byte301
Crusader
I wondered about that myself. If it is illegal most of the kids in my neighborhood would be facing hard time.
Seattle anon wins case against head of OSA of Seattle, Ann Pearce
- Thread starter Seatac
- Start date
I wondered about that myself. If it is illegal most of the kids in my neighborhood would be facing hard time.
Seatac
Patron
Doesn't threaten to injure, frighten or intimidate at all. If she says it, she's faking because that's pretty ridiculous as it states thusly: The feeling of fear must be one that a reasonable person in the same situation would experience under all the circumstances. So yeah. No go on that one. Without that, the rest of that particular code doesn't apply.
Absolutely none of those apply to this because none of those fits this situation. She can fake fear because of the clear cognition and Xenu, but it's not a feeling of fear that a reasonable person in the same situation would be under. So yeah, not applying to this situation.
1a and b) None of what he said constitutes lewd, lascivious or profane language. And he called at a reasonable hour. So yeah. No go.
1c) Didn't threaten Ann or her family. Big goose egg on that one.
2a and b) Never convicted of anything out of state.
So there you go. All three shattered like Ann's hopes of getting an Anon from protesting in front of the cult building. Any more codes or statutes you want to roll out?
DCAnon
Silver Meritorious Patron
alex
Gold Meritorious Patron
Lol, alex = alex wuori?
How is this different than any other day on /b/?
OT's can herd cats.
ThisFenceHurts
Patron with Honors
My vote is in support of Fluffy on this one. In the haste to point out that no one (basically Fluffy) should try to enforce their moral code on those in favor of the act, those in favor of the act have tried to enforce their moral code on Fluffy and those who agree with her.
You people seriously think it is funny or cool or lulzy or whatever to prank phone call people and upset them? That is bully behavior in my book. Or that of children masquerading as adults on a message board.
You people seriously think it is funny or cool or lulzy or whatever to prank phone call people and upset them? That is bully behavior in my book. Or that of children masquerading as adults on a message board.
Cherished
Silver Meritorious Patron
Damn it all! Fluffy would have got away with it if it hadn't been for you darned kids!
As it happens, I don't think it's funny, cool or lulzy to prank call people. I just think fluffy's reaction of "disgust" was over the top. That's all.
Iknowtoomuch
Gold Meritorious Patron
What a shocker.......
It's also now "illegal" to tell someone who's fat, that they are fat.
The calls that were made were only "illegal" because the person who recieved them got butt hurt.
If she's a real Scientologist where is her confront? Oh wait a real Scientologist attacks any critic, I forgot.
KnightVision
Gold Meritorious Patron
While it may not be a conscionable thing to do, it is a mainstay activity that the church does all the time... the amount of times that I've received calls or visits from church staff or public who were sent to 'handle me' ie 'shut me up' is deplorable. While it may not be what is considered 'a prank phone call'... it is nonetheless a 'prank' that is used to intimidate and harass... worse than a simple 'prank call'. The 'Church' pulls this shit in on themselves and instigates it by example.
DCAnon
Silver Meritorious Patron
Voltaire's Child
Fool on the Hill
The calls were repetitive and mentioned things specifically against the person's religion- eg: relating the OTIII story and the clear cog. It is against her religion to hear that and the anon obviously knew it or he wouldn't have left that ummm... "information". So yes, it was malicious harassment and was illegal. Being "butthurt" has nothing to do with it. Being "butthurt" does not necessarily make a thing legal or illegal in and of itself.
I'm very sure it's also against the law (in the US anyway) to remove a Moslem woman's veil or an orthodox Jewish woman's wig/scarf.
The only thing Ann didn't win was her (groundless) goal of having the anon kept away from the Seattle Org itself. She couldn't do that because we all have a constitutional right to assemble peacefully and that is why picketing is completely legal.
The judge specifically said he could not contact her and that if both were at/in the same location, that the anon would have to leave. Had the calls been legal, the judge would not have specified this.
I'm very sure it's also against the law (in the US anyway) to remove a Moslem woman's veil or an orthodox Jewish woman's wig/scarf.
