The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Too far?
Jimmy
__BANNED USERS regular
__BANNED USERS regular
http://www.sptimes.com/2008/03/12/Northpinellas/Scientology_fights_ba.shtml
Scientology fights back in court
The church is seeking a restraining order to stop a new round of protests.
By Robert Farley, Times Staff Writer
Published March 12, 2008
ADVERTISEMENT
Breaking News Video
CLEARWATER - With the Internet activist group Anonymous threatening a second round of protests against Scientology this weekend, the Clearwater-based church went to court late Tuesday, filing a petition for a temporary restraining order.
The petition was filed just before the close of court Tuesday afternoon, and the St. Petersburg Times could not obtain a copy of the petition.
Pat Harney, a spokeswoman for the Church of Scientology in Clearwater, confirmed the church had filed a request for a temporary restraining order, but on the advice of counsel, she refused to provide a copy of the lawsuit or discuss who it seeks to restrain.
Anonymous, which describes itself as a loosely affiliated group united against the injustices perpetrated by Scientology, coalesced in January after a video of Scientologist Tom Cruise was leaked to YouTube and then promptly removed because of threats from Scientology attorneys.
Members of Anonymous claimed this was an affront to the freedom of the Internet. A video message from Anonymous taunting the leaders of Scientology received more than 2-million views on YouTube.
On Feb. 10, some 200 people participated in an Anonymous-organized demonstration against Scientology in downtown Clearwater. Similar protests were held in cities around the world.
In Clearwater, church security videotaped and photographed protesters, most of whom disguised their faces with fake beards, face paint, scarves and bandannas.
While Anonymous Web sites ask members to protest peacefully and state they mean no harm to Scientology's members, Harney said, "we have evidence to the contrary."
Before the lawsuit was filed Tuesday, Harney said the church has documented threats made by members of Anonymous, and provided those threats to Clearwater police. "Of course, we are concerned about the safety of our group," Harney said.
Representatives of Anonymous could not be reached for comment.
This weekend's protests by Anonymous - dubbed "Party Hard" - were timed to coincide with Scientology's annual celebration of founder L. Ron Hubbard's birthday on Thursday.
According to Web sites affiliated with Anonymous, members of the group plan to protest in 50 cities worldwide. In Clearwater, they will gather Friday evening outside Ruth Eckerd Hall, where Scientology will hold its annual gala event.
A larger protest is planned Saturday in downtown Clearwater, where the church's international religious headquarters are located. "We are taking every security measure we can," Harney said. "We are not taking this lightly."
Now with Digg link: http://digg.com/world_news/Scientology_ ... _Anonymous
I know anonymous vs Scientology threads have been taboo here, but this I believe illustrates just how obscene and off the wall the Co$ can be. I dont believe this injuction will be accepted, due to the fact that you must name an actual person and place to be served. However, the fact that it is in clearwater makes it possible that it will be. My question is, What makes the Co$ believe they have the power to stop the right to free speech and protest?
Scientology fights back in court
The church is seeking a restraining order to stop a new round of protests.
By Robert Farley, Times Staff Writer
Published March 12, 2008
ADVERTISEMENT
Breaking News Video
CLEARWATER - With the Internet activist group Anonymous threatening a second round of protests against Scientology this weekend, the Clearwater-based church went to court late Tuesday, filing a petition for a temporary restraining order.
The petition was filed just before the close of court Tuesday afternoon, and the St. Petersburg Times could not obtain a copy of the petition.
Pat Harney, a spokeswoman for the Church of Scientology in Clearwater, confirmed the church had filed a request for a temporary restraining order, but on the advice of counsel, she refused to provide a copy of the lawsuit or discuss who it seeks to restrain.
Anonymous, which describes itself as a loosely affiliated group united against the injustices perpetrated by Scientology, coalesced in January after a video of Scientologist Tom Cruise was leaked to YouTube and then promptly removed because of threats from Scientology attorneys.
Members of Anonymous claimed this was an affront to the freedom of the Internet. A video message from Anonymous taunting the leaders of Scientology received more than 2-million views on YouTube.
On Feb. 10, some 200 people participated in an Anonymous-organized demonstration against Scientology in downtown Clearwater. Similar protests were held in cities around the world.
In Clearwater, church security videotaped and photographed protesters, most of whom disguised their faces with fake beards, face paint, scarves and bandannas.
While Anonymous Web sites ask members to protest peacefully and state they mean no harm to Scientology's members, Harney said, "we have evidence to the contrary."
Before the lawsuit was filed Tuesday, Harney said the church has documented threats made by members of Anonymous, and provided those threats to Clearwater police. "Of course, we are concerned about the safety of our group," Harney said.
Representatives of Anonymous could not be reached for comment.
