Russian Court Upholds Ban on Scientology Books

[GoNuclear]

Wow! So what do you think about this?

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]

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]

Mystic

Is the SATANIC ROTHSCHILD ZIONISM another conspiracy theory?


Opter

Here you go, Opter. This is real:

[Rene Descartes]

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]

..


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: 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.