PDA

View Full Version : Russian Court Upholds Ban on Scientology Books



GreyWolf
21st March 2012, 06:17 PM
Wow! So what do you think about this? :happydance::happydance:

Hubbard’s books on Scientology "seek to form an isolated social group whose members
are trained to perform their functions generally aimed against the rest of the world,”
the court said in its ruling.

http://en.ria.ru/crime/20120321/172303524.html

johnAnchovie
21st March 2012, 06:37 PM
Wow! So what do you think about this? :happydance::happydance:

Hubbard’s books on Scientology "seek to form an isolated social group whose members
are trained to perform their functions generally aimed against the rest of the world,”
the court said in its ruling.

http://en.ria.ru/crime/20120321/172303524.html

Maybe old Putin ain't so bad after all.... or is it just that one bunch of tyrannical bastards can clearly see when another bunch of wanna be overlords are trying to muscle in on their territory?

Gadfly
21st March 2012, 07:39 PM
Wow! So what do you think about this? :happydance::happydance:

Hubbard’s books on Scientology "seek to form an isolated social group whose members are trained to perform their functions generally aimed against the rest of the world,” the court said in its ruling.

http://en.ria.ru/crime/20120321/172303524.html

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Isn't THIS the truth:

Scientology "seeks to form an isolated social group whose members are trained to perform their functions generally aimed against the rest of the world".

Mark A. Baker
21st March 2012, 07:50 PM
Wow! So what do you think about this? :happydance::happydance:

Hubbard’s books on Scientology "seek to form an isolated social group whose members
are trained to perform their functions generally aimed against the rest of the world,”
the court said in its ruling.

http://en.ria.ru/crime/20120321/172303524.html

Dictatorship justifying censorship. That is all it is.

There are many good reasons to act against the church. Booksales aren't one of them.


Mark A. Baker

Mystic
21st March 2012, 07:53 PM
A couple of years ago during the bigtime Anon protests/pickets of the cult, I came across a vid of a protest in Moscow. It was not an Anon protest, but some 7,000!!! university students protesting at the scifaggOT installation. I had to watch it several times to make sure what I was seeing.

Oh, here it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNVVk_o3Be4

Rene Descartes
21st March 2012, 08:37 PM
Dictatorship justifying censorship. That is all it is.

There are many good reasons to act against the church. Booksales aren't one of them.


Mark A. Baker

Mark,

Hubbard’s books on Scientology "seek to form an isolated social group whose members are trained to perform their functions generally aimed against the rest of the world,” the court said in its ruling.

is not censorship of beliefs it is censorship of actions.

So at least it passes by American standards.

Rd00

GreyWolf
21st March 2012, 09:14 PM
A couple of years ago during the bigtime Anon protests/pickets of the cult, I came across a vid of a protest in Moscow. It was not an Anon protest, but some 7,000!!! university students protesting at the scifaggOT installation. I had to watch it several times to make sure what I was seeing.

Oh, here it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNVVk_o3Be4




Wow! Thanks Mystic. That was fun!

ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn
21st March 2012, 09:23 PM
I'm against censorship of any kind, if this law makes it illegal to sell any of the cult's material, but does not criminalize possess of the material, then I'm okay with it, however if it makes it illegal to even possess it then I think it sets a dangerous precedence and is a bad idea. Trying to legislate away stupidity works about as well as trying to legislate morality.

Banning the sale of the cults material would pretty much achieve everything that is needed with censoring the material. If the cult's means of fleecing people is taken away, the cult is done.

The Anabaptist Jacques
21st March 2012, 10:01 PM
Dictatorship justifying censorship. That is all it is.

There are many good reasons to act against the church. Booksales aren't one of them.


Mark A. Baker


Mark,

Hubbard’s books on Scientology "seek to form an isolated social group whose members are trained to perform their functions generally aimed against the rest of the world,” the court said in its ruling.

is not censorship of beliefs it is censorship of actions.

So at least it passes by American standards.

Rd00

It is not censorship of actions, it is censorship of ideas.

Books contain ideas.

If it was censorship of actions then those actions would have be named and banned.

While it is typically Russian, it is not a good omen for freedom.

The Anabaptist Jacques

Reasonable
21st March 2012, 10:15 PM
I am against censorship of any kind. Didn't Hubbard sensor people enough? The Russian government is as bad as he is. I wouldn't censor Mein Kampf, or Playboy or Hubbard.

Free people can read , accept or reject any idea on an individual basis.

Free people can get swindled and taken advantage of, they can invent things and innovate, they can succeed or fail.

