Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Bomb Post for Freedom

By circletimessquare in Meta
Thu May 10, 2007 at 12:00:00 PM EST
Tags: scientology, keith henson, 09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63 (all tags)


Slashdot is covering the arrest of Keith Henson.

He made a joke on a newsgroup, now he's arrested for defying a fundamentalist religion with legions of zealous lawyers.


I don't know Keith Henson, and I don't know if I would like him if I met him. But that doesn't matter. There is one academic reason for supporting him: he has been, and is still, being harassed and punished simply for exercising his right to free speech. This is not an issue of shouting fire in a crowded theatre. This is a straight up obvious uncomplicated example of harassment using the legal system for simply exercising free speech. Why you should care:

You beat enemies of free speech, namely, religious fundamentalists, retarded ip laws, oppressive governments, etc., with more free speech. The only reason anyone would oppose free speech is if what they have to say would suffer if it had more scrutiny.

Scientologists have legions of zombie lawyers attacking anyone who infringes on their "intellectual property" and "religious principles" simply because if that crap got out in more general circulation, they would be revealed as the fascist UFO wackjobs they are. Same with oppressive governments, same with IP lawyer whores.

And so, in the spirit of the recent DMCA take down notice on digg.com for a stupid number, I would like to support Keith and attack the immoral, yet somehow, incredibly, legal basis for arresting him by serving his cause: posting stuff the Church of Scientology does not want posted. The recent digg.com HD-DVD secret number fiasco prompted wordwide press coverage. This Scientology case should to:

It is the exact same issue.

Expand the digg.com "secret" number revolution folks. Use every tactic that was used in the digg number fiasco and use it again. Weapon #1: we are disparate, but we are many. Our indignancies at this abuse of power. Wield it as a weapon against those who wish to censor in the name of fascist religious fundamentalism and corporate greed.

Use it in another kind of abuse too: oppressive totalitarian governments. Use it in the case of an Egyptian blogger sentenced to 4 years in jail for posting "unIslamic" thoughts, when his "unIslamic" thoughts amounted to nothing but criticism of the Egyptian government. Let this revolution continue. Let them fear us, not us fear them.

I will respond to this story with a comment with text the Church of Scientology does not want known.

Kuro5hin.org may get attacked because of me doing this, slashdot.org has been forced to remove comments before by them. I may be attacked too. I don't care, because I know I am in the right, and I know this is important, and I know I have support.

The proper response to my post of the sensitive Scientology information? Post it some more yourself. Post it and post it some more. Post it more, post it more, post it more. Post it everywhere. Post it a million times. Scientology has legions of aggressive fanatical laywers, but we, who love free speech are yet legion more.

I support free speech, do you? Did the recent imbroglio over that stupid number on digg stoke your righteous indignation at censorship in the name of corporate idiocy? Well this man Keith Henson was just arrested in the name of religious fundamentalism. You should be stoked at this too. It is the exact same thing. Let's make the revolution over the digg number a permanent fixture on the Internet. Let's band together and in the name of social justice fight these censoring fascist assholes.

The proper response to Keith being arrested is to bomb post every and all sensitive Church of Scientology material any of us can find. The more the material makes those fascist assholes squeal, the more it should be disseminated. digg, slashdot, fark, every and all sites you can find. Bomb post away, bomb away, bomb away. When lawyers tried to remove the HD-DVD number from digg, users responded by seeding the number in a few weeks to close to 2 million hits on google.com. Let us do exactly the same for sensitive secret Scientology texts in the name of Keith Henson.

This is important folks. If a man can be arrested for making a dumb joke on a newsgroup, any of us can. So all of us should band together and prove the futility of what Scientology thinks they are doing: when someone is arrested for simply criticizing their stupid church then us on the Internet will respond by hurting them where they hurt the most: the mass public airing of that which they deem sensitive. Would you support it if the Catholic Church censored parts of the Bible from you? Did you support it when fundamentalist radicals called for death because of cartoons of Muhammad?

This is the same thing.

Dear Church of Scientology and your legal whores: fuck you you fascist censoring pricks.

This is war.

Fire away.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o Slashdot
o Kuro5hin
o Google
o Slashdot is covering the arrest of Keith Henson.
o Keith Henson
o the recent DMCA take down notice on digg.com for a stupid number
o It is the exact same issue.
o an Egyptian blogger sentenced to 4 years in jail for posting "unIslamic" thoughts, when his "unIslamic" thoughts amounted to nothing but criticism of the Egyptian government
o slashdot.o rg has been forced to remove comments before by them
o users responded by seeding the number in a few weeks to close to 2 million hits on google.com
o called for death because of cartoons of Muhammad
o Also by circletimessquare


Display: Sort:
Bomb Post for Freedom | 161 comments (155 topical, 6 editorial, 0 hidden)
post it everywhere (2.16 / 12) (#1)
by circletimessquare on Thu May 10, 2007 at 12:16:08 PM EST

OT III Errors

Amongst OT III errors are "a BT run on Incident I fails to blow". There are three reasons:

  1. Auditor is trying to run a cluster with an Incident I. The right thing to do is date and get the character of the incident that made it a cluster and then run Incident Its on those left when it breaks up. Or get Dianetic auditing.
  2. There is an earlier Incident I on the same BT. Find it and run it. The BT has a chain of them all by himself.
  3. Another BT is copying the Incident I just run so it looks like it didn't blow. Failure to ever run Incident I can also cause a bog. Routine Dianetic auditing by a Dianetic HDC who is also on or above OT III using triple flows and LDN OT III also handles bogged OT III pre- OT's.

----------

Cluster Formation - Cumulative

In doing a cluster one is likely to find it is made up of other earlier clusters. This looks like this. 1898 impact horse accident. When engram 1898 run on R3R, that part blows. No F/N occurs, TA remains up. Remainder will grind after the blow. Earlier portion dates as 93,000,000 years ago, electric shock. When run on R3R, that part blows, no FIN. TA remains up, will grind if run further. Earliest portion dares as 72 trillion implant. When run on R3R, all blow, FIN.

A cluster or engram which is a cluster can repeatedly FIN as BT's blow. Dates as 778 million explosion. After run once or twice an FIN occurs as one BT blows. Run again to second FIN as two more BT's blow. Remainder blow with a wider FIN. The cluster has gone. This happens (repeating FIN) when picture persists and noter check reveals it is not a copy. It will be more BT's in same cluster. So above repeating FIN occurs when pre-OT is moved through it. Clusters are found by meter dating, listing for type of incident and run as an engram. Clusters can occur at Incident .II and Incident I. They can also occur at 1 quadrillion, which is the Clearing course materials. They also occur at random dates for different reasons.

* * *

I have lately been C/Sing a number of failed OT cases and have found them all running well on solo now. The errors are made as follows:

  1. The solo auditor cannot audit, needs more training.
  2. Cases are not well prepared with Dianetics.

The remedy for all of these is to:

  1. Run the PC for at least a score or two of Dianetic items by R3R, done of course by a good HDC,
  2. then do a GF 40.

And then repeat it until necessary auditing is complete. These two actions take care of the majority of difficult cases on OT

The real End Phenomena of OT III and OT IV is exterior with full perception. You can and should accomplish full stable exteriorization on doing the materials of III.

----------

Further III remedies:

  1. High TA. This comes from not completing the Incidents I and II on body thetans.
  2. The solo auditor puts too wide an intention on the BT and runs two or three when he is intending to run only one.
  3. A cluster just won't break up. The remedy is a Dianetic session listing for impacts or incidents that would cause a cluster and doing R3R. The principle of earlier similar holds good. When this is completed, the solo auditor is sent back to solo to clean up the BT's shaken loose and to continue with OT III.
  4. Rudiments go out on BT's. The remedy of course is to locate BT's who have out-ruds, put in the ruds and run Incident 1, at which the ST should leave.
  5. A theta-bopping meter sometimes puzzles a solo auditor -on OT Ill. This means a BT is trying to exteriorize and can't. The remedy is to complete the partially run Incident 11 or Incident I or in extreme cages put the ruds in on the hung up BT.
  6. One-hand electrode giving wrong TA read baffling the solo auditor with floating needles with a high TA. The remedy is to have two-hand electrodes handy and trim the trim knob so the one-hand electrode reads the same as two-hand electrodes.
  7. A suppressive body thetan sometimes isn't auditable. The remedy is to run Grades IV or V on him.
  8. By far and large the corniest error and which has been very prevalent is not knowing the materials of OT III or the content of Incident II or Incident I.

OT III is a vital grade. One fronts up to it and does it. When he is really done, the rewards of OT III and IV exceed his wildest dreams.

----------

Rudiments Going Out On BT's

When the ruds go out on BT's during the session the solo auditor recognizes the following:

BT critical - withhold from auditor
BT antagonistic - bypassed charge in session
No TA problem
BT sad ARC Break
Soaring TA - Overrun or protest (also more than one BT being run in error or it's a cluster)
Auditor tired - no sleep or incomplete Incident I's
Auditor dope-off - bypassed FIN or not enough sleep
Auditor no-interest - out ruds on BT's

A solo auditor who isn't sure what it is, but runs into trouble with a BT is smart to end off the session quickly, write down the full observation and get it to the C/S. The solo auditor who knows what he is looking at as per the above scale (and the C/S the C/S would give), handles it promptly.

BT critical = w/h = pull the withhold
BT antagonistic = BPC assess proper list (such as LlC) and handle
No TA (or case gain) problem = locate the problem and handle
BT sad = ARC Break - locate and handle itsa E/S itsa
Soaring Ta = C/R or protest (also more than one BT being run in error or it's a cluster) - find which and handle (running more than the one intended comes from too wide an intention)
Auditor tired = no sleep or incomplete Incident I's = check which it is and handle
Auditor dope-off = lack of sleep or bypassed F/N = check On sleep or rehabilitate F/N
Auditor no-interest = out-ruds on BT's = put in ruds.

----------

OT III Auditing

OT III pre-OT's got a reputation of being hard to run on Dianetics early on in Dianetic re-development. Only five reasons exist for this.

  1. A person that high on OT grades audits fast and a comm- laggy Dianetic auditor can drive him up the wall.
  2. Too quiet or too blurred TR 1.
  3. A tendency to evaluate instead of using TR 4.
  4. The numerousness of BT chains on the same item (the BT's being separated now) making several chains on the same item, which if not all run separately leave the PC ARC Broken with the bypassed charge of unrun BT's.
  5. The OT II who is still on OT III and has been on it a while probably himself has no pictures and all the pictures he has are BT pictures.

