digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

See the original image at guardian.co.uk —

Teenager faces prosecution for calling Scientology 'cult'

guardian.co.uk — A teenager is facing prosecution for using the word "cult" to describe the Church of Scientology. The unnamed youth was served the summons by City of London police when he took part in a peaceful demonstration opposite the headquarters of the controversial religion in London.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • imbatman05, on 05/20/2008, -7/+1121I am appalled by the conduct of the police and ashamed to live in a city that stamps on freedom of speech like this.

    Anyone know if there's any way we can help this poor guy out?
    • digitalc, on 05/20/2008, -2/+198Write a letter to the editor of the Guardian in response?

      More information about the issue to more people = Win.
      • JMSHappyCat, on 05/20/2008, -4/+65Yup. Exposure, exposure, exposure should be the weapon of choice.
        • twiztidsinz, on 05/20/2008, -2/+133Last time I used exposure as a weapon I was labeled a sex offender :-(
        • infinitiesedge, on 05/20/2008, -2/+41And while they're distracted by your exposure we run in and grab all related documents, right?
        • PaulOwen, on 05/20/2008, -1/+30"The City of London police came under fire two years ago when it emerged that more than 20 officers, ranging from constable to chief superintendent, had accepted gifts worth thousands of pounds from the Church of Scientology."

          Ah. I see what the police've done there.
        • buu700, on 08/26/2008, -2/+6Whoa.. JMSHappyCat had 0 diggs, but after I dugg him up, he went all the way up to 47!
        • TFGeditor, on 05/21/2008, -0/+3Write letters to anybody and everybody, calling for the responsibile INDIVIDUALS to be strung up by their balls. Only when individuals are held to account will government as a whole straigten its behavior.
      • imbatman05, on 05/20/2008, -1/+71Agreed. I will write to them later today.

        At least so far it's a law that's been 'broken' rather than the lad taking on the wrath of the vicious cult itself. A semi-decent solicitor might help him out of trouble.

        I'd be happy to donate to the cause if someone has the expertise to set up a charitable website.
      • CassiusVerbank, on 05/20/2008, -1/+100There will be a protest in the court.
        Fliers are allowed OUTSIDE, and signs AS WELL.

        MASKS are allowed OUTSIDE, but not inside. So, if you want to go in, make SURE that you get THOURGH THE DOORS AND ROUND THE CORNER, OUT OF SIGHT OF PHOTOGRAPHERS, before de-masking.

      • BN2L, on 05/20/2008, -1/+22Write to other newspapers, The Guardian have already covered this story and seem to be firmly on the side of the teenager and free speech.
      • OwdenBowden, on 05/20/2008, -2/+54If it walks like a duck; and it talks like a duck; and it looks just like a duck - the it is a DUCK. With this in mind Scientology is a cult.

        Scientology is a cult.
        Scientology is a cult.
        Scientology is a cult.
        Scientology is a cult.
        Scientology is a cult.
        • geoboy, on 05/21/2008, -3/+1What are you trying to do with all that repeating? Brainwash me? Way to take one out of Scientology's own book.
      • ssj2119, on 05/20/2008, -0/+9This is absolutely ridiculous - I seriously don't know where to live, freedom of speech my arse
    • elimrawne, on 05/20/2008, -0/+62Damn the city of London police... they are an antiquated institution that needs to be absorbed into the metropolitan police.
      (for anyone who doesn't know, the city police only police a small area in the center of london, the rest is the Met)
      Corruption is obviously rife and needs to be stamped out
      • DalamarArgent, on 05/21/2008, -0/+3City of London police are a cult?
    • tommq, on 05/20/2008, -0/+119Protest more. :]
      • painperdu, on 05/20/2008, -10/+5Hell yeah. ***** the police!
        • daverave999, on 05/20/2008, -5/+2I feel the need to point out the Police do not make the law, but it is their job to enforce it. Tony Blair is the man to blame for this *****, not the Police.
        • jgtg32a, on 05/21/2008, -0/+4The former PM?
        • daverave999, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1That was who I meant, yes, though I have since discovered that it was actually a law brought in by the Conservative Government that was used. I was incorrect.
      • icurl, on 05/20/2008, -1/+10This surely is a sad day for freedom of speech, but it can't become a war against police as well. If somebody from $cientology was to follow you around, I have good faith that (at least in Suffolk haha) the Police would take it seriously and help. This story should certainly be spread so that the corruption can be stopped, but not the actual police force. Civil disobedience is the answer, protest while understanding that the system of policing will also help to keep us safe.

        A good idea seems to be to email / write to the guardian and other press, showing that this really is a well known problem, especially as this article seems to be logical and staying on the boy's side, as far as it can.
        • deanoplex, on 05/21/2008, -0/+5Exactly. This is about supplying the general public and scientologists with information that they might not see otherwise. Stay on course people.
    • Terraburn, on 05/20/2008, -2/+33What's funny is that the London police were reported as being some of the most supportive in terms of their rights to protest.

      I remember the video that came out from the first protest where Scinos tried to get the police make the anons leave and he said they had been "good as gold" and that it was their right.

      Such a shame.
    • Stavrosian, on 05/20/2008, -1/+72I might have to head down to my local CoS tomorrow and have a little fun. It would be interesting to see what I was allowed to do/say until Greater Manchester police followed the same route the City of London lot did.

      I think making more noise is the best way to support the kid. There's no way the CPS will prosecute this trumped-up nonsense anyway.
      • deanoplex, on 05/20/2008, -0/+37Caution Stav. There is safety in numbers.
        • Stavrosian, on 05/20/2008, -0/+50Surely there can be no harm in taking a free personality test, and answering with nothing but "so I heard your cult lieks mudkipz?"

          *ahem*
        • TobiasParker, on 05/20/2008, -1/+20You mean besides them taking your picture and putting you in a file listed as a SP?
        • MikeSD34, on 05/20/2008, -1/+22@Starvrosian:
          What are your crimes sir? What are your crimes?
        • Stavrosian, on 05/20/2008, -0/+8Man, I'd kill to have one of them spouting that at me. The potential for piss-taking would be boundless. It would be even better than the time one of them accosted me and some friends on the street to warn us that if we took to smoking cannabis we would probably die "cold, naked and alone!"

          They would be hilarious if they weren't so appalling. There's no way I'd get myself in their bad books knowingly, despite the laughs. I'd rather not be yet another person bankrupted by nuisance law suits and professionally ruined by slanderous smear tactics.

          Despite all that, I guess the main thing to remember is that in opposing the church we are trying to help its members, not mock them. However obnoxious and abusive they can be, they are a product of a broken system, and most of them cannot be held accountable for the dreadful behaviour that they occasionally perpetrate. I hope everybody who protests them remembers that.
    • ToadLeg, on 05/20/2008, -2/+111http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

      Brace for epic.
    • Abomonog, on 05/20/2008, -2/+38Had this not been from the U.K. I would have thought you were an American saying that.

      Still, that whole article gets a digg for the WTF factor.
      • icepick602, on 05/20/2008, -0/+18I think that there is a lot of evidence to say that civil liberties are eroding in the UK much more than the US. Especially considering everything you do there is under CCTV surveillance.
        • LeonidasStokely, on 05/20/2008, -4/+4Somebody's only idea of the world around them is fed by Banksy.

          Which is the way it SHOULD be, well done icepick602.
        • GeekyGerge, on 05/20/2008, -0/+11Saying that, I heard on the news today that a law may be passed that allows the UK government to hold every email and sms message sent out for a year, to "stop terrorism".

          It's *****.
        • daverave999, on 05/20/2008, -0/+5Some of you may find this film interesting if you haven't heard of it before:
          http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0977667/
        • kitsua, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1@daverave999 - that film is great - everyone watch!
    • deanoplex, on 05/20/2008, -0/+175TEN MORE TO TAKE HIS PLACE!!!
    • DeathHamster, on 05/20/2008, -10/+32Don't be appalled at the the police. They are just reluctantly carrying out the guidelines that they were given. Be appalled at the faceless bureaucracy of the CPS who hands down these guidelines.
    • frostbyt, on 05/20/2008, -39/+4Help him out by joining Scientology. It's the only way.
      • Travelsonic, on 05/20/2008, -0/+17You forgot the " < / sarcasm>" tag dude.
      • IanPR, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2Well... i thought it was funny. :/
        • frostbyt, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2Thanks. At least someone has a sense of humor.
    • protogenxl, on 05/20/2008, -3/+89Actually, I see this as a positive. The judge will have to make a decision as to whether or not Scientology is a Cult.
      • DekarCorvus, on 05/20/2008, -0/+44your right....sadly scientology has bribed its way to the top...and likely is in very little threat. more noise needs to be created to shine a light on all those officers accepting bribes from the church.
        when the heat is turned up...they will hide...
        sort of like how cockroaches run from the light....
      • yournightmare, on 05/20/2008, -0/+47The judge won't have to make a decision as to whether Scientology is a cult or not, but rather whether or not one is free to call it a cult.
      • mountvale, on 05/20/2008, -0/+42I wonder if Scientology will sue the judge for deciding that Scientology can be called a cult.

