Scientology's DMCA of the Tom Cruise Video and the Attack by Anonymous

The Church of Scientology has come under severe attack recently because of what many perceive to be abuse of the DMCA. It all started when someone leaked an excerpt from what appears to be a Scientology recruitment video featuring an interview with Tom Cruise. Some of the statements Cruise makes are... shall we say peculiar, and I am guessing that the Church of Scientology found this unauthorized release deeply embarrassing. They certainly are behaving like it is embarrassing, because they have sent out many DMCA notices to get the video removed from Youtube and other sites. The video can still be seen despite the DMCAs because it has been reposted again and again all over Youtube, and because at least one brave site--Gawker.com has refused to bow to Scientology's threat of litigation . (Technically, the threat received by Gawker did not mention the DMCA, but it was an attempt to use Copyright Law to get the video pulled. No doubt, however, Youtube has been getting many DMCA notices demanding that they remove the video.)

 

 

A video by a user who claims that Scientology DMCAd him.

 

The Scientologists' attempt to censor the Tom Cruise video has resulted in a vicious backlash against them. They have become the target of Project Chanology--a campaign by a group that calls itself "Anonymous". The goal of Anonymous is nothing less than to destroy the Church. This video was the opening salvo in their campaign--their manifesto, if you will.

 

 

 

A more detailed discussion of Anonymous and its goals can be found at this unofficial blog by one well-spoken member of Anonymous.

The attack on Scientology has taken many forms-- some quite legal and within the scope of the First Amendment and some clearly illegal. Many people have made videos mocking or exposing Scientology's questionable beliefs or practices. Some have stood outside of Scientology Centers handing out leaflets to passers-by that debunk Scientology. Some have have operated in a gray area by making prank phone calls to Scientology Centers and sending them black faxes intended to force them to waste ink. But some--I'm guessing a small minority--have broken the law by launching a Distributed Denial of Service attack that has brought down their website. And at least one person has apparently hacked into Scientology's server and obtained secret internal documents which are now being posted on the internet. (I say apparently, because I do not know for a fact that that is how the documents were obtained. It is possible they were obtained through legal means.)

 

 

The Media Reacts to Anonymous's Attacks

The computer hacking is indeed disturbing and has come under widespread criticism. This story by Skype news seems to be typical.

 

 

 

This incident is but the latest skirmish in a war between Scientology and its critics on the internet that goes back to the mid 1990s. Scientologists have been especially upset that secret Church documents have been posted to the internet and they have aggressively used copyright law to try to get those postings removed. Their position has found a sympathetic ear at religioustolerance.org--an interfaith web site whose goal is to foster mutual respect--or at least tolerance, amongst the various religions. They write:

 

Consequently the Church of Scientology in applying copyright protection to its scriptures on the Internet was forwarding an already well-applied tradition of religion to use secular laws to maintain the purity of its religious doctrine and materials.The unpublished Church of Scientology materials that had been posted to the Internet were advanced works that had been stolen from a Scientology church in Denmark. Although the culprit was arrested and convicted of the crime, the materials had been copied and sent into the United States. Altered versions of the materials then made their way onto the Internet and into other court cases in an effort to make these confidential materials public. The Church regards these materials as confidential because they represent advanced levels in the religion for which an individual needs to be spiritual prepared. . . .In this regard again the Church of Scientology is no different than other religions. While the vast majority of Scientology scriptures are openly available to anyone, the maintaining of unpublished, confidential scriptures for those initiated in the faith is a well-documented tradition that religious scholars recognize. Professor Darrol Bryant at the University of Waterloo in Ontario Canada has stated that:

"The distinction between 'esoteric knowledge' available only to initiates, and 'exoteric knowledge' available to all, has long been part of the religious life of humankind. The distinction is commonly based on the belief that only those initiated in a particular tradition or having achieved a certain level of spiritual development should have access to the esoteric or higher teachings."

 

Andreas Heldal-Lund is a vocal critic of Scientology who believes "that the Church of Scientology is a criminal organization and a cult which is designed by its delusional founder to abuse people" Yet, even he has taken a stance against the Denial of Service attacks against Scientology, stating that such attacks will be counterproductive because they will allow Scientology to justify attempts to crush their critics without mercy. Heldal-Lund has also taken the high rode by insisting that BOTH sides should be able to speak freely, and a DDOS denies the Scientologists a voice.

