Church of Scientology Files Restraining Order Against Anonymous
Clearwater, Florida: Late Tuesday, the Church of Scientology filed a petition for a temporary restraining order against the group 'Anonymous'. The group 'Anonymous' had planned to protest the Church of Scientology on March 15, 2008.
Anonymous is a group which has taken on the Church of Scientology after a video of Tom Cruise was leaked onto Youtube, and then removed due to threats from Church of Scientology attorneys. 'Anonymous' had previously protested on Feb. 10th, 2008.
The Church of Scientology is claiming that the protesters were not peaceful at their last protest, and claim they have documented threats, allegedly coming from members of Anonymous.
I found this article rather interesting, and am curious to see how it turns out. Not necessarily because of pro/con CoS opinions, but because I didn't realize you can get a restraining order against a group that plans to protest. If this passes, it opens a whole can of worms.
The Westboro Baptist Church (the nutjob group that protests military funerals) would be blocked from protesting as well, which could be a good thing, but there goes yet another freedom - and a VERY important one at that.
Can you file a restraining order against a group of people who...are all completely anonymous? None of the members who speak publicly ever identify themselves so far as I know, anyone protesting can simply say "I'm not part of Anonymous, I'm just a protestor" can't they?
As you alluded to, the Constitution protects freedom of speech, including types which are disagreeable to most. Westborough Baptist Church have been able to side step state legislation banning their protests by referring to the Constitution, and pointing out the conflict. Because the Constitution is considered supreme law, state enacted legislation running afoul of the Constitution must be discarded.
In this case, the Scientology group may be able to successfully request a restraining order for two reasons:
1) A restraining order is not considered statute law, which is I believe is necessary to raise a constitutional challenge. It is merely a personal instruction given to a person exhibiting menacing behavior.
2) The real hook is that the Scientology group states that they have, as you put it, "documented threats" against them. If this is the case, they may well be successful, and it would not ultimately conflict with Constitutional law.
In that sense, I would argue that our protections under the Constitution are secure. If anyone sees it differently, by all means please offer your opinion.
Literally, no, if the person is truly unidentifiable.
A restraining order in this case would almost certainly refer to those who are affiliated with the group named "Anonymous". And/Or, it may refer to specific individuals. So then the next question becomes, how does one know for certain? Well, someone from the Scientology group may recognize a prohibited person, or the prohibited person may exhibit suggestive behavior. Other than that, you do have a point, it would be almost impossible to determine who you are after. Keep in mind though, it would be difficult and arguably futile to protest when you can't show any behavior which would identify who you are. This may be the logic the Scientology group is using, but that is only truly known by their counsel.
The SP Times put the restraining order (the application) online. There are lots of names in it: http://www.sptimes.com/ Also online: documentary of hate crimes: http://youtube.com/
If you guys spent more time actually reading the restraining order, you would see its already been denied by the court (everything after the first page comments on this).
It was denied because a "group" (scientology) can't get protection thats designated for a single person. If scientology wants a restraining order, they'll have to apply person by person, against certain people, and each individual person will have to show an actual cause from a specific person.
If it was this easy to prevent protests against your group, nobody would ever protest.
How much of this is fabricated and how much is truth, according to that injunction? After the last protest, the Church was mailed envelopes with white powder in them, and they claimed 'Anonymous' was responsible. The FBI determined it was most likely the church itself that had sent the envelopes in order to put anonymous in bad light (google).
The church has a horrible reputation in this area, and I am curious how much is truth. Also, is Anonymous an official organization? It's like saying 'I want to put a restraining order on the human race because a member of the human race threatened us.'
It lists a number of incidents that are purported to be by anonymous, yet does not detail evidence of who exactly committed them. Therefore it is just padding.
the list Florida statute section 784.046 which says that there must be 2 incidents of violence or stalking by the respondent against the petitioner or petitioner's immediate family. The Church fails to document a single respondent that has committed 2 incidents, rather than just vague threats. As well as this, they have the problem that it isn't the petitioner or family that is being targeted rather than an organisation.
They argue that statute 1.01 defines a person as any group. I think they will have a hard time with this. They are trying to apply a specific statute in broad and vague terms.
They list a bunch of names and claim that they are leaders, but show no proof of that.
You are right. However, they do list a number of individuals and there are individuals as petitioners. They fail to show any incidents of violence between the two. One of the incidents is the "security officer" is yelled at by an anonymous protester that he has been observing (read: filming). yet they fail to identify the protester and fail to document that incident.