This weekend's protests by Anonymous - dubbed "Party Hard" - were timed to coincide with Scientology's annual celebration of founder L. Ron Hubbard's birthday on Thursday.
According to Web sites affiliated with Anonymous, members of the group plan to protest in 50 cities worldwide. In Clearwater, they will gather Friday evening outside Ruth Eckerd Hall, where Scientology will hold its annual gala event.
A larger protest is planned Saturday in downtown Clearwater, where the church's international religious headquarters are located. "We are taking every security measure we can," Harney said. "We are not taking this lightly."
Now with Digg link: http://digg.com/world_news/Scientology_ ... _Anonymous
I know anonymous vs Scientology threads have been taboo here, but this I believe illustrates just how obscene and off the wall the Co$ can be. I dont believe this injuction will be accepted, due to the fact that you must name an actual person and place to be served. However, the fact that it is in clearwater makes it possible that it will be. My question is, What makes the Co$ believe they have the power to stop the right to free speech and protest?
Jimmy on
0
Posts
Sorry, that might be seen as a derailment. Wasn't a lawsuit to stop Anonymous protesting inevitable?
As to what makes them think they can stop free speech? Well, perhaps despite being a bunch of crazies they realise that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights aren't as bulletproof as most Americans believe. People, especially people with money, piss all over them all the time. And as your dollar sign so eloquently points out, the Church of Scientology have many dollars.
This whole issue is a prime example of how society is degenerating.
I am shocked, shocked I say!
Classic.
I find this amusing, could you elaborate? The fact that a group of individuals are standing up against something they dont believe in is an example of the degeneration of society? I believe if you wanted to use that arguement that there are a lot more deserving than "Anonymous."
Also, the Representatives of Anonymous comment is golden.
600 years ago if you protested a church you'd get killed or thrown in jail. I'm pretty sure this is a step up from that.
Protest a fake church- you better hold on to your butts.
Either that or the Church is just litigating for the sake of litigating, which is probably more likely.
I should make some popcorn. This is interesting.
Perhaps someone associated with this group (or claiming to be associated with them) DID make an actual threat. Perhaps the Scientologists DO have grounds for some sort of prosecution (assuming they can figure out who it was).
As fucked up as these people are, they still have the same rights to practice their beliefs without being persecuted by others.
How? Have they shown any specific instances of violent intent in any of their protests? I mean, you could use your argument that any person you meet could potentially threaten your life but you'd still never get a restraining order on it because it's nowhere near a legitimate cause for fearing for your safety. The generalization of Anonymous' membership being more predisposed to be violent is also rather unfounded.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
How about this bit:
Just because the article didn't mention specifics doesn't mean they necessarily don't exist. Maybe they just didn't want to make the details public.
Because Harney is clearly an impartial party to these proceedings.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
I'm not saying it's not possible that you are right. However, it's also quite possible that they are, in fact, being threatened.
My point is, you don't know they AREN'T being threatened. Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence.
Now who's making assumptions? "Members of Anonymous were unable to be reached for comment." is a FAR cry from unwilling.
The thing is, the Church typically uses litigation as a way to intimidate and silence critics. This is a well-documented and repeated pattern of behavior. There probably were the typical threats that come from actions started on the internet. Problem is, even if there weren't, the church would by trying to drag Anonymous into the courts anyway. It's a reasonable assumption even if it is an assumption.
But like I said, I'm interested to see how this turns out.
By 'them', do you mean Anonymous or Scientologists?
Yes? :P
Well, if Pata meant Anonymous, then I don't see the downside. That just means more internet geeks will come up with toe-tappingly catchy Flash cartoons.
http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/423640
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/mar/12/church-scientology-trying-block-protesters/?life
The man in the article, Harney, claims that they've received threats. Now, of course no one should assume that any random stranger is going to threaten their well being, but does that mean you wouldn't assume someone wanted to hurt you if they threatened to do so? Now, he might be blowing air out his ass to build up more of a case against Anonymous, but to give him the benefit of the doubt: if someone were to threaten me with violence, I'd want authorities to take me seriously, even if I was a member of a whacko cult.
I also never said that members of Anonymous are more predisposed to violence, in fact I tried to imply the opposite with the "99%" remark. I'm just saying that some random kids out there don't necessarily need to understand the entire scientology debate before they pick a side and make dumb threats they'll regret later. Scientology doesn't hold exclusive rights to stupidity.
And I'm glad the thing failed, regardless, though it would be fun to know you can get a restraining order against no one in particular.
I'm all for protesting against issues which affect you personally, but if you read up on the history of the Anonymous vs Scientology it was started in effect 'for the lulz'.
4chan is a horrible place on the internet and groups of people who frequent it are protesting against a religious group for tenuous and pointless reasons, other than to cause controversy and garner media attention.
Like what has already been said, ignoring them would have been better than this legal course.
