|
Member
|
First large Internet conflict with CoS around 1995
Maybe it was posted before, but I didn't find it, so here it is:
"The Case of Scientology and its Internet Critics"
A paper from the Canadian Journal of Sociology, University of Alberta by Michael Peckham from 2000. Interesting analysis and description of what took place. It's also interesting that he is stressing anonymity as one of the most important things in this fight- the other is bandwith or signal to noise ratio. I colored the description of the actual events in blue, in case anyone just wants to limit the attention to these. The most important quotes besides these were boldened. The point where it focuses on the concrete conflict has been colored green. I hope, people from OSA read this and finally come to the right conclusion and by this I don't mean: "Look, it's big bad a.r.s", but that it's a structural problem Scientology as an organization has with free speech, dissent and the internet and that the only way to solve this, is to fundamentally reform or to be swept away and to see the power structures slowly crumble from the inside. That this is simply an idea whose time has come, no more, no less.
What I think to be the main difference between then and now:
Quote:
|
The Usenet Newsgroups a.r.s. and alt.clearing.technology are the main theaters of war in the conflict, and both parties have sought to control bandwidth by posting a majority of posts.
|
and
Quote:
|
A third, more peripheral action is the organization of off-line activities such as picketing and letter-writing campaigns.
|
and
Quote:
|
One possible consequence of the difficulty of achieving certain goals on-line is that some movements that are successful in other arenas will fail in the electronic forum, while native Internet movements may have similar difficulty crossing over into wider society.
|
All three of these have changed and they've changed for the better imo. Because this time it's full scale: The entire internet -more or less- and lots of IRL goals and successes.
Excerpts I found interesting:
Quote:
As one social movement begins mobilizing resources toward its goals, individuals and institutions who oppose those goals or whose resources are threatened coalesce around opposing goals into countermovements. ...
Of primary importance to the discussion of Scientology and its Internet critics is resource deprivation or “damaging actions” (Zald and Useem, 1987: 260). A movement or countermovement often tries to undermine its opponent’s position by “neutralizing, confronting, or discrediting its corresponding countermovement” (Zald and Useem, 1987: 248). A group takes steps to “raise the cost of mobilization for the other groups” (Zald and Useem, 1987: 260) while pursuing its own agenda. Additionally, raising bad publicity about an opponent hinders the opponent’s ability to recruit and raise funds from the general public, thus deviance labeling, smear campaigns, and other types of public discrediting are forms of resource deprivation (see Kent, 1990). ...
most studies of social movements have concentrated on the movements’ interactions with the state (Meyer and Staggenborg, 1996; Zald and Useem, 1987). Consequently, little information exists on direct movement/countermovement interaction, despite the apparent wealth of social activity that is appropriate for such analysis. ...
This article argues that the interaction is primarily one of resource deprivation or “damaging actions,” and the debate enhances our understanding of how demobilizing an opponent’s resources can be the focal point of movement/countermovement interaction. Since the Internet is the forum for this interaction, however, the article requires a rethinking of certain tenets of traditional resource mobilization. The ultimate goal of this rethinking is the introduction and initial adaptation of resource mobilization theory to the study of movement/countermovement interaction in the information society. ...
While some commentators view this lack of an effective ruling authority as chaotic, most agree that the Internet is a large-scale democracy. Studies of interaction on Usenet, for example, indicate that behavior is mostly policed by means of peer pressure and sometimes vigilante actions (Baym, 1995; McLaughlin et al, 1995). Although appeals to external authorities do exist (such as reporting a troublemaker to his or her Internet Service Provider (ISP)), the predominant method of conflict on-line is played out in (often vitriolic) democratic discussions. ...
In this community, attempts to regulate from outside meet with resounding disfavor ...
The case study later in this article demonstrates that although some appeals may be made to external authorities (e.g., the courts), the vast majority of movement/countermovement interaction on-line takes place in the absence of a government arbiter. ...
