The Case of Scientology and its Internet Critics
http://www.ualberta.ca/~cjscopy/articles/peckham.html
New Dimensions of Social Movement/Countermovement Interaction:
Michael Peckham
Abstract The interaction between social movements and countermovements is a
key aspect of resource mobilization theory, yet researchers have devoted
comparatively little study to it. This article uses the conflict between
Scientology and its Internet critics as a case study in
movement/countermovement
interaction, concentrating on resource deprivation and damaging actions. The
uniqueness of Internet communication, however, requires adjustments to
traditional resource mobilization theory in order to theorize this conflict,
and this article proposes two refinements. First, the study of Internet
movement/countermovement interaction involves the displacement of the
normally-central role of the state in resource mobilization theory. Second,
arethinking of the definition of resources to include “virtual” resources
facilitates movement/countermovement analysis on the Internet.
Résumé: L’interaction entre les movements sociaux et les contre-mouvements
estau fondement même de la théorie sur la mobilisation des ressources, pourtant
les
chercheur-e-s y consacrent relativement peu d’attention. Cet article utilise
le
conflit entre la Scientologie et ses critiques internautes à titre d’étude
de
cas des interactions entre mouvements et contre-mouvements et s’intéresse
particulièrement à la privation des ressources ainsi qu’aux actions
préjudiciables. Cependant, le caractère unique de la communication
internaute
nécessite d’ajuster l’élaboration traditionnelle de la théorie sur la
mobilisation des ressources de manière à expliquer ce conflit particulier.
Le
présent article propose donc deux rafinements importants à la théorie.
D’abord,
l’étude de l’interaction internaute entre les mouvements et les
contre-mouvements nécessite un déplacement du rôle habituellement central
dévolu
à l’État dans la théorie sur la mobilisation des ressouces. Ensuite,
l’inclusion
des ressources “virtuelles” dans la définition même du concept de ressources
facilite l’analyse de l’Internet en termes de mouvements/contre-mouvements.
Introduction
In the 1970s, McCarthy and Zald (1973, 1977) formulated a new approach to
theorizing social movements and participation in political activism.
Resource
mobilization theory was a response to social psychological theories that
focused
on grievances and viewed movements as collective identities (Eyerman and
Jamison, 1991: 13; Stotik et al, 1994). The resource mobilization approach
contextualized people’s actions in a rational choice framework (Stotik et
al,
1994), and the theory postulated that much of a social movement’s activity
involves procuring and organizing resources in order to maintain its
viability
and effect social change (Zald and McCarthy, 1987). Researchers have used
resource mobilization to study all manner of social and political movements
such
as environmentalism (Kaminstein, 1995), “fathers’ rights” groups (Bertoia
and
Drakich, 1993; Coltrane and Hickman, 1992), religious movements (Bird and
Westley, 1988; Bromley, 1985), and abortion rights (Staggenborg, 1988).
A central but largely unexplored feature of resource mobilization theory is
its
treatment of opposition among social movements (Meyer and Staggenborg,
1996).2
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. The movement in favour
of
unrestricted access to abortion clinics, for example, faces opposition from
the
“pro-life” movement (Meyer and Staggenborg, 1996). Movement/countermovement
interaction involves one group mobilizing resources to meet its own agenda
while
at the same time countering the actions of the opposing movement. In its
original formulation, movement/countermovement interaction was largely
concerned
with influencing a government agency: forcing the state to pass legislation
either restricting or allowing a contentious point (Meyer and Staggenborg,
1996). For example, supporters of gun control legislation in the USA
regularly
lobby the government for stricter regulation of firearms. The National Rifle
Association, conversely, tries to block passage of gun control legislation
and
appeals to the state for protection of gun owners’ constitutional rights.
Although traditional resource mobilization placed emphasis on the
government-influencing activities of movement/countermovement interaction,
the
theory also implied that movements and countermovements would compete
directly
for resources. For instance, movements often attempt to garner favourable
public
opinion at the expense of opposing movements (Kent, 1990). Each side may
attempt
to convert members of its opposition and both movements and countermovements
may
compete for recruitment of unaffiliated bystanders. Movement/countermovement
interaction, then, takes place on two fronts: appeal to the state or other
governing body; and direct competition for resources.
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).
Despite the formulation of movement/countermovement interaction in resource
mobilization theory, 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. Only a few sociologists have
focused on movement/countermovement interaction, most notably Kent (1990),
who
discussed attempts of competing religious groups to deprive each other of
resources through the rhetoric of deviance labeling. While this and other
studies (Groch, 1994; Jasper and Poulsen, 1993; Pichardo, 1995) provide some
insight into movement/countermovement interaction, Meyer and Staggenborg
(1996)
argue that this potentially rich area of investigation is under-studied.
Consequently, Meyer and Staggenborg (1996: 1629) invite scholars to broaden
the
investigation of movement / countermovement interaction: “Because most
theoretical work on social movements focuses on movement challenges to the
state, the phenomenon of ongoing interactions between opposing movements
demands
a revision and extension of our theories of social movements and social
change.”
In particular, they argue that more work needs to be done regarding
cross-national, longitudinal, and comparative studies of
movement/countermovement interaction. Cross-national studies would displace
the
central role of the state in usual approaches to movement/countermovement
study,
while longitudinal studies would enhance our understanding of ongoing
movement/countermovement interaction.
To further the investigation of movement/countermovement interaction, Meyer
and
Staggenborg (1996: 1637) provide thirteen propositions or hypotheses that
seem
to fit existing studies of movements and countermovements, but which require
considerably more research. These propositions cover the preconditions for
movement/countermovement conflict (e.g., divided government authority,
initial
signs of movement success), and the specific contingencies of
movement/countermovement interaction (e.g., “Mass media coverage encourages
the
emergence of a countermovement as journalists seek out opposing interests in
response to movement claims” (Meyer and Staggenborg, 1996: 1645)). They warn
that not all of the propositions will be present in a particular conflict,
but
the general rules provide a framework within which to expand the study of
movement/countermovement interaction.
The present article uses Meyer and Staggenborg as a starting point for
investigation of a particular conflict: Scientology and its opposition on
the
Internet. 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.
The Internet and Resource Mobilization
In order to apply movement/countermovement interaction theory to a conflict
that
has been played out predominantly on the Internet, I propose two adjustments
to
current movement/countermovement interaction thinking. First, the radical
democracy and lack of cohesive authority on the Internet alters
movement/countermovement interaction in regard to appeals to the state.
Second,
and perhaps most important, utilizing resource mobilization to examine an
Internet conflict requires conceptual and definitional changes to what
traditional resource mobilization theory means by “resources.”
According to some observers, one of the defining characteristics of the
Internet
is its lack of any form of cohesive governing body. Although numerous
government
agencies worldwide have tried to place regulations on certain Internet
activity
(e.g., pornography, the Communications Decency Act (CDA) in the USA (see
EFF,
1996b, 1997)), most legislation is either unenforceable or ignored. 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.
Additionally, many Internet users see themselves as constituting a community
that does not recognize external authorities (Kling, 1996; Shade, 1996). In
this
community, attempts to regulate from outside meet with resounding disfavor,
as
shown in the uproar over the CDA. The worldwide scope of the Internet,
coupled
with the difficulties of regulating such complex technology, make it nearly
impossible for a single government to regulate the entire network.
Nevertheless,
the primary impediment to effective regulation of the Internet probably is
the
attitude of Internet users themselves.
