From Project Chanology - Toronto Division

January 26, 2008 article

Online group declares war on Scientology
David George-Cosh, National Post
Published: Saturday, January 26, 2008

An online group of hackers has declared war on Scientology, vowing to attack the controversial religion's Web sites and turn its adherents against it.

Already the group, which describes itself simply as "Anonymous," has released hundreds of pages of Scientology material for which practitioners would normally have to pay and claims to have slowed down or even temporarily closed Scientology Web sites.

The group says it was prompted to act after Scientology leaders recently tried to "censor" a widely distributed and mocked video of Tom Cruise. The video shows the actor -- one of the most high-profile and outspoken adherents of Scientology -- professing his love for the religion, laughing hysterically and claiming that Scientologists are the only people able to help save lives following a car accident.

"The so-called Church of Scientology actively misused copyright and trademark law in pursuit of its own agenda," one Anonymous member commented in a press release this week.

"They attempted not only to subvert free speech, but to recklessly pervert justice to silence those who spoke out against them."

The Anonymous group later released a video in which a computer-generated voice outlines the group's concerns with the Church. Only two minutes long and broadcast against a bleak, grey sky, the video quickly became among the most-watched on the Internet.

"Anonymous has therefore decided that your organization should be destroyed. For the good of your followers, for the good of mankind and everywhere. You will find no recourse in attack, because for each of us that falls, ten more will take his/her place," the voice said.

More than 463,000 people have watched the Anonymous video on YouTube since it was posted. It was the second-most commented-upon video on the Web site and the most-watched science-technology clip.

Andreas Heldal-Lund, webmaster of Operation Clambake, a Web site critical of Scientology, issued a statement saying: "People should be able to have easy access to both sides and make up their own opinions. Freedom of speech means we need to allow all to speak -- including those we strongly disagree with."

Although members of Anonymous have not revealed their identity to protect themselves against litigation from the Church of Scientology's lawyers, it has been widely reported that they are associated with underground hacking Web sites such as 4chan and 711chan as well as a number of Internet Relay Chat channels.

dgeorgecosh@nationalpost.com

May 26, 2008 Editorial Blog

The Post editorial board on Britain's censorship of a Scientology protest sign: A defeat for free expression
Posted: May 26, 2008, 10:17 AM by Marni Soupcoff
article here
Editorial

It may be one thing for freedom of expression to be an object of controversy in Canada — which is, after all, a somewhat tenuous experiment in democracy and federalism, one whose final shape and outcome may yet remain to be determined — but it is quite another to see it tormented in Great Britain, the historical anchor of most of the liberties we take for granted. When Britain injures what the rest of regard as British principles, it is a source of particular sorrow. On May 10, a teenager protesting peaceably outside the London headquarters of the Church of Scientology had a placard confiscated by London Police, who deemed it criminally "insulting." Crown prosecutors refused to follow up, which was hailed as a "victory" for free speech.

Some victory. The sign was being wielded by an unidentified minor, who was taking part in the latest of a series of Internetorganized "anonymous" protests.

If protest materials can be confiscated, then not much is left of the right to protest against Scientology. It read "Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult." The lad was, by his account, warned "within five minutes of arriving" by police on the scene that his sign was unlikely to be permitted because it contained the word "cult." Shortly thereafter, a policewoman read him a section (introduced in 1994) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act:

"A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he … displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress."

The youth pointed out that Scientology was described in 1984 as a "cult" (and called "corrupt, sinister and dangerous") by none other than a family judge of London's High Court, but the unmoved officer took away the sign and handed him a summons. A swift spasm of indignation swept the English press, which pointed out that senior members of the London Police have a recent history of appearing in Scientology promotional videos and accepting gifts from the church. On Friday, crown prosecutors announced that no further action would be taken against the boy.

It was quickly pointed out by civil libertarians that the eventual happy outcome did nothing to reverse the consequences of the initial error. If expressive materials at a public protest can be confiscated pending two weeks of review by prosecutors, then not much is left of the right to protest, practically speaking. What few in Britain have pointed out is how vague and pathetic the text of the Public Order Act is. Objectively, one cannot say that the police officers acting as a praetorian guard for Scientology were overstepping their bounds under the act. No one ever calls a religion a "cult" without intending to insult it, and any "alarm or distress" thereby resulting must entirely be in the eye and mind of the beholder. The boy was, under the act, arguably quite guilty.

It constitutes no "victory" for freedom of expression that he was let off arbitrarily just because the public took his side against a secretive and widely ridiculed religious group. On the contrary: the police succeeded in communicating their real message to those who might wish to imitate him. Watch what you say. We have enough power to give you a hard time, whether the crown backs us up in the end or not. And make damned sure your targets are relatively unpopular, or you might not find so many columnists and activists leaping to your defence.

This is what comes of attempting to legislate offensiveness of speech and thought out of existence: all of us are left at the mercy of those who do the actual policing. In this case, it was a couple of ignorant coppers who decided they didn't like the look of the "c" word." In Canada, it might be some dowdy, politically connected empire-builder working in the office of a human rights tribunal. (Would it be actionable to say or write that "Islam is a cult" here? Who but someone with money, free time and a law degree would dare try?)

This is why the principles of free expression have to be guarded stringently in a liberal democracy, and why they cannot safely be subjected to nudging by those who think enforced politeness comes ahead of fundamental liberty. Any law allowing for the suppression of content because it might exasperate someone is bound to be tested more and more ambitiously until its actual political limits are found. And it will go on being tested, and go on growing in scope, as political sentiments change. And any such law will always end up being a more effective suppressant through the fear of inviting expense and trouble than it is by its actual application.