Hey, there! Log in / Register
Scientology trumps-up "harassment" charge against outed Anonymous protester
By Ron Newman on Tue, 04/29/2008 - 10:40am
Do citizens have a legal right to peacefully protest in front of organizations that they disagree with?
The 'Church' of Scientology says that we don't. They have filed a criminal charge of 'harassment' against Gregg Housh, a local participant in masked 'Anonymous' protests near their 448 Beacon Street facility. Housh was just one of many particpants in these events, but Scientology singled him out for prosecution because he signed the paperwork applying for a protest permit at Boston City Hall.
Housh will be arraigned tomorrow in Boston Municipal Court. Read more about the case at Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, or watch Housh and Scientology's lawyer go at it on the April 24 edition of WGBH's Greater Boston.
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Er
Er, to clarify ...
From the short videos shown on Greater Boston, last night, the protesters were not "in front of" the Church. There are two videos, one from the Scientologists and one from the protesters, and both show the protesters opening the door to the Church and walking into the building.
That isn't protesting. That's trespassing.
If you did that on my property, I shoot you.
Trespassing charge was dropped
Scientology tried to press a trespassing charge as well, but a judge already dismissed it for lack of evidence. I believe the protesters walked in simply to deliver a leaflet, then walked out. It's only trespassing if you remain after being asked to leave.
Furthermore, Gregg says he was not one of the people who walked into the building.
Yes
Yes, I forgot that the trespassing charge was dropped.
Tresspassing charge was "rolled into" harassment charge
Hey Ron -- Do your homework before creating false headlines. The Clerk-Magistrate [not judge] declined to issue a complaint against Housh for trespass because he concluded that the March 1 trespass incident, which on video clearly shows Housh entering the church despite his flagrant lies to the contrary, could be part of the "pattern of conduct" under the harassment charge. Furthermore, small "victory" if you consider that the harassment charge is far more serious than the trespass charge. As for the other idiots posting on here -- it's not a lawsuit by the Church. It's a criminal case by the Commonwealth of Mass. against Housh --that's why the name of the case is Commonwealth vs. Housh.
Trespassing charge was
Trespassing charge was dropped because there is video evidence of Greg never stepping foot in the building.
The charges pressed by the Scientology Organisation are fallacious, all Gregg did was apply for protest permits and exercise his first amendment rights.
He never infringed on the rights of the parishioners, as the entrance to a Scientology org or mission is a LOBBY.
And this is supposedly a CHURCH.
Go and google fair game.
stupid people with guns
How many times can a person be wrong in a single post?
Trespassing is staying when you're asked to leave.
You're not entitled under the law to discharge your weapon into a person who is trespassing, unless they are a threat to your person.
More to the point, what church advocates discharging a firearm into another person to dispel the unwanted interloper?
Guns don't kill people, stupid people with guns do.
Hell no. He was on public
Hell no.
He was on public property, and there's not much they can do besides file frivolous lawsuits that cause people like Gregg to have to spend a large sum of cash to defend against.
It's extortion, and I hope he can counter sue for legal fees and damages.
Two nutcase groups
Two nutcase groups mudwrestling with each other. Nothing to see here, move on folks.
What's so nutcase?
Feel free to expand on why you think Anonymous is "nutcase".
If anything is going to expose and potentially disband the corporation of Scientology, it is a large anonymous effort to give base facts underlying the illegality and evasive methods of Scientology.
I'm really not thrilled with the lack of detail Greater Boston gave the underlying facts. They definitely seemed to give some deference to the church and did not address the underpinnings of Anonymous' total issues with the church, choosing to harp on the Tom Cruise video which was only a trigger for the beginning of the movement. The interviewer seemed to act as if the two Anonymous members were childish for their actions and she let the Scientology lawyer continually throw out red herrings without much of a challenge.
Finally, if the act of applying for a public protest permit is "criminal harassment" (which is all this case now boils down to), then a majority of the First Amendment is suddenly and irreparably harmed. The magistrate should have realized this up front and thrown out the remaining complaint as they did with the criminal trespass (because he never entered the church). The only action they have him on record as doing is applying for a protest permit and that action alone is not harassment. I'm a little disappointed in the magistrate who probably felt that by throwing out one charge and keeping the other they were somehow being fair to both parties.
my viewpoint
Public property=public property
Immediately I thought about the protesters at abortion clinics
Exactly!
