Topic: Religion and Government
Scientology - Silencing Critics for Decades Scientology's assault on its critics moves to YouTube...by RS Davis
(libertarian)
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
The Electronic Frontier Foundation reports that the "Church" of Scientology has, through American Rights Council LLC, filed within twelve hours "over 4000 DMCA takedown notices to YouTube, all making copyright infringement claims against videos with content critical of the Church of Scientology."
This is neither the first nor the scariest attempt by the cult to shut down its critics. It all stems from a policy called "Fair Game," which states that an enemy of Scientology, called a suppressive person (SP), "may be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed."
And they've gone after it with gusto. In 1994, Vicki Aznaran, a former executive with the organization, stated in an affidavit that "during my entire presidency of RTC 'fair game' actions against enemies were daily routine. Apart from the legal tactics described below, the "fair game" activities included break-ins, libel, upsetting the companies of the enemy, espionage, harassment, misuse of confidential communications in the folders of community members and so forth."
The Cult Awareness Network (CAN) once reported that no cult prompted more phone calls to their center than did Scientology, saying "Scientology is quite likely the most ruthless, the most classically terroristic, the most litigious and the most lucrative cult the country has ever seen."
Scientology did not take this criticism lying down. Between 1991 and 1996, the "church" and its affiliates filed more than 50 lawsuits against CAN, eventually forcing them into bankruptcy. If that weren't chilling enough, they then bought the weakened watchdog, and now, as former director Cynthia Kisser said, "People are going to believe they're going to talk to an organization that's going to help and understand them in their time of crisis, and in fact, it could be a pipeline of information directly to the group they're most afraid of."
Paulette Cooper wrote a book in 1971 that was critical of Scientology, and was also subjected to nineteen lawsuits. What's worse, as part of Operation Freak Out, which, according to internal Scientology documents, was designed "to get P.C. incarcerated in a mental institution or jail, or at least to hit her so hard that she drops her attacks," Scientologists did their best to frame her for whatever they could.
The plan was as follows:
First, a woman was to imitate Paulette Cooper's voice and make telephone threats to Arab consulates in New York.
Second, a threatening letter was to be mailed to an Arab consulate in such a fashion that it would appear to have been done by Paulette Cooper (who is Jewish).
Third, a Scientologist volunteer was to impersonate Paulette Cooper at a laundrette and threaten the President and then the Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. A second Scientologist would thereafter inform the FBI of the threat.
The plot wouldn't come to fruition, but an alternative plan almost did. As Time Magazine reported: "by impersonating Cooper, Scientologists got her indicted in 1973 for threatening to bomb the church."
She was eventually exonerated, but only after unconnected FBI raids on Scientology offices in Washington and Los Angeles unvovered the plot.
In fact, the author of the Time piece reported that he, too, was subject to some creepiness:
By day's end, I later learned, a copy of my personal credit report -- with detailed information about my bank accounts, home mortgage, credit-card payments, home address and Social Security number -- had been illegally retrieved from a national credit bureau called Trans Union. The sham company that received it, "Educational Funding Services" of Los Angeles, gave as its address a mail drop a few blocks from Scientology's headquarters. The owner of the mail drop is a private eye named Fred Wolfson, who admits that an Ingram associate retained him to retrieve credit reports on several individuals. Wolfson says he was told that Scientology's attorneys "had judgments against these people and were trying to collect on them." He says now, "These are vicious people. These are vipers." Ingram, through a lawyer, denies any involvement in the scam.
During the past five months, private investigators have been contacting acquaintances of mine, ranging from neighbors to a former colleague, to inquire about subjects such as my health (like my credit rating, it's excellent) and whether I've ever had trouble with the IRS (unlike Scientology, I haven't). One neighbor was greeted at dawn outside my Manhattan apartment building by two men who wanted to know whether I lived there. I finally called Cooley to demand that Scientology stop the nonsense. He promised to look into it.
After that, however, an attorney subpoenaed me, while another falsely suggested that I might own shares in a company I was reporting about that had been taken over by Scientologists (he also threatened to contact the Securities and Exchange Commission). A close friend in Los Angeles received a disturbing telephone call from a Scientology staff member seeking data about me -- an indication that the cult may have illegally obtained my personal phone records. Two detectives contacted me, posing as a friend and a relative of a so-called cult victim, to elicit negative statements from me about Scientology. Some of my conversations with them were taped, transcribed and presented by the church in affidavits to TIME's lawyers as "proof" of my bias against Scientology.
Among the comments I made to one of the detectives, who represented himself as "Harry Baxter," a friend of the victim's family, was that "the church trains people to lie." Baxter and his colleagues are hardly in a position to dispute that observation. His real name is Barry Silvers, and he is a former investigator for the Justice Department's Organized Crime Strike Force.
The Fair Game policy was "cancelled" in 1968,with Hubbard saying "The practice of declaring people FAIR GAME will cease. FAIR GAME may not appear on any Ethics Order. It causes bad public relations."
But this was only a cancellation of the term fair game, not the policy, as the issuance went on to stipulate, "This P/L does not cancel any policy on the treatment or handling of an SP."