Censored people can only get swindled, taken advantage and fail, usually at the hands of the powers that be...(ie: the government, or the cult learder)

The Anabaptist Jacques
21st March 2012, 10:16 PM
And by the way writings that "seek to form an isolated social group whose members are trained to perform their functions generally aimed against the rest of the world,” was probably said in similar words by King George III about the Continental Congress and their writings--the Declaration of Independence.

The Anabaptist Jacques

LA SCN
21st March 2012, 10:21 PM
A couple of years ago during the bigtime Anon protests/pickets of the cult, I came across a vid of a protest in Moscow. It was not an Anon protest, but some 7,000!!! university students protesting at the scifaggOT installation. I had to watch it several times to make sure what I was seeing.

Oh, here it is:

I am relying on the accompanying translation sub titles that it was about hubbard and hubbardites - "the sect" - didn't see any symbols at the building. Per the subtitles, 3000 protesters signed the statement going to the politicos and 700 protesters were on scene.

LA SCN
21st March 2012, 10:24 PM
And by the way writings that "seek to form an isolated social group whose members are trained to perform their functions generally aimed against the rest of the world,” was probably said in similar words by King George III about the Continental Congress and their writings--the Declaration of Independence.

The Anabaptist Jacques

It's the old Duck Hunter vs. Duck dichotomy...:biggrin:

degraded being
21st March 2012, 10:28 PM
Maybe old Putin ain't so bad after all.... or is it just that one bunch of tyrannical bastards can clearly see when another bunch of wanna be overlords are trying to muscle in on their territory?


That. Ex KGB gets OSA.

Mystic
21st March 2012, 10:58 PM
Here's a country, Russia, which is not quite as ensnarled by the satanic Rothschild Zionism as is the West; and we have these little can't-be dictators in the West trying to evaluate Russia's actions towards the satanic cult of L. Ron Hubbard :grouch: and his so-called "Scientology". Whatta bunch of losers, coming to Scientology's defense.

Darn, the Russian court didn't order all the Hubbard-spew books burned.

Reasonable
22nd March 2012, 12:14 AM
Here's a country, Russia, which is not quite as ensnarled by the satanic Rothschild Zionism as is the West; and we have these little can't-be dictators in the West trying to evaluate Russia's actions towards the satanic cult of L. Ron Hubbard :grouch: and his so-called "Scientology". Whatta bunch of losers, coming to Scientology's defense.

Darn, the Russian court didn't order all the Hubbard-spew books burned.




Not defending Scientology. I am defending freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of ideas. Yes that includes Scientology, Satanism, Christianity and all mythology. <edit remove insult>

Rene Descartes
22nd March 2012, 12:19 AM
Dictatorship justifying censorship. That is all it is.

There are many good reasons to act against the church. Booksales aren't one of them.


Mark A. Baker

Okay maybe I will recant my earlier post to you as soon as I get it straight as to what exactly is being censored here.

For now consider it recanted.


Rd00

Rene Descartes
22nd March 2012, 12:21 AM
Do the current laws outlawing child pornography fall into the realm of censorship?

If so then I think there are times when censorship can be a good thing, such as censorship against child pornogrphy.

Rd00

Sydney
22nd March 2012, 12:29 AM
Totalitarian regimes don't like the competition of other other totalitarian idealogies operating on there turf pure and simple, I'm not for censoring anything about scientology I'm all for exposing it and the nonsensical twaddle and ecesses of it as an entity, and also seeing that it or other entities like it are NOT protected by unfair legislation and tax laws.
One thing must be said though scientology trying to harras and intimidate goverment officials and members of the media is much less likely to get anything but a negative outcome in Russia or China for that matter. THEY only have themselves to blame.
So no I won't be losing any sleep over a group that promotes harassment and persecution of individulas been persecuted.

Gottabrain
22nd March 2012, 12:35 AM
Do the current laws outlawing child pornography fall into the realm of censorship?

If so then I think there are times when censorship can be a good thing, such as censorship against child pornogrphy.

Rd00

I agree.

And I think it's great Scientology books are censored from Russia.

Because Scientology and Dianetics are presented as well-researched, clinical truths. They are not. Within the books are false claims about curing all illnesses, false information about other counselling institutions and a lot of made-up facts.

Once a person takes the hook, the emeter and various spying techniques, including reporting on one another, group pressure and videotaped sessions are used to keep members in line. The pressure increases until it becomes coercion and segregation from family, other religions and other techniques of control.

IF the books were simply factual or simply religious in content, statement or action then they would not be dangerous. The false claims make Scn a dangerous con.

Why shouldn't Russia ban books by a known con-artist making false claims? Why shouldn't it block a known fascist organization that sets up its own government within itself and denies human rights and other things written in law to its members?

