From: Rich Burroughs <richieb@teleport.com>
Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 08:42:56 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: SEVERE undercapacity, we need more remailer servers FAST (fwd)
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.92.960521111133.7752A-100000@linda.teleport.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


[Zed, sorry to send this twice -- forgot to add the list address, and I
have additional info...]

On Wed, 22 May 1996, Zed wrote:

[snip]
> Now to try to get this back on-topic, there was one NOTS document which was
> posted anonymously before the whole pack made it to
> alt.religion.scientology. It described a process(or "ritual" if you prefer)
> designed to help _physical_ affliction. It _may_ violate an FDA ruling
> prohibiting the Church from practising medicine. It is _definitely_ a
> violation of copyright to post it and one person, Keith Henson, is getting
> sued for quoting it. Now, was sending this NOTS document through an
> anonymous remailer a good or a bad thing to do?

I'm confused.

I thought Keith had admitted posting the document, but claimed that the
materials describe illegal acts (as you mentioned) and that posting is in
the public interest, or something like that.  How are they suing him if
he posted anon?

I've been away from a.r.s. for a while, but I'm back there now and am
trying to get back up to speed...



Bye :)

Rich

p.s.  Okay, I hit Ron Newman's web page, and it seems my suspicion was
correct.  Here's a quote from Keith's post, which contained NOTS 34 -- he
posted it from his own account, not via a remailer:

: I had not been inclined to look at this
: material before (it's *boring*), but your TRO inspired me.  Assuming
: this is real, I can see why the "Church" of Scientology is trying to
: suppress this material.  If carried out, the instructions in this
: particular bulletin amount to *criminal* acts, to wit, the practice of
: medicine without a license.  I reproduce this widely available
: document in its entirety for your edification.

Had he posted it through a remailer, I think it would have been well
justified.  He was obviously blowing the whistle on what he saw as illegal
activities.  That's a much different matter than posting the entire NOTs
series, though.  The wholesale copying is what most people seem to object
to, though my observations tell me that the "Church" objects to any
copying, even for fair use...


______________________________________________________________________
Rich Burroughs  richieb@teleport.com  http://www.teleport.com/~richieb
See my Blue Ribbon Page at http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/blueribbon
New EF zine "cause for alarm" - http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/cause