Ie. They just ramble of a bunch of seemingly random names and a bunch of incidents and claim that therefore the people we name are doing this.
In the list of grievances, why is CoS listing virtually every instance that has occured against them? Meaning, only a few of them do they equate to being from Anonymous, the rest being simply a date and what happened, no names of groups. For instance: Section 10, VIII "On Febuary 6, 2008, a beer bottle was thrown though the windows of the Church in Atlanta". Period. It happened, ergo, it must be Anonymous.
Not to mention, why are instances that occured in 1996 being stated, did Anonymous even exist then?
I have no pity for this group (CoS), anyone that dumps their time and money and energy into a "church" who's founder is on record for saying if you want to be rich - start a religion. I have no pity for a group (CoS) that has their head so far up their wazoo's that if someone dare speak out about them, it's time for that person to be stifled.
In the end (of this bit), it looks like CoS is farting in the wind, making even larger assheads of themselves, not to mention wasting YOUR tax money in court proceedings.
I find CoS blaming Anonymous for the CoS MySpace account being hacked utterly laughable. Anyone that uses MySpace knows that this Phish as been long standing, and has caused MANY accounts to be breached, to end up posting porn and sending DL links for virus on/and from said account. But it happened to CoS, ergo it must be Anonymous.
And, I found this following bit cause to spew my chocolate shake all over my monitor ....... "Each year on March 13 and the surrounding dates, the Churches of Scientology celebrate the birthday of L. Ron Hubbard. This occasion is the equivalent of Christmas for members of the Christian faith, Rosh Hashannah for members of the Jewish faith ......." etc etc. LMGDAO !!! Boy there's nothign like putting a human on a God-like pedastal is there!
I tell ya, the spirit of Hubbard is laughing his damn ass of as well at how damned gullible these people are.
Luana1980 is back and is doing her comm cycles!!!!
Funny been reading the petition and the video about domestic terrorism is for laughs!
But of course the judge will be paid off and would not read the following "Then you type in /b/run hax.exe -location-(5)gon Then your little guy will run and starting Beating up the leet firewall, but if your not a noob you should be able to do it. Now after about 6 hours of avoiding the CIA ninjas The ones who killed Kennedy. You'll be in. I advice you wrap tin foil around your head It stops them from scanning your brain .wav's so anyway where was I.....oh Yeah Computer hackers anonymous...evil Got it. We hack into the secret FBI satellite orbiting earth And used it to get pictures of tom cruises Homes in Beverly hills. "
Come on Luana1980 your in a crackpot cult whose leader died with with psych drugs in his blood stream.
Remember Lisa McPherson and not the scientology myths website version
umm... Didn't he (LRH) get "high-ups" in scientology to invade the IRS and gain their cult tax exemption? How can this work? People who lie cheat steal and kill always seem to win in this world :[
Fact #1 Anonymous is nonviolent and has no need of violence and has vowed to turn over to the authorities any who engage in violent action. Fact #2 The cult of scientology believes that any who stand against them or criticize their actions are by definition criminals and subject to scientologies "fair game" policy (Google it)that states "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."
Fact #3 scientology has used false accusations against critics in the past, (google "operation freakout") Fact #4 The citizens have a right to free speech in all matters.
Lie: Anonymous is nonviolent and has no need of violence and has vowed to turn over to the authorities any who engage in violent action.
Evidence: http://youtube.com/ Fact: Also Scientologists have a right to free speech in all matters, no matter how Anonymous tries to restrict them or cover them up with noisy propaganda.
I suppose when you put your nose on a trail and begin to sniff, it naturally follows that you duplicate the spoor of your sniffee. There are some people who call themselves anonymous who took down Scientology websites for 5 days, who sent (probably fake) anthrax, who have threatened death via telephone. Then we have "the other" anonymous who state time and again, "we are non-violent, we have the right to constitutional protection". Don't become confused, terryeieio, don't rub elbows with people who are marching those who follow them toward prison. Life is abundant on our planet, there is plenty of sunshine and good times to be had. Show a little tolerance, will you?
Your argument might have basis IF Scientology were a religion and not a CULT.