Using resource mobilization as a framework for discussing
movement/countermovement conflict on the Internet requires displacement of
the
centrality of the role of the state. In traditional movement/countermovement
interaction, the government plays the role of arbiter, and each side of the
dispute attempts to enact social change through influencing government
legislation. The Internet’s lack of such an authority, however, means that
movement/countermovement interaction is necessarily direct. 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.
Moreover, the radical democracy of the Internet places more importance on
popular opinion and attempts to sway disinterested bystanders. Since the
real
authority of the Internet (in perception, certainly) lies in the strength of
numbers and popular appeals, the struggle for popular legitimacy is more
important for on-line movement/countermovement conflict than lobbying a
government for legislation. If a movement is to meet its goals on the
Internet,
then it must appeal to the only real authority extant: Internet users.
The same technology that makes external control of the Internet so difficult
also has a leveling effect on resources that, in other contexts, would tend
to
advantage or disadvantage a movement against its opponents. 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). In
terms
of resource mobilization, traditional resources that normally would give one
group an advantage in movement/countermovement interaction may be much less
important.
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.
Virtual Resources
While resource mobilization theory normally addresses tangible economic or
physical resources (e.g., money, recruits), examining
movement/countermovement
interaction on the Internet requires an expansion of the definition of
“resources.” The term “virtual resources” as I define it refers to resources
that have no intrinsic value and little meaning outside the context of
on-line
activity, yet are highly valued by Internet users. These are resources whose
worth is not measurable in terms of monetary value, but nonetheless have
real
consequences. Recognizing the existence of virtual resources is important in
part because the internal economy of the Internet blurs common notions of
production, capital, and goods values (Interrogate the Internet, 1996: 128).
In
the on-line environment, the ability of a movement to take action does not
necessarily require money or elite voices, but rather, as we shall see, it
requires a mobilization of resources that primarily have value only to
Internet
users.
Among the virtual resources mobilized on the Internet, the two most
important to
the Scientology/Internet critics conflict are “bandwidth” and “anonymity.”
Bandwidth is a term that normally refers to the amount of information that
moves
through a particular transmission medium at a time (Baker, 1995: 205).3 For
example, fibre optic cables can carry more electronic information than
copper
wire, and thus have wider bandwidth. On the Internet, bandwidth is a slang
term
for the total amount of information space available in a particular forum.
Users
of Usenet often accuse each other of “wasting bandwidth”; in other words,
using
informational space for frivolous or wasteful purposes (McLaughlin et al,
1995:
98). 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. A high signal to
noise
ratio signifies an efficient use of bandwidth, whereas a low ratio indicates
that useful material makes up only a small proportion of the total amount of
information.
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). Since there is no face-to-face interaction on the
Internet,4 participants can divorce their everyday identities from
conversation
and, in some cases, adopt entirely new personae on-line (Baym, 1995: 154).
The
use of anonymous re-mailers (utilities that allow one to send e-mail
anonymously) amplifies this removal of identification, and participants now
can
conceal their real names, organizational affiliations, Internet Service
Provider, and location. Many users utilize these services to engage in
controversial activities such as the spread of non-mainstream sexual
materials,
and anonymity ensures that the users do not ruin their reputations or become
blacklisted. “Defenders of anonymous re-mailers claimed they made it easier
to
talk freely about sensitive subjects such as sexual abuse, and protected
users
from reprisals from repressive regimes” (Brown, 1996: 10). In some cases,
people
use anonymity as a shield for illegal activities such as posting threats,
copyrighted material, or making libelous statements about others.
Movement and Countermovement: Scientology5 and its Internet Critics
The conflict between Internet users and the Scientology movement is one of
the
most controversial topics in current discussions about computer
communication.
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 Many of
the
media have struggled to explain the conflict, usually concentrating on the
moral
and ethical issues that it raises. This article critically examines the
conflict
without resorting to value judgements about the morality of the
participants’
actions. Instead, it argues that a fruitful way of contextualizing and
explaining the conflict is to investigate the role of resources.
In the conflict between Scientology and Internet users, Scientology is a
social
movement that is countered by an organized group of critics on the Internet.
Founded in the 1950s by science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology
purportedly is “an applied religious philosophy” that comprises “the study
and
handling of the spirit in relationship to itself, universes and another
life”
(Church of Scientology International, 1993[1978]: 566). Sufficient precedent
exists for the identification of Scientology as a social movement7 (see
Kent,
Forthcoming; Hall, 1998), but the characterization of Internet critics as a
countermovement requires further explication.
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).
Many good overviews of the conflict between Scientology and the Internet
already
exist (see Grossman, 1995; Heldal-Lund, 1997; Holmes, 1995; Newman, 1996),
so
here a brief outline of the events should suffice. 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. My purpose in presenting this admittedly sketchy
history is
to provide readers with a sense of the issues at stake. The above account,
however, should provide an adequate foundation for the discussion that
follows,
and this paper will elaborate upon some of the events when necessary.
The Potential Deprivation of Scientology Resources
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. These activities
by
Internet users are not so much competition for the use of resources, but
rather
an attempt to deprive Scientology of money, recruits, and access to what
resource mobilization theory calls the bystander public.14
The dissemination of Scientology documents on Usenet and the World Wide Web
was
the central catalyst to many of Scientology’s subsequent actions against
Internet users (Grossman, 1995). Citing the disputed documents as copyright
and
trade secret violations (Goodman, 1996a), organization representatives have
engaged in a series of actions designed to limit damages to Scientology
resources.
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.
According to some commentators, Scientology has a history of profit-driven
publication (Lamont, 1986; Miller, 1987). Allegations that Hubbard and the
organization valued sales above all else trace back to the early days of
Dianetics, the precursor to Scientology15 (Atack, 1990: iv; Gardner, 1952:
280),
and indications exist that sales of written material are still very
lucrative
for Scientology (Atack, 1990: 3). Hubbard was a prolific writer, both in his
science fiction career and his tenure as a supposed religious leader, and
official Scientology publications comprise hundreds of volumes. The
advertisements in the 1992 reprint of Dianetics: The Modern Science of
Mental
Health encourage readers to buy fifty-six other publications, including
audio
and video tapes.16 Clearly, then, Scientology and Dianetics materials are
sources of income.
While Scientology does not explicitly state that it is concerned about a
direct
loss of revenue, the special Internet issue of Freedom17 contains numerous
statements that indicate that fear of a potential reduction in book sales
contributes to Scientology’s attacks on Internet users. The central theme to
the
Freedom issue is that copyright violation of any kind will spoil the
Internet by
prompting government regulations, but Freedom also makes numerous analogies
to
people whose livelihood is threatened by the posting of copyrighted
materials:
This problem has emerged with alarming frequency. In Boston, a professor and
book critic found many of his reviews getting posted and used without his
knowledge — until after the fact. Such postings potentially denied him any
livelihood he may have been able to make from his own works.
A software developer in San Jose, California, found new and unreleased
programs
being pilfered from computer files by pirates who broke in through the
Internet
on a Sunday afternoon; though he quickly pulled the plug, more than enough
programs had been stolen to eat up his paycheck (Freedom, 1996: World Wide
Web
page).
The tacit implication in examples such as these is that copyright violation
can
financially disadvantage Scientology, as it does the software developer and
the
book reviewer.
The loss of potential sales revenue is a key factor to the debate over
copyrighted materials, but Scientology also has taken action against users
who
posted short excerpts that are allowable under “Fair Use” legislation in the
United States (Post, 1996). Furthermore, Scientology officials have made
attempts to halt the use of the terms “Scientology” and “Dianetics” (Newman,
1996). This protectionism indicates that Scientology is not only concerned
with
lost book sales, but it is trying to control what people can say about
Scientology in any context.