The lower grades PC (before Clear) reacts as a composite Being, all on one chain, so to speak. He is separated into himself and the individual BT's and clusters of them when he gets to OT II, and so audits differently. He easily misowns the pictures thinking they are his. The big blowdowns you get on such a PC's item indicates several BT's have it in common. A solo III however will be found to have the same item on more than one BT in many cases.

* * *

The reason for low TA is unflat OT III phenomena. If a person has had a low TA in lower grades the keynote is to take it easy as auditor and COS. This applies also to any auditing given on upper OT levels.

That a PC's TA goes below 2.0 is a certain indicator of unflat OT III. He's still got some. When a person cannot handle OT III he is too much at effect. He cannot project his intention. And so can't run OT III. The new OT I and OT II, particularly OT II, are designed to increase a PC's ability to project his intention to others. If he can't, they overwhelm him and you get low TA or "none on III". Harsh, overbearing auditing or life. incidents have to occur, apparently, to drive the TA down.

Overts, disagreements expressed as obsessive agreement and other lower level matters are at the bottom of this in any Being.

But any case of low TA I have ever found has been:

  1. overwhelmed in life;
  2. unable to project intention;
  3. physically inactive;
  4. loaded with BT's;
  5. tends to go out of valence easily.

in all this number (4) is the important point.

Endless OT III and low TA are alike - inability to project Intention, PC at effect. Remedy by lightly causing PC to come to cause, to be able to project his intention and thus flatten OT III. That will complete and finish off low TA.

* * *

It does not matter whether or not you ran Incident I and II on self. The End Phenomena of III is getting rid of all body thetans. This does not necessarily include self. If you overrun Ill it will be by trying to get rid of tore body thetans than there were or by then, having gotten rid of the others, starting In on self. So Ill is complete for purposes of overrun as above. If you have not done Incident I and II on self when above is achieved, attest completion and then do I and 11 on self.

EP's No BT's left [End Product: no BodyThetans left] - OT III

L. RON HUBBARD®
FOUNDER

Some abbreviations:

BT - BodyThetan

Incident One - The first incident on the Whole Track (see) for each Thetan (see). It consisted of an Angel blowing a trumpet and some noises. Hubbard explained that this was so powerful that from then on the Thetan compulsively continued recording every incident that happened over 4 quadrillion years until now.

Incident Two - The second major incident on the Whole Track (see).

Rud - Rudiment.

SP - Suppressive Person. A critic of Scientology. Fe anyone who thinks that OT 3 is nonsense.

TA - Tone Arm action - change of electrical resistance, supposed to show relief of emotional "charge" on the 'E-meter' (crude lie detector, price ~$4,000)

Thetan - "An individual being ... not a body". This is Scientology's name for the soul or spirit.

Valence - An adopted personality.

Whole Track - The mental recording of all of the experience of the Thetan (see). Hubbard said that the Whole Track was 4 quadrillion years long. Eventually Thetans became the victims of their recordings and became entrapped (via the mechanism of the "Bank"). Hubbard claimed that only through Scientology could this compulsive recording of incidents stop.

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=154684&cid=12971502

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/7/4/111118/2521

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

With ya 100% (2.00 / 3) (#3)
by Sgt York on Thu May 10, 2007 at 12:40:22 PM EST

But isn't this text pretty much out anyway? Or is this something new?

Also, a little more background would be nice. Toss in a SHORT narrative of the events leading up to his arrest, or at least link to something like that.

+1 anyway, but just sayin'

There is a reason for everything. Sometimes, that reason just sucks.
[ Parent ]

Gotta thank ya ... (2.25 / 4) (#23)
by Peahippo on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:51:52 PM EST

... for posting that, since it more then demonstrates how completely fucked up the Sci*gists are. "Body-Thetans". What a joke. Boy, good ol' L.Ron really saw a whole bunch of suckers comin' down the road, didn't he? Pluck 'em like chickens. Harvest 'em like wheat.


[ Parent ]
This made my brain hurt (3.00 / 2) (#35)
by Altus on Thu May 10, 2007 at 02:03:17 PM EST


after about 2 sentences... have you actually read all of it?  I feel terribly sorry for you.

what a god damn mess.

"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
[ Parent ]

i haven't read more than a paragraph (2.33 / 3) (#41)
by circletimessquare on Thu May 10, 2007 at 02:09:28 PM EST

the cognitive dissonance it causes in my head makes me nauseous

"cling clang clackity clang cling" is all i hear when i read this pap


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Better yet, hand out scatentology fliers (3.00 / 9) (#39)
by xC0000005 on Thu May 10, 2007 at 02:06:23 PM EST

to every scientologist you meet. Scat-entology is formed from the words "scat", meaning shit, and "entology", meaning "To sell as a religion". It is not copy right. It is a coherent as any of Ronnie's work. Scatentology is the science of the human idiot. If you work your way up Scatentology (a structure called "The stairs"), you can become transparent, meaning that everyone else will see that you are full of scat. Devotees, called "Scat-heads" sign .00001 milliyear contracts for the past lives saying they'll become invisible or die trying.

I'm going to make a killing.

Voice of the Hive - Beekeeping and Bees for those who don't
[ Parent ]

bWAHAHAHAHA nt (none / 1) (#40)
by circletimessquare on Thu May 10, 2007 at 02:08:08 PM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
WOULD RUSTY TURN ME OVER TO THE FEDS? (none / 0) (#81)
by WonderJoust on Fri May 11, 2007 at 10:49:16 AM EST

I could very easily be arrested, if history is any precedence...

There's a church of scientology about 10 blocks from where I live and I have many engineering friends with 100s of unused pages unused. Fuck, I could post this on every kiosk on campus... 100 times...

Heh. I need to go get a staple gun, black ski-mask and make some phone calls.

_________________________________
i like your style: bitter, without being a complete cunt about it.
-birds ate my face
[ Parent ]

I do not support free speech (1.85 / 7) (#2)
by GhostOfTiber on Thu May 10, 2007 at 12:33:18 PM EST

Seriously, go read the UK's tabloids.

I am inclined to side with the MPAA/RIAA on the Digg issue.  If they had pulled a Slashdot where they pulled the post but linked to it elsewhere, fine.  But the fact that they were like "LOL WE'RE HEROES" when they did an abrupt 180 degree turn makes them a target for a lawsuit.  I think slashdot took the reasonable path.  I think digg is actively trying to profit on something which is illegal.

To take a step back:  Lets say graphitti is illegal.  Home Depot sells spraypaint.  This does not make Home Depot complacent in the crime of graphitti.  Now, if Home Depot at the request of it's customers start a graphitti workshop and hands out flyers called "how to avoid the cops", that makes them an accessory.

Remember:  "Your rights end where the other guy's begins".  You would do yourself well to petition the supreme court and politicians.  If you want to be lawless and hoist the jolly roger, fine, but expect the crack of the whip.  

You should rewrite this as an argument against intellectual property.  Also, I expect a bittorrent of your film online shortly with no licensing or copyright attached.

[Nimey's] wife's ass is my cocksheath. - undermyne

dear rusty/ admins: (1.11 / 9) (#4)
by circletimessquare on Thu May 10, 2007 at 12:47:13 PM EST

please censor the above cretin

why?

he has every right to say what he just said and i support his right to say it, even though i think he's a fucking moron

i just want to see how he reacts when he's on the receiving end of an illegitimate manipulation of power


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Would you like me to reframe the example? (none / 1) (#6)
by GhostOfTiber on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:06:28 PM EST

Because you clearly don't understand the difference between people who are neutral and people who are actively promoting something.  We'll pick on your favorite issue for legislation:  Gun control.  We all know you want to take away our guns, but god forbid someone say that speech can be limited also.

Lets say Ruger makes a gun.  Ruger's gun is used by a lot of people like Timothy McVeigh.  Ruger stays out of the spotlight and doesn't issue any press about Timmy.  Is Ruger responsible for the Oklahoma City bombings?  How about school shootings?  

Now lets say that due to a vocal minority but a minority none the less that the Mini-14 becomes popular among people who bomb the Federal Building.  Still in reality, right?  Ruger decides it's bad press so they issue a statement condemning the bombings.

But the very vocal minority takes out ads in the paper and complains that Ruger is wrong.  "We're just exercising our rights to free speech" they say.  Ruger, concerned about losing sales, takes out a full front page ad with a picture of the Federal Building and the caption "KILL THE NIGGERS".

Is Ruger now culpable?

[Nimey's] wife's ass is my cocksheath. - undermyne
[ Parent ]

yes (1.60 / 5) (#7)
by circletimessquare on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:09:29 PM EST

it's very easy to sit in your ivory tower and deliver your confident words. I just want to see you deliver them down in the mud. It's easy to speak confidently from the minarets, isn't asswipe?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
where is the mud exactly? (3.00 / 3) (#11)
by GhostOfTiber on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:24:17 PM EST

Are you high?

[Nimey's] wife's ass is my cocksheath. - undermyne
[ Parent ]

it's an allegory, can you handle that? nt (2.00 / 2) (#22)
by circletimessquare on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:50:07 PM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Exactly how is it (none / 1) (#80)
by vera on Fri May 11, 2007 at 10:14:40 AM EST

that you represent (and idealize) the common people, in the mud as you put it, if you're inside on the internet all the time?

[ Parent ]
i am in ur internetz, muddying up yer cmn ppls! $ (none / 0) (#82)
by circletimessquare on Fri May 11, 2007 at 10:52:53 AM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
ps, moron: (1.25 / 4) (#9)
by circletimessquare on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:19:19 PM EST

if you shout fire in a crowded theatre, you're not protected by free speech. you wish to question free speech by conjuring up creative but exotic scenarios that skirt shouting fire in a crowded theatre. that's a nice intellectual exercise for you bud, but it doesn't even begin to address clear and present and direct injustice concerning absolutely basic and uncomplicated free speech situations that are censored and punished

in short, you're a moron


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

now we're in agreement, sort of (2.66 / 3) (#18)
by GhostOfTiber on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:43:14 PM EST

The proper argument is that you're allowed to own guns but you're not allowed to murder people.  Or that you're allowed to say "fire" and have free speech, but you're not allowed to say it in a theater.  In other words, it is the context or use of something which makes it illegal.  

This is an interesting stance for you to take since you usually argue that inanimate object are subject to the assignment of intent - your "guns kill people" argument amuses the hell out of me.  By the same token, the intent of this string of hex is to decrypt DVDs and should be illegal, but this is just an amusing aside provided by a noisy troll.