 

History Necessary to Put the Attack in Perspective

It is easy to understand why many are condemning Anonymous for what appears to be terrorist tactics against a religious organization. It is easy, that is, until you dig deeper and realize why they are doing this. Undoubtedly, many of them read this 1991 story in Time by Richard Behar reporting a pattern of illegal and ruthless behavior by the Church of Scientology. Or perhaps they read this story in the St. Petersburg Times which discussed how members of Scientology have used the court system to harass and intimidate those who have exposed Scientology's questionable behavior. Or perhaps they read this account by Paulette Cooper, a reporter whose 1968 story on "The Scandal of Scientology" made her the target of a 12 year harassment campaign. According to Cooper:

I ended up facing fifteen years in jail, had nineteen lawsuits filed against me, did fifty days of depositions, was the almost victim of a murder, the subject of five anonymous smear letters and endured almost constant and continual harassment for more than a dozen years.

 

Perhaps Anonymous has read these quotes by Scientologist founder L. Ron Hubbard

 
"If attacked on some vulnerable point by anyone or anything or
any organization, always find or manufacture enough threat
against them to cause them to sue for peace . . . Don't ever
defend. Always attack."
 
"We do not want Scientology to be reported in the press,
anywhere else than on the religious pages of newspapers...
Therefore, we should be very alert to sue for slander at the
slightest chance so as to discourage the public presses from
mentioning Scientology."

Or perhaps they were angered by L. Ron Hubbard's Fair Game policy in which he stated that any enemy of the Church

May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued, or lied to or destroyed.

Or perhaps they were enraged at how the Church of Scientology managed to get many of its members to install software on their computers that censors that blocks them from visiting sites critical of their religion.

I have provided many links, and it is important for you to read through them to understand why the hackers feel justified in acting illegally to destroy Scientology. Now, it is possible that Scientology may no longer be the vicious, destructive, and evil organization that it apparently once was. You will notice that the dirty deeds described in the articles that I linked to happened during or before the mid 1990s. The Church swears that critics have misinterpreted the meaning of "Fair Game" and that they they stopped using that term in 1968. Critics point out that the policy of harassment is still being used, even if they no the Church no longer refers to it as "Fair Game". Jenna Miscavige Hill, the niece of the leader of Scientology, created an important website with two other women who grew up in the Church. They say that the apparent renunciation of "Fair Game" was only a cosmetic change made for PR purposes. Whether the critics are right or not, it is hard to feel sorry for the Church of Scientology given their past behavior, and any press that portrays the hack attack against them without discussing Scientology's past behavior gives a distorted picture of the situation. In my constitutionally protected opinion, those who make up Anonymous can only be considered pikers next to the Church in the dirty tricks department.

They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. If so, then the Church of Scientology should be very flattered that some members of Anonymous have sidestepped the law in order to go after them.

 

Welcome to The Masked Analyst House of Waffles

Does this mean I encourage hacking and other forms of clearly illegal behavior against the Church of Scientology? No, I am merely saying that we must keep the historical context in mind when judging the hackers. I am of mixed mind. There is a danger when promoting vigilantism, because those who engage in vigilantism today against a worthy target may one day mistakenly turn their anger on an innocent victim. There is something to be said for only allowing the state--with its checks, balances, and accountability--to be the proper enforcer of law.

But what happens when the legal system itself is either inherently corrupt or systemically dysfunctional? Whether we like it or not, we have a legal system of the wealthy, by the wealthy, and for the wealthy. Most attorneys charge well over $150/hour, making it nearly impossible for the average person to defend herself in Court against a bogus accusation of libel or copyright infringement intended solely to crush the opponent. L. Ron Hubbard encouraged his followers to exploit this weakness in the system when he told them

"beware of attorneys who tell you not to sue . . . the purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than to win."

Moreover, both law enforcement agents and private litigators may be afraid of going after the Church. As stated in a 1991 Time article

law-enforcement agents are also wary (of going after the Church). "Every investigator is very cautious, walking on eggshells when it comes to the church," says a Florida police detective who has tracked the cult since 1988. "It will take a federal effort with lots of money and manpower."