      • theright, on 05/20/2008, -10/+7The judge will not have to make a decision with regards to the cult claims. He will only have to decide whether use of the term was threatening, abusive or insulting.

        There is an element of subjectivity involved, granted. However, the kid was warned ahead of time that the term was abusive and insulting. He was advised to remove the sign, and refused. He was read the Public Order Act, and still refused.

        None of the statutory defences apply in this case.
        • kjd84, on 05/20/2008, -0/+5Who deems it abusive and/or insulting? Who made that call? A police office can say that scratching your head is indecent exposure but it is clearly not. If in Australia this would have never happened and if some Scientology crazed police dept decided to press charges it would be thrown out of court.

          It seems that the UK's civil rights are being eroded away by the day!
      • MisterFreeze, on 05/20/2008, -1/+2I would bet that charges will be stayed in this case. In all likelihood a "fair comment" defense, which is a well established defense for defamation under English Common Law, would succeed.
      • Nollykin, on 05/20/2008, -0/+3My sad fear is that they'll have the judge in their pocket.

        Or would that be illegal, to have a judge of a certain religion presiding over a religious case? ...Perhaps not- they do that with christianity often enough. So much for non-bias?

        I don't really know. Help me out here?
        • vadelect, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2There's a case to be made either way regarding the bias of such a judge in the circumstances, probably ultimately to the benefit of anyone acting against scientology (thankfully). A lawyer acting for scientology would probably refer to Locabail v Bayfield Properties where the court held that they could not "conceive of circumstances in which an objection [to a decision] could be soundly based on the religion...of the judge". However whilst there is conflicting evidence as to whether scientology is 'officially' recognised as a religion in the UK the evidence tends to stack up against it being 'official'. Furthermore the decision in Re B & G (Minors) - the "corrupt, sinister and dangerous" description - was upheld by the Court of Appeal so could be considered to be persuasive precedent. That being so the test (in Re Medicaments) was whether "the circumstances would lead a fair-minded and informed observer to conclude that there was a real possibility, or a real danger, the two being the same, that the tribunal was biased". Depending on the facts of the case where an objection to a decision was made, there's a fair chance of concluding there was at least the danger of bias.
      • khaavren, on 05/21/2008, -2/+1The difference between a religion and a cult is the amount of real estate involved.
        • ayeroxor, on 05/21/2008, -0/+5Cults can be determined by two simple factors:

          1) Cults demand money instead of simply asking for it, and refuse to allow you in their buildings and services if you do not pay.
          2) Cults expect you to disassociate from people not in the same organization.
    • ErikHarrison, on 05/20/2008, -0/+36Actually the judge will have to make the call of wether or not he was abusing his right to free speech in the UK, not wether or not the cult is a cult.

      ?Church for Profit?
    • NJank, on 05/20/2008, -0/+11I assume their playing this as a libel/slander suit? they would have to base that on documented / ?published? statements that are demonstrably untrue, no? Are they legally recorded somewhere as an official non-cult? Does their state recognition as a nonprofit religion somehow put them outside the Webster definition of cult?

      What's their angle here?
      • burketo, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2the angle is that people will think twice before saying they are a cult for fear of litigation... unless the kid goes the route of the martyr which would take some serious, serious balls (i probably would just plead guilty, do whatever it is the court want and then cry myself to sleep every night) and even then he'd have to win, and even then he'd have to win specifically because the judge agrees that he was right rather then by some legal mechanism which has the case thrown out. otherwise they will be free to do it again and then people will be scared to protest in future.
      • theright, on 05/20/2008, -10/+5I'm no Scifag, but this does need to be cleared up.

        Scientology are not the ones pressing charges. I agree there may be a case for defamation or libel in this instance, but there has been no word from Scientology on this. The City of London police have just sent a case file to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), with regards to a breach of Section Five the Public Order Act.

        It is not the implications of the term in question, but the fact that it is abusive and insulting. Presenting signs that are threatening, abusive or insulting within the sight or hearing of "a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby" is prohibited under the Public Order Act.

        The kid was warned in advance that use of the term "cult" was abusive and insulting, and would not be prohibited. He was first advised to remove the sign, and refused. He was read the relevant section of the Public Order Act and still refused. The sign was then confiscated and a case file sent to the CPS.

        It is up to the CPS whether or not to press charges.
        • truspect0r, on 05/20/2008, -4/+4Scifag.

          http://digg.com/users/theright
        • theright, on 05/20/2008, -6/+4Posting a link to my user profile. Wow.

          How exactly am I supposed to be a Scifag, again?
        • twiztidsinz, on 05/20/2008, -3/+2Gayfag.

          http://digg.com/users/truspect0r
        • Mejari, on 05/20/2008, -0/+8Because you're supporting the cult of scientology's right not to get their feelings hurt, while I don't think they have that right. Whether it's scientology or the proven-to-be-bribed-by-scientology London police pressing charges, it's not like you can in any way say that were it not for scientology complaining to the police about getting called names this kid would still be in trouble. Scientology instigated this so they should be blamed for being assholes.
        • truspect0r, on 05/20/2008, -1/+2@theright

          How? By supporting the CULT.
    • nonnyOh, on 05/20/2008, -0/+24Remember when the CULT shut down the Cult Awareness Network (is that the name) and then took over?

      Dangerous cult is scared of the word cult, of information about cults, and of the people who expose cults for what they are.

      (Also: Streisand effect = lulz)

      This kid being persecuted/prosecuted makes me incredibly proud of young people today. He did the right thing.
      • gwenny, on 05/20/2008, -0/+4You mean CultWatch Response, which was run by Rowan Moonstone?
        • sffupkoko, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2nah, i think the thing was the scientologists got some Cult Awareness Network people to go in and run deprogramming on them. Afterwards they sued them and said that it was done to them against their will, which bankrupted CAN, and as part of the settlement Scientology gained ownership of CAN.
    • xB4R7x, on 05/20/2008, -0/+32He did nothing wrong, and hopefully the judge isn't as corrupt as the officers that put him there.

      Scientology is a cult. They know it, we know it, it's a common fact. Honestly, if I was a cop, I think I would have applauded the kids efforts. ***** Scientology.
      • theright, on 05/20/2008, -11/+3"(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he—

        (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or

        (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

        within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby." — Section 5, Public Order Act (1986)

        He displayed a sign that was abusive and insulting within the sight of people likely to be caused harassment, alarm and distress. That is an offence.

        Whether or not Scientology is a cult is irrelevant. Use of the term "cult" is abusive and insulting. The kid can't argue subjectivity here. He was warned ahead of time that use of the term was considered abusive, insulting and would not be prohibited at the protest. He was advised to remove the sign, and refused to do so. He was read the Public Order Act, and still refused to remove the sign.

        He was given every available opportunity to comply with the law, and refused to do so.
        • KaiserArny, on 05/20/2008, -2/+12Go back to your CULT
        • theright, on 05/20/2008, -9/+2Don't get me wrong, KaiserArny. I'm not a Scifag. I hate Scientology as much as the next guy. I am simply setting the record straight.

          xB4R7x claimed in his comment that this kid "did nothing wrong". I pointed out that he did, in fact, do something wrong. He committed an offence under Section 5 of the Public Order Act, as is explained in the article.

          xB4R7x also asserted the police officers involved were "corrupt". These would be officers who, ahead of time, warned against use of the word "cult" as it would be a Public Order offence. The kid was not slapped in handcuffs without warning and carted off to jail. He received advance warning, and ignored it. He was advised to remove the sign, and refused. He was read the relevant section of the Public Order Act, which he was quite clearly in breach of, and still refused. Personally I am shocked the police were as patient as they were. Even then they just confiscated the sign and filed a case file with the CPS. No charges have been pressed yet.

