Scientology seeks to squash anonymity

[Eugen Leitl]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/09/anonymous_backfire/

Scientology seeks to squash anonymity

Anonymous attacks could backfire with tighter Aussie laws

By John Ozimek b" Get more from this author

Posted in Law, 9th September 2009 11:40 GMT

A little local controversy involving the Church of Scientology and its
critics could lead to curbs on the right to anonymity of anyone using the
web.

The argument is currently raging in Australia, following the launch last
November by the Australian Human Rights Commission (HREOC) of a report
entitled Freedom of Religion and Belief in the 21st Century. The theory
behind this report was that it would provide a good base from which Australia
could take stock of its progress in these areas over the last decade, as well
as coming up with proposals to move forward.

While the impetus behind this project would appear to be mostly positive, it
was always likely that calls for individual religious groups to submit
proposals around protection of faiths and their own view of religious freedom
could have unintended consequences.

One such consequence arrived in the shape of submission no 1931, from the
Church of Scientology, protesting strongly at attacks on their faith by
protest group Anonymous, and running an online campaign from a site called
Whyweprotest.

According to the Church of Scientology, these attacks have reached the point
where some members have been physically threatened, and slanderous attacks
have been made online: however, the police have found it difficult to
intervene, simply because of the anonymous nature of the attacks.

The organisation claims that since January 2008, they have been subjected to
a continuing campaign of violence and abuse from a hate group calling
themselves bAnonymousb. It adds: "In the last 13 months they have also (ie as
well as their internet based assaults) committed acts of harassment and
criminal offences 'in real life' against the Church, its members and Church
property."

As evidence, it cites "bomb threats, arson threats and committed acts of
vandalism against Scientology churches".

In response, the protest group claim that it needs anonymity to protect
members' lives and livelihood. It states: "Due to Scientology's Fair Game
policy, we put ourselves at risk socially, politically, and financially when
we speak out against this dangerous cult.

"This is a cult that has a well earned reputation for harassing critics and
openly critical ex-scientologists at their homes and workplaces. Taking
measures to protect your privacy and anonymity when confronted by an
aggressively litigious cult is a matter of common sense."

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the actions taken, it is the Churchbs
response to the HREOC that could end up having the most far-reaching
consequences. They are looking for the law to be tightened to make it illegal
to incite hatred against religious groups: and they are also looking for
government to strip away anonymity from anyone behind such activity online.

While this argument is focused on the high emotions aroused by supporters and
detractors of the CoS, it comes at a time when the law is increasingly
suspicious of online anonymity. Back in June, the Times overturned a court
order designed to protect the anonymity of a police blogger.

More recently, Google found itself on the receiving end of a lawsuit
requiring it to cough up the identity of an anonymous blogger who had made
adverse comments about model Liskula Cohen.

The tide does seem to be moving inexorably against online anonymity b and
this submission from the CoS may well be a sign of further things to come in
Australia.