But going back to the point -- this is why Digg is liable but slashdot is not.  Slashdot realizes that Scientology is bad and using the law poorly for it's own means.  They condemn it, but realize that the law is what it is because it protect legitimate interests.  They also realize that a judge would probably throw the case against them out, but they make a good faith effort, which is the nebulous legal standard applied to a lot of these cases, to avoid violating the law while still exercising their free speech rights.  Digg has violated good faith.  If they disavowed ownership of the comments, that would be OK.  If they denounced the RIAA and published it's disgusting, heavy handed tactics but still said, "look we're sorry but this is the law how about using your energy for something more productive", that would be OK also.  The kids might actually go outside and learn how the world works.  But, they didn't.  Not only do they claim ownership of the comments but they are encouraging their users to distribute this number and hosting it themselves.  Regardless of if they are right or wrong, morally or legally, they are now responsible and party to the actions of the people who use Digg.  Since Digg probably has one or more people who pirate movies, they now not only set themselves up for a DMCA lawsuit, but Digg as a company now is culpable to an antitrust lawsuit.

Most of this stems from Roosevelt's "good monopoly" and "bad monopoly" application of the Sherman Antitrust Act which gave rise to the idea of "good faith".  The reason why the MPAA/RIAA hasn't run afoul of it is because they do license the key in question to people to produce products to decrypt the content.  This is exactly why arguments that the key is protected as free speech are false if not silly.  If I duplicate a book 1000 times and hand it out, I am going to get sued.  Nevermind the fact that it costs nothing to the consumer, it still damages the author of the book (unless they specifically authorize me to do so -- everyone has the option not to press charges).

[Nimey's] wife's ass is my cocksheath. - undermyne
[ Parent ]

gun!=speech (2.00 / 2) (#24)
by circletimessquare on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:54:28 PM EST

a gun is a physical object, with only one purpose: killing people (unlike a car, let's not please retread the nra propaganda playbook when confronting "hoplophobes", dear hoplophile)

i will respond to your multifaceted and well thought out post with a simple bit of ancient wisdom:

"sticks and stones may break your bones but words will never hurt you"

where stick=gun and stone=bullet

you figure it out... although there seems to be some sort of mental block on your ability to understanding the spanking obvious point that more guns in civil society, where they are not necessary for day to day living, just results in more deaths

but carry on. as soon as you forget the simple and obvious, everything makes sense, right?

where's my plutonium! where's my rocket launcher!

(snicker)


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

it's an allegory, can you handle that? nt (none / 1) (#52)
by GhostOfTiber on Thu May 10, 2007 at 03:48:08 PM EST


[Nimey's] wife's ass is my cocksheath. - undermyne
[ Parent ]

ALLEGORY MOTHERFUCKER (none / 1) (#72)
by creature on Fri May 11, 2007 at 07:49:09 AM EST

DO YOU SPEAK IT?

[ Parent ]
Er, Careful! (2.66 / 3) (#19)
by Peahippo on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:44:16 PM EST

Lets say graphitti is illegal. Home Depot sells spraypaint. This does not make Home Depot complacent in the crime of graphitti.

Tell that to Chicago, with their ordinance banning the sale of spray paint ... since it causes graffiti, right?


[ Parent ]
NANNY STATE ALERT (1.00 / 3) (#29)
by GhostOfTiber on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:59:30 PM EST

Damn you, damn you and your exceptions to common sense!

My mother in law said to me awhile ago when I was unemployed:  "Why not move to NJ and get a job?  There's plenty here."

No shit, because no-one wants to live there.  And my guess is that Chicago is going the same way.

I hate lawmaking like this.  Instead of having clearly defined laws, it puts the assessment firmly on the judge.  They should have just doubled the fines and time assigned to the existing laws.  My guess is that Home Depot still sells spraypaint, but it's sold in the "gardening tools" aisle.  Because it's a gardening tool, right?

[Nimey's] wife's ass is my cocksheath. - undermyne
[ Parent ]

No, Not Sold is 'Not Sold' (2.50 / 2) (#78)
by Peahippo on Fri May 11, 2007 at 09:37:39 AM EST

Having obtained this information from prior residents, spraypaint (and graffiti-style permanent markers) could not be sold within city limits. Those who wanted such things had to buy them outside the city limits, of which there were plenty of stores that did.

This is just another example of "home rule" gone horribly wrong. We gun owners know all about that kind of thing.

And as a supporting counterpoint to your jobs example in NJ, you'll probably hear that houses in the Midwest are "so cheap". Yeah, they're cheap alright, since there are no fucking jobs (or no stable ones) that allow you to afford such a home over a mortgage lifetime. NJ and OH can both suck my big throbcock. Neither place promotes the middle class.


[ Parent ]
the article's not about hd-dvd (none / 0) (#98)
by justo on Fri May 11, 2007 at 07:40:35 PM EST

but about using similar techniques against a fascist cult that's destroying peoples' lives, and causing many to suffer.

[ Parent ]
come on (none / 0) (#149)
by kromagg on Mon May 14, 2007 at 07:26:40 PM EST

You know as well as anybody that the DMCA is an extension to copyright as it was initially conceived, and a tenuous one at that. To argue against the DMCA is not to argue against copyright as a whole. In classic copyright the key that was taken down from Digg for a while wouldn't have been protected because it lacks originality. Indeed, it's a secret key, one which they put in millions of devices (well, software players I reckon) and shipped to customers.

I'm all for people trying to secure their content with ridiculous schemes that should never be able to work, but I don't agree with them pressuring the government in going along with said stupid scheme. Any DRM they're using is crackable because it's inherently flawed, it only serves as an annoyance to legal users and a major legal threat to anyone trying to do anything in the digital media space without playing by their rules.

And that's without getting into the content of this story, which is classic CTS so I didn't actually read it.

[ Parent ]

put free speech stuff on servers in China! (2.60 / 10) (#5)
by United Fools on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:00:11 PM EST

MPAA, RIAA, DMCA, take that!

We are united, we are fools, and we are America!
CONSPIRACY THEORIST WACKJOBS (1.50 / 4) (#8)
by kbudha on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:17:18 PM EST

BELIEVE SCIENTOLOGISTS OUT TO TAKE OVER WORLD.

You sure you're not the one living in your mom's basement?

they can take over the world if they want (2.00 / 5) (#10)
by circletimessquare on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:20:03 PM EST

but not by threatening free speech they can't

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
AGREED (1.75 / 4) (#12)
by kbudha on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:25:38 PM EST

YOU HAVE MY SUPPORT

Even if you didn't bother to view my links before torpedo-ing my chem-trail story.
.

[ Parent ]

oh you're that wackjob? (2.00 / 2) (#14)
by circletimessquare on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:29:50 PM EST

sorry, i've been drinking too much fluoridated water (snicker)

all joking aside fruitloop, you have every right to say and what you believe, i support your right to do that, even if i think you're a crackpot

kiss me wingnut

xoxoxoxoxox


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

SMOOCH (2.00 / 3) (#17)
by kbudha on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:42:01 PM EST

I hope D Jade or Egil doesn't get jealous.

"sorry, i've been drinking too much fluoridated water (snicker)" - sry don't get it

PS- since you still occasionally link to that story for your own personal gag reel, why don't you ever check out the links. There's video in there that will have you thinking WTF?
.

[ Parent ]

flouridated water and chemtrails (2.00 / 2) (#25)
by circletimessquare on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:56:42 PM EST

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_controversy#Government_and_indus try_conspiracy

it's the same paranoid schizophrenia

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

That's like calling (2.66 / 3) (#28)
by kbudha on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:58:47 PM EST

you and Peahippo the same kind of angry little men.

Just check out the fucking links.
.

[ Parent ]

i am peahippo. peahippo is me (2.00 / 2) (#31)
by circletimessquare on Thu May 10, 2007 at 02:00:54 PM EST

we are lovers, publicly airing our lover's quarrels. please don't make fun


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
So who's the bitch, who's the butch? (2.00 / 2) (#33)
by kbudha on Thu May 10, 2007 at 02:02:15 PM EST



[ Parent ]
we are both nullos, sadly nt (none / 1) (#34)
by circletimessquare on Thu May 10, 2007 at 02:02:48 PM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Here CTS: a Mirror -- Look Familiar? (2.42 / 14) (#15)
by Peahippo on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:36:32 PM EST

I really don't understand your complaint, circlejerk. Henson crossed an influential set of wealthy Westerners. If they were lawfucking him for protesting against the Iraq War (II), you'd be cheering. If they booed him out of a professorship for supporting a Pakistani's right to beat his wife, you'd be clapping. On the basis of what one might say, one could be added to the no-fly list, apparently permanently. Whither thy outrage thus, El Conquistador?

At the root of all of this is varying complacency and agreement with suppression of civil rights on the basis of one's actions and opinions. Gitmo, Abu Ghraib and the no-fly list are full since you Imperialist fuckos are so agreeable with the general practice. Henson is about to know all about the taste of bubbacock due to the agreeability of other sets of folks. The issue is that ALL OF YOU share the same problem: you don't actually give a fuck about civil rights since you can be bribed with your personal sacred cows.

Henson is in jail because of YOU. YOU are the problem, since YOU're one of a vast army of anti-civil-libertines in America. Once you realize that civil rights should be not only honored, but defended even when it turns your stomach to do so (as happens to me when I defend YOUR speech here on K5 from time to time), only THEN will to awaken to the larger reality of being a dutiful American citizen.


peahippo! (3.00 / 2) (#21)
by circletimessquare on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:49:20 PM EST

i love you man, you always crack me up

good comic relief my somewhat imbalanced friend

xoxoxoxoxoxoxox


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Youre both.... (2.33 / 3) (#54)
by The Amazing Idiot on Thu May 10, 2007 at 05:29:21 PM EST

Severly fucked up beyond repair...

But Peahipppo's funny too ;)

I like his gun grabber tirades (then again, I own a nice arsenal and belong to NRA). They make me laugh ;)

[ Parent ]

I like when (none / 1) (#64)
by D Jade on Thu May 10, 2007 at 10:51:28 PM EST

he writes an essay responding to a troll of a diary and then he decides to argue his point with you when you point it out. Two weeks later, the thread's still going and he's still refusing to accept that he has been trolled.

Of course, it was during one of these tirades that I found out he has the wisdom of an 80 year-old - he claims - But I was confused because I would have thought that by 80 he would have realised the futility of arguing your point in the face of a superb troll diary.

In fact, is it even possible for an 80 year-old to be trolled? Aren't they past the point of caring?