Society is on the slide because people feel the need to protest against things they have no vested or personal interest in, other than for fun.
I'm not defending scientology, but it is a religion and is no less believable than any other. their financial dealings and induction techniques are, again, no more unusual or extreme than any major religion.
People act like Scientology is a worthy cause for attack. I say, why bother?
Annoys me that people put effort into doing something such as this, ie protesting against a religion for very superficial reasons, when much more important issues warrant their efforts.
It's a case of literally 'doing it for the lulz' being a mantra for an entire disruptive and aggressive organization.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
So people should only protest against a wrong when it directly affects their well being? You are correct that these protests began "for the lulz" but the humour comes from being able to mock a religion/cult that tries (and has succeeded) to destroy any outspoken critic who can effect change.
The funny was in the inherent impotency of Scientology to litigate and stalk Anonymous members of the internet for exposing basic truths about Scientology that the higher ups in the organization cover up until you've sunk considerable time, effort, and money to be privileged to that info.
When Anon discovered that they could actually induce change through legitimate channels, the entire "group" (such as it is) collaborated into a nearly ten thousand person worldwide protest. A protest where there was not a single act of violence by any of the protesters. That in itself is almost mindboggling; considering track records for protests throughout history and especially the size of the operation it was shockingly peaceful.
While the religious structure of Scientology is laughably ridiculous, the protests are over the criminal actions and policies of it's organization. Policies currently in effect today. Documented cases of murder and criminal negligence resulting in death. The largest infiltration of the FBI ever recorded. Classic cult tactics that leave members penniless and then kicked out, isolating them from friends and family.
Sure, there could be more important targets for protest. Should we make a list and ignore everything until #1 is dealt with? Who decides what is more important? Should the families of the cult members trying to get their son or daughter out alive decide what the most important issue is to protest in today's society?
If the protesters are having fun when they go out and protest, are their actions no longer legitimate? If they laugh and poke fun while causing change for the better, isn't it better that way? Wouldn't they be more inclined to go out again and protest again, because every reaction the cause is one for celebration, rather than vengeance or restitution? It makes for a more effective protest. Sadness weighs heavy on people's minds. It is a struggle to keep focus on something that causes you grief.
What has become of the outrage over darfur?
It was friendly and civil. Whilst the geeks their did make stupid internet jokes they were also focused on presenting a positivie appearance and a positive message. They interacted with passersby with conversations about scientology. They had fliers and hand outs. The banners were about scientology.
The police were quoted saying they were "as good as gold" and their were no complaints.
They were not violent at all, or even agressive. If someone started being a dick, everyone else shouted them down. Though the scientologists were quite threatening, I myself was followed for instance.
It was nothing but a legitimate protest.
2009 is a year of Updates - one every Monday. Hopefully. xx
Of course, Scientology is clearly in a very heightened state of paranoia, so this is just going to continue as both sides maintain each other's interest.
You're joking right? Someone tell me he's joking.
"Diane, get me the head of Anonymous on the line for comment stat!"
"The self-proclaimed head of Anonymous could not be reached because his mother 'was totally being a bitch about cleaning up his room.'"
I've found rare footage of the CEO of Anon Inc.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWnyUtdcboc
first off, "she" not "he" :P
Do you really think that it wouldn't be possible to contact someone behind organizing something this big if you tried just a little and they were willing to comment? Hell, I could probably manage it, and I'm not a trained investigative reporter.
"Couldn't be reached" is reporter-speak for "either I didn't bother seriously trying, or they didn't want to comment" and normally means the later.
Anonymous is not an organization. Therefore no on can really speak on behalf of them. If they could speak for them, this loose affilitation of individuals would cease to be anonymous and therefore defeat the purpouse of anonimity.
Also as an update:
The first motion was indeeded denied, however a second motion was filled the same day which has yet to be looked at by a judge. If your really interesting in following the story and or anonymous see here:
http://forums.enturbulation.org/
For all intensive purpouses this seems to have backfired in the face of Co$. So many people heard about this and where appauled that the number of protestors in Clearwater alone is expected to skyrocket. Hell, the story even made Drudge.
o.O Usually they say "[whoever] declined to respond when reached for comment." That's what I usually read in the newspaper. I think when they say they couldn't be reached, well, they couldn't be reached. And seriously, how does one take someone in an organization like that and say "This guy represents the whole!" We're all members of PA, but if a reporter quoted a random forumer as representative of the rest of us, wouldn't that piss you off? Anonymous is no more regimented than this forum is.
EDIT: Even Tycho and/or Gabe couldn't be quoted as representative of the forum.
But it's Anonymous, there is no organization that I've ever heard about.
Anonymous? DO THY SPEAK ENGLISH IN ANONYMOUS? ANONYMOUS AINT NO ORGANIZATION IVE EVER HEARD OF!