I think all books written by con artists should be banned everywhere. If Scientology doesn't like it, well then, re-write the books without the false claims and hypnotic techniques and stop exerting unjustified subconscious and even physical control and coercion over the Scientologists that read them.

Veda
22nd March 2012, 12:36 AM
The greatest enemy Scientology has is the free flow of information. I'm against banning books. If Russia allows a free Internet, and the free flow of information generally, then Scientology can be kept in check.

Scientology is not just a "philosophy," it is a "psychological political operation." This makes the Russian government nervous, and rightly so.

Scientology needs to be monitored, as would any shady or criminal operation, but banning books goes too far.

Gottabrain
22nd March 2012, 12:49 AM
The greatest enemy Scientology has is the free flow of information. I'm against banning books. If Russia allows a free Internet, and the free flow of information generally, then Scientology can be kept in check.

Good point.



Scientology is not just a "philosophy," it is a "psychological political operation." This makes the Russian government nervous, and rightly so.

Scientology needs to be monitored, as would any shady or criminal operation, but banning books goes too far.

True.

But any other publisher that made the ridiculous false statements and claims that Elron did would have been sued out of business. Too difficult with COS deep pockets and tricky Dicky legal maneuvers.

IMO, Russia is also a bit protective. Russia doesn't want to see its already starving people blowing their money - whisked off to nevernever DM land, nor does it want the education investment of its future through its youth to be wasted.

Some countries don't see the huge cost to them of the wasted youth years of its potential future leaders, scientists, designers. With Russia's low general education level, losing their local Uni grads is a pretty big deal. After all, Russia isn't exactly a place where doctors from other countries stand in a queue for the opportunity to practice there.

Lone Star
22nd March 2012, 01:31 AM
Here's a country, Russia, which is not quite as ensnarled by the satanic Rothschild Zionism as is the West....




Shhhhhhh....Don't say that too loud Mystic! That is the secret which is not to be talked about openly. You may have someone from an organization even worse than OSA come and gitcha! :coolwink:

Lone Star
22nd March 2012, 01:59 AM
[/B]

http://www.forum.exscn.net/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by johnAnchovie http://www.forum.exscn.net/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?p=672617#post672617)
Maybe old Putin ain't so bad after all.... or is it just that one bunch of tyrannical bastards can clearly see when another bunch of wanna be overlords are trying to muscle in on their territory?

That. Ex KGB gets OSA.

I'd love to see DM go to Russia and have a personal face-off with ex-KGB East German station chief Vladimir Putin. I think DM would run out of the room white as a sheet after Vlady colorfully explained to him his ability to kill a man 15 different ways with his index finger.

Auditor's Toad
22nd March 2012, 02:03 AM
Dictatorship justifying censorship. That is all it is.

There are many good reasons to act against the church. Booksales aren't one of them.


Mark A. Baker

Dude, you entirely missed the point.

ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn
22nd March 2012, 02:39 AM
Do the current laws outlawing child pornography fall into the realm of censorship?

If so then I think there are times when censorship can be a good thing, such as censorship against child pornogrphy.

Rd00

There are certain illegal activities which violate an individuals rights that are protected as a form of free speech, such as obtaining a person's personal and financial information and or passwords and using that information or propagating it, another example is yelling fire in a crowded movie theater.

Not only is the exploitation of children illegal, but those children have the right to their privacy and there is no way you can create, distribute or possess child porn without violating a child's rights, it's impossible.

GreyWolf
22nd March 2012, 03:18 AM
I'd love to see DM go to Russia and have a personal face-off with ex-KGB East German station chief Vladimir Putin. I think DM would run out of the room white as a sheet after Vlady colorfully explained to him his ability to kill a man 15 different ways with his index finger.

But . . . I thought DM is a Karate Master?

Opter
22nd March 2012, 03:28 AM
Here's a country, Russia, which is not quite as ensnarled by the satanic Rothschild Zionism as is the West;








Mystic

Is the SATANIC ROTHSCHILD ZIONISM another conspiracy theory?


Opter

Mystic
22nd March 2012, 03:37 AM
Not defending Scientology. I am defending freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of ideas. Yes that includes Scientology, Satanism, Christianity and all mythology. And since you called me a loser I will call you an ignorant idiot.

Hey, we can get into a name-calling battle.

You oggapulapa nohotano weekahhoonie!

Infinite
22nd March 2012, 05:01 AM
..


