Author: Sam Slesinger
If you haven’t been up on your interwebs lately, then you may not be aware of the latest chapter in digital warfare. When a Church of Scientology (COS) promotional video featuring a more-psychotic-than-usual Tom Cruise was leaked onto YouTube, the Church filed a copyright violation claim to remove the video from the site.
Bad move. In response to the takedown, a faceless group of self-described computer-savvy everymen that call themselves Anonymous have declared war on the Church of Scientology. They have cited the takedown as censorship of the internet-a “great injustice,” according to the group-and have since launched a series of attacks against the Church. Leaked Scientology documents, additional promotional footage and the systematic slowdown of COS’ official website using denial of service attacks (where a network is flooded with fake traffic to the extent that no legitimate traffic can get through) are a small sampling of Anonymous’ tactics. The group has even crossed the digital threshold by spamming Scientology’s fax machines to waste ink.
What began as a reprimand for internet censorship, a sensitive issue for a majority of internet users, has become a denouncement of Scientology as a religious sect. In statements on various YouTube videos posted by Anonymous members, the group calls for the destruction of the organization: “We do not threaten you, the people. We threaten the lies, the corruption and the greed of the organization. We have not acted upon a whim, but in outrage of the treatment of its followers . . . Your religious beliefs are not wrong, like any other religion, and they are yours to keep. However, beliefs should not come at a price. Not from your wallet or compromising your thoughts.”
In subsequent statements, they cite “human rights violations” allegedly committed by the COS: “We want you to know about Lisa McPherson. We want you to know about former members of Scientology’s private navy, SeaOrg, who were forced to have abortions so that they could continue in service to the church. We want you to know about Scientology’s use of child labor and their gulags.”
Admittedly, I have little respect for the Church myself, but the greater internet community-an outlandish concept in of itself, I know-seems to be in full support of Anonymous. This is what I want to explore. I base this popularity on the sheer number of views and high ratings for Anonymous videos on a variety of video-sharing sites, and the less-than-critical coverage of Anonymous in the tech blogosphere.
Of course, there are two relatively overt explanations for this. The first, and the most primitive, is that critics are wary of offending a group with a tremendous practical knowledge of the internet. This is, after all, the group that first rose to the public’s attention when a local FOX news station segment revealed some of their activities: hacking MySpace accounts, uploading pornographic material on personal profiles, etc. (though the accuracy of any news segment on FOX is suspect). But I’m going to give Anonymous the benefit of the doubt. They have presented very rational arguments against the COS, and if they were to suppress the criticism of others, wouldn’t they just be stooping to the level of their adversary?
Sidenote: Anonymous often refers to the COS as a cult, though by definition Anonymous is also a cult (a group bound together by veneration of the same ideals), and their mantra is no less creepy than the Church: “We are Anonymous. We are Legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget. We will be heard. Expect us.” The second explanation for the absence of criticism is that the writers of these tech blogs and the people who rate and comment on these videos are members of Anonymous. This is a plausible theory, given the tech sphere is the place Anons call home. But this is impossible to gauge. The nature of Anonymous is obviously anonymity, and as such, their numbers are a mystery.But I propose an alternate explanation; an analogy-based, half-baked theory that may have been inspired by my recent viewing of 3:10 to Yuma more than anything else. To us, non-Anonymous internet users, Anonymous are the new outlaws of the Western Frontier. Just as we made infamous the tales of mining town bank robbers like Jesse James and Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, we have adopted Anonymous as a band of criminals who go unregulated and relatively unnoticed by authorities in the vast frontier that is the Web. The outlaws of the west were media figures portrayed as Robin Hood heroes, morally complicated everymen that were hard to hate. Anonymous are the trumpeters of free information, free religion and freedom of speech, and the fact that they don’t engage in physical violence makes them all the more likable.
But perhaps the most engaging characteristic of Anonymous is anonymity. In this vast internet frontier, where the prospects of digital terrorism are really more frightening and damaging than the overt kind of terrorism that has been used to justify the Iraq War, the anonymous webbie is not malevolent at the core. He is humorous, witty and mean-spirited on occasion, but above all, he is nothing to fear. KTHXBYE!
Anonymous are planning a day of public demonstration on February 10, the birthday of Lisa McPherson. They have strongly emphasized the peaceful nature of this event.
Sam Slesinger is a junior AHVA major. He can be reached at sslesinger@oxy.edu.
This article has been archived, for more requests please contact us via the support system.