          I'm all for protesting against the Co$, but we should realise this kid is fighting a losing battle. He was looking for trouble, and he got it. He broke the law, and now he's facing the consequences. We should not be hailing this prize idiot as a martyr, and deploring the actions of the City police as some kind of breach of the kid's human rights, as the Guardian (rather typically) and their side-kick Liberty (even more typically) are attempting to do.
        • KaiserArny, on 05/20/2008, -0/+11I don't know much but here in Canada the word "Cult" is not really threatening. The problem is this law looks like, from my perspective, to make no sense. So if I feel that the word "police" is threatening to me can I ask them to remove it from my personal view?
        • Linzee82, on 05/20/2008, -0/+10@theright - We know all that. (Or at least some of us do.) We just have a real big problem with that being considered an offense. I should have the right to call you a ***** without anyone jumping down my throat. It doesn't matter if it's true or not, it's my opinion and I have the right to state my opinion. The police may have been following what the 'law' states, but we feel the 'law' is wrong on this one.

          (BTW, I don't think you're a *****. Just using it as an example.)
        • theright, on 05/20/2008, -5/+1@KaiserArny:

          The word "cult" is not threatening, per se. Neither I nor the City of London police claimed it was. However, I think it quite clear that it is abusive and insulting.

          The law does make sense, it is just somewhat subjective. You, the supposed victim, do not decide what constitutes threatening, abusive or insulting material. You can report such actions that you believe to be offences under the Act, but it is down to the police officer involved to decide, and for the accused to argue in a court of law.

          The law comes with certain statutory defences, one of which states that no offence has been committed if the accused can prove "that he had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress". In your example, it is highly improbable that a police officer would agree the word "police" is threatening, abusive or insulting, and that you are liable to be caused harassment, alarm or distress as a result of someone displaying a sign with that word on.

          If, for some reason, someone did receive a summons in response to your complaint, they would have an opportunity to present their case in court. In this case, the aforementioned defence that the accused had no reason to believe their actions would cause anyone harassment, alarm or distress would apply. Likewise, the additional statutory defence that the actions were reasonable would also apply. If, by some stretch of imagination, such a case did get to court, it would be thrown out.

          In this case, the kid involved was advised that the word was considered abusive and insulting. He was read the relevant passage of the Act and, while it seems others who received similar warnings complied and removed their signs, this kid refused to do so. He is a martyr for his own stupidity, and nothing more.
        • sffupkoko, on 05/21/2008, -0/+4the problem is that the law is overbroad in its applicability.

          for example, using this logic a Mac store owner could claim that people talking about Microsoft in public property in front of his story were threatening or insulting and have them removed or arrested.

          Doesn't that reek of overreaching laws to you?

          At what point does the law start having an unacceptable chilling effect on freedom of speech?

          I submit that this law, or at least this application of the law, is far past that point.
        • theright, on 05/21/2008, -3/+1@sffupkoko:

          The scope of the law is not too far reaching. In fact, it is quite focussed. The actions have to be threatening, abusive or insulting, and have to be carried out within sight or hearing of someone likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress as a result of the actions.

          Your example is not applicable. Discussing Microsoft in a public place cannot be perceived as threatening, abusive, insulting or disorderly behaviour. No one would ever be charged under the Public Order Act for such actions. On the other hand, calling an organisation a cult, whether you perceive it to be true or not, can be conceived as abusive and insulting. The kid in question was warned that the term was being considered as such, and I assume also that complaints had been received, and refused on multiple occasions to remove the offending sign. Provided the kid was informed of the complaints, it can reasonably be inferred he was aware the use of the term was causing harassment, alarm or distress.

          Going back to your example, as I stated to a previous commenter, it is not the store owner's decision whether or not the person is charged with a Public Order offence. The store owner can make a complaint, but the decision to press charges lies with the police officer involved, and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). In this case complaints were received, but Co$ itself had no part in pressing charges against this kid. Only after receiving advice from the CPS — presumably over whether or not use of terms such as "cult" and "scientology kills" may constitute Public Order offences under Section 5 — did the police go ahead with verbal/written warnings, and when this kid refused to comply, confiscating his sign and filing a case file with the CPS for the offence.

          The act does not infringe on reasonable freedom of speech.
        • kieranmaine, on 05/21/2008, -0/+3So who decides if the word "cult" is offensive the CPS or the officer involved? And is it just the officer that decides to issue a summons or do they have to if the CPS says the use of the word "cult" is an offense?

          It would have been nice to see a bit of common sense applied (does the law provide for this?) instead of time and money wasted. Still it will be fun seeing my taxes used to debate how offensive the word "cult" is, with a 15 year old.

          I think it be better for the police and CPS look at how this might affect the relationship between the public and the police as well, since trust between the police and public, I assume, makes it easier to investigate crimve in general.
        • xB4R7x, on 05/27/2008, -0/+1@theright "The act does not infringe on reasonable freedom of speech"

          Reasonable freedom of speech? There's no such thing... freedom of speech means freedom of speech. Period. Whether or not someone's feelings get hurt because you say something doesn't make it illegal to say something.

          I can think of plenty of anti-bush anti-american bumper stickers that could very well be in violation of this 'law' and I don't see anyone complaining about them.

          If the Co$ can't handle being called a cult, then not only are they a cult... but a bunch of crybabies.
    • DarksiderUK, on 05/20/2008, -1/+6Something like this could be a very good thing to bring up with Boris and the Tories. He's looking to make an impact, and what a better way to do it than make a comedy out of Scientology!
    • sigmaman2, on 05/20/2008, -8/+23C hurch of Scientology
      U ltimately is bad for
      L ondon's adults, and it's
      T eenagers.
    • sigmaman2, on 05/20/2008, -16/+15F ree
      A ll people from the
      G rip of
      S cientology
    • sigmaman2, on 05/20/2008, -3/+37S cientology
      C reates
      A nother legal
      M ess
      • SirBrittanicus, on 05/20/2008, -7/+2Properly
        Offend
        Other
        People
      • phibit, on 05/20/2008, -6/+20D oing this is
        U noriginal and
        M eaningless. In the
        B utt.
        • kjd84, on 05/20/2008, -1/+1You edited that to add in the B didn't you? You looked at it and when "oh ***** I forgot the B" So you added the "In The Butt". I know this because "in the butt" makes no sense!
        • Price, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1It makes sense if you've seen that "In the butt!" video from a few months ago. "MYSPACE!!!"
      • somestranger26, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2C-C-C-COMBO
    • HonestAbe, on 05/20/2008, -14/+2If I were a 15 year-old male member of Anonymous being prosecuted for standing up against Scientology, I can think of a few things that female Anonymous members could do to help me out...
    • odst117, on 05/20/2008, -22/+1Freedom of Speech? What about Freedom of Religion? Scientologists are being persecuted, and it's not right, no matter what you believe.
      • aMammoth, on 05/20/2008, -0/+19I have the right to say what ever I want about what ever I want under the law. So do you, saying something about a so called church is not persecuting, its saying what you want.
        • theright, on 05/20/2008, -12/+1"So do you, saying something about a so called church is not persecuting, its saying what you want."

          Displaying a sign with abusive, insulting language in the sight of a person "likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby" is an offence under Section 5 of the Public Order Act.

          It is not an unreasonable restriction on free speech to prevent people from using threatening, abusive or insulting language or behaviour in protesting organisations.
        • truspect0r, on 05/20/2008, -0/+6***** scifags.
        • makkaveli19, on 05/20/2008, -0/+6the right, it's that the word cult is not abusive or insulting. if protests are not supposed to bother a person then whats the point? making signs that say they are non-nice individuals? the article said it perfectly. Whats next? war, tax, ect
        • Mejari, on 05/20/2008, -0/+5"It is not an unreasonable restriction on free speech to prevent people from using threatening, abusive or insulting language or behaviour in protesting organisations."
          Do you realize how ***** ridiculous that is? We need to protect people from 'insulting language'? No we don't! I'm insulted by plenty of things I hear on TV and throughout my day, that doesn't mean I can just go around suing everybody for hurting my widdle feelings! If it hurts their feelings to be called a cult, maybe they should stop suing anyone that disagrees with them, that might help de-cultify them, for a start.
        • Linzee82, on 05/20/2008, -0/+4@theright - "It is not an unreasonable restriction on free speech to prevent people from using threatening, abusive or insulting language or behaviour in protesting organisations."

          But if you let one type of speech be prohibited, where do you stop? Say if someone finds the word 'hell' to be offensive. I accidentally drop something and break it. I utter the phrase, "Oh, hell!" Do I have to be summoned just because that person might have found it offensive?

          I understand that this is a different scenario than what occurred but honestly where do you draw the line? The Church of Scientology might find it offensive and try to say it's abusive, but they are going to have to learn to deal with it. Either all speech is allowed, or none is.
        • deanoplex, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2The right to inflammatory and unpopular speech is what must be protected by law. Polite, politically correct speech needs no such protection.
      • SillyKary, on 05/20/2008, -0/+8Except that Scientology is not a religion, but a sinister cult (oops!) out to squeeze fat profits out of gullible people. Or, if you prefer, call them a ruthless for-profit corporation.

