try that experiment with the CoS. Or, better yet, don't.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?