The actions of the "church" since 68 - including the latest round against YouTube critics - would also indicate that the policy is alive and well. As of right now, many of the videos are back up, the online critics having filed DMCA counter-notices, but I suspect this is far from the end of this battle.
UPDATE: Via Slashdot, all of the videos seem to be back online, and according to our friends at Enturbulation.org, the group that filed the requests to take down the material does not exist.
A group like the Scientologists thrive on subterfuge and secrecy, and they may just be learning that in the information age, those weapons are useless.
The views expressed in this
article are those of RS Davis only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. RS Davis is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
I have no idea if there is anything that can be done at this stage. However, if you are in any position to mobilise your fellow libertarians, in a last minute attempt to avert this disastrous move, please do so.
- A fellow, though European, libertarian and member of the Anonymous movement.
Interesting. Nice find. I'm not sure there is anything we could - or should - do at this point. Next time around, an information campaign might be in order.
Ironically, they though they shut me up by bitching to my employer. Now, they're stuck with me- and all the lovely articles I squeezed out before I went.
Ironically, they though they shut me up by bitching to my employer. Now, they're stuck with me- and all the lovely articles I squeezed out before I went.
Interesting. Can you tell me more? You can contact me at my MySpace page:
On a related note, Scientologist Barbara Schwarz has her own mention in the wikipedia entry on the FOIA [link edited for length]) for filing the most frivilous FOIA requests in the history of the program.
As I've learned more, I regret my comment on Barbara Schwarz. It was off topic, for one. In addition, she is a very sincere, but somewhat unbalanced individual with very frightening concerns, most of which involve the German secret service. She's not someone to point to and ridicule, but someone who deserves caring help.
"Fair Game" is one of the key attack points for scientology critics. What they usually mean is that they feel inconvenient if someone checks out what they are actually doing and how this violates other people's rights. I understand that especially those who have something to hide so not like this approach, but it has nothing to do with "Fair Game". Here is what "Fair Game" was when L. Ron Hubbard used the term forty years ago:
What is "Fair Game"?*
There is a rumor around that a former member of Scientology could be declared "Fair Game", meaning that illegal actions could be taken against this person with Church officials closing both eyes. This is nonsense and has no evidence at all.
A policy of "Fair Game" does not exist within the Church. There was an early policy called "Fair Game" that was cancelled in 1968. The purpose of that policy was to make it known that a person who has left the Church was no longer entitled to the privileges of membership. L. Ron Hubbard himself testified on this in 1976 (link below), making clear that nothing of this meant to violate the law. And that did not happen either.
Scientology critics sometime interpret any lawful action the Church takes to defend itself against their claims or treatment as "harassment" and "Fair Game". The Church does use the same legal tools that anybody else can use, such as lawful information gathering and evidence collection, to defend themselves from unfounded suits, to enforce a legal right or to guard against infiltration and sabotage. This is so common amongst religious organizations as to be routine.
The Church is also within its rights to question the motives of people who would seek to destroy it and to defend itself with lawful means. Other religions also question the motives of those who would seek to destroy them, as well as taking lawful measures to protect themselves, as these examples illustrate.
Basically, Scientology defends itself from attack, by legal means. Just like any other religion would do.
And the misinterpreted policy of "Fair Game"? It is used as an attack method by apostates and hatemongers. It is not a policy used by the Church, it was cancelled 40 years ago. And when it was used, it was not used as is alleged.
Event adamant critics of the Church of Scientology have testified to that. For example, in a most interesting set of declarations an ex-Scientologist said:
"...it has become a routine practice of litigants to make accusations against the Church, including even false allegations of threats of murder, which would be summarily thrown out of court as unsupported and scandalous in other litigation. They do it because it works, and they do it by deliberately mischaracterizing the term "Fair Came". They do it as an intentional means to destroy the reputation of the Church in the context of litigation so that they can win money or force the Church to settle."
and
"The term "fair game" has become a catch phrase for those who attack the Church. When I was in the Church I never heard it referred to as a policy to be used, the only time it was discussed was in reference to litigation in which it was being alleged by Church adversaries. When I was in the Church, I knew that litigants opposing the Church were constantly making fair game allegations against us and that those allegations were nonsense. I also know the frustration those allegations caused because of the willingness of courts and juries to embrace them. From my experience in litigating against the Church, I can see that nothing has changed in this regard. I also know from my experiences in suing the Church and from my association with other litigation adversaries of the Church that they know that "Fair Game" as they portray it is not Church policy. "Fair Game" exists only as a litigation tactic employed against the Church."
Rather than do it quietly, Google placed a notice at the bottom of their search results (http://www.google.com/search? hl=en&rlz=1T4ADBF_enUS292US292&q=scientology+enemy+order) that says, "In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at ChillingEffects.org."
Here are the images, including LRH's signature, that they object to: [link edited for length] Once again, the document confirms a great deal to be correct.
What bothers me is that it seems to be pretty clear-cutfair use, as "the use does not compete with the original, for example because it is a parody, criticism, or news report", but Google is compelled to act under the "safe harbor" clause, just as in the youtube incident.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