Scientology’s sales of books and other materials are linked closely to a
stratified system of courses, and the organization “possesses an ‘enrollment
economy’” (Wallis, 1976: 157). As members move through the levels of
Scientology
training, they must take and pass various courses, each with its own set of
associated costs (Atack, 1990: iv; Ebner, 1996; Lamont, 1986). 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.
The posting of “sacred” documents on the Internet affects the revenue
potential
of stratified courses in several ways. First, since such posts provide a
free-of-charge source for this information, prospective course attendees are
less likely to follow the established path of progression, leading to a
disruption of the organization’s revenue structure. Second, if people can
obtain
costly, higher-level information immediately, then there is little incentive
to
devote years of their lives (and large amounts of money) to the levels
leading
up to the information. In other words, the spread of sacred texts encourages
people to abandon the costly, time-consuming path through the various levels
of
the organization. The Internet reaches millions of people all over the
world,
and conceivably Scientology could lose years of revenue in the time it takes
to
download a copyrighted document over an ISP.
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. Understanding what I call the system of
“stratified revelation” characteristic of Scientology helps to explain how
exposure could lead to defection.
Each level of progression through Scientology involves a series of courses
and
auditing sessions (Wallis, 1976). Scientology keeps these levels closely
guarded, and the information attendant at each level remains secret to those
at
other organizational levels. The longer members are a part of the
organization
and the farther they progress in the organizational structure, the more
doctrine
and revelation to which they are privy. This form of stratified revelation
is
common among course-driven alternative religions and occult groups, as well
as
some quasi-religions such as Freemasonry (see Pike, 1920[1871,1906];
Regardie,
1990). It also serves as a method of controlled socialization, requiring
participants to accept and internalize the revelations of the present level
before moving on to the next doctrinal level. This procedure maintains
commitment through investment of time and resources (see McGuire,
1987[1981]:
72–79), and it prepares members for the particulars of the next level of
revelation. Thus, by the time members have reached the highest levels of the
organization, they have the socialized preparation that they need to accept
the
teachings of the successive level.
In many religious groups, leaders stress that adherents must ascend through
the
levels of revelation in sequence to maintain the faith of followers (see
Persinger et al, 1980; Wallis, 1976: 157–189). Scientology clearly uses this
sequential model:
[T]he Church of Scientology’s practice of reserving a portion of its
scriptures
for those who have attained specified levels of spiritual advancement has
well-established precedents in established religions . . . The Church of
Scientology holds that a fraction of its scriptures are only to be viewed by
those who have completed certain prior steps of religious study and
counseling
(Goodman, 1996a: 19).
Scientology officials insist that dire consequences would befall the
unprepared,
were they to see revelations prematurely. Hubbard himself extended the
ramifications of unprepared exposure to include physical well-being, and
“anyone
trying to absorb [OT-III]19 without [L. Ron Hubbard]’s guiding light would
[allegedly] die of pneumonia” (Lamont, 1986: 50). The preceding levels, OT-I
and
OT-II, are preparatory, and without such training and experience,
individuals
cannot cope with the information contained in revelation.
Some critics and former members assert that the information in the OT levels
is
“gobbledygook” (Brown, 1996: 10), and is “science-fiction garbage” (Ebner,
1996:
43). This “bizarre cosmology” (Bingham, 1996) likely would seem outrageous
to
anyone not prepared by years of indoctrination. Some of the Internet critics
who
posted higher-level doctrine claim that they did so in order to show people
how
bizarre Scientology beliefs can be (Bingham, 1996; Grossman, 1995). If,
however,
participants have taken the proper steps in the proper order, then they are
ready for these “outrageous” beliefs and thus do not abandon the path.
Additionally, Hubbard’s writing may tend to discourage newcomers, as
Robinson
(1995) explains:
[T]o a person who has not been trained in the communications technology of
Scientology(tm), L. Ron Hubbard’s style of writing may seem poorly
structured,
tedious, repetitive, and generally unpleasant to read. As a result, many
persons
who have obtained copies have found themselves unable to persevere through
the
entire material.
For an individual simply interested in the therapeutic promises of Dianetics
—
promises nominally couched in rational, scientific terms — higher-level
doctrine
may seem irrational and even fanatical. Thus, the wide dissemination of
higher-level materials could cost Scientology adherents as recent recruits,
not
yet properly prepared, find the materials too “outrageous” for belief.
The second primary way that the Internet has threatened Scientology
resources is
through the dissemination of unfavorable information about the organization.
Former members, counter-cult groups, and other critics use Usenet and the
World
Wide Web as venues to sway members away from Scientology and, more
importantly,
mobilize the bystander public in favour of the Internet critics. Many a.r.s.
posters who are critical of the organization want “to alert people to the
dangers” of Scientology (Dennis Erlich, quoted in Langan, 1995: 12). The
radical
democracy and resource-leveling effects of the Internet mean that such
criticism
instantly reaches a global audience and give critics a voice equal to that
of
the much wealthier Scientology movement.
Alt.religion.scientology primarily is a forum for voicing anti-Scientology
sentiments (Goodman, 1996a). The most damaging criticisms come from former
members who describe their experiences in the organization, reveal
higher-level
cosmology, and deconstruct Hubbard’s teachings. Allegations of coercion,
mind-control, and other reputedly deplorable Scientology actions are common
on
a.r.s. (Holmes, 1995). Additionally, a.r.s. participants regularly discuss
Scientology’s attempts to silence its critics, providing bad publicity. Many
commentators feel that bad publicity is the primary motivating factor for
Scientology’s actions against Internet critics.
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).
Critical posts on a.r.s., whether from ex-members or recent critics, serve
as
both a warning for disinterested parties to avoid Scientology and an
enticement
to support the Internet critics.
The third major resource-related activity in the conflict on the Internet is
less direct, but it is nonetheless an important aspect in the
countermovement’s
attempts to deprive Scientology of resources. 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. As Kent (1990) discusses,
countermovements often use deviance labeling to increase tension between
religious groups and wider society. Through Internet-facilitated
organization,
the countermovement of critics participates in activities that, if
successful,
would lead to a negative labeling of 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.
In summary, if one views Scientology as a social movement (with many
affiliated
social movement organizations) and the a.r.s. critics as a countermovement,
then
it is evident that the actions of Internet users directly affect Scientology
resources. Posting copyrighted materials deprives Scientology of revenue,
both
from sales and reduced enrollment in courses. Also, the free distribution of
sacred documents can deprive Scientology of potential recruits and
discourage
recent initiates from continuing on in the organization. The countermovement
also attracts members from the bystander public and sways public opinion
through
on-line criticism as well as Internet-organized events.
The Resource Mobilization Consequences of “Rights and Freedoms” Arguments
Much of the conflict between Scientology and Internet critics revolves
around a
perceived clash between certain rights and freedoms. Numerous other social
movements have mobilized the rhetoric of rights in attempts to spur social
change. For example, one group attempted to change family laws by invoking
“fathers’ rights” rhetoric, arguing that fathers have a right to equal
treatment
in divorce hearings and custody disputes (Bertoia and Drakich, 1993: 592;
Coltrane and Hickman, 1992). The general approach of mobilizing rights
rhetoric
seems to be an appeal to the most immutable perceived laws: to deny someone
“rights” or “freedoms” is anathema to most people in democratic societies
(Howard, 1994). Thus, by implying that a particular action is a right, the
rhetoric frames the debate in very sober, moralistic terms.