        A true religion doesn't charge for its teachings. Buddhist Tripitaka, Christian Bible, Jewish Torah, Muslim Quran etc. - all free public domain. Scientology's Xenu space alien stories? Pay through the nose for each word.

        If you wanna save yourself some $$$ go here:
        http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Church_of_Scientology%27 ...
        This is also always a good resource:
        http://thepiratebay.org/search/scientology
        • dazparkour, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2The bible is one of THE best SELLING books of all time.
        • darkfish, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2Yes. But you do not pay any single, central "church" - you pay the publisher/printer. Huge difference.
      • boombye, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2Bad mouthing their religion, or any religion, does not prevent them from exercising their right to freedom of religion. They have the freedom to practice whatever religion they want, without their government persecuting them and arresting them and punishing them for their beliefs, like the Church used to do. Also religions don't charge money to join, or to get required reading materials. If you're free to practice whatever religion you want, why can't you practice Scientology without having to empty your wallet? Their "cult" by it's mere existence is an insult to the concept of freedom of religion and speech. Just because they're being heckled by a bunch of protesters does not mean they are being persecuted and their freedom of religion violated, they can still practice it in the morning, but at the cost of being irritated, just like anyone from any religion is. You turn on the tv, see people making fun of religion, nothing new, everyone else of other faiths deals with it and ignores it.


        Freedom of Speech should not be trampled in order to appease to the emotional distress of their members. If their members are feeling bad about being called members of a cult, that is up to them to choose to tune out the criticism, or seriously ask themselves why they are being charged and are charging others for the teachings of a man from Hollywood, California. If L. Ron Hubbard gets to have a religion, then all citizens of the UK should start their own religion and make sure it's tax exempt too. I'll start my Church of the Tardis and hopefully I can sue you when you make fun of me for believing that the Tardis is real!

        CoS is nothing but an off-shoot of O.T.O, I mean L.Ron used to hang out with that Parsons guy that co-founded JPL and they both knew Aleister Crowley thru the O.T.O. L. Ron used to perform this satanic sexual cult ritual called the Babalon Mysteries with Parsons, which is what baffles me more about Scientology. They're a copycat cult, but they were L. Ron's alternative to O.T.O since he didn't want to deal with those people anymore, probably because of some screwed up love triangle that was going on between him and Parsons and his ex wife's sister or something.

        • deanoplex, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1Yes. Scientology objects to freedom of speech because it deprograms their brainwashed minions. As Scientology and dianetics are scrutinized they crumble like a castle made of sand. The light of truth is their undoing.
      • lbdinh, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1What about freedom FROM religion?
    • rabidbob, on 05/20/2008, -0/+4Join Liberty. http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/
      I just have.
      • theright, on 05/20/2008, -6/+1With the likes of Shami Chakrabarti? No thanks.
        • rabidbob, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2She's done more good for the world than you'll ever do.
        • kitsua, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1We need people like her. I'm personally grateful that Shami Chakrabarti is doing what she does.
    • dragonrice, on 05/20/2008, -13/+6I heard Clinton is a Scientologist.
      • Clearmedium, on 05/20/2008, -10/+2I know something that will get more diggs than that statement.

        "McCain is a $cifag, so is Bush. But Obama is a member of anon"
    • deadowl, on 05/20/2008, -0/+18Are you serious? In a city where the government constantly spies on its citizens with a city-wide surveillance system? I'm not surprised.
      • theright, on 05/20/2008, -9/+1There is no "city-wide surveillance system"
        • Mejari, on 05/20/2008, -1/+6riiiight, and scientology isn't a dangerous cult. and there is no spoon. and these aren't the droids you're looking for.
        • daverave999, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1Correct-it's "country-wide".

          "The average citizen in the UK is caught on CCTV cameras 300 times a day."
          http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2071496.stm

        • theright, on 05/21/2008, -1/+1No, daverave999. There is neither a London city-wide or country-wide "surveillance system"

          There are a large number of CCTV cameras in urban centres such as London. The statistic you quote about the average number of times a British citizen is caught on camera is severely skewed by this. A substantial number of these cameras are owned and operated by private businesses, and these do not form part of a wider surveillance system.
    • aMammoth, on 05/20/2008, -6/+5US ftw. Britain for the lose of rights.
      Also, organize or join a protest, calling Scientology a cult, raise awareness that its a direct violation of freedom of speech.
      • boombye, on 05/20/2008, -1/+1They're an insult to freedom of religion as well. I mean I can practice what I want, but then I have to pay the Scientologists to have the freedom to practice their beliefs?
    • FreshPineSent, on 05/20/2008, -1/+2Well, if anyone can give him legal service, I think that would be the best thing. Not to mention you would get a hell of a lot of press if you did so.
    • Pittance, on 05/20/2008, -6/+1The police had nothing to do with it. They only served the summons. Like a subpoena, its just a request to appear in court. They probably didnt even know what it was for. Dont blame the cops for doing their job, they arent the ones suing. CoS is obviously suing the kid and he was being summoned to defend himself.
      • theright, on 05/20/2008, -3/+4No, Scientology were not involved. The police had everything to do with it.

        The police determined the kid breached Section 5 of the Public Order Act, sent him a summons and filed a case file with the Crown Prosecution Service.

        The kid is not facing litigation at the hands of the CoS. The "church" is not suing him. It is up to the CPS whether or not to press charges.
        • SillyKary, on 05/20/2008, -0/+4The Cult does have to do with it:
          http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/nov/22/freedomof ...

          Section 5 of the Public Order Act does not explicitly state the word cult es an example. It's up to the police to interpret what does and does not qualify as an insult vs. a statement of facts and/or expression of free speech. And it seems the Cult does all it can to shade the police's opinion in that regard.
        • theright, on 05/20/2008, -4/+2Just to clarify on this post of mine, the Guardian article does state that the City of London police received complaints about the use of the term "cult" and assorted terms by the protestors. I suppose it is reasonable to assume these complaints originated from an individual associated with the Co$.

          However, it remains true that the Co$ are not the ones filing charges. The police determined, in response to the complaints, that the use of the term did constitute a breach of Section 5 of the Public Order Act.
        • SillyKary, on 05/20/2008, -0/+4"The police determined, in response to the bribes..."

          There ya go, I fixed that for you.
          (see link in my comment above)
        • boombye, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1Why do you even know about CPS when you have two flags on your profile that have nothing to do with the England or the UK?
    • matt9m5, on 05/20/2008, -2/+7Write letters to Mayor Boris?
    • SillyKary, on 05/20/2008, -1/+5Go to the Crown Prosecution Service, who gave those guidelines to the police and let them know how you feel about that:
      http://cps.gov.uk/publications/communications/comp ...

      Scroll down to "Procedure for making a complaint".
    • macdaddy357, on 05/20/2008, -4/+5Free speech? It is the United Kingdom, not the United Republic. You should not expect to have freedom of speech. Now bow before your Queen, subject.
    • Jumba990, on 05/20/2008, -1/+3If you wanna help this guy out go out there and protest even more against this CULT.
    • kpwells, on 05/20/2008, -1/+3repeating anothers comment for more exposure...

      go to the crown prosecution service's website and register a complaint:

      http://cps.gov.uk/publications/communications/comp ...

      email is
      complaints@cps.gsi.gov.uk
    • georgemason01, on 05/20/2008, -1/+1Death to King George.
    • life036, on 05/20/2008, -1/+3What would have happened if they just spelled it "kult". Could he then legally get away with it?
    • GreatWhiteShaky, on 05/21/2008, -0/+3obligatory comment about the freedom of speech being destroyed.
    • satanatnmtedu, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2And what choice did the police have here? If you are blaming, blame the Scientologists.
  • Anonymous1331, on 05/20/2008, -4/+499This is terrible. Freedom of speech has been trampled on. If a justice can call the cult a cult in the legal record, then there should be no question as to the right for the citizens of Britain! Freedom of speech means you get to express yourself and your thoughts, even if someone else disagrees...and when that someone else is a dangerous cult, then it's all the more important to keep saying it!
    • OstrakonX, on 05/20/2008, -1/+26Forgive my ignorance, but...

