Talk:Alleged 'rights group' involved with removal of anti-Scientology videos from YouTube doesn't exist; says EFF

OR

The OR is based on an e-mail interview I had with the EFF. As with all e-mails, accredited reporters and trusted users can contact me to see the e-mail. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 23:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Awaiting copy for confirmation of the source. Whenever you get the chance, then I will publish. —Calebrw (talk) 02:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed. —Calebrw (talk) 02:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Peer review

Revision 690380 of this article has been reviewed by Calebrw (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 02:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: The quotes have been reviewed and they check out as accurate. —Calebrw (talk) 02:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 690380 of this article has been reviewed by Calebrw (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 02:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: The quotes have been reviewed and they check out as accurate. —Calebrw (talk) 02:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Weasel words

"Some have speculated that the Counsel is a front for Scientology operated by a Dr. Oliver Schaper." Needs substantiation: who? Where? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Crossed wires here, the record needs to be set straight. Before the mass takedown by American Rights Counsel, LLC, oschaper himself had taken down a load of videos on his own. I was one of the ones who was hit so I know this. He took a couple of them down under his OWN NAME, which was quite stupid, he then used a variety of company names to remove more; these include 'Media House Enterprises' (which is the parent company of his porn company 'Peephole TV'), 'The Schaper Company Inc', and 'ContentFactory America' (that one is bogus.) Oschaper was DEFINITELY responsible for those, it can be proven, and for these actions he is definitely guilty and should be punished.

THEN we were hit by the massive takedown. Oschaper was initially prime suspect because of the activities I have just recounted, HOWEVER Anonymous eventually decided that taking into account the sheer amount of videos that were taken down, and in such a short timeframe, oschaper himself could not have achieved this single-handed. We suspect that it was the work of Scientology's Office of Special Affairs (OSA), this has all of their hallmarks and they have done it before (but not on such a grand scale). The last time they did it was after an important Anonymous event, when interest in our movement would be heightened. Now there was recently a big anti-Scientology conference in Germany (which Scientology tried to 'infiltrate' by stupidly sending well-known figures Tommy Davis (OSA), and Kendrick Moxon (CoS pet lawyer)', an action which one Anonymous member called "..a bonanza of fail"; they were both denied entry), this new takedown occurred shortly after. Coincidence? Also, what is interesting is that for all the videos that were removed, the only accounts suspended were those belonging to high-profile Anonymous members like Mark Bunker. Many Anonymous had several videos removed and their accounts stayed active (I believe YouTube operate on a "three strikes and you're out" policy, well I personally had more than three videos removed and my account was not suspended). Also worthy of note is that the initials of American Rights Counsel are 'ARC', which have a special significance to Scientologists.

SO either Oschaper participated, or he simply reported his problems to the OSA and they did it without him. BUT you can bet that the OSA will hang him out to dry on this one (mainly because he started something without clearing it with higher-ups, also he made the mistake of coming onto our boards to argue with us), and for that reason I do feel a little sorry for him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShadowVsScientology (talk • contribs) 23:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

big time unsourced claim

the headline claim that the EFF says this group doesn't exist is not substantiated either in the article or in this EFF post. this needs to be fixed ASAP, possibly with a correction notice. –Doldrums(talk) 12:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

As said above, contact me to see the e-mail. Ity has been seen by several. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 13:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

However I am at work...so I cannot send right now. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 13:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Due to confidentiality concerns, I deleted the e-mail from the EFF, but to the best of my recollection, the EFF representative said in the e-mail that to the best of their knowledge, the counsel doesn't exist. —Calebrw (talk) 14:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

title

title should have a comma not semi-colon for proper grammar.--216.75.93.110 19:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Followup

• Eva Galperin. "YouTube Anti-Scientology Takedowns: Good News, Bad News" — Electronic Frontier Foundation, September 25, 2008

Interesting piece. Cirt (talk) 23:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)