Of course, I'm not claiming that the the reason law enforcement refuses to crack down on Scientology is because they are afraid of them. This would be a silly claim to make, based on a 17-year old article. Perhaps they are no longer afraid, but they can't crack down on the Church because it has cleaned up its act and the statute of limitations protects them from prosecution for past misdeeds. But it certainly seems likely that given Scientology's litigious history, law enforcement would be more shy about arresting its leaders and would require more evidence than they would normally require before arresting an average citizen. And it certainly seems likely that litigators would be hesitant to take on the Church given their history of playing hardball, both inside and outside of Court.

Given the flaws (or at least the apparent flaws) in our system, online vigilantism may be the only way to obtain real justice.

Now that I have presented arguments for and against the DDOS attacks against Scientology, it is time for me to leave this House of Waffles. It is time for me to answer the question: Masked Analyst, do you support the DDOS attacks? My answer is "no". I think in the long run, they will be counterproductive. Mark Bunker, a leading opponent of Scientology, made a very persuasive video that has influenced my thinking on this topic.

 

 

 

 

Of course, it is one thing to say the DDOS should stop (and it appears that they HAVE stopped and that it was a temporary tactic solely to get the Church's attention). What about the hacking of documents and the reposting of them on the web? Doesn't religioustolerance.org bring up a valid point when it says that religions have a right to keep certain doctrinal documents secret?

Yes, but to a point. Not all religions are created equally, and some are downright harmful. Some may even be criminal enterprises masquerading as a religion. Now, I'm not calling Scientology a criminal enterprise. I am merely providing links for you to look at and you will have to decide that for yourself. But I will take you on a little thought experiment to back my point that in extreme cases, hacking documents and putting them on the internet may be the proper (though still illegal) thing to do.

I want you to use your imagination. I want you to imagine that the internet had been developed and in widespread usage by the mid 1970s instead of the mid 1990s. Furthermore, suppose the Reverend Jim Jones had written documents detailing his Church's emergency procedures to serve his guests specially flavored Kool-Aid if some nosy Congressman started snooping around. What if some hacker somehow heard rumors of such documents, hacked into the Jonestown servers, and posted the documents on the internet before the massacre? Now, such a series of events might or might not have stopped the massacre, but one thing is certain--Congressman Leo Ryan would not have died in Jonestown. Would such an act of hacking be wrong? If Reverend Jones had claimed that his plans were inspired by God, should these "Church Documents" have been given absolute copyright protection, worthy of special consideration because they were part of the Church's doctrine?

Now, let's talk about a less extreme situation than Jonestown. What if there were a bait and switch scam that was masquerading as a religion? What if the only way to expose the scam were to hack into the "Church's" computers and pilfer documents? Of course, the act itself would be illegal, but reasonable people can differ as to whether it is the ethical thing to do.

Of course, I am not calling Scientology a bait and switch scam religion. However, other people certainly are. One can easily find accusations on the internet that Scientologists lure unsuspecting people into believing that they can be helped through inexpensive measures, only to be lead down an increasingly expensive road that leads them to the secrets of the dark Lord Xenu. The Xenu mythology is pretty silly and you can read about it here. However, Scientologists don't get to hear this story that is the foundation of their religion until after they have devoted years in the Church and spent tens of thousands of dollars getting to OT Level III. This prompted Andreas Heldal-Lund, a leading critic of Scientology, to write:

Scientology has been described as a "Bait-and-Switch" fraud. This has a definite meaning in US law. It describes a fraud where a person is seemingly sold one thing only to find out that it is another and more expensive thing and so they pay more than they would have paid had they known what it was all about. Scientology is the definitive example of this. It starts out with Dianetics, a supposed science of the mind that will greatly improve a person�s thinking and health at a seemingly reasonable cost. People are attracted in, they receive some Dianetic processing only to be told that it only works on a few people and so to benefit they must receive the very expensive Scientology auditing instead at $200 per hour. This they do and reach the dubious state called Clear only to be told that they are then "at risk" and must move at all speed to the more advanced level of OT III, parting with thousands of dollars all the while. When they reach OT III a great secret is told them. That is that they are full of the souls of space aliens murdered 75 million years ago and to achieve spiritual benefits they must pay to have them removed. The processing at this level costs $400 per hour. The whole of the Scientology religion is a continuous bait-and-switch fraud with the whole purpose of extracting the maximum amount of money from people.       