      This happened in England, right? I know next to nothing about the British government; what provisions does it give for this type of speech? Is it protected or what?
      • delmar14, on 05/20/2008, -1/+7The U.K. does not enjoy the same level of free speech as the U.S. when it comes to potentially libelous or slanderous expressions. For all the problems we do have in America, I'm glad this is not one of them.
        • dazparkour, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1Free speech is not in UK law at all but IS in EU law.
        • xaeon, on 05/20/2008, -0/+4I can assure you that we do indeed enjoy the freedom of speech. This won't go further than a dossier to the CPS, let alone getting to court. If it does go to court, it'll be thrown out instantly.
        • life036, on 05/20/2008, -1/+2I'm segueing just a bit here, but I had heard something a number of years ago that the Brits weren't allowed to do comparative advertising. Is this true? If so, this doesn't surprise me too much.
        • xaeon, on 05/21/2008, -0/+3@life036
          You can do it, but you have to be able to seriously back up your claims. You can't just say "Ours is better than theirs."
      • Myonosken, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2If the scientologists can prove they are a church, then no because the scientologists are rich, whiney *****.

        Generally yes though.
    • CaptMonkey, on 05/20/2008, -0/+53In the US, you can say whatever you want about someone, and to find you guilty of libel they have to prove that you knowingly lied to tarnish someone's name. In other words, you can call Scientology a cult, as long as you truly think that it's a cult.

      However, the UK is notorious for it's silly libel laws, people have been found guilty for calling psychics "fakes" and "con-artists" despite the fact that they couldn't prove they weren't fakes and offered no proof that they really had psychic powers. Despite what anyone says about the government trouncing on our freedoms in the US, at least we can say what we want about people without worrying too much about legal troubles.
      • deanoplex, on 05/20/2008, -0/+18As a side note: Some time ago San Fransisco considered licensing psychics (to increase revenue) When some people wondered if only the legitimate ones would be licensed the plan was of course abandoned.
      • JerodSlay, on 05/20/2008, -1/+2That's not entirely true. The only things that you can slander or libel are people, not organizations. Therefore (in America) this would not matter at all. Also, the part about "as long as your believe it" is also not true (given that it were a person you were slandering). You can't say that woman is a slut, I think she is, therefore I'm Ok. (Yes, calling into question or placing in false light a woman's sexual promiscuity is part of the section on slander)

        I know nothing of the UK's laws though, so I cannot speak to the specifics on this case.
        • trevorh, on 05/20/2008, -1/+2I believe in your example you could call the woman a slut if you felt she was sexually promiscuous but you could not call her a whore because without some evidence that she had sex for money.
        • JerodSlay, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1Good point, you may be right there.
      • thecatcantalk, on 05/20/2008, -2/+1British law is nasty in this area; in order to find for the plaintiff, a very, very low burden of proof is required. That's why English public figures routinely use the threat of a libel suit to intimidate reporters.

        British police don't need a warrant to enter your home or business, either...pretty weird when you consider that the phrase "a man's home is his castle" originally comes from British common law. Maybe we Americans aren't as bad as we think, eh?
        • xaeon, on 05/20/2008, -0/+3They do indeed need a warrant to enter your home.
        • JohnP, on 05/21/2008, -1/+1Where the ***** are you people getting this utter arse from?

          "Maybe we Americans aren't as bad as we think, eh?"

          Maybe your education system is worse than you think?
    • pitlord, on 05/20/2008, -30/+8Wait a minute! How many libtard Brits have come to digg and accused G.W. of turning the U.S. into a "fascist" police state?
      >.>
      And you let your government do THIS to a peaceful protestor?
      -_-
      ***** YOU HYPOCRITICAL LIBERALS!
      (8^D
      America RULES!
      (X^P
      • TotalHalibut, on 05/20/2008, -2/+7You do not even have the slightest idea how Britain works, do you?
      • atgmac, on 05/20/2008, -1/+10You idiot, do you think we have any power to stop this? The law is the law, I can't just change it because I want to.
      • dinostabOMG, on 05/20/2008, -0/+9Injustice is injustice, no matter where you are. But he's just trolling, anyway.
      • KlogereEndGrim, on 05/20/2008, -1/+3Please to fall down stairs.
    • ICSU, on 05/20/2008, -12/+7All religions are cults.
      • TotalHalibut, on 05/20/2008, -1/+7You're so edgy, careful you don't cut yourself on yourself.
      • jabberwolf, on 05/20/2008, -0/+4HA well Scientology is the only religion where you get commissions by getting new members!

        Its a cult/pyramid scheme. So basically its the worst of both by being combined!
    • jabberwolf, on 05/20/2008, -0/+10I think that every person now in London that protests
      Should hold a sign, SCIENTOLOGY IS A CULT.

      Clog the courts with summons with thousands of people that hold signs telling the truth !!
    • Spudster, on 05/20/2008, -0/+3Freedom of speech is even more dead in Canada. We have human rights commissions that prosecute anyone who spreads anything that could be considered "hate speech." We've had people investigated for writing critical articles on Islam, and even someone investigated for posting the danish cartoons on their website. It's getting out of control here. A few of us are trying to stop it, check out this Facebook group for the details: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=14433301957
    • YabaYaba, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2Interesting article from the Guardian in 2006 - how the Scientologists woo the City of London police

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/nov/22/freedomof ...
  • DarkANon, on 05/20/2008, -13/+152Great, nice exposure is nice. :3
    • toonworld, on 05/20/2008, -2/+37Department of Redundancy Department
  • superted, on 05/20/2008, -4/+128the reason the police are being so interested is probably to do with this from the Times:

    "Scientology has already won a series of tax victories. In 2000 it persuaded HM Revenue & Customs that it should be exempt from Vat on received payments because its services were nonprofitable and educational. A tribunal awarded the Scientologists £8m in overpaid Vat.

    Scientology's expansion in Britain has been accompanied by increased lobbying of politicians, police officers and businesses. Earlier this year, City of London police ordered records to be compiled of hospitality to officers, after an initial review found some had accepted tickets to a charity dinner hosted by the Hollywood actor Tom Cruise, a Scientologist, and to the London premiere of Cruise's film, Mission: Impossible III.

    Chief Superintendent Kevin Hurley further embarrassed the force by describing Scientology as a "force for good" at the launch of its London centre. Its followers believe the radioactive souls of aliens, or thetans, have attached themselves to humans and are at the root of our problems. Celebrity adherents include Cruise and John Travolta."
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article27 ...


    terrifying.
    • slonrgjon, on 05/20/2008, -4/+0you can also get a tax deduction as a medical expense for auditing
      • slonrgjon, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2actually, I correct myself, you can't
      • slonrgjon, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2haha, didn't look at the "No" under tax deductible in the U.S. Masters Tax Guide
    • Berkana, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1The Scientologists have also infiltrated the French courts. No court case against them have ever gone to trial in Paris; documents mysteriously go missing, break-ins and arsons happen, etc.:
      http://digg.com/world_news/Scientology_Above_the_l ...
  • bakkouz, on 05/20/2008, -19/+682***** CULT SUCKS!
    • christophe971, on 05/20/2008, -8/+47***** IT! WE'LL DO IT!
      • twiztidsinz, on 05/20/2008, -2/+13It's "We'll do it live, ***** it!"
      • plimpton777, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2I DON'T KNOW WHAT ENTERBULATE MEANS
    • bracketdash, on 05/20/2008, -0/+89WE'LL PROTEST LIVE!
    • Murdats, on 05/20/2008, -3/+57***** 'EM, WE'LL PROTEST 'EM LIVE
    • Melodik, on 05/20/2008, -0/+50WHAT DO THOSE WORDS SAY?
    • huggybarrel, on 05/20/2008, -6/+80LOUD NOISES
      • johnsmith3210, on 05/20/2008, -5/+5Dugg for Anchorman reference.
        • RonBurgundy76, on 05/20/2008, -0/+6Any attempts to bury these fine references will be met with punches to the ovaries.
        • t0x2c, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2@Ron: Actually I feel the need to report them as they are against section V of this paper I found on the floor.
    • eyfhoerh, on 05/20/2008, -0/+25TO END THE SHOW?
    • ErikHarrison, on 05/20/2008, -1/+16There's no words there, what does that mean to play us out?

      They are played out, now it's time for the ownage.
    • ryan83189, on 05/20/2008, -1/+10to kill us out. to kill us out? what does that mean, to kill us out?
    • Oea420, on 05/20/2008, -12/+5***** memes

      do a barrel roll *****
    • copypasta, on 05/20/2008, -5/+2BATTLECRUISERS CAT BATTLECRUISERS FULLY OPERATIONAL
    • rory2267, on 05/20/2008, -0/+17cult
      –noun
      1. a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
      2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
      3. the object of such devotion.
      4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
      5. Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.
      6. a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.
      7. the members of such a religion or sect.
      8. any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific.
    • junkwheel, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2STINGROLL THEM LIVE!
    • Aeron, on 05/21/2008, -0/+4***** CULTS I'M AN ANTEATER!
    • nogeentje, on 05/21/2008, -0/+0pick the misplaced comment: rick roll comment
      anteater comment
      angry presentator
      user who searched the word cult

      pm for the right answer (although its obvious
    • topgigmedia, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day; teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime; give a man religion and he will die praying for a fish.