Definition of Cult from Wikipedia:
"Secular cult opponents tend to define a "cult" as a group that tends to manipulate, exploit, and control its members. Specific factors in cult behavior are said to include manipulative and authoritarian mind control over members, communal and totalistic organization, aggressive proselytizing, systematic programs of indoctrination, and perpetuation in middle-class communities."
Let me go over some names with you, do any of these people sound familiar? They should!
-Lisa McPherson -Josephus A. Havenith -Margarit Winkelmann -Peter E. Frei -Heribert Pfaff -Roger Nind
I could go on about the many other lives this cult has destroyed. You want to put your piece of truth out there? Then let's put the REAL truth out there.
$cientology Facts http://youtube.com/ The time has come for the masses of unidentifiables to come forward and put and end to the Cult of $cientology. I plan to join their ranks tomorrow, Guy Fawkes mask included.
We are anonymous. We are legion. We do not forgive, we do not forget.
Can I get a restraining order against Tom Cruise? I cant stand him on TV. I nearly throw up when I see him pawing Katie nearly all the time. And what about that video on YouTube?? The man is a basket case.
I have heard that the $cifags made the Atalanta police ticket cars just for slowing down and looking. Some beeped their horns for 3 seconds which Atalanta's law states car horns are not allowed to be used for more than a minute.
We are SP'S should stand up to this threat and we should keep our body thetans intact also.
Until the CoS decides to answer the accusations brought against it, I will refuse to believe anything put out by the 'Church'.
Every time a scientologist is asked about Lisa McPhereson, Operation Freakout, Snow White, etc etc etc. they have the usual response: "Oh, you're just a bigot! We don't have to answer you!'
I didn't know a dang thing about scientology until this whole Anonymous fiasco hit the net. Hell, I didn't even know who Anonymous was. However, due to the events of late, I have done my own research to realize that Anonymous is actually doing something worthy here.
On a side note, the word 'Church' is, by definition, a Christian establishment (look it up in ANY dictionary) the same way a Mosque is an establishment for a Muslim place of worship. Why does scientology use this word to describe their establishment?
Ever wondered what would happen if you ask for a book of holy texts from these religions
Jewish = Sure Christianity = gladly Islam = cool here you go Buddhist = here read Scientology = £10 for paper back or £18 for the hard back
Luana1980 please answer this one question
Why is the works of Mr Hubbard and Scientology as a whole copyrighted, I would not be expected to be sued,lied or destroyed by the catholics or any other real religion if I put it's teaching online for all to read.
"Jewish = Sure Christianity = gladly Islam = cool here you go Buddhist = here read Scientology = £10 for paper back or £18 for the hard back"
you mean to tell me you've never seen a bible or koran at a bookstore... they aren't free... neither is scientology... i do no support scientology but i do support their right to sell propaganda as every other religion ever has.
@deadtaco
"On a side note, the word 'Church' is, by definition, a Christian establishment (look it up in ANY dictionary) the same way a Mosque is an establishment for a Muslim place of worship. Why does scientology use this word to describe their establishment?"
of course if you ask christians so is marriage... church is only christian by definition IF you believe church is sacred... i for one do not... a church is a building for like-minded (for better or worse) people to gather, like minded people gathering in a buuilding IS NOT a christian concept... just another triat they adapted from the religions before it.
FYI, almost every religion is a cult having 1 billion followers as the christians/catholics and muslim or a few thoudands or million like scientology or what-not, doesn't make you any less of a cult, only having more people to defend their cult.
for the longest time Islam and Christianity were the ultimate personifications of what a cult is... believe... OR DIE... can't get much more cult like than "believe or die". for that matter ANY group of people that say their is the only way to happiness or salvation or whatever IS A CULT.
ever hear of the Church of Satan, coincidently also know as CoS...
or how about a more underground atheist/agnostic religion called the Church of Stuff (now dismantled). in the case of the church of stuff the "church" was the founders house in vancouver B.C.... the actual "church" was actually online. the gathering location was email, aside from the people that lived in vancouver where the church started.
The issues you continue to raise again and again, like the Lisa thing. Those went to court. Weren't you present? Every conceivable argument, factoid, slander, etc. etc. at nauseum, were presented, argued for, argued against in Court. That was settled. By people with good sense, I might add. But hey, Taco, if you still got a problem with court findings, you know what you can do. You can email authority, you can establish communication, you can sound off about YOUR opinion where it matters. Instead of chanting it over and over to people who know better.
"The issues...went to court. Weren't you present? Every conceivable argument, factoid, slander, etc. etc. at nauseum, were presented, argued for, argued against in Court."