Additionally, the perception that rights and freedoms are at stake in the
Scientology debate broadens the range of potentially interested parties.
Meyer
and Staggenborg (1996: 1639) state as one of their propositions that
contentious
issues can help sustain movement/countermovement conflict: “The likelihood
that
opposition to a movement will take the form of a sustained countermovement
is
directly related to the opposition’s ability to portray the conflict as one
that
entails larger value cleavages in society.” The countermovement of Internet
critics argue that certain highly valued rights are at stake.
Internet users widely view Scientology’s actions as attacks on freedom of
speech
and freedom of expression (EFF, 1996a; Grossman, 1995; Newman, 1996).
Conversely, Scientology portrays the conflict as a threat to freedom of
religion
(Freedom, 1996; Goodman, 1996a, 1996b; Grossman, 1995), although Scientology
also has drawn upon the freedom of speech argument to a lesser extent (see
Freedom, 1996). 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.
While I remain neutral regarding the veracity of the freedom arguments, I
feel
obliged to point out that critics have accused Scientology of cynically
invoking
the freedom of religion argument as a shield from criticism (Newman, 1996;
Bingham, 1996). Scientology has a history of claiming religious persecution
(see
Atack, 1990; Lamont, 1986), and on various occasions the organization has
set up
committees and task forces to combat “religious discrimination.” Some
commentators argue that Hubbard created the religion of Scientology purely
to
benefit from the constitutional protection religious groups receive in the
United States (Miller, 1987: 220). Regardless of whether such appeals to
religious freedom are cynical, Scientology’s invocation of the argument in
the
Internet conflict should not be surprising, given the organization’s history
of
such invocations in other contexts.
The anti-Scientology community on the Internet has garnered a great deal of
support from third parties. 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). While Scientology maintains that its actions are a
response to “copyright terrorism” on the Internet (Freedom, 1996), a large
group
of Internet users view the conflict as a series of rights violations, both
attempted and committed. 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.
Some Internet critics, previously disinterested in the issues debated on
a.r.s.,
are now prominent posters. This kind of activity also entails a certain
risk,
since Scientology has sued and threatened suit against numerous Internet
critics
(Grossman, 1995; Newman, 1996). Some of the most frequent posters to a.r.s.
are
not former members of Scientology, but rather they are individuals who see
Scientology as a threat to the freedom of Internet users. By joining the
countermovement, these formerly disinterested parties are now showing the
solidarity of Internet-supporters. In this way, the contextualization of the
dispute as a fight to maintain freedom has won over individual members of
the
bystander public, as well as gained allies from other Internet-supporting
social
movement organizations.
Additionally, the anti-Scientology users have the support of several other
social movement organizations, all working on the defence of rights and
freedoms
on the Internet. 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. Like many of the individuals involved in a.r.s., these
organizations are not anti- Scientology social movements, but rather they
are
pro-Internet social movement organizations that have mobilized in response
to
the apparent threat to freedom of speech on the Internet.
Scientology’s portrayal of the conflict is that Internet critics — through
the
dissemination of sacred doctrine and the spreading of negative information —
are
attempting to impede the freedom of the organization and Scientologists to
practice their religion (Goodman, 1996a; Freedom, 1996). Scientology charges
that the anti-Scientology Internet users are not simply criticizing the
organization, but are assaulting religion as a whole. Scientologists
routinely
call critics anti-religious bigots, atheists, and religious persecutors:
[Alt.religion.scientology] is really a forum for a handful of individuals to
engage in bigoted attacks upon the Church of Scientology and its
parishioners .
. . Ninety-nine point nine percent of them [posts to the group] are no more
criticism than it is criticism to abuse a black by calling him ‘nigger’ or a
Jew
by labeling him a ‘kike’ (Goodman, 1996a: 18).
Critics, the Scientologists say, also distort and demonize the movement’s
message, providing an unfavorable view of Scientology to outsiders.
Scientology
charges that Internet critics spread harsh criticism and misinformation in
an
attempt to bring down the organization and ridicule its members.
By invoking the religious freedom argument, Scientology appeals to a number
of
other groups that are concerned with the persecution of religion. Many
political
and social groups lobby against certain Internet activities. The Simon
Wiesenthal Center, for example, opposes anti-Semitic hate speech and
holocaust
denials on the Internet.20 The controversy over hate speech has pitted the
Simon
Wiesenthal center against the EFF on certain free speech issues, and
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.
Scientology’s tactic of declaring criticism “religious persecution” is not
new,
nor is it peculiar to the Internet conflict. In the past, Scientology’s
invocation of the freedom of religion argument has brought reluctant allies
into
Scientology’s camp. For example, during a series of lawsuits against the
organization dating back to 1977 (Lamont, 1989: 144), Scientology gained the
support of a number of conservative Christian groups who felt that suing a
religious organization was tantamount to religious persecution. These
Christian
groups, which normally oppose Scientology as a “cult,” nonetheless saw that
a
legal victory for Scientology’s opponents would set a dangerous precedent
for
litigation against religious groups. The case, which the judge eventually
dismissed as a mistrial, is a good example of how Scientology obtained help
from
other social movements with dissimilar doctrine but a similar stake in the
outcome of the case.
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.
Virtual Resources: Scientology’s Attempts to Deprive the Internet Critics of
Resources
Internet critics pose a threat to Scientology resources, both in terms of
economics and adherents. In response, Scientology moved to reduce or
eliminate
this challenge to its resources, primarily by attempting to inflict damage
upon
valued Internet resources. 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
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.
Newsgroups consist of messages that users post to a virtual bulletin board,
and
the messages are then available to anyone with access to the newsgroup.
Users
can respond to posted messages in the group, and dialogues on certain topics
form in discussions called “threads” (McLaughlin et al, 1995: 92).
Scientology has tried to gain control of a.r.s. bandwidth in a number of
ways.
Since a.r.s. is the primary source of the Internet critics’ threat to
Scientology resources (the World Wide Web is the second greatest source), it
is
not surprising that bandwidth on the newsgroup is a valued resource. If the
critics control most of the informational space (or, more appropriately, are
allowed to use it without constraints), then Scientology potentially loses
resources as outlined above. Conversely, Scientology can protect its
resources
by gaining control of or placing restrictions on a.r.s. bandwidth.
Scientology
has attempted to control this valuable resource 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). If Usenet is analogous to a bulletin board, then Scientology
essentially
tried to take up as much space on the board as possible, making the critics’
posts seem like a small minority. 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). For a period in 1995, critics allege,
Scientology representatives “attempted to snow the a.r.s. newsgroup under
with
positive posts” (Bingham, 1996). Whether or not the document was genuine,
Scientologists seemed to have adopted the strategy it outlined.
Scientology’s
“flooding” of a.r.s. continued until late 1995.
The probable purpose of Scientology’s voluminous posting was to gain control
of
a.r.s. bandwidth. If successful, then controlling bandwidth in this way
would
have led to a reduction to the threat to Scientology resources. Domination
of
bandwidth can have this effect in several ways. 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. The informational value of a newsgroup is closely
linked to the amount of useful information that users can glean from a
newsgroup
as compared with the number of posts one has to scan. 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.
Scientology’s strategy, then, was to lower the signal to noise ratio so that
the
large time investment would discourage critics from participating. Thus,
even if
control of bandwidth did not help Scientology gain resources (e.g.,
recruits),
the actions would have soured a.r.s. for critics.