Hmmm . . . tricky one, innit? On the one hand, how wonderful to have a government make so forceful its official stance on Scientology but, on the other, this move allows Scientology to apply its KSW Standard L Ron Hubbard "victim tech" and leverage sympathy under its false human rights banner. It also garnishes the "rebellious" aspect which Paul Haggis discussed in the New Yorker article (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/02/14/110214fa_fact_wright): basically, part of the attraction for him was that the subject was fringe. More generally, I don't see much good coming from the Russian decision simply from the point of view that, when it comes to Scientology, more information is better than less information. The same results would have been achieved had the court ruled the Xenu story must be published as an introduction to every Scientology book. Overall, I think Russia should consider the French legal template created when the courts there ruled that Scientology as it is standardly practised amounts to fraud and false pharmacy.

GoNuclear
22nd March 2012, 06:01 AM
Wow! So what do you think about this? :happydance::happydance:

Hubbard’s books on Scientology "seek to form an isolated social group whose members
are trained to perform their functions generally aimed against the rest of the world,”
the court said in its ruling.

http://en.ria.ru/crime/20120321/172303524.html


While I like the result ... nobody reading Scientology books ... I hate the method. Who else do we know of who tells people what they can or cannot read????????????

Pete

DoneDeal
22nd March 2012, 06:17 AM
While I like the result ... nobody reading Scientology books ... I hate the method. Who else do we know of who tells people what they can or cannot read????????????

Pete

I know it man. That isn't an easy thing to just go along with.

But...there is a saying I try to include in my decisions, and I mean try and not always successful.

It's "Choose your Battles" Can't win em all...

And it's marvelous to me to see scn get their asses kicked here,

Mystic
22nd March 2012, 10:39 AM
Mystic

Is the SATANIC ROTHSCHILD ZIONISM another conspiracy theory?


Opter

Here you go, Opter. This is real:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlEX1xD1wtM

Rene Descartes
22nd March 2012, 11:43 AM
There are certain illegal activities which violate an individuals rights that are protected as a form of free speech, such as obtaining a person's personal and financial information and or passwords and using that information or propagating it, another example is yelling fire in a crowded movie theater.

Not only is the exploitation of children illegal, but those children have the right to their privacy and there is no way you can create, distribute or possess child porn without violating a child's rights, it's impossible.

Well I guess Russia feels that Scientology practices could essentially end up violating the rights of the citizens of Russia.

But then again maybe I am stretching things.

I mean do Scientology practices ever violate the rights of people?

Rd00

Rene Descartes
22nd March 2012, 11:45 AM
..


Hmmm . . . tricky one, innit? On the one hand, how wonderful to have a government make so forceful its official stance on Scientology but, on the other, this move allows Scientology to apply its KSW Standard L Ron Hubbard "victim tech" and leverage sympathy under its false human rights banner. It also garnishes the "rebellious" aspect which Paul Haggis discussed in the New Yorker article (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/02/14/110214fa_fact_wright): basically, part of the attraction for him was that the subject was fringe. More generally, I don't see much good coming from the Russian decision simply from the point of view that, when it comes to Scientology, more information is better than less information. The same results would have been achieved had the court ruled the Xenu story must be published as an introduction to every Scientology book. Overall, I think Russia should consider the French legal template created when the courts there ruled that Scientology as it is standardly practised amounts to fraud and false pharmacy.

Is fraud and false pharmacy censorablewothy?

Rd00

Gottabrain
22nd March 2012, 11:49 AM
Is fraud and false pharmacy censorablewothy?

Rd00

Well you know it's a good point.

In a democracy or where you have lawsuits and things, society sort of censors that stuff. It's not all that effective though and lots of people get gyped anyway.

So IDK. But if the big guns can get censored by a government once in a while, that's kind of cool in a way because nobody else has done it successfully in recent times.

Infinite
22nd March 2012, 12:22 PM
Is fraud and false pharmacy censorablewothy?

Rd00

I guess, sorta, kinda, maybe - in the sense that it is prosecutable. But commtting fraud and false pharmacy is an action, not a belief. By all means, have texts explaining how its done (a la Scientology) so that we might all be aware prior to becoming subject to it, but keep the practise of it illegal.

This thread has resulted in a conversation with a friend of mine who believes there are some things which should be censored. We agreed that child pornography is illegal in that there is a consent issue so banning that material, in our considered opinion, doesn't constitute censorship. But, what about, say, a recipe for meth? She says that such a recipe should be censored because the damage done to freedom of speech is mitigated by the prevention of harm the manufacture of meth would cause. Its a "lesser of two evils" stance. My position is that such a recipe can be found by those seeking it regardless of whether or not it is censored and, in fact, just because it is censored, may well act as an incentive for the rebellious to seek it out when they might not otherwise. A futility plus censorship = cachet stance, I guess.

