From: ethridge@Onramp.NET (Allen Ethridge)
Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 13:17:17 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Remailers, Copyright, and Scientology
In-Reply-To: <adc67d21170210049d4e@[205.199.118.202]>
Message-ID: <199605211936447595590@central10.onramp.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


> At 6:15 PM 5/20/96, Rich Burroughs wrote:
> >At 01:08 AM 5/20/96 -0700, tcmay@got.net (Timothy C. May) wrote:
> >[snip]
> >>And the issue of CoS seeking legal actions against those they claim are
> >>violating their copyrights is separable from their religious status.
> >
> >Not at all.  Their actions are based on their religious doctrines, as passed
> >down by Hubbard.  "Always attack, never defend."  Their claims of copyright
> >violation are part of an ongoing effort to silence those who criticize their
> >illegal and immoral practices.  They should be examined in that context.
> 
> I don't care what their motivations, religious or other, are.
> 
> As I see it, some people here (including some good friends of mine, by the
> way) are caught up in a religious war. Those opposed to CoS are "outing"
> putative CoS secrets by aggressive use of remailers. The CoS is fighting
> back. Is anyone surprised?

I've been following alt.religion.scientology mostly for entertainment
reasons, and occasionally to correct some of the false statements about
psychiatry made by Scientologists.  There's more to the story than you
appear to be aware of.  The extra-legal actions didn't originate with
the alleged copyright violations, nor are the legal actions of the cult
limited to protecting their copyrights.  Now that the cypherpunks have
been brought to their attention it's entirely possible that the major
posters on this newsgroup will become the subject of Scientology's, or
rather Religious Technology Center's legal actions.

I believe the original legal action relates to the posting of court
documents that contained cult scripture.  And the cease and desist
letters are sent for what are clearly fair use extracts.  If someone
were to be so unkind as to post a certain six sentences to this
newsgroup we might see toad.com shut down.

Yes, the cult does have a legitimate interest in protecting their
copyrights.  No, the cult does not have a valid reason for using the
heavy-handed legal tactics of which they are so fond.


-- 
if not me, then who?
mailto:ethridge@onramp.net
http://rampages.onramp.net/~ethridge/