  • Rosear, on 05/20/2008, -2/+534"The City of London police came under fire two years ago when it emerged that more than 20 officers, ranging from constable to chief superintendent, had accepted gifts worth thousands of pounds from the Church of Scientology."

    wut.
    • wyrdness, on 05/20/2008, -0/+64For the information of those who don't live in London, we have two main police forces. The City of London Police are a small force who cover only the financial district (known as the 'City'). The Metropolitan Police ('Scotland Yard' for those who read old detective fiction) cover the rest of London.

      http://www.cityoflondon.police.uk
      http://www.met.police.uk/
      • xaogypsie, on 05/20/2008, -0/+3Thanks - I was getting pretty confused.
      • ErikHarrison, on 05/20/2008, -5/+10you mean two police "farces"
        • Myonosken, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2Not really, Scotland Yard are pretty decent. They do their job well in the vast majority of cases.
    • Elliottx, on 05/20/2008, -1/+16Pounds is what we use as currency. :)
      • dhughes, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2 Pounds for money, stone for weight, mph not km/h, different sized gallon than the US (although you were first)...you crazy Brits!
    • killthefifi, on 05/20/2008, -2/+4wut wut. in da butt.
  • nommynom, on 05/20/2008, -5/+130protestsign idea?
    "City of London Cult is a dangerous Police"
  • ichbinbored, on 05/20/2008, -2/+236Those of you who want to help him, we're already guaranteed to win - the law is on our side. We'll be demonstrating outside the court and possibly going inside if we're allowed, so keep an eye on http://www.wirah.com for more information closer to the time.
  • Xenuislove, on 05/20/2008, -2/+98Epic nose guy is epic!

    This young man has balls of steel.
  • williambuddusky, on 05/20/2008, -3/+224cult -noun "a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader."

    Sounds like a very precise definition of scientology to me, synonomous.
    The judge and Epic Nose Guy get an A.
    City of London Police and scientology scammers trying to mis-use the law to supress free speech and social activism are flunk.

    scientology is a dangerous CULT. The truth may be difficult for some to accept for some... yet it remains the truth.
    • akula89, on 05/20/2008, -0/+29williambuddusky, you are under arrest
    • taradisiac, on 05/20/2008, -13/+9And of all religion. A majority believing in fairies does not make that belief any less false or extreme.
      • RealmDown, on 05/20/2008, -2/+11A pity you don't extend that thought to thread hijacking.
      • juventus1, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1i'm going to have to agree with taradisiac.
        most other religions may not be cults (as a definition... they have a mainstream following)
        but that doesnt make them any less illogical. And may I remind you, these mainstream religions have done far worse damage than scientology has ever done
    • roystgnr, on 05/20/2008, -0/+11Ah, but the truth is only a defense against "libel". That defense annoys powerful people who don't like having the truth told about them, so now if you want to speak truth to power you have to tiptoe through mine fields like "abusive or insulting speech" too.
    • thafooz, on 05/20/2008, -10/+8The only difference between a cult and a religion is the number of followers. I'm an atheist; I don't understand how anyone can think scientology's core beliefs are more nonsensical than any other religions.
      • buckrogers1965, on 05/20/2008, -1/+12Could it be because Hubbard was an active sci fi writer for decades of many peoples living memory? And we have the body of his work before the true word was revealed to him?

        "Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wanted to make a million dollars, the best way to do it would be start his own religion." - L. Ron Hubbard*

        * As quoted in the Los Angeles Times (27 August 1978)
      • Zempz, on 05/20/2008, -1/+3and what credentials made matthew, mark, luke and john qualified on topics of the divine? thafooz is right.

        also an antheist but,
        personally, if religion makes people happy all the power to them.
        • brstilson, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2"antheist"

          You worship ants?
        • Mejari, on 05/20/2008, -0/+3AFAIK No one's protesting their beliefs (They are retarded, tho), just the horrible things the 'church' does; slave camps, fair game, disconnection, etc...
    • johnnyboy239, on 05/20/2008, -1/+2Even if you don't agree with that definition it fits every other one

      " A system or community of religious worship and ritual."

      "The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony and ritual."

      This case is nothing more then a publicity stunt, they have no chance of winning and they must surely know that. This statement was not libelous as it is true. They're probably just trying to bully him and make him spend money on a lawyer, but he should be able to get all of his legal fees paid by the church of Scientology when he wins this case

  • wirah, on 05/20/2008, -4/+197We will cover his legal costs if needed.
    • saxreturns, on 05/20/2008, -2/+53May Xenu bless you, sirs.
    • casek, on 05/20/2008, -0/+34good on you gentlemen
    • xKorrix, on 05/20/2008, -0/+12That's actually what I was going to suggest.
    • Mejari, on 05/20/2008, -15/+5Is there any reason to believe you aren't someone who just said that so you'd get +diggs and have no real ability/intention to do so?
      • junkwheel, on 05/20/2008, -0/+15If we don't believe posts on the internet, what are we supposed to believe?
      • NodOfficer, on 05/20/2008, -0/+7The Internet: Certified 100% Credible!
      • BevansDesign, on 05/21/2008, -3/+2Yea, getting diggs is a real victory. Can someone remind me where I trade in my diggs for money?

        All money I make from diggs on this comment will be donated to the fight against Scientology.
  • felinonymous, on 05/20/2008, -2/+88This article is one of the reasons I love The Register. I can't figure why an opinion is now being classified as "hate speech" and hope that the Anon involved is able to pursue the issue to the courts.
    Perhaps City of London Police should crawl out of Scientology's back pocket?
    • djm101, on 05/20/2008, -0/+18You mean the Guardian. But The Register is also a great news source.
    • felinonymous, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2Can I claim lack of coffee and early morning? You are correct. But the only two UK papers I read with frequency are the Guardian and the Register. And I mix them up all the time. No excuse.

      Hmm. Can I claim senility?

      Thanks for the correction!
    • ThreeDee912, on 05/23/2008, -0/+1I'm actually thinking that the Scientologists might actually back out of this to avoid publicity...
    • djm101, on 05/23/2008, -0/+1@felinonymous
      It's because they're both brilliant. The Register more so as it twists in a suitable amount of sarcasm into their articles :) But I'm still glad there's at least one semi-decent newspaper still in print..
  • tufftugg, on 05/20/2008, -1/+65 Mom, Dad what happened to free speech? Oh, we all said nothing when the bureaucracy to us what to think!
  • csm888, on 05/20/2008, -3/+148Scientology are a bunch of Cu*ts..ok Im not scared.. Scientology are a bunch of Cults!

    • JoshuaH, on 05/20/2008, -6/+29I thought you meant *****.
    • ScottyQuest, on 05/20/2008, -4/+15I liked it better with the * in it. It made me read it as "Scientology are a bunch of *****." Also accurate.
    • Frazzlet, on 05/20/2008, -1/+9Yes, that was the idea :O
    • mistergraves, on 05/20/2008, -9/+1put an "n" where the * is.
    • robfrench, on 05/21/2008, -0/+3Don't get me wrong, I dugg the comment up.
      But can we please go with "Scientologists are" or "Scientology is"

      < /douchebaggary >
  • justWog, on 05/20/2008, -2/+7418 x 24 posterboard with one letter on each, held up separately means nothing.... together it breaks the law. ARREST THAT!
    • underdog138, on 05/20/2008, -1/+24I like the way you think.
    • DarksiderUK, on 05/20/2008, -0/+18And if they mention anything, just quickly swap over and start shouting "DOWN WITH LUCT!!"
    • Eschguy, on 05/20/2008, -0/+3Awesome idea!
    • Ozymandias42, on 05/20/2008, -0/+4You know, the same thing is also true about DVD encryption keys. You'd just need a few extra posters.
  • deanoplex, on 05/20/2008, -12/+175First Scientology came for the gullible , -but I was not gullible so I did not speak out.

    Then they came for the politicians and law enforcement officers, -but I was neither, so I did not speak out.

    Then they came for the scientists, -but I was not a scientist so I did not speak out.

    And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.
    • FeargusMcDuff, on 05/20/2008, -54/+3WTFSTFU???
    • TheSpook, on 05/20/2008, -20/+10I think that's a poor analogy.