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

who is 80? nt (none / 0) (#75)
by circletimessquare on Fri May 11, 2007 at 08:15:02 AM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Peahippo apparently (none / 0) (#134)
by D Jade on Sun May 13, 2007 at 08:20:20 PM EST

He claims to be most wise and all-knowing you see.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]
I can't empathize with this guy (1.60 / 10) (#27)
by Egil Skallagrimson on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:58:26 PM EST

since I'm a serious, no-holds-barred Scientologist.

----------------

Enterobacteria phage T2 is a virulent bacteriophage of the T4-like viruses genus, in the family Myoviridae. It infects E. coli and is the best known of the T-even phages. Its virion contains linear double-stranded DNA, terminally redundant and circularly permuted.

Here we go again (2.25 / 4) (#32)
by kbudha on Thu May 10, 2007 at 02:00:57 PM EST

You two need to kiss and make up.

Considering your arguement was over that retarded wisdom test.

[ Parent ]

we need to kiss and make out nt (3.00 / 3) (#37)
by circletimessquare on Thu May 10, 2007 at 02:05:58 PM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
We need to both try and kill cts (2.25 / 4) (#42)
by Egil Skallagrimson on Thu May 10, 2007 at 02:10:17 PM EST

Let me have the first go, though. He'll probably screw it up.

----------------

Enterobacteria phage T2 is a virulent bacteriophage of the T4-like viruses genus, in the family Myoviridae. It infects E. coli and is the best known of the T-even phages. Its virion contains linear double-stranded DNA, terminally redundant and circularly permuted.
[ Parent ]

I HAVE BEEN THREATENED WITH VIOLENCE (3.00 / 6) (#43)
by circletimessquare on Thu May 10, 2007 at 02:11:45 PM EST

PUT THIS MAN IN JAIL


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
NO NO NO (2.25 / 4) (#44)
by kbudha on Thu May 10, 2007 at 02:21:12 PM EST

You 2 are pulling the same mistake that Hitler and Stallin pulled.

Put aside your egos and ally.

We'll have the trifecta of angry, bitter cynicism.
No one will withstand our smug and vile responses like cigarette embers flicked into their eyes.
.

[ Parent ]

no, no, no - CTS is really more of a Trotsky (3.00 / 3) (#45)
by insomnyuk on Thu May 10, 2007 at 02:34:54 PM EST



---
"There is only one honest impulse at the bottom of Puritanism, and that is the impulse to punish the man with a superior capacity for happiness." - H.L. Mencken
[ Parent ]
so i get icepicked in the head in mexico city? nt (3.00 / 3) (#46)
by circletimessquare on Thu May 10, 2007 at 02:40:07 PM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
I was talking more philosophically speaking, but (3.00 / 4) (#47)
by insomnyuk on Thu May 10, 2007 at 02:48:16 PM EST

whatever floats your boat.

---
"There is only one honest impulse at the bottom of Puritanism, and that is the impulse to punish the man with a superior capacity for happiness." - H.L. Mencken
[ Parent ]
No, I can do that for him. (2.00 / 3) (#48)
by Egil Skallagrimson on Thu May 10, 2007 at 02:48:56 PM EST

Where should I mail your plane ticket to, cts? I'M WILLING TO GO THROUGH WITH THIS!!1

----------------

Enterobacteria phage T2 is a virulent bacteriophage of the T4-like viruses genus, in the family Myoviridae. It infects E. coli and is the best known of the T-even phages. Its virion contains linear double-stranded DNA, terminally redundant and circularly permuted.
[ Parent ]

YOU CAN INTERNATIONALIZE HIS REVOLUTION? (3.00 / 2) (#49)
by insomnyuk on Thu May 10, 2007 at 02:50:39 PM EST

GO ON.

---
"There is only one honest impulse at the bottom of Puritanism, and that is the impulse to punish the man with a superior capacity for happiness." - H.L. Mencken
[ Parent ]
sure, mail me a ticket (3.00 / 4) (#51)
by circletimessquare on Thu May 10, 2007 at 02:58:14 PM EST

Tom Cruise
c/o Creative Artists Agency
9830 Wilshire Blvd
Beverly Hills, CA 90212


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
No, no, we have him here right now. (2.00 / 3) (#57)
by Egil Skallagrimson on Thu May 10, 2007 at 09:14:58 PM EST

NICE TRY, TRAVOLTA!!!!!1

----------------

Enterobacteria phage T2 is a virulent bacteriophage of the T4-like viruses genus, in the family Myoviridae. It infects E. coli and is the best known of the T-even phages. Its virion contains linear double-stranded DNA, terminally redundant and circularly permuted.
[ Parent ]

Who are you to question Science? (3.00 / 9) (#36)
by givemegmail111 on Thu May 10, 2007 at 02:05:32 PM EST



--
McDonalds: i'm lovin' it
Start your day tastefully with a Sausage, Egg & Cheese McGriddle, only at McDonalds.
Rusty fix my sig, dammit!
(chortle ;-) nt (none / 1) (#38)
by circletimessquare on Thu May 10, 2007 at 02:06:20 PM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
I'm a Scientician. (3.00 / 8) (#50)
by Egil Skallagrimson on Thu May 10, 2007 at 02:53:51 PM EST


----------------

Enterobacteria phage T2 is a virulent bacteriophage of the T4-like viruses genus, in the family Myoviridae. It infects E. coli and is the best known of the T-even phages. Its virion contains linear double-stranded DNA, terminally redundant and circularly permuted.
[ Parent ]

What the fuck (2.50 / 4) (#53)
by vera on Thu May 10, 2007 at 05:16:34 PM EST

is this trash.  I really wish you would learn how to communicate with other humans in a coherent manner so that I could vote up stories on valid subjects.

If the cabal had any sympathy for the shitstorms cts stirs up, they would produce quality translations of his story submissions, and submit those instead. I know I'm not the only one that would appreciate this gesture.

That was pretty incoherent (3.00 / 3) (#63)
by D Jade on Thu May 10, 2007 at 10:44:10 PM EST

for somebody advocating coherency.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]
I support free speech (2.28 / 7) (#55)
by Neo Orion Blastar on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:59:20 PM EST

and as a Christian a lot of people have spoken out and threatened Christianity, but we never used lawyers on them to take away their freedom of speech in modern times. While I don't agree with them, I support their free speech rights. I think I can use them as examples of religious bigots who if they got their way would take away the rights and freedoms of religious people.

Scientology is an official religion in the USA and some parts of the world, it also tries to be an alternative to psychiatry. It needs to grow up and handle criticism better like Christianity and many other religions do. It is acting, in a way, like Christianity did back during the Inquisition days or the Crusades, but using lawyers instead of torture or warfare. One can argue that being targeted by lawyers is quite a bit like torture if you are thrown into jail for simply speaking out against a religion.

There is an episode of "South Park" named Trapped In A Closet that makes fun of Scientology and eventually got pulled from Comedy Central. Yet "South Park" constantly makes fun of Christians, Jewish people, and other religions but those religions do not try to pull episodes off the air.

But then what do I know? My Operating Theta level goes all the way to eleven, not nine or ten, but OTXI, none higher!

thank you, well said ;-) nt (none / 0) (#74)
by circletimessquare on Fri May 11, 2007 at 08:13:24 AM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
No, dipshit (1.87 / 8) (#56)
by trhurler on Thu May 10, 2007 at 08:36:38 PM EST

The fact is, as screwball as scientology may be, copyright law is not a bad thing, and if you defy it, there are consequences. It is not a "joke" to post copyrighted text verbatim. It is a criminal offense.

Grow up.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

I thought you were a libertarian nt (none / 0) (#59)
by Big Sexxy Joe on Thu May 10, 2007 at 09:40:45 PM EST



I'm like Jesus, only better.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour
[ Parent ]
There is a difference (none / 0) (#65)
by trhurler on Fri May 11, 2007 at 02:46:08 AM EST

between libertarians and anarchists. Learn it.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
Lemme check i've got this straight (2.70 / 10) (#69)
by daveybaby on Fri May 11, 2007 at 04:56:54 AM EST

Anarchists believe in complete and absolute freedom for everybody.

Libertarians believe in complete and absolute freedom for rich people.

Thats was it, right?

[ Parent ]

exactly ;-) (2.00 / 2) (#73)
by circletimessquare on Fri May 11, 2007 at 08:11:04 AM EST

and if libertarians don't actually believe that, they don't understand that that is exactly what libertarian policies would result in


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
No $ (none / 0) (#102)
by trhurler on Fri May 11, 2007 at 08:21:48 PM EST



--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
Oh $ (none / 0) (#145)
by daveybaby on Mon May 14, 2007 at 11:32:34 AM EST



[ Parent ]
IP is market regulation & anti-free speech (none / 0) (#113)
by Big Sexxy Joe on Sat May 12, 2007 at 11:02:10 AM EST

Which feature of it do you like better.  The abolition of a free market or do you just like censoring people?

I think it does just boil down to right for people you consider worthy.  You can't admit that's what you believe deep down so you have to go through all sorts of mental gymnastics to support your beliefs.

I'm like Jesus, only better.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour
[ Parent ]

Well, (none / 0) (#116)
by trhurler on Sat May 12, 2007 at 05:04:53 PM EST

If you were talking about patents, you'd have a point. With copyright, the ideas and the substance are not protected - the actual verbatim text is all that is protected, and since that is something someone actually put forth effort to produce, I see no problem with this. There's no restriction of speech - you can say exactly what someone else said, but you can't use his exact words. There's no restriction of the market either; you are free to market "Alternate texts of Scientology" if you like - and they can say the same thing the originals say - but of course, you'll have to actually produce them.

It isn't about being "worthy." Frankly, Scientologists are "worthy" of being flushed down the cosmic toilet. That's not the point.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
It's more than verbatim text (none / 0) (#119)
by Big Sexxy Joe on Sat May 12, 2007 at 06:20:28 PM EST

Translations and derivative works are also forbidden.  There is a standard of sufficiently different that most be met to not be vulnerable for a copyright suit.  There can be a long debate on whether or not this has merit the standard is far from verbatim.  Scientology would most certainly sue you for your "Alternative texts" and they'd probably win the lawsuit.

You say you have no problem with it and that is your right, but it means you are not a libertarian as copyrights do most certainly interfere with free markets and free speech.

In truly free market, I'd be able to print books with whatever text I like.  It really doesn't matter if someone else wrote the same thing in the past 87 years.  The defining characteristic of a free market is that it is unregulated, not that it rewards people fairly.

Furthermore, I think there is value in telling people the exact text of Scientology's teachings and motive is not economic.  If I summarized their teachings or paraphrased them, then the COS could say that I have distorted or mis characterized their teachings.