Voluminous posting and a low signal to noise ratio also have implications
for
physical resources such as data storage space and ISP charges. Different
news
software accesses Usenet posts in different ways, but every post takes up
storage space and requires data transfers. For example, many ISPs copy
Usenet
messages from all over the world so that users of the service can access the
messages locally and with a minimum of delay. Many news programs must
download a
list of authors and subjects from the Internet Service Provider before a
user
can browse the list. Thus, the number of messages in a newsgroup determines
the
amount of storage space it takes up and the time it takes to download. Some
ISPs
do not carry newsgroups that have a high volume of posts.22 The volume and
signal to noise ratio of a.r.s. therefore affect the number of users who can
access it. If a.r.s. is too large, then some ISPs may not support it, and if
the
signal to noise ratio is too low, then individuals may find that the
information
the newsgroup contains is not worth the time it takes to download.
Critics allege that, along with filling the newsgroups with stories of
“wins,”
Scientology attempted to lower the signal to noise ratio in other ways
(Newman,
1996). Occasionally posts appear on a.r.s. that purport to be from prominent
critics, but are actually forgeries (Newman, 1996). Critics argue that
Scientology representatives forged posts to discredit prominent critics
while at
the same time filling the newsgroup with noise. Off-topic posts frequently
appear on a.r.s., and Scientology supporters regularly posted messages about
such topics as the Cult Awareness Network23 (CAN) and the alleged evils of
psychiatry, Scientology’s self-identified enemy (Newman, 1996). These posts
lower the signal to noise ratio and potentially hamper the efficacy of the
newsgroup as a critics’ forum.
Contention for bandwidth is competition for a virtual resource — a
competition
that has implications for physical resources. Scientology’s attempts to
control
a.r.s. bandwidth are primarily attempts to deprive critics of resources.
Furthermore, Scientology could gain recruits from the bystander public if
a.r.s.
contained mostly positive messages. 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.
As well as flooding the a.r.s. with positive posts, Scientology also engaged
in
attempts to block critics’ posts (Newman, 1996; Grossman, 1995). 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. The “Cancelbunnies” and
“Cancelpoodles” deleted critics’ posts from a.r.s., purportedly to curtail
the
dissemination of copyrighted materials. Many Internet users felt that the
cancellation attempts were the most serious infringement on freedom of
speech on
the Internet (Bingham, 1996; Holmes, 1995). 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.
The forged cancels damaged the ability of individuals to post critical
information. Scientology also attempted to deprive certain critics of
bandwidth
through less selective means, and some a.r.s. posters lost access to the
Internet entirely (Grossman, 1995). 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.
Another example of Scientology’s desire to control bandwidth is the
attempted
removal of a.r.s. from Usenet. Since a.r.s. began as and continues to be a
critics’ forum (Goodman, 1996a), Scientology may prefer to destroy the
newsgroup
rather than attempting to control it. As a resource, bandwidth is more
valuable
to Internet critics than it is to Scientology. Therefore, if Scientology
cannot
control it through voluminous posting and silencing individual critics, then
the
organization could protect its resources by depriving Internet critics of
the
forum.
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.
Anonymity
Many of the copyrighted materials first appeared on a.r.s. through anonymous
sources, and some of Scientology’s harshest critics use anonymous re-mailers
as
a way to spread unfavorable information about Scientology without fear of
reprisal. Arguably, Scientology would benefit if anonymity ceased to exist
on
the Internet, and the evidence shows that Scientology has tried to deprive
Internet critics of this valuable resource (Sobel, 1995: 8). Scientology,
however, claims that anonymity is threatening to destroy the freedom of the
Internet, and the organization argues that the abuse of copyright
overshadows
the positive uses of anonymity.
The availability of anonymous services is potentially damaging to
Scientology in
a number of ways. 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. Some Internet users allege that they have received
threatening messages even though they have not posted copyrighted materials
(Newman, 1996). Given Scientology’s history of using litigation to silence
opponents (Atack, 1990; Miller, 1987; Wallis, 1976), fear of legal action
among
Internet critics is warranted. 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.
Although most Internet boosters do not support copyright infringement, they
nonetheless contend that the benefits of anonymous services far outweigh the
undesirable consequences of a few deviants (Sobel, 1995: 8). Despite
Scientology’s public statements that the organization is interested only in
curtailing illegal uses of anonymous servers (see Lewis, 1996), many
Internet
critics see any attempt at restriction as a threat to anonymity’s survival.
Consequently, for Internet supporters, anonymity must weather what they see
as
Scientology’s attacks. Given Internet users’ response to the attack on
anonymity, access to anonymous services is clearly an important resource — a
resource whose existence just happens to facilitate deprivation of
Scientology
resources.
Some evidence suggests that Scientology’s attempts to disrupt anonymous
services
are in reality attempts to quell all types of criticism and not just
copyright
infringement (Newman, 1996). Scientology has a long history of intimidating
and
harassing critics, and anonymity makes it difficult to target opponents on
the
Internet:
An aspect of particular fear to them seems to be the anonymous re-mailers
and I
think you can see why. Kinda [sic] hard to frame a person that [sic] could
be
anyone anywhere on the entire planet. It’s not easy to quote from an
ex-member’s
‘confidential’ files without knowing which file to pull.24 Think of the
frustration of having somebody still in Scientology that [sic] can bring up
serious allegations without [Scientology] being able to even declare them
[sic]
a ‘Suppressive Person’ (Bingham, 1996).
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.
Scientology’s approach to anonymity is a form of resource deprivation. In
order
to curtail attacks on Scientology resources (as described above),
Scientology
has tried to deprive Internet users of a valuable resource. Additionally,
anonymity is also a resource that critics can mobilize against Scientology
resources. Deprivation, therefore, both harms Internet users (a form of
retaliation by Scientology) and weakens the Internet critics’ ability to
threaten Scientology resources.
Seizure of Materials
The final type of resource restriction/deprivation that I will discuss here
is
perhaps the most extreme: the seizure of materials from and lawsuits against
Internet critics. Although these actions affect individuals rather than the
critical community as a whole, the raids on Dennis Erlich, Arnaldo Lerma,
and
FACTnet are the most controversial events in the conflict between
Scientology
and Internet critics. Leaving aside the legal and constitutional aspects of
the
raids, the seizure of materials and subsequent litigation have a number of
implications for the mobilization of resources.25
First, Scientology’s seizure of materials deprived the individuals involved
of
certain resources essential to their criticism. 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. In the opinion of Scientology officials, the raids merely halted
illegal activity that was damaging to the organization (Freedom, 1996;
Goodman,
1996a). To Internet users, however, the raids were an attempt to coerce
Internet
critics into silence — Erlich and Lerma directly, and other critics through
the
deterrent effect (Newman, 1996). While Scientology cannot sue every single
critic, a few high-profile cases potentially could dissuade others from
criticism (Bingham, 1996).
In addition to the individual deprivation of resources, the raids and
subsequent
litigation put pressure on Internet Service Providers to censure the
activities
of their clients. Tom Klemsrud and Netcom faced lawsuits that would
essentially
hold them responsible for their clients’ actions (Grossman, 1995). Thus, if
ISPs
were held responsible, then they would be in the position of policing the
Internet and would have to cut off service to those who offend Scientology
(Langan, 1995). In order to avoid lawsuits, ISPs would have to be very
cautious
about allowing access to a.r.s., and any complaint by Scientology would
require
attention lest the ISP be subject to legal action.