If a movement is to meet its goals on the Internet, then it must appeal to the only real authority extant: Internet users. ...
Since access to the Internet is worldwide, an individual with free access through a community freenet can potentially compete with large, well-funded organizations (Crawford, 1996: 594). Although greater financial resources may enable a group to create a more professional web site (although money does not guarantee this) and purchase advertising on-line, the potential audience and scope of reach is no greater than that of an individual with basic Internet access (Peckham, 1998). ...
Internet-specific movements (i.e., movements or countermovements that have their genesis on the Internet) also may not have any form of leadership hierarchy. Such movements may be amorphous, but the instant communication of the Internet allows coordinated action even without any leadership directives. Thus, it is difficult if not impossible for a movement to counter its opposition by targeting its leadership. ...
Among the virtual resources mobilized on the Internet, the two most important to the Scientology/Internet critics conflict are “bandwidth” and “anonymity.” ...
A related term that is important to this discussion is “signal to noise ratio.” The “signal” is relevant information, and “noise” is chaff such as off-topic conversation, advertisements, and personal dialogue between individuals that is not important to the wider user base. ...
The second important virtual resource in contention on the Internet is anonymity. More precisely, anonymity is a way of accessing bandwidth without revealing one’s identity. To some extent, the uniqueness of Internet communication relies on its varying levels of anonymity (Baym, 1995; Shade, 1996; Sobel, 1995: 8). ...
Stories about the debate have appeared in news media all over the world, and numerous court cases are working their way through the legal systems of several countries (Grossman, 1995; Heldal-Lund, 1997). Scientology claims that Internet users are illegally disseminating secret, copyrighted materials (Goodman, 1996a; 1996b), while Internet users say that Scientology has trampled on their rights in an attempt to silence critics (Newman, 1996; Heldal-Lund, 1997).6 ...
The group of Internet users who oppose Scientology mainly use the Usenet Newsgroup alt.religion.scientology (a.r.s.) as their forum. Many of these people are former Scientology members who now are outspoken critics of it, and through the organizational facilitation of the Internet have formed a fairly coherent group (Grossman, 1995; Post, 1996).8 This group comprises an anti-Scientology countermovement on the Internet. As this study shows, however, the group of individuals opposed to Scientology includes people who are not necessarily opposed to the organization itself, but rather are opposed to the attacks on the Internet. Thus, anti-Scientology critics are a subgroup of a wider movement that supports the Internet, so that Scientology is in conflict with both a countermovement (critics) and a wider social movement (Internet supporters). ...
On July 17, 1991, a former Scientology member forged a request to Usenet control that led to the creation of a.r.s. (Grossman, 1995: 174). Participants note that for the next few years the newsgroup was home to discussions about Scientology minutiae such as the workings of e-meters and auditing techniques (Holmes, 1995). In mid-1994, several former members (including some “squirrels”)9 began posting criticism of Scientology, and documents circulated that appeared to outline a Scientology plan to flood the newsgroup with positive messages in order to silence critics.10 Former member and outspoken critic Dennis Erlich began posting his experiences in Scientology in August, 1994, and he soon became a catalyst for the countermovement.
When more critical posts became common on a.r.s., copyrighted materials started to appear among the messages. Some representatives of Scientology allegedly began forging messages to cancel critics’ posts in December, 1994 (Holmes, 1995), and Internet users soon dubbed the perpetrator of these forgeries the “Cancelbunny” (named after a character in a battery advertisement) and later “Cancelpoodle.”11 Those who posted copyrighted materials without the aid of anonymous services received legal threats, and Scientology representatives filed complaints against anonymous servers. On February 8, 1995, The Church of Scientology (based in Los Angeles), with the help of Finnish police, obtained the identification of an anonymous user of anon.penet.fi — the most popular anonymity service provider on the Internet (Quittner, 1995).