Exactly! With the abortion clinics, the protesters were on public property, but the law was changed so they had to move further away from the doorways, even though the areas outside the doorways were public property! At least 20-feet away! Tell me how that is even legal?!!!
One wonders
What your point is.
First you accusing a fellow of breaking laws by going where he didn't, and then you decry laws that prevent other people from going where they oughtn't. Which is it? Pro, con, or is it situational for you?
Special laws were created for the case of the talibaptists because they were harassing, injuring, and aggrieving so many people. It was a compromise - instead of actually rolling up the largest terrorist groups in America, the government would just try to minimize conflict.
If you really have nothing
If you really have nothing better to do with your time than bother with Scientology crackpots, then you are a crackpot. How about bringing hot meals to elderly shut-ins? How about tutoring inner-city kids in reading?
tutoring?
tutoring...ummmm, yeh... sign me up! but only in the inner city! Ill take a hot meal too!
Red herring much?
How do you know the members of Anonymous don't do all of those things? Are you not hypocritical for concerning yourself with the going-ons enough to comment and reply here instead of donating your time spent here to worthier causes? Aren't you doubly hypocritical by commenting and replying that nobody should be commenting and replying? Aren't humans complex enough creatures to schedule time for charitable activities while also caring enough about a societal and predatory blight like the criminal organization of Scientology?
The classic "you could be doing something more right this second" non-argument thanks you for your support.
Exactly
I looked on the donor list for the MFA, and Anonymous was on there.
ROFL.
Nice one, Gareth.
I also found a $50,000 donation they made in TX to establish space for a Meals-on-Wheels program and $25,000 to GateWay schools in Phoenix, AZ for underprivileged students to learn how to read! There's no limit to what this group is capable of!
{snicker}
And he writes some truly enduring poetry.
You can't say the guy doesn't spend his spare time bettering humanity!
The problem with your argument
is that it can be used indiscriminately against any activity you don't happen to like. "If you have nothing better to do than (watching the Red Sox | watching the Celtics | going to the opera | attending a zoning board hearing | skiing | rollerskating | walking in the forest)" etc. etc.
Except that going to a Red
Except that going to a Red Sox game - or your other examples - is/are not analogous to civic protest. Tell me why you think these people are out doing classic protesting. Is it in the ame class of activities as "rollerskating"? These people are more like "Mothers Against Comic Books" than the Opera Society, no?
Oh really?
Last I checked, I retained the ability to do more than one charitable deed a year. "These people" are out doing classic protesting because we don't like suspicious deaths, wrongful tax exemption, secrecy, and lies. Just because you'd rather be sitting around doing nothing doesn't mean that people who bother doing something are nutcases because they got up off their couch and decided they'd like to make a difference in something. That's like saying "You actually VOTE? You're such a psychopath!"
As for why we're not teaching inner-city kids instead, who said we weren't? I have an extensive history of volunteering with the SPCA. I donate money to support the police force. And guess what? My name is on the tutoring list for the area college, high school, AND elementary school, as well as a list for the library when they need extra volunteers. And my schedule is relatively light! Anonymous is not limited to single causes. Many heads = many deeds.
Less stupid, more thought, please.
Anti-Abortion protesters do
Anti-Abortion protesters do not go inside the clinic to pass flyers ...
Am I the only one...
Am I the only one who has a problem with this phrase?
"protest permit"
I don't know details (though I'll ask), but I suspect what they mean is a Public Event Application, especially since the April event included use of Parkman Bandstand on Boston Common.
I believe
I think Ron is right. Events on city property, like the Common, require notification to the city and that is likely the form that Scientology used to finally obtain a name/person to attack.
There is a lot of good information in this pdf from the ACLU on what is acceptable and when permitting may be required. In fact, the Scientology lawyer's argument that the masks constitute harassment is in ignorance of the Constitution which the ACLU describes as follows:
The emphasis is mine.
Mask wearing not free speech
Actually Kaz, you are the one that is ignorant. While the ACLU brochure may say that mask wearing is legal, the case law from the courts is otherwise. Read KKK v. City of NY from the US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. Mask wearing is NOT protected by the First Amendment as expressive conduct UNLESS it conveys a message. By his own admission, Housh admits that the Fawkes mask "means nothing." See WGBH TV interview of April 24. Since the mask conveys no message, it is NOT expressive conduct entitled to protection under the First Amendment. All of the courts, including the US Supreme Court, which have considered mask wearing as a form of free speech [all KKK cases incidentally -- how nice that Anonymous is just like the KKK in so many ways] have concluded that mask wearing is not expressive conduct entitled to protection. Rather, it is a form of CONDUCT [not speech] which may properly be regulated by the government and subject to criminal penalties if it constitutes harrassment, threats or intimidation.
