Cult

=== United States ===
In the 1970s, the scientific status of the "[[Mind control|brainwashing theory]]" became a central topic in [[List of courts of the United States|U.S. court]] cases where the theory was used to try to justify the use of the forceful [[deprogramming]] of cult members.<ref name="Lewis, 2004"/><ref name="Davis1996">Davis, Dena S. 1996. "Joining a Cult: Religious Choice or Psychological Aberration." ''Journal of Law and Health''.</ref> Meanwhile, [[List of sociologists|sociologists]] who were critical of these theories assisted advocates of [[religious freedom]] in defending the legitimacy of new religious movements in court.<ref name="refRichardsonIntrovigne" /><ref name="Edelman">{{cite journal |doi=10.1525/nr.2003.6.2.312 |last1=Edelman |first1=Bryan |last2=Richardson |first2=James T. |year=2003 |title=Falun Gong and the Law: Development of Legal Social Control in China |journal=Nova Religio |volume=6 |issue=2 |pages=312–331}}</ref> In the United States the religious activities of cults are protected under the [[First Amendment of the United States Constitution]], which prohibits governmental [[establishment of religion]] and protects [[freedom of religion]], [[freedom of speech]], [[freedom of the press]], and [[freedom of assembly]]. However, no members of religious groups or cults are granted any special [[Legal immunity|immunity]] from [[Prosecutor|criminal prosecution]].<ref name="Ogloff92">
{{cite journal|last= Ogloff|first= J. R.|author2= Pfeifer, J. E.|title= Cults and the law: A discussion of the legality of alleged cult activities.|journal= Behavioral Sciences & the Law|year= 1992|volume= 10|issue= 1|pages= 117–140|doi= 10.1002/bsl.2370100111}}</ref> In 1990, the [[Legal case|court case]] of ''United States v. Fishman'' (1990) ended the usage of brainwashing theories by expert witnesses such as [[Margaret Singer]] and [[Richard Ofshe]].<ref name=":4">''[https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/743/713/2593631/ United States v. Fishman]'', 743 [[Federal Supplement|F. Supp]]. 713 ([[United States District Court for the Northern District of California|N.D. Cal.]] 1990).</ref> In the case's ruling, the court cited the [[Frye standard]], which states that the [[scientific theory]] which is utilized by expert witnesses must be generally accepted in their respective fields. The court deemed [[brainwashing]] to be inadmissible in expert testimonies, using supporting documents which were published by the [[APA Task Force on Deceptive and Indirect Methods of Persuasion and Control]], literature from previous court cases in which brainwashing theories were used, and expert testimonies which were delivered by scholars such as [[Dick Anthony]].<ref name=":4" /><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Introvigne |first1=Massimo |title=Advocacy, brainwashing theories, and new religious movements |journal=Religion |volume=44 |issue=2 |pages=303–319 |doi=10.1080/0048721X.2014.888021 |year=2014 |s2cid=144440076}}</ref>