I'm like Jesus, only better.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour
[ Parent ]

You imbecile (none / 0) (#121)
by trhurler on Sat May 12, 2007 at 08:44:34 PM EST

Translations
Are forbidden, as they should be if they're literally the same text in another language.
and derivative works are also forbidden.
No they aren't. They're specifically allowed, in fact, but they have to be derivative works, and not merely the same pig with lipstick. Also allowed: satire, fair use, and more! Have you ever actually studied this subject, or are you talking out your small end?
Scientology would most certainly sue you for your "Alternative texts" and they'd probably win the lawsuit.
Unlikely. They have only won a tiny minority of their lawsuits, and those only when it was crystal clear that a violation had occurred. They've gotten "deals" out of a few more people, mostly because those people didn't know and exercise their rights. The majority of their lawsuits have been either lost or given up, and a few of the murkier ones have been outright dismissed.
You say you have no problem with it and that is your right, but it means you are not a libertarian as copyrights do most certainly interfere with free markets and free speech.
It is quite clear that you have no idea what a libertarian is. The VAST majority support intellectual property in at least some forms, including copyrights. There is a split on patents and trademarks. Only a tiny minority oppose all IP rights, and those are more anarchists than libertarians. This is like a Muslim trying to tell a Christian he's not a Christian: you don't really know what you're talking about, and you aren't saying it for any good reason anyway - you're just trying to fan the flames.
In truly free market, I'd be able to print books with whatever text I like.
Copyrights protect something very specific, and it is the same thing other property rights protect: your investment of time in acquiring something useful. Your claim is like saying I'm not a libertarian if I believe that you are wrong to steal my car.
It really doesn't matter if someone else wrote the same thing in the past 87 years.
The point is that you DIDN'T write it. You COPIED it.
The defining characteristic of a free market is that it is unregulated, not that it rewards people fairly.
Clearly then I should be allowed to seize your car. After all, prohibiting that is a regulation! Oh, wait, you're a fucking idiot. Nevermind.
Furthermore, I think there is value in telling people the exact text of Scientology's teachings and motive is not economic.
I think there is value in feeding poor people; does that mean I have a right to do so by selling your car?
If I summarized their teachings or paraphrased them, then the COS could say that I have distorted or mis characterized their teachings.
They can say that anyway. They can say that unless you have been taught how to interpret the text, you cannot understand it. They can say you don't have the full story. They can say you printed something other than their texts. They can say you modified the texts. They can say all sorts of things. Actually having the real texts means nothing, even if you could be sure you do have them, which in most cases these people cannot.

The fact is, people are overreacting to a stupid cult, breaking the law and rationalizing it by saying they're "whistleblowing" or whatever, and then acting "surprised" when the law they broke catches up with them. Boo hoo.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
You are fucking idiot (none / 0) (#132)
by Big Sexxy Joe on Sun May 13, 2007 at 02:40:10 PM EST

I know you think you win debates here, but what actually happens is people just get sick of replying to your non-nonsensical posts and go away.  Since you had to bring it to personal attacks, I will have to bring you to terms with your low intelligence.  Let's begin.

Translations: are forbidden as a derivative work.  At the founding of our country, they were allowed but no more.  A translation is by definition not literally the same text.  It is a paraphrasing of the original text.  Note that different languages don't always have the same words or expressions so interpretation and poetic license are always part of translation.

Derivative works:  it is common knowledge that they are forbidden.  I didn't do formal research until you asked, but since you do not possess common knowledge, I'll provide links.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work
http://www.chillingeffects.org/derivative/
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.html

A paraphrase of Scientology's text would fail a test of sufficient difference.  Using other people's characters and such is generally not allowed.  

I am aware that Scientology files frivolous lawsuits, but they would have a case against an "alternative text."

It is quite clear that you have no idea what a libertarian is. The VAST majority support intellectual property in at least some forms, including copyrights. There is a split on patents and trademarks. Only a tiny minority oppose all IP rights, and those are more anarchists than libertarians. This is like a Muslim trying to tell a Christian he's not a Christian: you don't really know what you're talking about, and you aren't saying it for any good reason anyway - you're just trying to fan the flames.

That is terrible reasoning.  You don't have to believe something to understand it.  That's a stupid thing to think.  You're right there is a similarity.  There are Muslims who know the fine points of Christian theology better than the vast majority of Christians.  Who do you think knows more about Christianity, a Muslim theologian or the average American Christian?

I was raised believing in Jesus and the free market system.  I understand both capitalism and Christianity better than most adherents.  I don't believe because of my understanding rather than because of ignorance.  

Maybe most people who call themselves libertarians believe in copyrights, but most libertarians are over privileged children from the suburbs.

Plenty of Christians think that you can be rich and go to heaven and that you should shoot abortion doctors, but that's just not what the bible says.

Just the same it is completely inconsistent to be for free speech and a free market and believe in copyrights.

Copyrights protect something very specific, and it is the same thing other property rights protect: your investment of time in acquiring something useful. Your claim is like saying I'm not a libertarian if I believe that you are wrong to steal my car.

I KNOW THAT IT PROTECTS SOMETHING SPECIFIC.  IT IS STILL MARKET INTERFERENCE.  I believe that if you do something of value society should reward you.  I also think society should guarantee a reward if you take the effort to go to college so you can contribute.  I also think society should guarantee healthcare for people who perform physical jobs.  Is it libertarian to believe all these things?

The point is that you DIDN'T write it. You COPIED it.

So what?  I printed copies of it didn't I?

Clearly then I should be allowed to seize your car. After all, prohibiting that is a regulation! Oh, wait, you're a fucking idiot. Nevermind.

This is my favorite part of your post because it is where you demonstrate that you really don't have the ability to reason like an adult.  You see I explained the belief system espouse and it's consequences and then you expressed outrage at your own beliefs!  Fucking idiot, indeed.

I don't know if you noticed, but I never was a champion of the free market or libertarianism.  You see, I wouldn't have a link to Democracy Now! in my sig if I was.

Another reason that statement is stupid is that you are reasoning by metaphor.  If you constructed a logical argument, you could use analogies and metaphors to illustrate your point.  However, reasoning by analogy is a childish mistake and quite dumb.

I think there is value in feeding poor people; does that mean I have a right to do so by selling your car?

Your sloppy thinking continues.  I said there is value in presenting the text.  That doesn't mean that every action that "has value" is okay, especially if there are negative consequences.

They can say all sorts of things.

Of course they can, but that is all a matter of if they have a good point or not.  There are former Scientologists who can confirm or deny that if the text is real, so that's not an issue.

The point is if Scientology opponents can make an argument that is relatively bulletproof quickly.  They are in a much better position if they could tell you verbatim text.

The fact is, people are overreacting to a stupid cult, breaking the law and rationalizing it by saying they're "whistleblowing" or whatever, and then acting "surprised" when the law they broke catches up with them. Boo hoo.

I can't say for sure why they are doing what they are doing.  The "stupid cult" is quite evil and should be stopped.  I don't know if they are surprised or not, the law is muddy on issues of fair use.  Furthermore, this man might be engaging in intentional civil disobedience, which has done much good in the past.

So he trying to do a good thing that most are not brave enough to do and you just can't stop whining about it.

I'm like Jesus, only better.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour
[ Parent ]

Your first paragraph (none / 0) (#137)
by trhurler on Sun May 13, 2007 at 10:54:40 PM EST

describes your post perfectly.

BTW, you completely missed the point regarding Muslims and Christians. It isn't that NO Muslim could criticize Christians. It is that the few who are qualified, in practice, do not do so - the ignoramuses are the ones running their mouths.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
That was a rather weak evasion (none / 0) (#153)
by Big Sexxy Joe on Mon May 14, 2007 at 09:45:21 PM EST

My post was only long because I was replying to your post.

You are always here and love to argue when you think you can win.  I just stop by occasionally and out debate you soundly.

As for the Muslims and Christians, I didn't miss your point.  You just happen to be wrong.  There are plenty of opponents of the free market that understand it very well.  Go to Dailykos, you'll see plenty of well informed discussions.

I'm like Jesus, only better.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour
[ Parent ]

Wrong. It's a civil offence. (none / 1) (#60)
by mr strange on Thu May 10, 2007 at 09:58:19 PM EST

Big difference. Huge.

intrigued by your idea that fascism is feminine - livus
[ Parent ]
IAWTP (none / 0) (#62)
by D Jade on Thu May 10, 2007 at 10:36:22 PM EST

BNIAP

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]
Um.. (none / 0) (#67)
by trhurler on Fri May 11, 2007 at 02:47:26 AM EST

You can go to jail for civil offenses, dipshit. Besides, refusal to follow civil requirements CAN subject you to criminal penalties.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
In other words... (3.00 / 4) (#71)
by mr strange on Fri May 11, 2007 at 07:11:48 AM EST

"Yes mr strange, you are correct. Thanks for pointing that out."

intrigued by your idea that fascism is feminine - livus
[ Parent ]
Wrong. It's civil and criminal. (none / 0) (#161)
by vectro on Mon May 28, 2007 at 08:49:03 PM EST

17 USC 506 makes it a crime to willfully infringe copyright.

“The problem with that definition is just that it's bullshit.” -- localroger
[ Parent ]
But how can you copyright religion? (2.00 / 2) (#61)
by D Jade on Thu May 10, 2007 at 10:35:56 PM EST

It makes no sense!

If they truly are a religion, then copyright would be unnecessary.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

What? (1.50 / 2) (#66)
by trhurler on Fri May 11, 2007 at 02:46:39 AM EST

Copyright law has nothing to do with whether you are a religion or not. It is quite clear.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
So then, you are of the opinion... (none / 1) (#68)
by D Jade on Fri May 11, 2007 at 03:46:52 AM EST

... that you can copyright a system of beliefs.

I wonder who gets the royalties for those ideas.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

nah (3.00 / 2) (#70)
by khallow on Fri May 11, 2007 at 06:42:05 AM EST

Scientology copyrights its religious texts. An effective way to keep the whole thing a mystery cult IMHO.

Stating the obvious since 1969.
[ Parent ]

So let's extend that a little... (none / 0) (#76)
by mirleid on Fri May 11, 2007 at 08:48:44 AM EST

...if all official government documents had "Copyright <whenever> by <government of wherever>", would that mean that the information contained therein would not be publishable?...

Chickens don't give milk
[ Parent ]
to my knowledge (none / 1) (#79)
by khallow on Fri May 11, 2007 at 09:45:37 AM EST

The US government cannot copyright laws or documents. Presumably similar things hold for other governments. The work-around would be to have a private entity copyright the relevant documents. I seem to recall that this has been tried before (by a greedy business that if I understand correctly tried to copyright parts of Texas law), at least in the US. Don't know if it was overturned or not.