The only thing Ann didn't win was her (groundless) goal of having the anon kept away from the Seattle Org itself. She couldn't do that because we all have a constitutional right to assemble peacefully and that is why picketing is completely legal.
The judge specifically said he could not contact her and that if both were at/in the same location, that the anon would have to leave. Had the calls been legal, the judge would not have specified this.
Voltaire's Child
Fool on the Hill
The turnabout is fair play rationalization is something I'm generally in sympathy with to a limited extent. However, it does not excuse illegal actions- old Charles Bronson movies notwithstanding.
Voltaire's Child
Fool on the Hill
I'd love to see an OT herd my cats. Hell, I'd love to see a real OT!
ITT people goingother people going
results=
I've herd of cats....have you?
Voltaire's Child
Fool on the Hill
Hi, Fencie,
Yes, it's not a question of my moral values or what I personally find repugnant and that I want to force those standards on others. Were that the case, I'd have mentioned and inveighed against the Anon's behavior at the Org itself but I'm not going to. It was all legal and he has the right to do what he did at the org and do it exactly the way he chose to do that. Do I find it distasteful? Yep. Does it matter at all or affect my wish to support his right to do it? No.
I'm making a point about the calls to the house because I don't want the cult handed any more ammo and, as I said, it's not legal and the judge said as much.
Yes, it's not a question of my moral values or what I personally find repugnant and that I want to force those standards on others. Were that the case, I'd have mentioned and inveighed against the Anon's behavior at the Org itself but I'm not going to. It was all legal and he has the right to do what he did at the org and do it exactly the way he chose to do that. Do I find it distasteful? Yep. Does it matter at all or affect my wish to support his right to do it? No.
I'm making a point about the calls to the house because I don't want the cult handed any more ammo and, as I said, it's not legal and the judge said as much.
Voltaire's Child
Fool on the Hill
It's not like anything you could say about me would matter or make sense- you're the one who told me that I don't like the anon/anti CofS movement when that wasn't the case. So you basically made something up and attributed it to me. That means your assessments regarding anything I or anyone else might say are questionable.
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861605174/disgust.html
I have to agree with Fluffy that Drifter (the anon caller) should not have engaged in this behavior. Making such telephone calls with the intent to harass or annoy (or recklessly creating a risk of harassing or annoying) is criminal in most states. It is generally not a serious offense (class c misdemeanor in my state) but, considering each call is a separate offense, the consequences can be serious. (We sometimes see hundreds of harassing calls from irate ex lovers, unsatisfied customers, etc).
It appears that Drifter's actions, while criminal, were on the less serious end of the spectrum and the court's admonition appropriately addressed the situation. Drifter admitted the foolishness of his actions and promised the court that it would not be repeated. This is the type of behavior that we should expect from a person that has done something wrong. I don't see this as a 'win' for either anonymous or the church.
Fluffy's point, which I agree with, is that in dealing with members of the church, we need to remind ourselves that they have no sense of humor. Things that are funny in the real world take on a life and death seriousness in the myopic vision of a scientologist. Most current scientologists will soon be ex scientologists and hopefully regain a sense of humor. Until that time, when protesting the church, we should try to stay well within the envelope of legal behavior.
It appears that Drifter's actions, while criminal, were on the less serious end of the spectrum and the court's admonition appropriately addressed the situation. Drifter admitted the foolishness of his actions and promised the court that it would not be repeated. This is the type of behavior that we should expect from a person that has done something wrong. I don't see this as a 'win' for either anonymous or the church.
Fluffy's point, which I agree with, is that in dealing with members of the church, we need to remind ourselves that they have no sense of humor. Things that are funny in the real world take on a life and death seriousness in the myopic vision of a scientologist. Most current scientologists will soon be ex scientologists and hopefully regain a sense of humor. Until that time, when protesting the church, we should try to stay well within the envelope of legal behavior.
alex
Gold Meritorious Patron
Perhaps a kinder attitude and a more productive one would be to think of the scientologists as having a different sense of humor rather than none.
What is funny to you may not be funny to someone from a different culture.
If your intent is altruistic, why engage in demonizing one culture?
DCAnon
Silver Meritorious Patron
lol
alex
Gold Meritorious Patron
Yes I know. I love that you see the irony.