Internet Service Providers also were implicated in Scientology’s attempts to
remove certain material from the World Wide Web (Langan 1995; Times, 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.
As I have shown, Scientology’s actions are attempts to curtail the threat to
its
resources by attacking Internet resources. Scientology has tried to dominate
bandwidth, deprive Internet critics of access to services, and eliminate
anonymity on the Internet. Also, Scientology lawsuits both deprive critics
of
resources and deter other people from becoming critics. Thus, I contend that
Scientology’s actions are attacks on the countermovement’s assets, in an
attempt
to reduce the Internet’s capacity to deprive Scientology of its resources.
Conclusion
Some theorists concerned with the Internet assert that the new medium
necessitates an almost total overthrow of existing social theory. For
example,
Nguyen and Alexander (1996: 99), writing about political analysis in
cyberspace,
state:
The field of study has no recognizable boundaries or parameters within which
social scientists could use traditional approaches to formulate criteria for
analysis. A manic frenzy characterizes changes in the electronic world, and
thus
analysis often reduces to piecemeal descriptions of segregated facets of the
whole. This phenomenon’s components operate in ways that render obsolescent
[sic] all previously analysable and easily understandable relationships.
Such statements imply that one cannot understand the Internet in any
pre-existing terms, and that using traditional social thought to theorize
the
Internet is a fool’s errand. The rules have changed too much, the
traditional
boundaries no longer exist, and a wholly new approach is necessary.
The argument in the present study was an attempt to adjust a pre-existing
social
theory to a conflict that took place mostly in a virtual space. It shows
that,
in this case, a particular Internet debate is understandable in terms of
traditional theory. The new medium, however, did require some modification
to
resource mobilization theory.
One such modification involved displacing the role of the state in
movement/countermovement interaction. Although Meyer and Staggenborg (1996)
call
for studies that place less emphasis on movement/state contact, the Internet
setting of the Scientology dispute renders the issue irrelevant. Since there
is
no real state authority on-line, movements must make appeal to the mass of
Internet users and direct much of their action toward countering the
opposing
movement. The lack of a state authority and the radical democracy in this
venue
raises some complicated questions for further examination of social
movements
on-line: how does one measure the success of a movement when there is no
record
of legislative victories and losses to examine? How can one assess the goals
of
a movement when the movement has no clear leadership itself?27
Furthermore, the same technology that encourages democracy on-line also
makes it
next to impossible for a movement such as the anti-pornography lobby to
effectively fulfill any part of its agenda. While the group may force the
implementation of anti-pornography legislation in one nation, such
restrictions
hardly effect the worldwide distribution of pornography. If, as Meyer and
Staggenborg (1996: 1647) argue, both sides of a movement/countermovement
dispute
require victories for continued existence, then how can an on-line movement
sustain itself when the medium essentially precludes victories for certain
agendas? 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. With additional research it
eventually may be possible to predict which movements are best suited for
particular venues.
The second modification of resource mobilization that I introduced here is
the
concept of virtual resources. What is most important here, I argue, is that
resource mobilization must take into account the context of
movement/countermovement interaction in order to maintain effectiveness as
an
analytical tool. In other words, the worth of various resources may be
relative:
on-line, “bandwidth” is crucial, but in most other discussions it is
meaningless. In the abortion conflict, for example, access to clinics and
even
space around buildings is a contended resource but one that has little
meaning
in other movement/countermovement disputes. The Internet conflict would seem
to
indicate that future work that examines movement/countermovement interaction
must recognize the context-specificity of resource values, especially when
wider
economic issues have less importance in a particular arena.
Without a doubt, the Internet is a rich source of topics for study in
movement/countermovement interaction. In addition to native on-line
movements
(e.g., the Electronic Frontiers Foundation, Internet critics of
Scientology),
many pre-existing movements have taken their struggles to the Internet. The
study of social movements, therefore, should be a fruitful part of our
attempt
to understand and theorize the Internet.
References
Atack, Jon
1990 A Piece of Blue Sky: Scientology, Dianetics, and L. Ron Hubbard
Exposed.
New York: Lyle Stuart.
Bainbridge, William Sims, and Rodney Stark
1980 “Scientology: To be perfectly clear.” Sociological Analysis 41(2):
128–136.
Baker, Jason D.
1995 The Christian Cyberspace Companion. Grand Rapids: Baker Books.
Baym, Nancy K.
1995 “The emergence of community in computer-mediated communication.” In
Steven
G. Jones, ed., Cybersociety: Computer-mediated communication and community,
pp.
138–163. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Bertoia, Carl and Janice Drakich
1993 “The Fathers’ Rights Movement: Contradictions in rhetoric and
practice.”
Journal of Family Issues 14(4): 592–615.
Bingham, Bob
1996 “Da Sloth’s Homepage.”
http://www.sky.net/~sloth/sci/sci_index.html
Bird, Frederick B. and Frances Westley
1988 “The economic strategies of new religious movements.” In James T.
Richardson, ed., Money and Power in New Religions, pp. 45–68. Lewiston: The
Edwin Mellen Press.
Bromley, David
1985 “Financing the millennium: The economic structure of the Unificationist
Movement.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 24(3): 253–274.
Brown, Andrew
1996 “Scientologists end secrecy on Internet.” The Independent (UK). March
3:
10.
Church of Scientology International
1993[1978] What is Scientology? Based on the religious literature and works
of
L. Ron Hubbard. Los Angeles: Bridge Publications, Inc.
1994 International Scientology News. Issue 35. Los Angeles: Church of
Scientology International.
Coltrane, Scott and Neal Hickman
1992 “The rhetoric of rights and needs: Moral discourse in the reform of
child
custody and child support laws.” Social Problems 39(4): 400–420.
Crawford, Walt
1996 “I heard it through the Internet.” In Rob Kling, ed., Computerization
and
Controversy: Value Conflicts and Social Choices, pp. 594–596. San Diego:
Academic Press, Inc.
Ebner, Mark
1996 “Do you want to buy a bridge?” Spy 10 (1): 34–44.
Electronic Frontiers Foundation
1996a “EFF’s Church of Scientology Archive.”
http://www.eff.org/pub/Censorship/CoS_v_the_Net/
1996b “‘Clipper III’ on the Move.” EFFector 9(13), Sept. 27. Internet
newsletter, archived on
http://www.eff.org/pub/EFF/Newsletters/EFFector/
1997 “CDA Demonstration, Supreme Court Battle and Follow-up Live Chat.”
EFFector
10(4), March 17. Internet newsletter, archived on
http://www.eff.org/pub/EFF/Newsletters/EFFector/
Eyerman, Ron and Andrew Jamison
1991 Social movements: A cognitive approach. University Park, PA:
Pennsylvania
State University Press.
Freedom
1996 “Special Issue on the Internet.”
http://www.theta.com/freedommag/english/vol2704/toc.htm
Gardner, Martin
1952 Fads & Fallacies in the Name of Science. New York: Dover Publications,
Inc.
Goodman, Leisa
1996a “Lawbreakers are thieves and liars, not ‘critics’ Church of
Scientology
responds.” Skeptic 4(1): 18–19.
1996b “‘What is true for you is what you have observed yourself’:
Scientology
responds.” Spy 10(2): 10.
Groch, Sharon A.
1994 “Oppositional consciousness: Its manifestation and development. The
case of
people with disabilities.” Sociological Inquiry 64(4): 369–395.
Grossman, Wendy M.
1995 “alt.scientology.war.” Wired 3(12): 172–7/248–52.