Stating the obvious since 1969.
[ Parent ]

Building Codes (none / 1) (#90)
by localroger on Fri May 11, 2007 at 06:20:29 PM EST

What happened in Texas was that there are a few companies that publish building codes, which are copyrighted and sold for a fairly stiff price because a lot of research and testing goes into creating them. Then various government agencies pass these codes verbatim into law because it's more convenient than reinventing an 800 page wheel in every US county.

Laws do have to be available to the public, and most counties arrange for this by having a copy at the courthouse or public library. The TX kerfluffle occurred because a citizen thought this wasn't good enough and put the whole thing on the web. The publisher sued. The citizen cried foul on the basis that law can't be copyrighted.

I'm not sure if it was ever fully resolved, but the basic issue is a bit more complex than it first appears. My sympathies are with the citizen, but I can also see the publisher's point even though I hate building codes for a lot of unrelated reasons.

I am become Death, Destroyer of Worlds -- J. Robert Oppenheimer
[ Parent ]

I see your concerns (none / 0) (#109)
by khallow on Fri May 11, 2007 at 08:35:45 PM EST

even though I hate building codes for a lot of unrelated reasons.

But your insufficiently blinged house needs chromed fins and runner boards.

Stating the obvious since 1969.
[ Parent ]

Not so much bling as innovation (none / 0) (#110)
by localroger on Fri May 11, 2007 at 08:45:05 PM EST

I think building codes, and especially fire codes, are great in cities. What I can't stand is the spread of statewide codes. Louisiana just fell under that thanks to Katrina. It means that even if you own 5 acres of empty land you can't legally put up a structure in the middle of it without getting permission from the government. That blows, and it makes it impossible for anyone except well-funded research institutes (all conveniently funded by the existing construction industry) to actually try new construction techniques. Which is one reason houses in all parts of the country all look the same and tend to be wildly expensive and inappropriate for the local climate.

I am become Death, Destroyer of Worlds -- J. Robert Oppenheimer
[ Parent ]
Well if you have no neighbours (none / 0) (#123)
by Joe Sixpack on Sun May 13, 2007 at 05:10:35 AM EST

just build whatever you want in the middle of your 5 acres of empty land.

Is there really a government agency that patrols the wilderness in search for unauthorized houses? AFAIK theses laws are usually enforced when your neighbor complains that gaudy extension to your terrace is lowering his property value.

---
[ MONKEY STEALS THE PEACH ]
[ Parent ]

Yes. (none / 1) (#147)
by uberleet on Mon May 14, 2007 at 05:17:13 PM EST

In Idaho at least, many of the more remote counties patrol in a helicopter, looking for code violations.

[ Parent ]
That's just fucked in the head. % (none / 0) (#155)
by Joe Sixpack on Tue May 15, 2007 at 05:19:13 AM EST


---
[ MONKEY STEALS THE PEACH ]
[ Parent ]

So, um (none / 1) (#103)
by trhurler on Fri May 11, 2007 at 08:22:58 PM EST

You think governments and private entities are the same? I hope not.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
So, um (none / 0) (#143)
by mirleid on Mon May 14, 2007 at 07:55:47 AM EST

How's that relevant in the scope of my question? And you might want to read the downstream discussion before posting...

Chickens don't give milk
[ Parent ]
Nope (none / 0) (#104)
by trhurler on Fri May 11, 2007 at 08:23:38 PM EST

And they don't try to stop people from talking ABOUT their secret beliefs. They sue when people publish their TEXTS, the same as, say, you'd get sued if you started pirating the latest Harry Potter.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
So you believe (none / 0) (#133)
by D Jade on Sun May 13, 2007 at 08:15:19 PM EST

that there is a religion surrounding Harry Potter too?

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]
No (none / 0) (#135)
by trhurler on Sun May 13, 2007 at 10:46:16 PM EST

Do you believe you're making any sense?

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
So you don't see the sense in your argument? (none / 0) (#150)
by D Jade on Mon May 14, 2007 at 07:39:18 PM EST

Interesting.

Given that you are arguing that religious texts should be copyrighted I would have expected that you had at least thought through your position and made sense of it before arguing the point. Next time, I think you should take more time forming your ideas before espousing them to the k5 community.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

Your thinking is muddy (none / 0) (#106)
by trhurler on Fri May 11, 2007 at 08:25:52 PM EST

They CANNOT copyright a religion. They CAN copyright religious texts the same as any other text. The only reason the Bible isn't copyrighted is that it predates copyright laws. Otherwise you can be DAMN sure the Catholics would have copyrighted it when they compiled it from its assorted component texts.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
Actually, they did just that (none / 0) (#114)
by localroger on Sat May 12, 2007 at 03:32:36 PM EST

Until the Protestant Reformation, translating the Bible from Latin into the vernacular was forbidden. Individuals weren't supposed to take their grievances directly to God, but to go through the heirarchy of priest, bishop, and Pope. The punishment for translating and publishing parts of the Bible was often death, a remedy I'm sure the RIAA wishes it could demand.

I am become Death, Destroyer of Worlds -- J. Robert Oppenheimer
[ Parent ]
Not quite the same thing (none / 0) (#117)
by trhurler on Sat May 12, 2007 at 05:06:48 PM EST

The premise there wasn't that the author had the "right" to control copying what he had worked to produce. It was that this church claimed absolute dominion over its subject/followers and disallowed translations by force because this might reduce that dominion.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
It's almost exactly what the $cien$ are doing here (none / 0) (#118)
by localroger on Sat May 12, 2007 at 05:12:36 PM EST

The reason for the interdiction in medieval times was to prevent ordinary Christians from reading the holy texts and drawing their own conclusions without the guidance of the Church heirarchy. That's exactly what Scientology is trying to do -- prevent its own people (and potential converts) from accessing certain knowledge until they've been properly brainwashed prepared.

The medieval Church burnt you at the stake (or had the secular authorities do it for them) because they could. The Scienos slash your tires, plant drugs and kiddie porn on you, and wear you down with frivolous lawsuits.

Henson is in this position because he reacted to a financial judgement against him by fleeing the country, vowing that CoS would not get one dime of his money. The US secular authorities reacted to this as a violation of their authoritah, which is one reason the whole thing has gotten so far out of hand.

I am become Death, Destroyer of Worlds -- J. Robert Oppenheimer
[ Parent ]

So (none / 0) (#120)
by trhurler on Sat May 12, 2007 at 08:31:59 PM EST

1) Let's be honest. How many convictions for the alleged activities of this stupid cult are there? I mean, if they're really as adamant about it as their adversaries claim, surely SOMEONE has gotten caught. Or are you claiming they're super ninjas?

2) Let's be honest again. This guy posted copyrighted material, lost a resulting lawsuit, and then committed at least one state and at least one federal felony as a response by fleeing to avoid the court's authority. Ignore WHOSE material he posted for just a moment and just ask yourself: does that sound like someone you really feel sorry for?

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
Confusion (none / 0) (#128)
by localroger on Sun May 13, 2007 at 09:02:41 AM EST

Let's clarify something here. Henson did not post the OTIII materials; that was another case which did not involve him.

Henson got in trouble with the Scienos because he was actively interfering with their recruitment and helping to deprogram their members. That was what the lawsuit he lost was about, not copyright.

As for documentation of their nefarious activities, you might peruse Operation Clambake. Far from being super ninjas, they actually seem to be more like super Inspector Clouseaus. But the cult's willingness to violate the law to harass people identified as "PTS" is well documented.

I am become Death, Destroyer of Worlds -- J. Robert Oppenheimer
[ Parent ]

Ah (none / 0) (#136)
by trhurler on Sun May 13, 2007 at 10:48:22 PM EST

So then the US government is colluding with them. I get it now! Oh, wait. That's insane.

As for this Henson's activities, what exactly did they sue him for if not publishing something? It isn't illegal to talk to people. He must have done SOMETHING.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
'interfering with a religion' (none / 0) (#138)
by localroger on Sun May 13, 2007 at 11:01:57 PM EST

You want insane, that law is insane.

I am become Death, Destroyer of Worlds -- J. Robert Oppenheimer
[ Parent ]
When has USian government... (none / 0) (#152)
by D Jade on Mon May 14, 2007 at 07:46:17 PM EST

... not been in collusion with assholes?

Collusion is how they do business you jackass.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

So what was that about predating copyright? (none / 0) (#151)
by D Jade on Mon May 14, 2007 at 07:43:43 PM EST

It was purely economical Hurley and you need to accept that it's the same as the scienctologists are doing now. If people had access to the texts themselves, the church of scientology would no longer be able to claim absolute dominion over its subject/followers and disallowed copies by force because this might reduce that dominion.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]
Research, you self-righteous prick... (none / 1) (#77)
by mirleid on Fri May 11, 2007 at 08:59:42 AM EST

...you should do a little more of it. Reducing that episode of Henson's life to a copyright violation charge is akin to saying that whistleblowers should go to jail even though they are denouncing criminal activity. Look it up, you might learn something...

Chickens don't give milk
[ Parent ]
Nope (none / 0) (#107)
by trhurler on Fri May 11, 2007 at 08:28:46 PM EST

First of all, while Scientology as a whole is reputed by many people (who can offer no evidence except the testimony of people with axes to grind) to have done various wrongs, none of those are contained in their texts whether true or not. So copying the texts is not whistleblowing - it is a legal offense.

Second, if whistleblowers break the law, THEY DO GO TO JAIL, MORON.

Third, and I realize you obviously aren't going to be happy about this, copyright law is no less a law just because you don't happen to like it. If you want it changed, agitate for that change. Whining that it gets enforced is pointless.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
As-1nine, not bothering to respond...[] (none / 0) (#141)
by mirleid on Mon May 14, 2007 at 06:59:38 AM EST



Chickens don't give milk
[ Parent ]
It's only a criminal offense... (none / 0) (#100)
by NoMoreNicksLeft on Fri May 11, 2007 at 07:45:42 PM EST

Because rich assholes bought laws. Fuck that.

Before, it was only a civil matter, actionable only by the copyright holder. Don't use "criminal" unless something should be criminal, not because elitist powermongers were paid an extra golf trip to some fancy resort, and listened to Celine Dion sob about how she'd be in the poorhouse if 14 yr olds continue to bootleg cassette tapes.