In my heart of hearts, I remain undecided, and can see both sides with equal clarity. Bottom line - I dunno; but my gut instinct says censorhip may be a short term solution but is unsustainable over the long term.

DartSmohen
22nd March 2012, 12:33 PM
There is a whole side to this which seems to have been missed.

When $cn started to try and break into the soviet bloc it used translators to convert the texts into cryllic .

However,during this process one of the translators became disaffected with the cult and registered the copyright to each book to himself. As a result the cult could not legally publish books (or import translated copies) without the permission of the copyright holder.

I learned this some years ago from a close friend who had been involved in the "inde" movement in Russia.

I do not know if the cult came to an agreement with the copyright holder or not, but it may just be that the cult have been blocked from trying to violate the copyright.

Anyway, it is an interesting thought.

Dart

anonomog
22nd March 2012, 04:40 PM
The trouble with banning "something" is that the something becomes irresistable to certain types of people.

The people who feel they are brighter than the rest of humanity, better able to handle stuff other people can't, people who delight in knowing something others don't. Those who get a thrill doing something mildly dangerous in their vanilla life.

Banning is proof of it's edginess and danger - suddenly it becomes waaaaaay more important than it is. Then there is the prestige of reading the unreadable, the ego boost to say not only did you read it- but you really understood it and know why the government banned it!
Ooh ROCKSTAR!

I would love it all gone, but the internet age will never allow it. Better to ignore it into insignificance.

rich
22nd March 2012, 07:18 PM
Banning is proof of it's edginess and danger - suddenly it becomes waaaaaay more important than it is. Then there is the prestige of reading the unreadable, the ego boost to say not only did you read it- but you really understood it and know why the government banned it!
Ooh ROCKSTAR!

I would love it all gone, but the internet age will never allow it. Better to ignore it into insignificance.

Yeah, pirate publishing became a big cottage industry at the fall of the iron curtain,untill the mafia killed the pirates. Here's a 6 month old police video from the same channel as the student protest. At 3:05 it shows a big walk in safe. I'm surprised to see that at the moscow org. I think it's kinda stupid to crowbar the auditing rooms open. The cops should be ashamed of themselves.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSb-UWsghn4&list=UUMD4kTS4MOvmMNj9pG_R8HA&index=5&feature=plcp

degraded being
23rd March 2012, 02:21 AM
Do american soldiers have freedom of speech?
If not, why not? That's one of the things they are there to protect innit?

How does this relate to objections to the Russian solution to the scientology problem?

http://world-news.newsvine.com/_news/2012/03/22/10809644-marine-faces-boot-for-anti-obama-facebook-posts#comments

(Incidentally.....just like Debbie.....but that is only an aside)

uniquemand
23rd March 2012, 02:29 AM
As I recall, your rights are suspended when you join the military. You take a vow, you are in service, you are under orders, and your rights are spelled out in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. I think you do lose "first amendment" rights. You are no longer a civilian. You are a government asset.

I could be wrong, but that's sure as shit what they told us.

freethinker
23rd March 2012, 03:31 AM
You are correct, when you sign up for military service, that is a contract for service with rules and regulations.
As I recall, your rights are suspended when you join the military. You take a vow, you are in service, you are under orders, and your rights are spelled out in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. I think you do lose "first amendment" rights. You are no longer a civilian. You are a government asset.

I could be wrong, but that's sure as shit what they told us.

The Anabaptist Jacques
23rd March 2012, 03:38 AM
When George W Bush was president, some generals expressed disagreement with his policy. Not publicly of course.

Bush had trouble controlling his generals.

Clinton had trouble controlling his privates.

The Anabaptist Jacques

degraded being
23rd March 2012, 05:42 AM
As I recall, your rights are suspended when you join the military. You take a vow, you are in service, you are under orders, and your rights are spelled out in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. I think you do lose "first amendment" rights. You are no longer a civilian. You are a government asset.

I could be wrong, but that's sure as shit what they told us.


You are correct, when you sign up for military service, that is a contract for service with rules and regulations.

Isn't that a terrible thing? Free speech and all?????

The Anabaptist Jacques
23rd March 2012, 05:43 AM
Isn't that a terrible thing? Free speech and all?????

No. It is necessary for the army to function.

The Anabaptist Jacques

degraded being
23rd March 2012, 05:44 AM
When George W Bush was president, some generals expressed disagreement with his policy. Not publicly of course.

Bush had trouble controlling his generals.

Clinton had trouble controlling his privates.

The Anabaptist Jacques

But a dedicated citizen managed to pull it off.