Hall, Deana
1998 “Managing to Recruit: Religious Conversion in the Workplace.” Sociology
of
Religion 57(4): 391–408.
Hausherr, Tilman
1997 “Clearing the internet: Scientology and scientologists on the World
Wide Web.”
http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/prolinks/
Heldal-Lund, Andreas
1997 “Operation clambake.”
http://home.sol.no/heldal/CoS/index2.html
Holmes, Deana M
1995 “A documentary history of the Church of Scientology and the net VERSION
1.0”
http://www.amazing.com/scientology/history-1.html
Howard, Philip K.
1994 The Death of Common Sense. New York: Warner Books, Inc.
Hubbard, L. Ron
1975 Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary. Los Angeles:
Publication
Organization.
1983a[1950] Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science. Los Angeles: Bridge
Publications Inc.
1983b[1956] Scientology: Fundamentals of Thought. Los Angeles: Bridge
Publications Inc.
1992[1950] Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. Los Angeles:
Bridge
Publications, Inc.
Interrogate the Internet
1996 “Contradictions in cyberspace: Collective response.” In Rob Shields,
ed.,
Cultures of Internet, pp. 125–132. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Jasper, James M. and Jane Poulsen
1993 “Fighting back: Vulnerabilities, blunders, and countermobilization by
the
targets in three Animal Rights campaigns.” Sociological Forum 8(4): 639–657.
Kaminstein, Dana S.
1995 “A resource mobilization analysis of a failed environmental protest.”
Journal of Community Practice 2(2): 5–32.
Kent, Stephen A.
1990 “Deviance labeling and normative strategies in the Canadian ‘new
religions/counterculture’ debate.” Canadian Journal of Sociology 15(4):
393–416.
1996 “Scientology’s relationship with Eastern Religious traditions.” Journal
of
Contemporary Religion. 11(1): 21–36.
Forthcoming “The globalization of Scientology: Influence, control, and
opposition in trans-national markets.” Religion.
Kling, Rob
1996 “Information Technologies and the Shifting Balance between Privacy and
Social Control.” In Rob Kling, ed., Computerization and Controversy: Value
Conflicts and Social Choices, pp. 614–636. San Diego: Academic Press, Inc.
Lamont, Stewart
1986 Religion Inc.: The Church of Scientology. London: Harrap.
Langan, Sean
1995 “Prince Xenu could destroy the Net.” The Independent (UK). September 4:
12.
Lewis, Peter H.
1996 “Behind an internet message service’s close: Pressure from the Church
of
Scientology is blamed for the shutdown.” New York Times. September 6: C2.
Mayett, Ted
1997 “Church of Scientology – International Pickets”
http://homepages.skylink.net/~teddy//picket.html
McCarthy, John and Mayer Zald
1973 The Trends of Social Movements in America: Professionalization and
Resource
Management. Morristown: General Learning Press.
1977 “Resource mobilization and social movements: A partial theory.”
American
Journal of Sociology 82(6): 1212–1241.
McGuire, Meredith B.
1987[1981] Religion: The Social Context (Second Edition). Belmont:
Wadsworth.
McLaughlin, Margaret L., Kerry K. Osborne and Christine B. Smith
1995 “Standards of conduct on Usenet.” In Steven G. Jones, ed.,
Cybersociety:
Computer-mediated communication and community, pp. 90–111. Thousand Oaks,
CA:
Sage Publications, Inc.
Meyer, David S. and Suzanne Staggenborg
1996 “Movements, countermovements, and the structure of political
opportunity.”
American Journal of Sociology 101(6): 1628–1660.
Miller, Russell
1987 Bare-Faced Messiah: The True Story of L. Ron Hubbard. New York: Henry
Holt
and Company, Inc.
Newman, Ron
1996 “The Church of Scientology vs. the Net.”
http://www2.thecia.net/users/rnewman/scientology/
Nguyen, Dan Thu and Jon Alexander
1996 “The coming of cyberspacetime and the end of the polity.” In Rob
Shields,
ed., Cultures of Internet, pp. 99–124. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Peckham, Michael H.
1998 “Internet.” In William Swatos, Jr., ed., Encyclopedia of Religion and
Society, p. 237. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.
Persinger, Michael A., Normand J. Carrey and Lynn A. Suess
1980 TM and Cult Mania. North Quincy, MA: Christopher Publishing House.
Pichardo, Nelson A.
1995 “The power elite and elite–driven countermovements: The Associated
Farmers
of California during the 1930s.” Sociological Forum 10(1): 21–49.
Pike, Albert
1920[1871,1906] Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite.
Charleston, S.C.: Southern Jurisdiction of the United States.
Post, David G.
1996 “New World War: Cancelbunny and Lazarus battle it out on the frontier
of
cyberspace—and suggest the limits of social contracts.” Reason. 27(11): 28.
Quittner, John
1995 “Unmasked on the net.” Time (Domestic) 147(9): 72.
Regardie, Israel
1990 The Complete Golden Dawn System of Magic. Scottsdale: Golden Dawn
Publications.
Robinson, Michael
1995 “Operating thetan summary and analysis.” Article posted to
alt.religion.scientology, September 12, 1995. Archived on
http://www.sky.net/~sloth/sci/sci_index.html
Shade, Leslie Regan
1996 “Is there free speech on the net? Censorship in the global information
infrastructure.” In Rob Shields, ed., Cultures of Internet, pp. 11–32.
London:
Sage Publications Ltd.
Sobel, David
1995 “The irrelevance of being a dog.” Net 1(7): 8.
Spaink, Karin
1995 “Defense against Scientology’s subpoena.”
http://www.xs4all.nl/~kspaink/cos/verweng.html
Staggenborg, Suzanne
1988 “The consequences of professionalization and formalization in the
Pro-Choice Movement.” American Sociological Review 53(4): 585–605.
Stotik, Jeffrey, Thomas E. Shriver, and Sherry Cable
1994 “Social control and movement outcome: The case of AIM.” Sociological
Focus.
27(1): 53–66.
The Times (London)
1995 “Scientologists step up campaign against net critics.” October 25: 7.
Touraine, Alain
1981 The Voice and the Eye: An Analysis of Social Movements. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
1985 “An introduction to the study of social movements.” Social Research
52(4):
749–787.
United States District Court, Northern District Of California
1995a Religious Technology Center, Bridge Publications, Inc., Plaintiffs,
and
Netcom On-Line Communication Services, Inc., Dennis Erlich, Tom Klemesrud,
and
Clearwood Data Services, Defendants. Verified Complaint For Injunctive
Relief
and Damages For: (1) Copyright Infringement; and (2) Trade Secrets
Misappropriation. Case No. C-95 20091 RMW, February 8.
1995b Religious Technology Center, Bridge Publications, Inc., Plaintiffs,
and
Netcom On-Line Communication Services, Inc., Dennis Erlich, Tom Klemesrud,
and
Clearwood Data Services, Defendants. Order to Clerk to Issue Writ for
Seizure of
Articles Infringing Statutory Copyright. Case No. C-95 20091 RMW, February
13.
Wallis, Roy
1976 The Road to Total Freedom: A Sociological Analysis of Scientology.
1977,
Reissue. New York: Columbia University Press.
Zald, Mayer N. and Bert Useem
1987 “Movement and countermovement interaction: Mobilization, tactics, and
state
involvement.” In Mayer N. Zald and John D. McCarthy, eds., Social Movements
in
an Organizational Society, pp. 247–72. New Brunswick, New Jersey:
Transaction
Books.
