http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_chanology
It’s a war between various Internet groups/sites and the Church of Scientology. Not that Scientology takes it seriously, but there property rights are being violated and they had a right to take down the Tom Cruise video. However, the Church is also embellezing millions of out there money and using force on some of there members, even killing them.
So how do you judge a situation like this?
So how do you judge a situation like this?
Each issue is judge separately based on its own merit. The internet group does not have the right to circumvent the law or the rights of the other group to expose them. Likewise, what proof does exist that “the church” has embezzled money from people and/or killed them? Have the victims (or families of the victims) sought legal action against “the church” for these crimes?
Each issue is judge separately based on its own merit. The internet group does not have the right to circumvent the law or the rights of the other group to expose them. Likewise, what proof does exist that “the church” has embezzled money from people and/or killed them? Have the victims (or families of the victims) sought legal action against “the church” for these crimes?
Yes, there are two Wikipedia sites I want to direct your attention too…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_a…he_legal_system
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_controversy
About pursuing lawsuits…
Critics state that the ultimate aim of Scientology lawsuits is to destroy church opponents by forcing them into bankruptcy or submission, using its resources to pursue frivolous lawsuits at considerable cost to defendants. In doing so, they draw particular attention to certain controversial statements made by the church’s founder, L. Ron Hubbard, in the 1950s and 1960s.[2][3]
In 1994 Scientology attorney Helena Kobrin was fined $17,775 for filing a frivolous lawsuit.[16] U.S. District Court Judge Leonie Brinkema cited a frequently quoted statement of L. Ron Hubbard on the subject in the case of Religious Technology Center vs. The Washington Post, on November 28 1995:[17]
“The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than win. The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly.”—L. Ron Hubbard, The Scientologist, a Manual on the Dissemination of Material, 1955
Critics also allege that the Church uses litigation as a cover for intimidation tactics, such as investigating the criminal records of opponents (or lack thereof) and subjecting them to surveillance and invasive inquiries, both to discourage further criticism and to ensure the opponent’s unwillingness to fight the lawsuit. A policy letter by L. Ron Hubbard, distributed in early 1966, says:
This is correct procedure:
(1) Spot who is attacking us.
(2) Start investigating them promptly for FELONIES or worse using own professionals, not outside agencies.
(3) Double curve our reply by saying we welcome an investigation of them.
(4) Start feeding lurid, blood sex crime actual evidence on the attackers to the press.
Don’t ever tamely submit to an investigation of us. Make it rough, rough on attackers all the way.[18]
Opponents of Scientology cite this passage, among others, to support their contentions that the church uses smear tactics to augment the effectiveness of legal threats.[2][3]
And theres more then enough evidence to say they killed Lisa McPherson.
Also, this is the official site for Project Chanology.
http://partyvan.info.nyud.net/index.php/Project_Chanology
I don’t agree with some of there reasons, but they make it very clear that the official protests are to “follow the law to the letter” and not violate anyone’s rights. Most of the other stuff you see are people acting out on there own because truthfully, Anonymous is not really an organization at all, so anyone can do something and claim to be doing it for Anon. I look at the official Chanology to make the moral judgment and I think they have a right to protest against The Church Scientology which is, in my view, an evil organization.
So to answer your questions, yes there is proof and yes the victims have sought legal action, but the Church runs a vicious intimidation scheme to get people to not take action against them.
… they make it very clear that the official protests are to “follow the law to the letter” and not violate anyone’s rights.
From what I have read, that group is attempting a “denial of service” attack on the Church web-sites. I’m pretty sure that breaks some law, but I suppose there are ways to do it so that one can stay within the “letter” of the law – I’m not familiar with the “denial of service” laws to know what loopholes they have.
Denial of service is like a million people lining up at someone’s ice-cream shop, knowing he does not sell butterscotch, then when they reach the counter they ask for butterscotch, shrug when he says he doesn’t sell it, and leave. Their intent is to make other customers see the line and go elsewhere. Such computer attacks should be illegal even if they aren’t.
And theres more then enough evidence to say they killed Lisa McPherson.
Assuming the wiki entries can be trusted, I see that there were conflicting evaluations of her cause of death. I’m not defending the COS, but it looks like there was an investigation and it was determined that there wasn’t enough evidence to convict anyone criminally. As to whether or not any of the medical examiners acted unethically remains to be seen.
From what I have read, that group is attempting a “denial of service” attack on the Church web-sites. I’m pretty sure that breaks some law, but I suppose there are ways to do it so that one can stay within the “letter” of the law – I’m not familiar with the “denial of service” laws to know what loopholes they have.
Denial of service is like a million people lining up at someone’s ice-cream shop, knowing he does not sell butterscotch, then when they reach the counter they ask for butterscotch, shrug when he says he doesn’t sell it, and leave. Their intent is to make other customers see the line and go elsewhere. Such computer attacks should be illegal even if they aren’t.
And who exactly would you persecute? If you offer something for free without validating the customer then you have to expect that more people will use your service than you can handle.
A simple text interface with a login name and password and no DOS attack can bring the site down (except low level attacks, but from what I have read they used a tool that simply reloads the main page over and over again). Of course that would not attract new visitors.