The Anabaptist Jacques
23rd March 2012, 05:52 AM
But a dedicated citizen managed to pull it off.

That was a time when Americans were first learning that they could get aids from sex and Clinton realized he could get sex from aides.

The Anabaptist Jacques

degraded being
23rd March 2012, 05:54 AM
No. It is necessary for the army to function.

The Anabaptist Jacques

Necessary trumps free speech, someone's or something's necessary trumps free speech.

Make a scam call it a religion.
Make a scam eliminator, call it an army.
It is necessary? No?

The Anabaptist Jacques
23rd March 2012, 06:09 AM
Necessary trumps free speech, someone's or something's necessary trumps free speech.

Make a scam call it a religion.
Make a scam eliminator, call it an army.
It is necessary? No?

Yes it is necessary.

It isn't someone or something. It is the military designed to function as one unit.

It isn't a democracy and it isn't a forum.

This country, like it or not, would not survive with adequate protection. To carry out that protection this function is necessary.

Abstract ideas without context can sometimes adversly things and have the exact opposite result of the intended purpose.

Would you insist on democracy on a jet airline as to which levers to be pull or how to fly the plane?

The purpose is to arrive safely at the destination. The purpose isn't to be a democracy.

In order to maintain free speech certain actions need to occur whose purpose it is to maintain and defend free speech.

Does anyone have the right to interfere and shout out anything they wish during a trial. No, because it will prevent the trial from continuing.

The Anabaptist Jacques

Mystic
23rd March 2012, 06:16 AM
That's what all that "basic training" in the military is about; an attempt to bring about a dissociated mind so it can then be programmed to "follow orders".

GreyWolf
23rd March 2012, 06:28 AM
That's what all that "basic training" in the military is about; an attempt to bring about a dissociated mind so it can then be programmed to "follow orders".

Hmmmm. What does that remind me of?

degraded being
23rd March 2012, 12:07 PM
Yes it is necessary.

It isn't someone or something. It is the military designed to function as one unit.

It isn't a democracy and it isn't a forum.

This country, like it or not, would not survive with adequate protection. To carry out that protection this function is necessary.

Abstract ideas without context can sometimes adversly things and have the exact opposite result of the intended purpose.

Would you insist on democracy on a jet airline as to which levers to be pull or how to fly the plane?

The purpose is to arrive safely at the destination. The purpose isn't to be a democracy.

In order to maintain free speech certain actions need to occur whose purpose it is to maintain and defend free speech.

Does anyone have the right to interfere and shout out anything they wish during a trial. No, because it will prevent the trial from continuing.

The Anabaptist Jacques

Yes, all understandable......but if that's the case, or the rationale, and then you argue for free speech being protected by NOT banning scientology books, it looks like the argument itself is worth nothing. The real reason seems to be that it is practical and thought to be necessary for survival...to protect the group. I don't see any problem with that. But it really is a matter of individuals or groups of individuals deciding that free speech needs to be denied in certain circumstances in order to protect it, or protect democracy, or to protect the USA territory and citizens.
Those who would love to ban scientology books might argue that they too are wanting protection of their freedoms.

The Anabaptist Jacques
24th March 2012, 07:00 AM
Yes, all understandable......but if that's the case, or the rationale, and then you argue for free speech being protected by NOT banning scientology books, it looks like the argument itself is worth nothing. The real reason seems to be that it is practical and thought to be necessary for survival...to protect the group. I don't see any problem with that. But it really is a matter of individuals or groups of individuals deciding that free speech needs to be denied in certain circumstances in order to protect it, or protect democracy, or to protect the USA territory and citizens.
Those who would love to ban scientology books might argue that they too are wanting protection of their freedoms.

Nobody, and I mean nobody, is forced to do Scientology.

It only spreads to those who agree with it.

The Anabaptist Jacques

degraded being
24th March 2012, 08:00 AM
Nobody, and I mean nobody, is forced to do Scientology.

It only spreads to those who agree with it.

The Anabaptist Jacques

You mean before they start they are not forced?
After they start some may be forced. "Coerced" might be a more accurate word for some, but for others it probably does cross the line to "forced" if they want to get out and are considered a risk. Debbie Cook was likely quite ignorant about her legal rights until she was out and informed by a lawyer. She went in when she was in her twenties I think, at a time in life when many are not fully aware of their rights and spent 3 decades being brainwashed, which helped the cult a lot when they got her to sign "legal" documents to keep her quiet. What she says about how they got her to the point of signing the documents amounts to "force" in my book. However, I assume you did mean that people, when they first get into scientology are not forced into it.

So force is used in the cult, but might not be used to get people in. Being born in, would not usually be called force, but it is equivalent; a condition of no power to decide.