On the same date, February 8, the Religious Technology Center (RTC) and Bridge Publications (branches of Scientology and copyright holders of L. Ron Hubbard’s Advanced Technology and Hubbard’s published works, respectively) filed a copyright-infringement lawsuit against Erlich, Tom Klemsrud (the operator of a small Internet Service Provider), and Netcom, which provided access for Klemsrud (United States District Court, 1995a). Five days later, Scientology lawyers seized materials — including storage disks and other information media — from Dennis Erlich (Grossman, 1995; see United States District Court, 1995b). On August 12, 1995, a similar raid took place against Arnaldo Lerma, a former Church member who posted copies of the Fishman affidavit.12 On August 22, police and several Scientology attorneys seized materials from the chair and director of FACTnet,13 “an anticult electronic library and archive” (Grossman, 1995: 174). On March 21, 1996, the RTC filed a lawsuit against Grady Ward for allegedly posting copyrighted materials using an anonymous server (Newman, 1996). To date, numerous Internet Service Providers have received legal threats, in addition to the numerous a.r.s. critics who have been subject to various forms of harassment (Newman, 1996; Grossman, 1995).
The history of the conflict is complex and filled with allegations and unreliable evidence. ...
The countermovement of critics on the Internet poses a threat to Scientology resources through two primary actions: the posting of copyrighted, “secret” documents and the dissemination of unfavorable information about the organization. A third, more peripheral action is the organization of off-line activities such as picketing and letter-writing campaigns. ...
The dissemination of closely guarded Scientology documents is a clear example of a potential deprivation of Scientology resources. Widespread exposure to such materials is costly to Scientology in several ways. First, and perhaps most obviously, the unfettered dissemination of these documents costs Scientology the money members pay to access the documents, in the same way that software piracy can result in lost revenue for developers. Simply put, since the materials are freely available, people are considerably less likely to pay for them. ...
Each organizational level requires that the participant purchase written, audio, and visual materials (often not available until the participant reaches that level of training), pay for and attend courses and seminars, and undergo an unspecified number of hours of costly auditing (Wallis, 1976). By the time members have reached the state of “clear” (the goal of Dianetics),18 they may each have spent tens of thousands of dollars (Ebner, 1996: 43). Additionally, if a member does not pass a course, then the individual must pay for and take the course again, for as many times as it takes to meet its requirements (Bainbridge and Stark, 1980: 132). Thus, a tremendous amount of revenue rests on a member’s movement through the stratified system. ...
Third, posts of higher-level documents could encourage members to question the tenets of Scientology. Exposure to these materials could cause a Scientology member to leave, especially if the person has been involved with the organization only for a short time. ...
The second primary way that the Internet has threatened Scientology resources is through the dissemination of unfavorable information about the organization. ...
Additionally, harsh criticism may make formerly neutral parties adopt an anti-Scientology stance. For example, several of the frequent posters to a.r.s. claim that they had no previous dealings with Scientology, but became critics after learning of Scientology’s actions against Internet users (Spaink, 1995). ...
Besides the dissemination of Scientology doctrine and criticism, the Internet and World Wide Web provide venues for the organization of anti-Scientology activities. For example, a.r.s. and critical World Wide Web sites helped raise awareness of the anti-Scientology protests held at Scientology centers worldwide (Mayett, 1997). Internet users also helped organize legal defence funds for Dennis Erlich and Arnaldo Lerma through a.r.s. and the World Wide Web (EFF, 1996a).
These off-line activities, such as picketing, distributing leaflets, legal defence funds, and letter-writing campaigns, are attempts to sway the bystander public to a hostile position toward Scientology. ...
In addition, some of these efforts directly threaten other Scientology resources such as the Church of Scientology’s tax exempt status in the United States. Thus, the countermovement is attempting not only to sway the bystander public, but also deprive Scientology of a valued resource. ...
The invocation of rights and freedom rhetoric is a method for both sides of the conflict to gain alliance from other social movement organizations. By invoking these types of arguments, movements can call upon other groups for assistance. As I will show, both the Internet critics and Scientology have courted the assistance of other groups through the use of the freedom argument. ...