      PS, Godwin'd
    • ChappyChaps11, on 05/20/2008, -1/+20I like it. I don't think the 2 replies above me realize the power in that. +digg
    • KlogereEndGrim, on 05/20/2008, -0/+11Always makes me shiver, that thing does.
      So powerful.
    • CarnivalOfDust, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2We seem to be hovering dangerously close to level 2 of that analogy. Thankfully there's a lot of scientifically-minded people on the internet. Gentlemen, ladies, I do belive that we are the last bastion of defense.
      Stay strong. Never let them win.
  • vexingmodstwo, on 05/20/2008, -46/+8Socialism. Bad.
    • IHaveIssues, on 05/20/2008, -4/+16Where does socialism fit in here???
      • vexingmodstwo, on 05/20/2008, -12/+11I'm glad you asked. When you have a society built on the socialist ideals of "what's mine is yours, what's yours is mine" you eventually have a society where individualism and individual freedom loses out to the "greater good". And the state becomes the arbiter of what is or isn't "the greater good".

        That's oversimplifying it a bit, yes. But still accurate.
        • BrewBeau, on 05/20/2008, -3/+6The same thing ultimately happens in Capitalism, with money being the influence and power of the people who posess it. So what's better, to have society decide what's best for society or to have the richest individuals and businesses deciding, or at least heavily influencing policy?
        • vexingmodstwo, on 05/20/2008, -7/+5@BrewBeau

          You tell me. Have you seen or heard of anyone being arrested for calling a religion (or whatever) a cult here in the US?
        • BrewBeau, on 05/20/2008, -1/+5@vexingmodstwo

          Perhaps not that exact scenario, but protesters get arrested for no apparent reason all the time. Anti-war protesters get corraled to some area too far away to make a good demonstration whenever the prez is making an appearance.
        • vexingmodstwo, on 05/20/2008, -5/+2I don't agree with that either, btw.
        • dagnome1984, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2The U.S has its own problems with socialism. We have a branch of fabian socialism that is slowly gathering more and more prominence. Funny thing is that brand of socialism was founded in the U.K.

          The public good at the expense of the individual always comes with a loss of liberty.
    • mattmy, on 05/20/2008, -2/+12your comment. off topic.
    • Stavrosian, on 05/20/2008, -2/+9All aboard the ***** failboat.
    • vexingmodstwo, on 05/20/2008, -16/+3Awww... look at all the cute little socialists putting their hands over their ears and screaming "LALALALALALALALALA"
      • Stavrosian, on 05/20/2008, -1/+7If anybody was taking you seriously before, I think the fabled "LALALALALALALALALA" defense put paid to that.
      • anononon, on 05/20/2008, -1/+3Go crawl back into your parents' basement and never come back out, please.
      • zeusthemoose, on 05/20/2008, -1/+2Awww look at the cute little moron putting his hands over his ears screaming "You're yelling LALALALALALALALA"
    • jpnadia, on 05/20/2008, -0/+10Pardon me, but do you know what words mean? Socialism has to do with economics, not blatant abuses of law. This article has to do with the blatant and possibly corrupt abuse of law.

      (Certainly, blatant abuses of law can happen in a socialist environment, but they can also happen in more capitalistic environments. In any event, the economic system is not appreciably related to the blatant abuse of law.)
      • sadisticmind, on 05/20/2008, -4/+0damn straight! f Vexingmodstwo
      • vexingmodstwo, on 05/20/2008, -10/+2yes, I know what the word means. And yes, I do know that it is an economic model. And I stated above, I did oversimplify it because quite frankly the socialists here on Digg aren't really worth more than what I already stated. It's not like I'll change anyone's minds. I just like popping your little bubbles. You'll blow them up again anyway.
        • jpnadia, on 05/22/2008, -0/+0Pardon me again, but "oversimplification" refers to taking out elements of a concept, not redefining the concept entirely to suit your own purposes, as you have done here.
    • Volaitle86, on 05/20/2008, -2/+9***** idiot
      • vexingmodstwo, on 05/20/2008, -5/+4What's the matter? You can't handle anyone criticizing your beloved socialism? This ***** is what happens when you hand over your individualism to a socialist government. Sorry to be the first to break the news to you. Obama won't.
        • yournightmare, on 05/20/2008, -1/+1Didn't the biggest affronts to free speech in our country in recent memory happen at the helm of a Republican White House and Republican Congress? It's pretty funny to watch you go on this misguided rampage against socialism in light of what the "conservative" and "individual freedom/personal responsibility" party has done in the past eight years. Seems like the only bubbles popping around here are your own delusions. You certainly seem to be operating under the delusion that a libertarian-socialist society wouldn't have vastly more free speech and individualism than any society in existence today.

          Before you accuse me of being a socialist, I'm a hardcore capitalist/libertarian. Even if I were a socialist, my personal beliefs don't change the validity of what I say--but I have the feeling you would claim otherwise. You didn't "oversimplify," you are just wrong.
        • vexingmodstwo, on 05/20/2008, -1/+3@yournightmare

          libertarian-socialist society? Is that even possible?

          And you won't find me defending some of the very non-Republican things that current day Republicans have done, either.
        • dagnome1984, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2"Didn't the biggest affronts to free speech in our country in recent memory happen at the helm of a Republican White House and Republican Congress? It's pretty funny to watch you go on this misguided rampage against socialism in light of what the "conservative" and "individual freedom/personal responsibility" party has done in the past eight years."

          Yeah because we are against one thing we must be with the other? Nice false dichotomy there. I would hate to break it to you but the fonder of the modern neoconservative movement was a socialist.

          Kristol suggests of himself, "Ever since I can remember, I've been a neo-something: a neo-Marxist, a neo-Trotskyist, a neo-liberal, a neo-conservative; in religion a neo-orthodox even while I was a neo-Trotskyist and a neo-Marxist. I'm going to end up a neo-that's all, neo dash nothing."[7]

          The neoconservative party is based more on Fabian/Leon/Marxist ideas than conservatism.
      • dagnome1984, on 05/20/2008, -1/+2Says the uninformed. You can't argue a point so you resort to childish name calling.
    • Xondar, on 05/21/2008, -1/+1Socialism = good.
  • SevenTwo, on 05/20/2008, -7/+361***** Co$, you took Will Smith.
  • gquaglia, on 05/20/2008, -39/+16Can the UK get anymore ***** up! I think people in China have more freedoms then the Brits.
    • Jegzzy, on 05/20/2008, -3/+30Please, stop talking out your arse.
      • superted, on 05/20/2008, -3/+5couldn't have said it better
      • gquaglia, on 05/20/2008, -12/+1Oh and how does it feel to support your useless royals who do nothing and live the good life on the backs of their subjects. Time to get with the now, the French had the right idea.
  • taradisiac, on 05/20/2008, -53/+12All religions are cult. ***** the UK no wonder is being flooded by muslims and turning into Orson Well's Oceania.
    • airforceteacher, on 05/20/2008, -0/+29Ummmm ... George Orwell.
    • deanoplex, on 05/20/2008, -0/+5rosebud...
    • absurdist, on 05/20/2008, -1/+4It's pretty obvious from your posts that English isn't your first language. Where exactly did YOU originate?
  • wukillabee, on 05/20/2008, -54/+5Hate scientology but not hate other religions?
    • Kronk42583, on 05/20/2008, -2/+18scientology isnt a religion in the sense that others are. hence "cult." thats why people protest it.
    • BrewBeau, on 05/20/2008, -11/+6Scientology hasn't had the fortune of time to convince everyone it's not a scam like other "religions" have. Think about if the Catholic church just started, or any other established religion, and the laughing stock it would be in the media.
      • Mejari, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2In the beginning of the Catholic church the priests were probably open and willing to tell possible converts what they believed without waiting for the $360,000 check to clear, like they are now. All religions have their problems, but it's hard not to see that scientology is magnitudes more ***** up than other religions, not based on beliefs, but on actions.
        • BrewBeau, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1Perhaps, but how many people have access to the entire Dead Sea Scrolls or other relics held by the Vatican? They all have their secrets. I do agree, however, that Scientology reeks the most of a total scam.
    • hauntedchippy, on 05/20/2008, -0/+7In so far as wacked out beliefs go, it's a pretty nasty one.
    • Eschguy, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1Ha! Religion? I think not.
  • legendxx, on 05/20/2008, -1/+26I have no doubt this will be thrown out.. or we don't know the whole story.
  • DeadSkinMask, on 05/20/2008, -11/+23Its a fine line between cult and religion...
    • JurisAnonimus, on 05/20/2008, -1/+26It *can* be a fine line between cult and religion, depending on the cult and the religion you are comparing. In this instance, however, the call is not even close. The COS is a cult down to the molecular level. All the information is out there, and it is already banned in many countries for this very reason. Shame on the bought and paid for politicians in the US and England for attempting to legitimize this cult at the expense of the people they are elected to serve. How many lives will be destroyed by Englands new policy to criminallize the truth?
    • slowbox, on 05/20/2008, -0/+23It's not a fine line between cult and pyramid scheme.
    • tommq, on 05/20/2008, -0/+19Aren't pyramid schemes illegal? Maybe telephone companies could start claiming to be religions.
    • kylere, on 05/20/2008, -4/+11No, there is not a fine line, all religions are cults, some are just more sucessful than others.
      • mgri, on 05/20/2008, -0/+3True. Althought the fact that you need to cough up cash for CoS seems to make it an especially henous organisation. Other than that I completely agree with you.
        • kylere, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1Umm, try to find a church that does not ask you to cough up cash! $cientology is evil for so many other things.
    • Risingashes, on 05/20/2008, -3/+1The difference between a cult and a religion is that people will only back you when you say how wacko cults are.
      It's discrimination against the upstarts, but you have to take what you can get.
      • CarnivalOfDust, on 05/20/2008, -0/+0Religion: Peace and love to many. Scientology: Call everyone rapists and then steal their money.
        Seems pretty clear-cut to me! (And before anyone points it out - if a religion is not tolerant enough to give peace and love to many, then it's *not* a religion.)
    • iamnobody8614, on 05/20/2008, -0/+12"The group was founded by the science-fiction writer L Ron Hubbard in 1952 and espouses the idea that humans are descended from an exiled race of aliens called Thetans."

