19. Some time early 1999, I first broke Scientology's rule about not exposing myself to critical information about Scientology. In the breaking of Scientology's "critical blackout" rule, I became aware of many incontrovertible facts about L. Ron Hubbard and of Scientology, facts that were absolutely appalling to me in a deeply personal way. I was utterly devastated when I came to realize that my committed contributions to Scientology were actually contributions to a dangerous and criminal organization.

I returned to the Celebrity Centre and had a long talk with my course supervisor. I told her that I had seen no results... not personally, not with anyone else. I told her that I now had serious doubts about Hubbard's background as well as the effectiveness of the E-Meter. I also repeated my list of questions about OT III.

She told me (quite sternly) that I should not investigate Scientology. She told me that a "high level OT" could wipe me out with a thought, and that the Church did not tolerate "snooping around" and the like.

She said that I needed to do "an ethics course" and that it would not cost me anything. She said that if I didn't do the course, that I'd be declared an SP and kicked out of Scientology.

There were reports of clandestine monitoring of the CMHA files and of the covert disruption of agencies critical of Mr. Hubbard's theories, which he has claimed have improved people's mental health and cured physical ailments. ...

... The files submitted to the court in Washington contained many reports of Scientology having agents in Better Business Bureau offices and of the acquisition of BBB documents critical of the cult's business practices with its clients. ...

... Canadian public libraries have also lost books critical of Scientology and articles have been scissored out of their magazines. Files in various newspaper libraries have been rifled.

At one stage in this litigation, a High Court judge was reported (in the Daily Telegraph) to have said of applications by the Church of Scientology to have Vosper and a newspaper editor committed to jail for contempt of court, that these were deliberately made "to try to stifle any criticism or inquiry into their affairs."

Very few have talked about their experience on the ship because to get off they must apply directly to the leader for the release of their passport, John McLean says, and they sign promise not to talk.

According to Hubbard's ideas, a major reason why people are critical of something or somebody, is because they have committed bad acts towards that which they are criticising. By disclosing every immoral or discreditable thing we had ever done, no matter how small, we were supposed to become well-behaved, obedient, uncritical scientologists. (Of course we were not told that in those words, we were told it was our only chance to redeem ourselves from total spiritual disaster.) In this way you were trained into turning any critical thoughts inwards, at yourself, and look for your own mistakes whenever you were upset by something in the organization.

8. While I was a Scientologist, at any points where I would have a thought negatively or critically about a church executive, the organization or the techniques used in Scientology, I would have to squash these thoughts since if I shared them I would be subject to expensive auditing or other disciplinary actions or projects. This is another aspect of the way Scientology controls the thoughts of its constituents. You are trained to only allow certain thoughts or it will cost you time, money and your pride since you will be punished for thinking thoughts that the organization does not want you to think.

This isn't the first time Scientology has used copyright threats to stifle criticism.

As far back as August 1995, Scientology sued one of its former members for posting anti-church information to the Internet and persuaded a federal judge to permit the seizure of his computer. The church then sued The Washington Post for reporting on the computer seizure and quoting from public court records.