🚀 go-pugleaf

Electronic Frontier Foundation Media Release

Conviction of Scientology Critic Raises Free Speech Issue

Electronic Frontier Foundation Concerned US Court Violated Free Speech
Rights

For Immediate Release: June 22, 2001

Contact:
Cindy Cohn, EFF Legal Director,
cindy@eff.org,
+1 415 436 9333 x108

http://www.eff.org/Legal/Cases/Scientology_cases/20010622_eff_henson_pr.html

San Francisco - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) today expressed
concern over a California court conviction of H.  Keith Henson in a case
involving online criticism of the Church of Scientology (CoS). In a
decision which appears to have violated his constitutional right to free
speech, a jury in Riverside County convicted Henson of threatening the
free exercise of religion by members of the CoS.

"We are deeply concerned that the decision violates Mr. Henson's free
speech rights," said EFF Legal Director Cindy Cohn.  "Since he does not
appear to have made any credible threat of physical attack as required
for
conviction under the U.S.  Constitution, Mr. Henson has a legal right to
express criticisms online without fearing a prison term." 

On April 26, 2001, Henson was convicted of threatening to interfere with
the CoS members' freedom to enjoy their constitutional right to the free
exercise of religion. Although official trial documents are not yet
available, the verdict seems based on Henson's activities while
picketing
the CoS desert compound and postings on the Internet
alt.religion.scientology newsgroup. It appears that the postings
admitted
into evidence included only fragments of longer postings or threads
taken
out of context. For example, the defense was apparently prohibited from
showing that a comment about "cruise missiles" was made in response to a
joke about actor Tom Cruise. The trial judge also allegedly forbid
Henson
from explaining why he was protesting Scientology.

Henson was also accused of making and attempting to make terrorist
threats
against the CoS, however the jury convicted only on a single misdemeanor
charge under a California "hate crime" statute. EFF is concerned that
the
jury may have convicted Henson on this one charge based on
misinformation
and mislabeling of evidence introduced at trial.

The basic requirements for conviction under California Penal Code
section
422.6 are that "force or the threat of force" must be involved and that
"the speech itself threatened violence against a specific person or
group
of persons and that the defendant had the apparent ability to carry out
the threat."

Neither of these requirements appear to have been met in Henson's case. 
For instance, Henson's discussions apparently included long-range
missile
systems in connection with the CoS desert compound.  Such statements
seem
inadequate to substantiate a reasonable fear that he would actually
launch
or have the ability to launch a missile attack against anyone.

Furthermore, a recent decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals,
Planned Parenthood v. American Coalition of Life Activists, clarified
that
strong advocacy is protected expression stating, "it doesn't matter if
the
speech makes future violence more likely;  advocating 'illegal action at
some indefinite future time' is protected."

Following his conviction, Henson took refuge in Canada where, based on
information Scientology sent to authorities, he was arrested in a
shopping
mall parking lot, by a heavily armed paramilitary unit. However,
Canadian
officials later released Henson and accepted his application for asylum.

In a May 30th phone interview with the Toronto Star newspaper, Henson's
wife said that he is being targeted by the CoS because he has been
working
to expose the group as a crime syndicate for five years.

EFF Executive Director Shari Steele commented, "EFF is deeply disturbed
by
these possible violations of Mr. Henson's constitutional rights. This
trial seems intended to punish Mr. Henson for his opposition to a
powerful
organization, using the barest thread of legal justification to do so.
EFF
joins Mr. Henson's American counsel in urging the California Court of
Appeals to set aside this verdict and confirm Mr. Henson's right to
protest publicly a group that he opposes."