The reports from some employees suggest that WISE connected companies use some force to get their employees to connect with cult ideology.


"It only spreads to those who agree with it".

Just for the sake of disussion......Not really. They don't agree with "it",
if "it" means the ideology as a whole. They are usually told they don't have to agree with it. They are manipulated into agreement with some bait. Their weaknesses or failures are sought out so they can be exploited. They are offered a solution to a problem as bait, then they are reeled in. All of this might not be called force. It has a force though, a force to overcome reisistance.

People are more informed now, so there is less chance for the bait to find its mark.

Is there any parallel with the military with this?
Are people forced or not forced to join the miltary and have their rights of free speech taken away?

The Anabaptist Jacques
24th March 2012, 08:09 AM
You mean before they start they are not forced?
After they start some may be forced. "Coerced" might be a more accurate word for some, but for others it probably does cross the line to "forced" if they want to get out and are considered a risk. Debbie Cook was likely quite ignorant about her legal rights until she was out and informed by a lawyer. She went in when she was in her twenties I think, at a time in life when many are not fully aware of their rights and spent 3 decades being brainwashed, which helped the cult a lot when they got her to sign "legal" documents to keep her quiet. What she says about how they got her to the point of signing the documents amounts to "force" in my book. However, I assume you did mean that people, when they first get into scientology are not forced into it.

So force is used in the cult, but might not be used to get people in. Being born in, would not usually be called force, but it is equivalent; a condition of no power to decide.

The reports from some employees suggest that WISE connected companies use some force to get their employees to connect with cult ideology.


"It only spreads to those who agree with it".

Just for the sake of disussion......Not really. They don't agree with "it",
if "it" means the ideology as a whole. They are usually told they don't have to agree with it. They are manipulated into agreement with some bait. Their weaknesses or failures are sought out so they can be exploited. They are offered a solution to a problem as bait, then they are reeled in. All of this might not be called force. It has a force though, a force to overcome reisistance.

People are more informed now, so there is less chance for the bait to find its mark.

Is there any parallel with the military with this?
Are people forced or not forced to join the miltary and have their rights of free speech taken away?

Today in the United States joining the military is entirely voluntary.

Whether a person is aware of their rights or not, they always have a choice.

They may be coerced and pressured or entraped by their own desire to belong or to reach immortallity.

But they have a choice.

The may not want to suffer the consequences of not going along. But they have a choice.

The Anabaptist Jacques

degraded being
24th March 2012, 08:44 AM
Today in the United States joining the military is entirely voluntary.

Whether a person is aware of their rights or not, they always have a choice.

They may be coerced and pressured or entraped by their own desire to belong or to reach immortallity.

But they have a choice.

The may not want to suffer the consequences of not going along. But they have a choice.

The Anabaptist Jacques

Are the consequences ones of opinion, reputation, etc, or something else?
EDIT. Oh I see, you said "entirely voluntary".

The Anabaptist Jacques
24th March 2012, 08:50 AM
Are the consequences ones of opinion, reputation, etc, or something else?

The consequences are anything and everything that happens as a result of the decision.

The consequences can be intended or unintended.

If one is not morally responsible for what they do or do not do then there is no valid reason to criticize what the the Church does.

The Anabaptist Jacques

degraded being
24th March 2012, 09:21 AM
The consequences are anything and everything that happens as a result of the decision.

The consequences can be intended or unintended.

If one is not morally responsible for what they do or do not do then there is no valid reason to criticize what the the Church does.

The Anabaptist Jacques

.......so there is free choice; and making a choice, or having free choice is not always going to work out well, since a person's ability to predict the consequences is dependent on all sorts of things.
I think i have always had a hidden, untrue assumption about what free choice meant.
Anyway, on morality, can the morality of any decision be known? On many, it seems obvious that it could be...but on all decisions, no. Or maybe the morality of the decision itself at the time of making the decision can be known but the consequences could be very different than what was originally predicted as the moral result. And I suspect that self interest can be very biased in deciding what is moral.

"If one is not morally responsible for what they do or do not do then there is no valid reason to criticize what the the Church does."


Do you mean that if it's true that (all) people are not morally responsible for what they do or do not do...?

The Anabaptist Jacques
24th March 2012, 09:27 AM
.......so there is free choice; and making a choice, or having free choice is not always going to work out well, since a person's ability to predict the consequences is dependent on all sorts of things.
I think i have always had a hidden, untrue assumption about what free choice meant.
Anyway, on morality, can the morality of any decision be known? On many, it seems obvious that it could be...but on all decisions, no. Or maybe the morality of the decision itself at the time of making the decision can be known but the consequences could be very different than what was originally predicted as the moral result. And I suspect that self interest can be very biased in deciding what is moral.