Mask-wearing laws differ by state
New York state has a law against wearing masks. Massachusetts does not. The decision you cite upheld New York's law, but does not in any way compel Massachusetts to adopt a similar law.
You are misinformed
I don't know who is feeding you your "facts", Mike. The case law is highly diverse on whether mask wearing is free speech or solely an attempt at intimidation.
You didn't seem to bring up the granddaddy of them all that would have actual jurisdiction over this issue:
-- United States Supreme Court decision No. 93-986 April 19, 1995
Let's put all the cards on the table, particularly the ones that would have bearing in this particular case, if you're going to tell me to go look up some NY case.
In all lower cases, however, where a law against masks was upheld, the decisions explicitly discussed the combination of the mask with some other form of intimidation: cross-burning, lynching, the mask/hood in combination with the robe. The intent of these laws and any decisions upholding them is to prevent intimidation through association of the mask with some other overt act. Anonymous doesn't rise to the same level of action as the KKK for which these laws were intended just as a Mardi Gras celebration doesn't fall under the same intent either. Furthermore, Anonymous members wear far more than just the Guy Fawkes mask making it hardly a unifying symbol equivalent to the intimidation and over-riding symbol of the KKK hood...and robe...and cross-burnings...
In fact, the masks of Anonymous are not for the intent of intimidation by their own website's discussion of the mask. They are for protection from Scientology, a group who's harassment tactics of critics have slowly been publicized as documents escape from their private records. Critics have previously been identified, sued, stalked, framed for criminal acts, and in some cases turned up dead. The masks are to prevent Scientologists from doing the same to members of this new worldwide group of critics, Anonymous. This is exactly what the Supreme Court ruled to be a very justifiable First Amendment purpose for masked protest: "to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation-and their ideas from suppression-at the hand of an intolerant society." Today, that intolerance is Scientology.
Aww.
Mike, do you need a hug? You sound like you need a hug.
Mike, mike, mike... I think
Mike, mike, mike... I think you need to put your foot on the brakes and take your hands off the wheel for just a moment. Gregg's comment as to the fawkes masks meaning "nothing" was in reference to the fact that anonymous members don't impart them with any symbolic meaning the way, oh, I don't know - KKK MEMBERS DO. Instead, they're a tool by which the anonymous member prevents his or her identity becoming known to any members of CoS, as they have a long, looooong and fairly well-known history of ruthlessly attacking their detractors viciously and relentlessly until the victim is broke, destroyed, jobless, homeless, friendless or even dead.
KKK members, on the other hand, use their white outfits as a symbol of their unity and opposition towards blacks...asians...non-christians...the family across the road...whatever group they've decided they no longer like...
If this were the case for anonymous, then each and every one of them would wear guy fawkes masks. The exact same masks, from the exact same shop or manufacturer. Fair enough, a lot of them DO wear the same or similar masks- more to do with that particular masks popularity and versatility (and it's recent appearance in pop culture) than anything else. However, you see anonymous wearing optimus prime masks, or richard nixon masks, or simply face paint, or a big pair of bog-ugly paris hiltonesque shades.
The CoS are attempting to use Gregg as a scapegoat. Or even an effigy to represent all the "evils of anonymous". And yet, to date, no anonymous members have been found to have been violent or disrespectful to church members - vs at least 3 church members being questioned over actions including, but not limited to, punching, kicking, spitting on, slapping and attempting to remove by force the masks, of protesters.
In short - you're wrong, and thankyou for playing.
Incredible
It's hard to believe that anyone would support the Scientology side of this. Peaceful masked protest is NOT criminal harassment. Regardless of how any Scientologist claims that they interpret the masks, Housh simply did not have an intent to cause harm or distress by wearing a mask. It's apparent to anyone who has even just a casual understanding of the incident. And Scientology's litigious reaction to this harmless incident is just more evidence of their desire to ruin their critics rather than debate civilly with them.
Outed Chanologous Anonymoly Gregg Housh !