--
Do not look directly into laser with remaining good eye.
[ Parent ]

Um... (none / 0) (#108)
by trhurler on Fri May 11, 2007 at 08:30:26 PM EST

Actually, I use "criminal" because it is the law. When discussing matters of fact, a reasonable person does not rely on what one WISHES were true.

Besides, let's be perfectly honest: you aren't upset about any concrete outcome of DMCA. You're upset because it is a step against the world you want, in which there is no copyright law. Your whim at work again.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
Nice excuse, doesn't work. (none / 0) (#131)
by NoMoreNicksLeft on Sun May 13, 2007 at 12:03:50 PM EST

When discussing matters of fact, a reasonable person does not rely on what one WISHES were true.

And yet if you were talking about some oddball law in a third-world hellhole that was totally against common sense and violated basic human rights, I doubt you'd characterize it as criminal. Even if you did, you'd be sure to note that this was only true in the technical sense, and you'd make some sarcastic joke about it.

Besides, let's be perfectly honest: you aren't upset about any concrete outcome of DMCA. You're upset because it is a step against the world you want, in which there is no copyright law. Your whim at work again.

Wrong. I want copyright law. I want it to remain criminal to mass-produce bootleg works and sell them at a profit. I want copyright owners to retain control of their works for some long period of time, at least 30 years, and maybe even 50. People deserve a chance to get paid for the work that they do. I am upset at the DMCA specifically. At NET. At the Copyright Term Extension act.

--
Do not look directly into laser with remaining good eye.
[ Parent ]

Dude, you were so close. (1.50 / 2) (#58)
by LilDebbie on Thu May 10, 2007 at 09:37:31 PM EST

I was going to vote this up but then caught this fragment, "Our indignancies at this abuse of power."

Inexcusable.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

Your vote (1) was recorded. (none / 1) (#84)
by MisterJiffy on Fri May 11, 2007 at 01:18:18 PM EST

This story currently has a total score of 40.

You're the straw that broke the camel's back!
Your vote put this story over the threshold, and it should now appear on the front page. Enjoy!

There you go, cts. If I'm ever in NYC you can stand me a drink.


this being new york city (2.50 / 2) (#85)
by circletimessquare on Fri May 11, 2007 at 01:39:29 PM EST

the next time i piss in an alley i'll write your name in the pavement. deal? ;-)

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Keith would be more effective w/an AK-47 (2.33 / 3) (#86)
by nlscb on Fri May 11, 2007 at 03:34:32 PM EST

Because he lacks the rights to a pelthora of fully automatic assault rifles with copious amounts of ammunition, his right to free speech has been trampled. Let this be a lesson to all of the left wing gun haters.

First they came for the police body armor piercing bullets, and I didn't speak up, because I didn't use any police body armor piercing bullets.

Then they came for the fully automatic AR-15 assault rifles, and I didn't speak up, because I didn't use a fully automatic AR-15 assault rifle.

Then they came for the ceramic metal detector proof semi-automatic pistols, and I didn't speak up, because I didn't use a ceramic metal detector proof semi-automatic pistol.

Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.

Comment Search has returned - Like a beaten wife, I am pathetically grateful. - mr strange

IGTT 6.5/10 (none / 1) (#87)
by LittleZephyr on Fri May 11, 2007 at 04:55:11 PM EST


(\♥/) What if instead of posting that comment,
(0.-) you had actually taken a knife and stabbed
("_") me in the eye? You murderer. ~ Rusty

[ Parent ]
Scientology, serious business (none / 0) (#88)
by V on Fri May 11, 2007 at 06:05:45 PM EST

Persecute them at your own peril.

V.
---
What my fans are saying:
"That, and the fact that V is a total, utter scumbag." VZAMaZ.
"well look up little troll" cts.
"I think you're a worthless little cuntmonkey but you made me lol, so I sigged you." re
"goodness gracious you're an idiot" mariahkillschickens

not my peril. the peril of our shared freedom nt (none / 0) (#89)
by circletimessquare on Fri May 11, 2007 at 06:18:31 PM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Why the sudden care for freedom?$ (none / 0) (#91)
by V on Fri May 11, 2007 at 06:34:27 PM EST


---
What my fans are saying:
"That, and the fact that V is a total, utter scumbag." VZAMaZ.
"well look up little troll" cts.
"I think you're a worthless little cuntmonkey but you made me lol, so I sigged you." re
"goodness gracious you're an idiot" mariahkillschickens
[ Parent ]
sudden? nt (none / 0) (#92)
by circletimessquare on Fri May 11, 2007 at 06:48:12 PM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Sudden, indeed. (none / 0) (#93)
by V on Fri May 11, 2007 at 06:54:59 PM EST

As in a fascist-wannabe turns 180 degrees and wants freedom for everyone.

Really odd.

V.
---
What my fans are saying:
"That, and the fact that V is a total, utter scumbag." VZAMaZ.
"well look up little troll" cts.
"I think you're a worthless little cuntmonkey but you made me lol, so I sigged you." re
"goodness gracious you're an idiot" mariahkillschickens
[ Parent ]

how was i ever a fascist wanna be? nt (none / 0) (#94)
by circletimessquare on Fri May 11, 2007 at 07:02:32 PM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Well, gun-grabbing for example (none / 1) (#95)
by V on Fri May 11, 2007 at 07:05:19 PM EST

is one of the staples of fascists.

V.
---
What my fans are saying:
"That, and the fact that V is a total, utter scumbag." VZAMaZ.
"well look up little troll" cts.
"I think you're a worthless little cuntmonkey but you made me lol, so I sigged you." re
"goodness gracious you're an idiot" mariahkillschickens
[ Parent ]

i think you mean gun-taking (none / 0) (#96)
by circletimessquare on Fri May 11, 2007 at 07:13:48 PM EST

gun-grabbing are those who grab guns to solve problems, ie, gun lovers

however, threats to my freedom is not just form my government. to me, a gun, in the hand of morons in the street is a great threat to me. guns are also a threat to me in the hands of a fascist government. however, i really don't think morons in the streets with guns are protecting me from a fascist government. what i sprotecting me from a fascist government are democratic principles and the desire to abide by them and weed out the fascists... fascists usually LOVE guns and gangs, btw

what i believe is that the morons in the street threaten my freedom on a daily basis just to live more than i threaten their freedom by denying them the technology to easily kill people. how is that a freedom they need in civil society? isn't my freedom to live more important?

now, you may disagree me. ok, fine. but you have to admit that my MOTIVATION is not fascism, that what motivates you is a LOVE OF FREEDOM

understand?

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

So you are only an useful idiot to the fascists?$ (none / 0) (#97)
by V on Fri May 11, 2007 at 07:38:07 PM EST


---
What my fans are saying:
"That, and the fact that V is a total, utter scumbag." VZAMaZ.
"well look up little troll" cts.
"I think you're a worthless little cuntmonkey but you made me lol, so I sigged you." re
"goodness gracious you're an idiot" mariahkillschickens
[ Parent ]
if that's what you want to think of me, fine (none / 0) (#101)
by circletimessquare on Fri May 11, 2007 at 07:50:24 PM EST

but i'm not a fascist myself. what motivates me, and always has, is love of freedom. if you think the conclusions i arrive at according to those motivation only hurts my cause and helps fascism, that's fine. but you have to understand i am not a fascist myself

are we clear dear low iq cretin?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Do you believe your own bullshit?$ (none / 0) (#105)
by V on Fri May 11, 2007 at 08:23:39 PM EST


---
What my fans are saying:
"That, and the fact that V is a total, utter scumbag." VZAMaZ.
"well look up little troll" cts.
"I think you're a worthless little cuntmonkey but you made me lol, so I sigged you." re
"goodness gracious you're an idiot" mariahkillschickens
[ Parent ]
it's obvious that (none / 0) (#111)
by circletimessquare on Fri May 11, 2007 at 10:04:45 PM EST

you know more than me about what really goes on in my head

right?

(smacks forehead)


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

excellent cts...thanks! /nt (none / 1) (#99)
by mybostinks on Fri May 11, 2007 at 07:40:43 PM EST



As a former Scientologist... (none / 1) (#112)
by elrac on Sat May 12, 2007 at 05:55:00 AM EST

I've had a small insight into the workings of Scientology. I am fully convinced that they are a fascist cult whose only motive is the accumulation of money and power. And because their methods of control and coercion move –with full intent– between shady and downright illegal, they should be persecuted as a criminal organization.

On one level, I'm amazed that the USA, as a nanny state, does not protect its citizens from the dangers of Scientology. Scientology can destroy lives and has done so on many an occasion. I consider myself lucky to have had the strength of will to back out when I could. If US law protects consumers from too-hot coffee (you know - the MacDonalds' thing; I'm too lazy to link to it) then it should certainly protect consumers from dangerous cults.

On another level, I'm not so amazed. The USA was founded by a bunch of people whose views on religion were so extreme they were kicked out of England. The USA nurtures and cherishes extreme nuttiness, so long as it runs under a label of religion.

Yet another level: Scientology was smart enough to place a big emphasis on making money, and lots of it. Scientology has power in the USA because it has money. It makes me puke to think that reality works like this in the US, but that's how it is. Wealth makes justice irrelevant.

Scientology got me to cough up some significant money for training materials and auditing, all at completely ridiculous prices. When I realized what Scientology was doing to me, I got out of there and threatened to sue for that portion of my money that I had given them for which I had not yet received materials or services. Because I live in a country that's a little more sane than the US, they backed down and I got my money. See, they can be beaten, and beaten I feel they should be, at every possible opportunity.

CTS has posted some of their supposedly copyrighted material and drawn some criticism for the apparent illegality of doing this. Let me insert, parenthetically, that I found his choice of text sub-optimal; this is high-level stuff, taken out of context, that is complete gobbledygook to laypeople. I think there's other text that would be more effective at demonstrating to the public what a dangerous load of crap Scientology is. CTS, do you have any material on the CoS' handling of security and intelligency, which they title "ethics?"

Anyway, back on track: CTS has posted supposedly copyrighted material. In general, I wouldn't support this. But as he has pointed out, they claim to be a religion yet restrict access to their material, and to my way of thinking these concepts disagree. I agree with CTS that the copyright of this material should be put to the test in hopes that at some point an investigation will reveal the questionable legal status of this copyright, just like for that "DRM number". Thus, I support his call for challenging their copyright.

thank you my brother, and i support u 2 ;-) nt (none / 0) (#115)
by circletimessquare on Sat May 12, 2007 at 04:06:29 PM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
mcdonalds thing (none / 0) (#125)
by the77x42 on Sun May 13, 2007 at 05:17:47 AM EST

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

skin grafting... not fun.