"If one is not morally responsible for what they do or do not do then there is no valid reason to criticize what the the Church does."


Do you mean that if it's true that (all) people are not morally responsible for what they do or do not do...?

Yeah.

But in my opinion the consequence of the act is of secondary importance to the moral choice. That's from Kant.

For example, if a person intends to shoot somebody good but misses and hits somebody bad, the moral decision to shoot somebody good is what the person is responsible for. He shouldn't be praised because he shoot the bad guy when it was a mistake.

Now I know good guy-bad guy are not black and white, I just used that wording to make the point about choices.

The Anabaptist Jacques

degraded being
24th March 2012, 09:42 AM
Yeah.

But in my opinion the consequence of the act is of secondary importance to the moral choice. That's from Kant.

For example, if a person intends to shoot somebody good but misses and hits somebody bad, the moral decision to shoot somebody good is what the person is responsible for. He shouldn't be praised because he shoot the bad guy when it was a mistake.

Now I know good guy-bad guy are not black and white, I just used that wording to make the point about choices.

The Anabaptist Jacques

That's what I think too. Good that Kant agrees with me.

"If one is not morally responsible for what they do or do not do then there is no valid reason to criticize what the the Church does."


True, but to what degree a person is or is not responsible, and to what degree they have true choice --by which I mean, informed choice---is up for debate isn't it?
If someone (not neccesarily the sci-cult), gives misleading info, or outright lies, then is a person fully responsible for their choice? It takes two to tango. Morality must, I assume, be socially constructed, but used individually also. Come to think of it it must always be a social aspect of a social event (2 or more people).
So, is morality a thing which two or more people share the responsibilty at any given time. (There may be single person moral decisions about oneself, health, wellbeing etc.)??????????

GreyWolf
24th March 2012, 05:09 PM
The reports from some employees suggest that WISE connected companies use some force to get their employees to connect with cult ideology.


Interesting that you should bring that up. There are even horror stories about WISE and Sterling Management. http://nomoreliesscn.blogspot.com/2012/03/management-seminar-harrowing-experience.html

Mystic
24th March 2012, 09:48 PM
A Russian gathered up a mess of Hubbard-spew books and arranged them in a very classical style of architecture resulting in an Ideal Org:

http://whoyoucallingaskeptic.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/bullshit2.jpg?w=480&h=728

exsomessenger
24th March 2012, 09:52 PM
A Russian gathered up a mess of Hubbard-spew books and arranged them in a very classical style of architecture resulting in an Ideal Org:

http://whoyoucallingaskeptic.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/bullshit2.jpg?w=480&h=728


.....

Mystic
25th March 2012, 01:20 AM
.....

http://obscureinternet.com/wp-content/uploads/militia-fail.jpg

Lermanet_com
25th March 2012, 01:31 AM
I am against censorship of any kind. Didn't Hubbard sensor people enough? The Russian government is as bad as he is. I wouldn't censor Mein Kampf, or Playboy or Hubbard.

Free people can read , accept or reject any idea on an individual basis.

Free people can get swindled and taken advantage of, they can invent things and innovate, they can succeed or fail.

Censored people can only get swindled, taken advantage and fail, usually at the hands of the powers that be...(ie: the government, or the cult learder)

scientology is like the carcinogenic, mutagen, called Dioxin in PCBs...

dioxin has been banned... there is no safe 'exposure'...

scientology should be banned, as there is no safe exposure...to covert hypnosis techniques...

Free to shine
25th March 2012, 01:54 AM
Nobody, and I mean nobody, is forced to do Scientology.

It only spreads to those who agree with it.

The Anabaptist Jacques

Except the children.

Mystic
25th March 2012, 01:55 AM
Ya. Bugger the "free-speech" arguments. I have more free speech then I'll ever need. Some of you folks seem to make a religion out of it. You may dispense with your shackles at will and quit bothering me with your all your long-winded carryings on about so-called "free speech" as you don't have any "free speech" as long as you continue to carry on about "free speech". Just do it.

Lone Star
25th March 2012, 02:00 AM
Ya. Bugger the "free-speech" arguments. I have more free speech then I'll ever need. Some of you folks seem to make a religion out of it. You may dispense with your shackles at will and quit bothering me with your all your long-winded carryings on about so-called "free speech" as you don't have any "free speech" as long as you continue to carry on about "free speech". Just do it.


Free speech isn't free. It's been purchased many times in blood, and will continue to be paid in blood because some jackass will always be around to suppress it.