Enter the Xenu leaflet. The Xenu leaflet reveals the switch part of the bait-and-switch fraud. It lets people know in advance the trick that is going to be pulled on them about five years and $30,000 later. It lets people know before they get into the cult while they have their critical reasoning faculties intact.

Again, I am not calling Scientology a bait and switch scam--to my knowledge no U.S. Court has issued a ruling declaring they are a scam. But IF there was a bait-and-switch scam disguising itself as a religion, if there was a religion so insidious that it bankrupted individuals and split families apart, would it not be morally, if not legally, justified to hack their computers to expose the scam? I make no judgment as to the morality. I will leave that up to you to decide.

And once again, I make no claim that any hacking has even occurred. Reading through some of the comments on this board makes me think that documents posted on the internet may have been available for a long while and obtained through legal means. Consider this no more than a demonstration that if Scientology WERE hacked, the hacking would fall into an ethical gray area.

 

Scientology's Long History of Censorship

 

The DMCAs Against The Tom Cruise video is but the latest in a long history of Scientology's efforts to censor information about it on the internet. This article would become impossibly long if I went into the history in any detail. Besides, the focus of this website is on DMCA abuse--not on Scientology's past history that ranges from overwhelming websites critical of Scientology with tons of spam, to attempts to close them down, to instigating police raids against its detractors, to getting its followers to install software on their computer that would prevent them from accessing areas of the internet where they might see information critical of Scientology. Critics of Scientology would say that Scientologists were abusing the law to cover up a criminal conspiracy. Scientologists would probably say that they were merely using all the legal resources available to aggressively pursue those who violate their copyright. I will merely provide you with a list of sites that will help you make up your own mind.

Start with this Dec. 1995 introductory article in WIRED magazine which discusses Scientology's efforts to destroy newsgroups such as alt.religion.scientology that were critical of the Church and revealed their secrets. Then read this great chronology of events betten 1994 and 1998 put together by F.A.C.T.net, a target of a Pay close attention to the Scien-sitter program that Scientology uses to make sure its followers get only a limited view of the internet. Atl.religion.scientology duplicated much of the F.A.C.T.net chronology and extended it to 2007.

The recent attempt by Scientology to shove the Tom Cruise video down an Orwellian memory hole is not the first time it has used the DMCA to hide evidence of what it was all about from the public. Scientology sent Google DMCAs in 2002 demanding that it cut its links to over 100 URLs of the Operation Clambake (Xenu.net) site. Andreas Heldal-Lund, the owner of the site, wrote:

The complaint mentions a ridiculous list of addresses which successfully removes the
whole site from their engine. To get OC back we have to counter the complaint. Since the complaint is making claims of ownership of pages clearly not owned by the cult, this could hurt the cult only.

Google did delist Xenu.net from its search results, but decided to relist them within a few weeks. Here is an interesting New York Times Article about the aftermath of Scientology's 2002 effort to use the DMCA to force Google to stop linking to sites that it considered copyright infringing.

 

And Now For Scientology's Side of the Story

Now, some of you might think that I am painting an unfair picture of Scientology. All the sites that I am linking to paint a very damning picture of Scientology. I have tried to find sites that would explain what looks like thuggish tactics in a different light. I looked for a site that made a point-by-point debunking of allegations of criminal behavior. Alas, I could find none. The closest I could find was this article at Scientology's official website which explained their reasoning behind sending out a massive number of DMCAs trying to get Google to de-link from sites critical of Scientology. They state that they were motivated by two factors--a desire to protect their copyrighted material, and a desire to fight sites using Hate Speech against Scientology. When reading this article, it is important to note that Scientology sent DMCAs trying to remove over 100 pages of the Xenu.net web site. If they were merely trying to protect their copyright, then far fewer DMCAs would have been filed. They did not have to get the entire Xenu.net site delisted in order to protect their copyright.