Zald, Mayer and John McCarthy
1987 Social Movements in Organizational Society. New Brunswick, New Jersey:
Transaction Books.
Notes
1 I would like to thank Stephen A. Kent for his suggestions and assistance
with
the preparation of the manuscript. I also wish to thank Susan A. McDaniel,
Nico
Stehr, and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. Thanks also
to
Joane Martel for the abstract translation and Jeff Bowlby for stylistic
suggestions.
<- Back to text
2 Other theories concerning social movements provide a different perspective
on
movement/countermovement interaction. New Social Movement theory focuses on
the
role of such interaction in the creation of a movement’s collective
identity,
since groups define themselves in part based on their perceived opposition
to
others (see Touraine, 1981, 1985). Eyerman and Jamison’s (1991) cognitive
praxis
model concentrates on the ways that movement opposition contributes to
shifts in
consciousness among movement actors and the role these shifts play in
knowledge
production. Although the present discussion is limited to a resource
mobilization perspective, these alternative approaches to
movement/countermovement interaction may provide fruitful ground for further
investigation of social movements on the Internet.
<- Back to text
3 The dictionary definition of “bandwidth” is the range of frequencies
carried
in a radio transmission. The colloquial use of the term on the Internet is
less
precise. <- Back to text
4 Camera-assisted video-conferencing is one exception to this statement, but
the
vast majority of Internet communication remains textual and graphical. <-
Back
to text
5 I refer to the social movement simply as “Scientology,” rather than “The
Church of Scientology” because it is not recognized as a church in several
nations (e.g., Greece and Germany). Also, Scientology has many subsidiary
organizations that are not religious, such as Applied Scholastics and the
drug
abuse recovery program, Narconon (Atack, 1990). References to actions by
specific organs of Scientology, such as the Church of Scientology
International,
will be stated accordingly. <- Back to text
6 Since many of the references in this paper refer to sites on the World
Wide
Web, I cannot provide page numbers. The dates cited refer to the latest
update
or the date of copyright. <- Back to text
7 Arguably one could refer to Scientology as a social movement organization
(under the wider category of religious movements) rather than a social
movement.
I contend, however, that in this case Scientology’s agenda is unique and the
Church is not mobilizing resources to enact social changes compatible with
the
desires of other groups. Scientology’s mission is that of “clearing of the
planet” (i.e., bringing all persons to the spiritual level of “clear”)
(Church
of Scientology International, 1994: 3) and it maintains that it is the only
path
for creating a perfect society. Thus, Scientology’s program, while shared by
members of the group, does not further the ends of a wider movement.
<- Back to text
8 Although it is impossible to measure directly the size of the opposition
to
Scientology, the Yahoo! (http://www.yahoo.com/) directory lists forty-eight
web
sites as “Scientology – Opposing views.” An Excite (http://www.excite.com/)
search on the word “$cientology” (the pejorative spelling preferred by some
critics) yielded 552 web pages. Ascertaining the level of support for
Scientology is even more difficult, since many pro-organization sites are
Scientology’s own (see Hausherr (1997) for a list of web sites in support of
Scientology).
<- Back to text
9 “Squirrel” is a derogatory term for people who use Hubbard’s techniques
but do
not belong to Scientology (Hubbard, 1975: 399).
<- Back to text
10 The full text of this alleged briefing appears in Holmes (1995). <- Back
to
text
11 “Poodle” is a derogatory reference to Scientology’s current leader, David
Miscavige (Holmes, 1995). <- Back to text
12 Documents from the Los Angeles court case Church of Scientology
International
v. Fishman and Geertz purportedly contain information that the Church claims
is
copyrighted (Grossman, 1995: 252; Newman, 1996). <- Back to text
13 FACTnet is an acronym for Fight Against Coercive Tactics Network (see the
FACTnet website: http://www.factnet.org/).
<- Back to text
14 The bystander public refers to the pool of individuals in society who are
not
affiliated with a particular social movement and who control limited
resources
(McCarthy and Zald, 1977: 1221). Social movements can gain adherents by
appealing to members of the bystander public. <- Back to text
15 L. Ron Hubbard introduced Dianetics, a self-help “technology,” in 1950.
Through a therapeutic process called “auditing,” individuals purportedly
could
rid themselves of mental and physical problems using Dianetics (see Hubbard,
1992[1950]). In 1953, Hubbard instituted the religion of Scientology,
possibly
for financial reasons (tax benefits) and constitutional protection (Miller,
1987: 220) and to avoid charges of practicing medicine without licenses
(Kent,
1996: 30). Dianetics is still an important part of Scientology. <- Back to
text
16 Many other Scientology publications have similar blocks of advertisement,
including admonitions such as “Buy The Dynamics of Life today!” (Hubbard,
1983a[1950]: 155). For more examples, see Hubbard (1983a[1950]: 141–156) and
Hubbard (1983b[1956]: 155–172).<- Back to text
17 Freedom is a magazine published by the Church of Scientology
International.
The special Internet issue appears in expurgated form on the organization’s
World Wide Web site (Freedom, 1996). <-Back to text
18 “Clear” means freeing the individual of all engrams (memories or
psychological recordings of traumatic events), a process that takes
substantial
amounts of Dianetics therapy (Hubbard, 1992[1950]). <-Back to text
19 OT refers to “Operating Thetan,” a reputed “state of complete spiritual
freedom” (Church of Scientology International, 1993[1978]: 150). The OT
levels
“contain the very advanced materials of L. Ron Hubbard’s researches” (Church
of
Scientology International, 1993[1978]: 151), and are available only to
participants who have completed Dianetics training to the point of “Clear.”
<-
Back to text
20 See the Simon Wiesenthal web site: http://www.wiesenthal.org/ <- Back to
text
21 The Internet edition of Freedom uses the Simon Wiesenthal Center as an
example in several places, but I can find no evidence that the Center
endorses
Scientology’s position. <- Back to text
22 This concern about high volume especially occurs over newsgroups that
carry
encoded binary files, where each post can take up a thousand lines or more.
Many
Internet Service Providers do not support newsgroups in the “alt” hierarchy
because of the number of groups devoted to binary posts. <- Back to text
23 The Cult Awareness Network was a counter-cult organization that stored
and
disseminated information about various high-demand religious sects. In
December,
1996, CAN was forced into bankruptcy due to lawsuits that Scientology
brought
against it. CAN’s name, logo, and post office box were subsequently
purchased by
a Scientologist (Kent, Forthcoming). <- Back to text
24 Numerous ex-members claim that Scientology uses auditing notes and other
confidential information for blackmail (Atack, 1990: 147; Ebner, 1996: 34).
<-
Back to text
25 For extensive documentation of the legal aspects of the conflict, see
Post
(1996) and the EFF (1996a) archive. <- Back to text
26 Additionally, the raids resulted in the seizure of personal files
unrelated
to the conflict and various pieces of computer equipment including modems
and
scanners (Grossman, 1995: 174). <- Back to text
27 Also, it may be difficult to differentiate between a real movement or a
parody movement. The Internet has spawned a large number of humorous
“religious”
groups, some of which are difficult to identify as parodies (Peckham, 1997).
Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.
14 Jan 2000
The Case of Scientology and its Internet Critics1
michael.peckham@ualberta.ca
The views and opinions stated within this web page are those of the
author or authors which wrote them and may not reflect the views and
opinions of the ISP or account user which hosts the web page. The
opinions may or may not be those of the Chairman of The Skeptic Tank.