Freedom of speech is a highly contentious issue on the Internet (Shade, 1996) and the perception of a threat to that freedom has brought both individuals and groups to the support of Internet critics (EFF, 1996a; Grossman, 1995). ...
As a result, a number of people who previously had no stake in the countermovement of anti-Scientology critics feel that Scientology threatens all the Internet, and numerous Internet-supporters joined the a.r.s. critics in protesting violations of freedom of speech and freedom of expression. ...
For example, the Electronic Frontiers Foundation (EFF), which is a lobby group dedicated to opposing restrictions to Internet use, continues to work against Scientology on the Internet (EFF, 1996a). Among other actions, the EFF procured pro bono legal defence for Dennis Erlich, and spearheads the campaign to raise funds for his expenses in the case. EFF also has published scathing attacks on Scientology’s actions, and the group maintains a database of court documents from the various legal challenges to anti-Scientology critics. Also, Wired magazine, a strong advocate of Internet freedoms and one of the premier Internet-related publications, continues to speak out in support of Internet critics. ...
By invoking the religious freedom argument, Scientology appeals to a number of other groups that are concerned with the persecution of religion. ...
Scientology’s declaration that anti-Scientology posts on a.r.s. are “hate speech” is clearly an overture to anti-hate speech groups.21 Thus, Scientology has mobilized the rhetoric of the religious social movement in an attempt to gain their support in the a.r.s. conflict. ...
The debate between Scientology and Internet critics features a great deal of “rights and freedoms” rhetoric. As I have shown, the “freedom” arguments have implications for the mobilization of resources. Chiefly, the arguments have allowed both social movements to court allies from the social movement industry. Without questioning the sincerity of the freedom arguments, the resource mobilization perspective allows us to see the economic and physical consequences of invoking ideological rhetoric. ...
By depriving Internet users of certain resources, Scientology hopes to end those Internet activities that threaten Scientology resources. Thus, the conflict is one of attrition rather than direct competition for resources that either side could mobilize.
Scientology’s actions deprived critics of both physical resources (i.e., through seizure of computer materials, discussed below), and “virtual” resources. The Internet is primarily a world of “virtual” resources, some of which are the main points of contention between Internet critics and Scientology. Bandwidth and anonymity are two key resources that Scientology sought to deprive from its critics. ...
Bandwidth, as defined by the total informational space available on Usenet, is the primary virtual resource under contention in the conflict between Internet critics and Scientology. The Usenet Newsgroups a.r.s. and alt.clearing.technology are the main theaters of war in the conflict, and both parties have sought to control bandwidth by posting a majority of posts. ...
Scientology has tried to gain control of a.r.s. bandwidth in a number of ways. ...
When Scientology first became aware of the threat a.r.s. posed to its resources, one of the organization’s first responses was reportedly to try to drown out critics’ voices by flooding the newsgroup with pro-Scientology postings (Holmes, 1995). ...
A message that a Scientology official allegedly sent to members details a plan to run the critics off Usenet by flooding the discussions with positive stories about Scientology (see Holmes, 1995; Newman, 1996; Spaink, 1995). ...
First, as indicated in the alleged letter to Scientologists on the Internet, voluminous posting could overwhelm the critics by outnumbering their posts. If the critics could not keep up with and respond to the large number of pro-Scientology posts, then the task of criticizing may be too time consuming and discouraging for continued opposition. Additionally, the comparatively small number of critical posts could be lost in the sea of information. Outsiders would have difficulty locating critical posts, and the uninitiated would view the critics as a small minority (if, indeed, an outsider could even find critical posts). ...
Another way of conceptualizing attempts to control bandwidth is to utilize the signal to noise metaphor. ...
Reading newsgroups involves a time investment, and if non-useful posts (noise) outnumber the signal, users may see the newsgroup as a poor time investment. In the conflict between Internet critics and Scientology, critics potentially could have found the signal to noise ratio too low for reading the group to be worthwhile. ...