So one must conclude that they considered Xenu.net as a site containing hate speech against Scientology. This is indeed an odd claim. Xenu.net is run by Andreas Heldal-Lund, the same guy who ran it in 2002 when Scientology tried to take down the site via DMCAs. I have seen nothing on the site that could be even remotely construed as hate speech. I see a lot of speech that I'm sure Scientology wants to suppress because it puts them in a bad light, but I see no appeals to violently attack the Church or its followers. On the contrary, I see Heldal-Lund sticking up for the Church's right to free speech in his attempt to persuade Anonymous to stop the Denial of Service attacks. I also see him make a very persuasive argument as to why he should be allowed to post Scientology's internal documents on his site. It is definitely worth checking out.

There is one other site that I'm sure that the Church of Scientology would like you to check out. I will let you decide whther Religious Freedom Watch is a site defending the Freedom of Religion or if it is merely a hack job that uses ad hominem attacks against Scientology's critics instead of debunking their evidence and meeting their arguments head on.

 

 

A Suggestion That Even Scientologists Can Embrace

Despite all you've read here, I am not saying that Scientology is crime syndicate that uses lawsuits based on libel, trademark infringement, and copyright infringement in order to cover up their criminal activities. I am not saying that Scientology has improperly used DMCAs to try to eliminate websites that expose what appears to be thuggish, illegal behavior. That is for a Court to say, and I will let you make up your own opinion as to whether that is what they are doing. But I do have a suggestion that even the Scientologists should happily embrace.

Whether the Church of Scientology is a criminal enterprise or not, its aggressive use of litigation to silence critics is but one example of SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) suits. Such suits are often frivolous, but the goal of most SLAPP suits is not out to win in Court. The goal, instead, is to wear down the opponent by forcing her to have to spend years and tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees defending herself. Most people will clam up when faced with such huge legal bills, and that is exactly what the SLAPP filer wants. As New York Supreme Court Judge J. Nicholas Cobella stated:

"The longer the litigation can be stretched out ... the closer the SLAPP filer moves to success. Those who lack the financial resources and emotional stamina to play out the 'game' face the difficult choice of defaulting despite meritorious defenses or being brought to their knees to settle. ... Short of a gun to the head, a greater threat to First Amendment expression can scarcely be imagined."

 

I have heard of at least one case where a person involved in organized crime has filed numerous bogus libel suits to silence those who were trying to expose his misdeeds. This individual was the CEO of a penney stock company who was running a fraud, and he filed lawsuit after lawsuit trying to silence those who were exposing his scam. So long as he had lots of money, he could pay lawyers to harass and intimidate his opponents with the help of the legal system. I imagine that this is not an isolated case, but you seldom here details about such incidents because those familiar with them don't want to speak out for fear of being sued. . . or worse.

Well, here is where the Church of Scientology can step in and try to win the hearts and minds of those who have criticized it for stomping all over the First Amendment. The Church of Scientology could throw its might into a high profile lobbying campaign to change the DMCA and our libel laws. They could spearhead a movement to change our laws so that anyone who used the DMCA or libel laws to try to cover up evidence of illegal activity should automatically be sentenced to five years in prison. And any lawyer who knowingly tries to help someone cover up illegal activity by filing a bogus DMCA or a frivolous SLAPP suit against his client's opponent should be automatically disbarred and sentenced to one year in jail. For too long, our legal system has been turned into a weapon to aid those who try to cover up that which should be public knowledge.

I am sure that any leader of the Church of Scientology would welcome my suggestion with open arms. After all, how could they object? They are in desperate need of good publicity, and launching a campaign defending free speech against the frivolous use of the DMCA and the legal system is the best PR they could possibly get. They have absolutely no grounds for objecting to such a campaign. . . unless of course they are a criminal enterprise that improperly uses the DMCA and frivolous litigation to silence those who would expose them.

---

UPDATE 1: Though initial press coverage about anonymous was decidedly negative, later press coverage presents a much more balanced presentation of their behavior.

Update 2: Apparently, the Scientologists are abusing trademark and patent law to suppress the secondary market for e-meters and Scientology material in a manner similar to the way they have abused the DMCA to try to stifle the spread of information about them. The parallels between the way Youtube honors bogus DMCAs and the way Ebay honors bogus requests to remove items from their site is remarkable. The folks who run Ebay should be ashamed of themselves for letting them get away with this.

 

Table of Contents

Home

Back to DMCA Abuse

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.

Please attribute excerpts you take from my work to themaskedanalyst and include a link to themaskedanalyst.com.