But I agree with you that there is a difference between ‘more people (real people) show up than expected’ and ‘multiple requests from the same person’. But a clear distinction and definition is probably hard to do, so it is up to the service provider to count the requests and differentiate between serious requests and prank calls.
Yes, I understand the difficulty. I think the FBI should infiltrate a few such efforts, get conspiracy on the record, and a few of these guys should be thrown in jail.
Yes, I understand the difficulty. I think the FBI should infiltrate a few such efforts, get conspiracy on the record, and a few of these guys should be thrown in jail.
The COS has already infiltrated the FBI, I don’t think the FBI likes them very much.
And who exactly would you persecute? If you offer something for free without validating the customer then you have to expect that more people will use your service than you can handle.
Ideally, all those who visited with malicious intent should be prosecuted, though in practical terms getting them all could be difficult.
A deliberate campaign is by its nature either organised or at least instigated by a small number. At the very least, seek those people and hit them the hardest. Then try to get at least some of the worst offenders whose actions couldn’t possibly be anything other than malicious. After that, proving someone’s intent would get progressively more difficult, but I don’t think that’s reason enough not to try. And then of course there may be total innocents whose computers have been hijacked for attacks - that would in itself mean more charges to be laid upon those responsible, again a small number.
JJM
Ok, I’ve slept a night over the issue and I agree now. The service provider cannot protect his free services against all sorts of unintended abuse. And by applying for the free service both parties still form some sort of agreement not to abuse it.
The question is of course how that agreement looks like and where to draw the line between proper usage and abuse. The user has to be able to know what is allowed and what is not, otherwise the law is not objective.
The COS has already infiltrated the FBI, I don’t think the FBI likes them very much.
I’m guessing you’re being funny or ironic, Mammon; but, just in case you actually misunderstood what I said, I wasn’t suggesting the FBI infiltrate the COS.
*** Mod’s note: Merged with earlier thread - sN ***
Here are two sites you should see in relation to the protests:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Chanology
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCbKv9yiLiQ
Bear in mind that the chans, such as 4chan, and /b/ in specific tend to be fairly nihilistic, but Scientology itself is a worse evil than a bunch of computer geeks that fart around on the internet.
Is this the same group that goes around violating property rights? I think it is. Scientology may be evil, but it still has rights to free speech. That includes the right to have a web page.
They’re not going to accomplish anything. For anyone who doesn’t know, 4chan basically consists of extremely immature internet users that like to make light of every single serious situation that comes their way. I remember that within a few hours of the VA shooting they were making a mockery of the murderer and victims in the form of lolcats-styled pictures. Nothing is sacred there.
And one of the things it’s most well known for are its “raids”, where they gather up a bunch of people and either hack something or flood a site with vulgarity. For example, there was one time they raided a site called “Habbo Hotel” and all the raiders registered their characters as suited black males with afros, and they went around forming swastika-shaped lines and other vulgar things. It was so overwhelming to the moderators they had to shut some servers down. Sample video here
If you look around some more on Youtube, you can find either samples of raids where they called in dating advice shows and asked for sex advice or merely shouted an internet joke, or when they called into a racist online radio show (Hal Turner) and shouted the host down with racial epithets. Hal
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZ4\_FdBP8VU
One time they even closed down a football stadium with mass bomb threats.
They’re not going to accomplish anything because all they do is demonstrate the evils of what they’re making fun of, or “fighting against.” Nothing but hostile.
Edit: Typed this before it was merged. Added in quotes to let know whom I was responding too.
Is this the same group that goes around violating property rights? I think it is. Scientology may be evil, but it still has rights to free speech. That includes the right to have a web page.
Rights violators have no rights. Besides, Anon has started lawful protest actions more recently. So far from being mere vigilantees they now posess the claim to be actual benevolent agents in this war.
Giving any leeway to a group like this is like giving leeway to a lynch mob. One day their nihilistic destructiveness can be aimed at you.
Giving any leeway to a group like this is like giving leeway to a lynch mob. One day their nihilistic destructiveness can be aimed at you.
True, but Co$ is hardly a target worthy of anything less than a lynch mob. $cientology actually KILLS people.
True, but Co$ is hardly a target worthy of anything less than a lynch mob. $cientology actually KILLS people.
Is that not the same for all other religions? Although perhaps on not such a scale. Besides, a lynch mob can only slow down a movement, not stop it. There were lynch mobs back in the Civil Rights Movement, but that certainly didn’t stop it. Rights (though not all of them were natural rights) triumphed over violence.
Keep in mind also that Chan is restricted entirely to the internet and phone; Scientologists still have everything else they can use to continue on their way.
Rights violators have no rights. Besides, Anon has started lawful protest actions more recently. So far from being mere vigilantees they now posess the claim to be actual benevolent agents in this war.
So I can lock a thief in my basement for 5 years after convicting him in the court of my own mind? Vigilantism isn’t so easily justified. Protests are good, putting pressure on government officials to do their job is good. But as long as that group is engaged in vigilantism they don’t deserve support.
True, but Co$ is hardly a target worthy of anything less than a lynch mob. $cientology actually KILLS people.
This is the problem with vigilantism. Scientology kills people, ACORDING TO YOU. To justify retaliation you need to be able to prove it. That’s why we have a government and courts and trial by jury.