Occasionally posts appear on a.r.s. that purport to be from prominent critics, but are actually forgeries (Newman, 1996). ...
To date, Scientology has not successfully dominated a.r.s. bandwidth, so most of the movement’s actions are attempts to deny critics of resources rather than converting those resources to Scientology’s use. ...
When a user posts a message to Usenet, it is possible for that user to cancel the post. If one can duplicate the identification of another user, it is also possible to cancel the other user’s post. Scientology representatives used this type of forged cancel to block some critical posts to a.r.s. ...
Allegedly, Scientology not only attempted to overwhelm critics by voluminous posts, but also it reduced the number of critical posts by forged cancellations. Thus, individuals found themselves unable to participate fully in a.r.s. because their messages were disappearing. ...
Scientology representatives persuaded some ISPs to close down critics’ accounts, effectively silencing those individuals until they could have their accounts reinstated or find another ISP (Grossman, 1995; Newman, 1996). Whereas the forged cancel attempts target specific posts, terminating a user’s account means that all of that user’s potential messages are gone — a total silencing. Additionally, loss of ISP access deprives the critic of all Internet resources and not just the contended resource of bandwidth. ...
Scientology made two attempts to eliminate a.r.s. First, a Scientology representative sent a letter to Internet Service Providers asking them to remove the group on the grounds that it was a breeding ground for copyright violations. Second, Scientology sent a “rmgroup” [remove group] message to Usenet control requesting the deletion of a.r.s. entirely (Holmes, 1995; Newman, 1996). If the Internet Service Providers had complied, then many users would have lost access to a.r.s. Moreover, if the rmgroup request had been successful, then the newsgroup would have ceased to exist, thus denying critics of their forum. ...
First and most obviously, anonymity allows individuals to post copyrighted materials without fear of legal reprisal from Scientology. Scientology lawsuits and the mere threat of litigation against Internet users has the potential to silence critics both by depriving them of their Internet access and by deterrence. ...
Clearly, then, litigation against critics is a potential deterrent for all Internet users, effectively making the consequences of criticizing too damaging for it to be worth the risk. ...
As a resource, anonymity is greatly valuable to the wider Internet community. Internet supporters argue that if Scientology manages to limit or destroy anonymity, then the exchange of free information on the Internet will cease. ...
As long as critics’ names appear on their posts, they are vulnerable to traditional Scientology harassment techniques. Anonymity, however, effectively hampers Scientology’s ability to gather information on critics, thus making them harder to silence. ...
In both the Erlich and Lerma cases, Scientology seized computers and storage media, costing the critics access to the Internet (Grossman, 1995; Newman, 1996). Also, Erlich and Lerma lost many of their computer files including all those related to the conflict, thus seriously hampering their ability to criticize Scientology.26 The raids and the lawsuits that followed also subjected Erlich and Lerma to monetary difficulties, as well as the time and effort involved in mounting a legal defence. ...
Tom Klemsrud and Netcom faced lawsuits that would essentially hold them responsible for their clients’ actions (Grossman, 1995). ...
Similar to the Klemsrud case, Scientology sued ISPs for allowing users to post the Fishman affidavits to the World Wide Web. Scientology attempted to remove those particular critics and establish a precedent that would make other ISPs less liberal with their clients. If successful, then such lawsuits would make it considerably harder for critics to post freely (Grossman, 1995). Since access to Internet services is a fundamental resource that allows the countermovement to exist, these lawsuits are potentially devastating to Internet critics, and the outcry of Internet users is understandable. ...
One possible consequence of the difficulty of achieving certain goals on-line is that some movements that are successful in other arenas will fail in the electronic forum, while native Internet movements may have similar difficulty crossing over into wider society. ...
|
|
05-17-2008, 11:47 AM
Crusading Rates By Week or Month
Re: First large Internet conflict with CoS around 1995
Linear Mode