      Pretty much says it all.
    • TheImaginator, on 05/20/2008, -0/+9Yes, here is an example of that line.

      ££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££

      Here is another.

      $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
    • HeroreV, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2There is no line between cults and religions because they are not mutually exclusive. If you look up "cult" in a dictionary, you'll find that being a religion is often part of the definition of a cult.
  • FeargusMcDuff, on 05/20/2008, -53/+3Oh for *****'s sake Digg, why do you have to take stuff like this so personaly. If she broke the law, she deserves prosecution. If she didn't (I dont think she did) then she will be found not guilty.
    Respect the ***** justice system.
    • JurisAnonimus, on 05/20/2008, -1/+13Under this logic, anyone calling a suicide bomber a "suicide bomber" will be arrested and imprisoned. Law enforcement in Great Britain has decided to shape reality in favor of a cult that destroys lives for profit. This should be a call to arms to all fee speech advocates. If big brother can get away with this, we have lost everything. The aspect that FeargusMcDuff thinks that under the undisputed facts this should be an offense subject to prosecution shows how incredibly shallow FeargusmdDuff is. Some people don't understand that hard fought for rights can be stripped in an instant. This is especially the case if they are very young and nieve.
      • CarnivalOfDust, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1I'm starting to feel profoundly ashamed of Britain these days...
    • JKAL, on 05/20/2008, -0/+6and WHY are you taking comments here so personally, if you don't like it then just click to another page.
      or are you worried your thinking in a shell might be broken by the masses.
    • slowbox, on 05/20/2008, -0/+7Injustice system? You must earn respect, not simply be given it.
    • deanoplex, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2She? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6xk5D0qte4 It's Epic-Nose-GUY.
    • thorstrongstone, on 05/20/2008, -0/+5Yeah, you keep following the pied-piper, accepting everything because it is fed to you. Why should we respect a system that is flawed, corrupt, and wrong? Why should we not ask for said system to be changed?

      Why don't you come back when you learn to think for yourself.
    • Patience2Be, on 05/20/2008, -1/+0***** ur justice system.... who actually has the right to say what he did was wrong.... no one does.......
  • brainworms, on 05/20/2008, -5/+95Scientology is a cult in the UK. Why isn't it a cult in the U.S ?? Their tax exemption is based their claim to being a charity.

    Its certaintly not recognised as a religion anywhere in the world.
    • AnImAl6969, on 05/20/2008, -5/+25The reason it's considered a religion in the US is because of membership size.. Once a following achieves a certain size in the U.S., it can apply for tax exempt status.. Which is what scientology did.. Doesn't mean us yanks like it anymore than the brits do..
      • Chakat, on 05/20/2008, -0/+29It has nothing to do with size, and everything to do with scientology browbeating and blackmailing the IRS into submission.
        • heliox, on 05/20/2008, -0/+13Chakat's correct. They lost the tax emept status at one time, but got it back.
      • gernblansted, on 05/20/2008, -0/+10Chakat is right. The IRS has caved in to Scientology, fears them greatly, and will do anything to appease them. In fact the IRS - illegally - still will not make public the circumstances of the Scientology tax exempt status, granting them with tax breaks for "educational expenses" which ONLY the Scientology members can claim (Christians and Muslims need not apply, you WILL be punished by the IRS if you are not an official member of Scientology and try to claim "educational expenses"). Also, no word on why Scientology members can make money TAX FREE from commissions when they bring in paying customers - if you are a Christian making income bringing in paying customers to a Christian seminar, even if your Christian church is putting on the seminar, you owe income tax!

        The US State Department has a very cozy relationship with Scientology as well based on the how forcefully they have defended the it around the world in the past.
    • jnndewey, on 05/20/2008, -3/+12The sane Americans do regard it as a cult. It's considered just a step beyond mormonism.
    • shanson13, on 05/20/2008, -0/+26It is a cult in the US, just the same as its a cult anywhere else in the world.
    • JurisAnonimus, on 05/20/2008, -0/+20The COS sued the IRS into submission for the determination of religious status, but this is IRS specific, they really don't have the general status of religion, as evidenced by the fact that Texas determined they were not entitled to state tax breaks attendant to religions. Regarding the IRS, the ducks are starting to become restless, and there is an ongoing court case right now regarding the IRS's decision.

      I think we will find that they blackmailed some nefarious IRS decision makes, when all is said and done. Sold out by the IRS, and the London Police want to sell out England.
    • zmigliozzi, on 05/20/2008, -0/+7In America it's called a 'business' cough pyramid scheme.
  • MattSirrell, on 05/20/2008, -2/+58Scientology is a cult.
    No religious status in England yet.
  • mokadi925, on 05/20/2008, -35/+7The question is, would he have been treated the same for saying the same about every other religion?

    If someone accepts one religion, he has to accept the plausibility of them all. A religion being unpopular in the public eye does not make it any less unlikely than all the others.
    • akula89, on 05/20/2008, -2/+20that's fine and all except Scientology is a cult
    • JohnP, on 05/20/2008, -1/+41) Its a cult, this law doesnt apply to someone calling a cult a cult, obviously this is a case of currupt police officers interupting a protest in favour of COS.

      2) Yes people get prosecuted under this law, recently islamist extremists have been prosecuted for holding signs that threaten death to various people.

      These laws are meant to stop extremists holding rallies, not peaceful protests. This case will be thrown out, and hopefully the officers involved will be sacked.
  • bloodytoast, on 05/20/2008, -7/+25@deanoplex
    Very well put...it brings a tear to my eye :*(

    and
    scientology=CULT i.m.o.

    uh oh, I better be careful or they'll cast a nasty spell on me with their
    SUPERNATURAL powers O.o
    • Anonchrist, on 05/20/2008, -0/+8They don't cast spells. You are looking at the wrong class. Scientologists are lawful evil and only have the ability to cure and resist status effects, until they are considered to be celestial beings at OT level 10.
  • Jan33, on 05/20/2008, -1/+32but like... what are we supposed to call it then?
    • tk0680, on 05/20/2008, -2/+7Retarded?
    • cmsjustin, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1lol
    • Aeron, on 05/21/2008, -0/+3a cohesive social group devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture considers outside the mainstream, with a charismatic leader who indoctrinates members with unorthodox or extremist views, practices or beliefs.
  • karolisonline, on 05/20/2008, -18/+6*****, now even Europe is not safe. O sorry, I forgot that england is police state and that they always goes hand in hand with USA opposing to continental Europe. maybe this at least means we are not doomed.

    p.s. sorry for forthright language.
    • Setter, on 05/20/2008, -1/+6"p.s. sorry for forthright language."

      Don't worry - you're more nonsensical than forthright.
    • tk0680, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2Apologising for "forthright language" on Digg. That's like apologising for milk in a dairy farm so- .. oh wait, you're just pre-emptively flailing at people who think you're retarded? Never mind.
  • JurisAnonimus, on 05/20/2008, -1/+72Under this logic, anyone calling a suicide bomber a "suicide bomber" will be arrested and imprisoned. La