"We're not here to educate. We're here to point and laugh." - creature
"You have some pretty stupid ideas." - indubitable ‮

[ Parent ]

McDonald's (none / 0) (#129)
by localroger on Sun May 13, 2007 at 09:34:36 AM EST

McDonald's did not lose that suit because America is a nanny state that protects you from hot coffee. They lost it because they knew they had a serious consumer safety problem which they had settled out of court in over seven hundred previous cases, and in the particular famous case the lawyers believed that the case would outlive the plaintiff. The jury rightly called bullshit on that idea and gave her a large award to discourage such despicable behavior. The case was finally settled out of court and under seal so we don't know how much money she really got; I suspect it was just enough to cover her medical and legal bills, which is all she wanted in the first place.

I am become Death, Destroyer of Worlds -- J. Robert Oppenheimer
[ Parent ]
MCD (none / 0) (#146)
by RevLoveJoy on Mon May 14, 2007 at 12:00:41 PM EST

Thanks localroger, I get so tired of this being trumped as the ultimate stupid consumer / nanny state court case.

Every political force in the U.S. that seeks to get past the Constitution by sophistry or technicality is little more than a wannabe king. -- pyro9
[ Parent ]

FFS (none / 0) (#122)
by HackerCracker on Sun May 13, 2007 at 12:02:44 AM EST

Follow the money

Whoa whoa whoa (none / 1) (#124)
by the77x42 on Sun May 13, 2007 at 05:12:44 AM EST

  1. He was charged with three misdemeanors.
  2. He was convicted with "interfering with a religion".
  3. He was convicted by jury.
  4. This conviction carried a prison term of six months.
  5. He fled from the US into Canada.
  6. Canada decided to deport him.
  7. He fled back into the US from Canada.

So let's examine this...

First off, a jury decided that he was guilty. Do you think he was interfering with a religion? Freedom of religion is a constitutional right for you guys, isn't it? Would all the Scientologists in the room claim they have a religion?

Second, the Canadian government decided to deport him. Believe it or not, there is a process for this, we don't just ship you back because Uncle Sam says so.

Third, he fled. If you are acting out of civil disobedience, you don't flee. The headlines read "conspiracy theorist flees country instead of serving sentence" when they should read "man in jail for challenging Scientology". Get my drift?

Fact is, the guy was scared for his life, and thought they'd kill him in jail. Imagine the headlines then? "Scientologists kill opponent in jail".

Defend his views, defend his right to say them, but don't defend the man. This man is a coward. If he wrote what he did, went to trial, served his time, then went to the press about it, he would have a lot more sympathy. Instead he threw stones and ran away like a toddler. Let this be a lesson on how not to protest.

CTS is defending his views and his right to say them, not the man. Good job. Please follow lead.


"We're not here to educate. We're here to point and laugh." - creature
"You have some pretty stupid ideas." - indubitable ‮

Scientologists and Opponents (3.00 / 2) (#130)
by localroger on Sun May 13, 2007 at 09:41:27 AM EST

I can't imagine why Keith might have thought their threat to kill him in jail was serious...

Oh wait, I suppose I can.

I am become Death, Destroyer of Worlds -- J. Robert Oppenheimer
[ Parent ]

what a moron (none / 0) (#142)
by circletimessquare on Mon May 14, 2007 at 07:05:09 AM EST

what you just said above is basically: while i agree that he was convicted under shady pretenses, i still think he should go to jail anyways

are you serious asswipe?

"Instead he threw stones and ran away like a toddler"

got, it, going to jail under false pretenses is "throwing stones and running away like a toddler"

uhuh, yeah what a coward. not going to jail under false pretenses. wtf?!

i do indeed think keith henson is a wackjob crackpot

however, keith henson is a finer grade of human being than you, a braindead moron


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

don't be a fucktard (none / 0) (#148)
by the77x42 on Mon May 14, 2007 at 07:22:22 PM EST

what you just said above is basically: while i agree that he was convicted under shady pretenses, i still think he should go to jail anyways

when did i agree to anything... my point was precisely that he didn't get convicted under shady pretenses.... the jury found him guilty as did the canadian government. my rhetoric in the beginning was supposed to draw attention to the fact that by the law he was interfering with a religion. so... instead of going to jail for a crime he actually did commit, he ran away. much like you have ran away from reality for most of your life.


"We're not here to educate. We're here to point and laugh." - creature
"You have some pretty stupid ideas." - indubitable ‮

[ Parent ]

The conviction is ridiculous on the face of it. (none / 0) (#156)
by rpresser on Tue May 15, 2007 at 05:47:03 PM EST

"Freedom of religion" is a statement of the restriction on the activities that the government may do.  It is impossible for anything a private individual does to be criminally "interfering with a religion."

And if I'm wrong, yaay.
------------
"In terms of both hyperbolic overreaching and eventual wrongness, the Permanent [Republican] Majority has set a new, and truly difficult to beat, standard." --rusty
[ Parent ]

Another similar case has emerged. What to do? (none / 1) (#127)
by OzJuggler on Sun May 13, 2007 at 08:35:43 AM EST

EFF vs Uri Geller vs Brian Sapient
Psychic fighting YouTube clips sued by SF group
Again, a freak show using copyright as a way of stifling criticism, only in this case it's much more certain that Sapient can claim fair use of Geller's video.

I'm tempted to disagree with CTS just on principle... and perhaps out of spite since he helped knock my FP story off the top. (sniff, it had a good run). However my love of truth and reciprocity is stronger than my disdain for circletimessquare.

See, thing is, if you respect the law so much that you never question it and never see fit to change it in any way, then law has become a religion. People are hanging this Keith Henson guy out to dry simply because he broke the letter of the law. I say you are simple minded if that line of reasoning is sufficient for gaining your support. When reality changes and a majority opinion emerges about how to deal with that change, the law should be updated to match. If misuse of intellectual property laws grows in frequency then copyright should be modifed to define misuse and allow prosecution thereof.

I think there has to come a time when we have to look past the letter of the law and try to remind ourselves as to why copyright was created to begin with: to protect the livelihoods of creative individuals. There's some soul searching to be done, but I doubt many people will rate that protectionism as higher than freedom of speech - which is freedom of thought in the functional sense.

So... now, how does this go CTS? Oh, I think I get the hang of it, it must be....
YOU'RE EITHER WITH US, OR YOU'RE WITH THE SCIENTOLOGISTS.*

Oh yes, sweet.

- OzJuggler.

____________
* - AND SPOON-BENDERS.
"And I will not rest until every year families gather to spend December 25th together
at Osama's homo abortion pot and commie jizzporium." - Jon Stewart's gift to Bill O'Reilly, 7 Dec 2005.

Keith Henson is a whiner (none / 0) (#139)
by geekmug on Sun May 13, 2007 at 11:33:15 PM EST

This guy just never stops wanting public outcry for him.. K5:Keith Henson Needs Help.

My memory is fuzzy about something I read 3 years ago, but the guy was nutso.

Whether CoS is a treacherous organization or not, you don't get anywhere by disobeying the laws of the land. Two wrongs do not make a right. Eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.. and such forth.

-- Why reinvent the square wheel?
you got it backwards asswipe (none / 0) (#140)
by circletimessquare on Mon May 14, 2007 at 06:59:33 AM EST

keith henson deserves none of my interest

keith henson indeed sounds like a loony toon

however, when in the process of exercising his right to free speech he is prosecuted, HE DESERVES OUR SUPPORT AND INTEREST

"you don't get anywhere by disobeying the laws of the land"

are you a fucking unthinking robot?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

The system will never protect all of us (none / 0) (#144)
by slaida1 on Mon May 14, 2007 at 08:24:37 AM EST

I'd like to call those who seem destined to get in trouble as Natural Born Victims. Henson and you are both people who try to help NBVs. You try to fix the system but it will never be perfect.

There will always be NBVs getting hurt no matter what. If scientologists were removed, NBVs would think of something other, maybe running under trains more or drugging themselves or something.

They exist because natural selection doesn't.

Personally, I wouldn't want scientologists around but thinking them as a natural phenomenon, a product of surrounding culture, something like what they are seem inevitable. A religion of profits and survival.

In a sense, it's good to have a living runaway social/corporate entity behaving badly. You can experience what it does, see individuals suffering yet helping it. You can try to figure why exactly things like it can live and prosper. And you can try to stop it.

Reminds me of this one horror story by Clive Barker: In the Hills, the Cities

dude (none / 0) (#158)
by circletimessquare on Wed May 16, 2007 at 12:49:15 PM EST

scientology is assaulting free speech

that's the only the issue here

i don't know what the fuck what you just wrote above is supposed to be all about


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

FFS (none / 0) (#159)
by slaida1 on Fri May 18, 2007 at 02:59:51 AM EST

I got the impression that it is the stupid justice system that is assaulting free speech in this case.

But you are right, I guess I got carried away. Free speech it is. Going against exploiting NBVs is better left for another day.

For Free Speech!

[ Parent ]

Religious fundamentalism? (none / 0) (#154)
by PostoStudanto on Tue May 15, 2007 at 03:12:53 AM EST

Despite Scientology's odd nature (translation: fraudulent <insert insult noun here>), it's not technically religious fundamentalism.

what's fundamentalism? (none / 1) (#157)
by circletimessquare on Wed May 16, 2007 at 12:47:47 PM EST

it's taking any concept way too seriously, at the detriment of a sound understanding/ respect for basic human nature

in other words, what has been done in the name of scientology is fundamentalism

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

The clams are serious business.. (none / 1) (#162)
by system under test on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 02:16:22 PM EST

..but not the most serious of businesses.

I went down this road once.  Set up a site.  Smacktalked the clams.  Mirrored texts and other sites as they were shut down one by one.  Defiant as I could be.

Of course they aren't stupid.  Crazy, but not stupid.  My ISP received legal threats.  My ISPs peers/upstreams received legal threats.  My employers received legal threats.  They caved, dominoes fell, and I had to shut down.  The lawyers for all of them said basically the same thing: This is probably not illegal, but these guys are way too litigious to deal with.

I haven't made another attempt.  Fighting the clams is doubly dangerous now and it's not a fight I care to enter at the moment.

There is more at stake right now than free speech, especially when felony charges become involved.  Losing your right to own guns AND your right to vote once you are a 'felon' is a truly nefarious state of affairs.

Consider this.  Perhaps there is another fight that needs fought first..


OK WE GET IT YOUR GUNS ARE LEGAL AND REGISTERED (none / 0) (#163)
by Hielolymus Lolch on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 08:50:05 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Bomb Post for Freedom | 161 comments (155 topical, 6 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!