Anyone have a list of who's been outed so far?
and according to the Inquirers out there: Gregg Housh is a convicted software pirate. Need more info about that conviction please for research thanky!
Hello, Rangoon!
Or should I say: Hello, customer of Smart Broadband Incorporated, Makati City, the Philippines! Glad to see local Boston court cases are of such great interest in your fair country. How's the weather?
I Googled this up from the
I Googled this up from the alt.scientology usenet group. Needless to say, I can't vouch for it. Do your own research to verify it or not.
> Gregg Housh of Woburn, MA is a federal felon. He pled guilty
> to conspiracy to violate the copyright laws and stole software
> with a value between $120,000 - $200,000. Not just some silly
> "computer" crime. Maybe he should use all that stolen software
> to pay his legal bills. See his criminal case online at the US
> District Court database. Public record. Public information.
> You'll also see that when the feds zeroed in on him, he turned
> against his co-conspirators on a dime -- made a deal with the
> feds to save his own skin at the expense of his "friends." Nice
> guy.
Relevance to this case is ... ?
Even if true, what does this have to do with his right to peacefully protest in front of an organization with which he disagrees?
And by the way, hand-delivering a letter or leaflet to the target is a pretty traditional part of many protests and demonstrations. Sometimes the target accepts the letter, sometimes they refuse it, but only Scientology considers this act to be worthy of prosecution.
P.S. there's no such Usenet group as "alt.scientology", so it's obvious that someone else did the Googling for you and then asked you to post this.
Delivering Leaflet or Letter
Oh, does this mean that I can politely decline a wake, watchtower, or Book of the Mormon discussion and have the proslytizer arrested? I don't agree with what they have to say.
I'd love to use this against the local Church of the Holy Homo Hatred in Christ guy that keeps coming around my neighborhood from the local bastion of intolerance and hands my kids some pretty hellacious dreck without my permission. I mean, Jack Chick tracts can be pretty bloody amusing and make for great family reading with likeminded preteen skeptics, but if Gregg is being charged with harassment for one delivery, can't I stop the hate too?
Irrelevant, Forgiven, Forgotten, Be Embarassed You Brought It Up
It is customary for Scientology to bring up and spin any past misdeeds of a person. That's because they are run by very morally and mentally sick people.
Besides, he could be a libellous, thieving, killing molester, and it doesn't have a damn thing to do with this case.
But I know one thing. Anyone who has their sins dragged out and exploited by the Church of Scientology's goons - often made up if they can't find anything juicy enough anyway - that person earned forgiveness with interest.
Standing up to this bullying excuse for a "church" is a noble act that more than makes up for it in karma.
i believe he meant
i believe he meant alt.religion.scientology? (correct if wrong)
Yes
but if he had done the Googling himself instead of passing on second-hand information, he'd have known that.
Give him a little credit,
Give him a little credit, Ron. Normally, people provide Scientologists with their embarrassing personal details voluntarily -- even paying for the privilege to divulge information that will later be used against them. Gregg here hardly seems the auditing type, though, so give the anonymous Scientologist a wee bit of credit for having a friend with Google access.
You, sir, are coo-coo for
You, sir, are coo-coo for Cocoa Puffs. When I pasted in the quote, I didn't bother to go back and check the usenet group name. Put me on the rack and break my bones. If you put the guy's name into Google, you can find the same thing I did. Freak.
Bueller?
Does anyone have any info on the arraignment hearing yesterday?
I'm interested in how this case is proceeding but I can not find anywhere on the web yet where the details are being blogged or discussed regularly.
My Google-Fu
Sorry, my google-fu was weak a few minutes ago...found that he regularly posts as "gregg" at enturbulation.org:
Jury Trial, Here I come
Scientologist Quoting From Usenet Posts
"Anon" said:
"I Googled this up from the alt.scientology usenet group. Needless to say, I can't vouch for it. Do your own research to verify it or not. [blah, blah, blah]"
Here's how you can *always* tell when it's a Scientologist that's trying to quote something from usenet to attack a critic: they *never* give the full or real usenet newsgroup name (because they don't want you to go there and read all of the negative things posted about Scientology there).
The newsgroup is:
ALT.RELIGION.SCIENTOLOGY
It's not just a typo. I've seen this pattern over-and-over again in posts they make.
This is a classic example of their use of Ad Hominem to attack and discredit critics.
i think ur tinfoil hat is a
i think ur tinfoil hat is a bit tight, bro