And they're still pretty ugly, as ugly as any religion trying to dabble in medicine: http://en.wikipedia.org/ "That was settled. By people with good sense, I might add."
The criminal case against OJ was settled, too, but Scientology had to pay to make the MacPherson issue go away. The subsequent civil suit was settled, too - out of court on undisclosed terms.
Speaking of dropping accusations because no legal case can be made, when's the church going to be letting up on psychiatry? Apparently, and ironically, those unfounded charges stand, I guess. It's a legitimate medical field, hasn't the Church been present?
"...you can sound off about YOUR opinion where it matters. Instead of chanting it over and over to people who know better."
Do they know better? Do they know about those MacPherson or those operations? Here are some links about the Scientology operations Deadtaco mentioned (graciously provided by a 5-year old):
*Quote: The issues you continue to raise again and again, like the Lisa thing. Those went to court. Weren't you present?*
I never raised this question besides on this current topic (if I have, then by golly please show me). Hell, I've never even commented on the topic of Scientology before, mainly because I didn't know anything about it until as of late.
Lisa McPherson aside, what about the other accusations brought against the CoS? Wouldn't it be in the church's best interest to at least address them rather than attack, attack some more, and hey, attack some more again? The Freezone Scientologists seem to be on the right track in this area.
I think Scientology has actually done some good in some areas, such as the overdrugging of school children. Why not strengthen those values, clear the table and answer your critics, and strengthen your church rather than hide in the shadows? I guess it just doesn't make sense to me.
You commented at: http://www.shortnews.com/ saying: "Someone needs to block Terryeo". Let me spell out a bit of the controversy for you. www.xenu.net and other websites that pay for considerable bandwidth, cost something. I couldn't pay to keep such sites with my salary. Nor could I personally, pay for a Denial of Service attack because it requires expertise, hardware, and bandwidth. There are vested interests that pay for those things. Who? Well, who knows for sure. But if Scientology succeeds, psychiatry will fail or become much less. Big pharmaceutical companies will sell less psych drugs. So I suspect those interests, myself. Additionally, as it has grown, the Church has made a mistake or two along the way. But mistakes guide changes and the Church has changed its policies. So what is there to the Church that keeps it going? Well, people you ask will tell you that they find it helpful. That may seem trivial and small to you, but I can personally attest that I have found such help, large. Have a nice day.
Yes, I did. Now, be honest and tell everyone why I said that.
You kept repeating the same news article over and over, changing a SINGLE word each time. You repeated this same article about 5 times over a period of 8 days. I clearly stated that someone needs to block you so you stop spamming the same repetitive news. Hell, I even had a discussion with you about this. Stop trying to make it look like I wanted you blocked for posting about Scientology.
On a side note, I thought those posts I asked people to block were against Scientology, not for it. You were trying to show a 'Money trail' being left behind by Scientologists, making it look like they were wasting money or doing something shady.
Google "Terryeo" shows you one thing: That Anonymous or alternatively some "nutcake pranksters with no sense of decency" have hijacked "Terryeo"s ID since months and ARE posting anti-Scientology messages all over the place. Just another hint how much "Free Speech" is worth in those circles.
Anonymous hijacked his screen name? Do you think anyone on this site is really dumb enough to buy that? That's really the best excuse you could come up with?! Or, is that the excuse your little church told you to put out there? Googling Luana1980: http://www.google.com/ Juicy bits there about how OTHERS have already tagged you as "clearly a Co$ drone using scare tactics." Deadtaco's right, maybe if you people stopped playing Spies and Messiahs and started interacting honestly and respectfully with the world around you, people might actually take you seriously and give you some respect in return.
They are never worth the paper they are written on. They have never stopped anyone from doing anything that they are determined to do. Look at all the dead girlfriends and wives that have died waiting for a "restraining order" to protect them. Scientology is wasting their time.
Of the Google results for Luana - the contents of those results are clearly of a CoS drone, as you say.
My note to you is that I doubt she will respond to your ponder. I IM'd her better than a week ago, asking her if she is the same luana1980 that is at such sites as (inserted several of those result sites) ...... I never did get a reply.
I don't know Luna and have never exchanged private messages with that person. I assume Luna, like myself, is simply a person who knows a little Scientology, follows the news and posts here and there. It surprises me to find people so against a free exchange of information.
