Slashdot Log In
Scientologists Force Comment Off Slashdot
from the i-guess-it-was-inevitable dept.
This is the first time since we instituted our moderation system that a comment has had to be removed because of its content, and believe me nobody is more broken hearted about it than me. It's a bad precedent, and a blow for the freedom of speech that we all share in this forum. But this simply doesn't look like a case we can win. Our lawyers tell us that it appears to be a violation of Copyright law, and under the terms of the DMCA, we must remove it. Else we risk legal action that would at best be expensive, and potentially cause Slashdot to go down temporarily or even permanently. At the worst, court orders could jeporadize your privacy, and we would be helpless to stop it.
We need to choose our battles and this isn't one we want to have. We want Slashdot to be a forum where you can say what's in your heart, but we simply can't defend an anonymous poster who violates copyright law. Keep that in mind when you post in both this discussion, and in others in the future. Post your ideas. Post your thoughts. And most of all, post your links. We need to play by the rules or it's game over.
Now there is the matter of this specific comment. It contained a text called "OT III", part of what is known as the Fishman Affidavit. This text is Copyrighted by the Church of Scientology. In compliance with the DMCA, we are removing it from Slashdot. In its place we are putting non-copyrighted text: Links to websites about the church of Scientology, as well as links to how you can contact your congressman about the DMCA. Thanks a lot to Jamie for putting this together.
First of all, we would like to point out that the text of OT III is available at many other places on the web. To many to list here in fact. Instead, try a Google search on "OT III" and "Fishman", which as of this writing (March 2001) returns over 250 pages. A broader search on AltaVista returns over 2,000 webpages.
Operating in the jurisdiction of the Dutch courts, Karin Spaink's Fishman Affidavit webpage has fended off two lawsuits from Scientology, one in 1996 and one in 1999. The latter suit, according to the page, is still being appealed. >From the link listed just above, you can click through to the Fishman Affidavit, which contains links to not only to an annotated copy of OT III, but to the documents on the other OT levels as well, number one through the disputed number eight.
If you would like a plain English explanation of OT III, see OT III Rewritten For Beginners, by Jon Atack. Its author is a former Scientologist who himself completed level OT III. The webpage contains nothing copyrighted by a Scientology organization. It is an explanation of what OT III says and what that means, along with commentary by the author. Jon Atack is also the author of A Piece of Blue Sky, which is a history of Scientology from before its founding to after L. Ron Hubbard's death. At the above link, you can either purchase it, or read it in its entirety online.
If you are interested in Scientology, you will want to visit Operation Clambake, at xenu.net. It seems to be the most important central resource for information on the organization.
You may also want to visit the Lisa McPherson Memorial Page, which claims that "Lisa died needlessly at the hands of Scientology." Her case is truly a tragic one and she deserves to be remembered. The site has a great deal of information on her death. Related is The Lisa McPherson Trust, which has not only information about Lisa, but a very large archive of interviews, court transcripts, news reports, testimonials, and videos about Scientology.
Here's a Slashdot story last year on eBay removing auctions for e-meters based on the Church of Scientology DMCA copyright allegations, which is odd because Copyright law doesn't cover a physical device.
If there's anything else about Scientology you want to know, you will want to see AltReligionScientology.org, which contains a huge list of links to all the sites I don't have room to list here.
The DMCA is actually five separate modifications to copyright law. Its Title I is known for providing legal protection for "technological measures" (typically encryption) which prevent copying; this is the part that empowered the MPAA to sue over DeCSS, to name the best-known example.
That's not the part that concerns us here; Title II is its other major modification of copyright law and that's what we're dealing with. Title II created 17 U.S.C. Section 512, and we're specifically looking at our liability under paragraphs (c)(1)(A), which says we have to act "expeditiously to remove or disable access to the [infringing] material." Here's the U.S. Copyright Office's 18-page summary of the DMCA as a whole. If 18 pages is too long for you, here's the American Library Association's much quicker summary
Here's a list of resources on the DMCA, including the DMCA itself in PDF format. The EFF page on the DCMA seems to relate mostly to Title I, the anti-encryption-circumvention portion, but it's too good not to mention anyway.
Don't know who your Congressperson or Senators are? That's OK, now's as good a time as any to learn. Finding your Senators is easy, just go to Senate.gov. To find your Representative, you just need your zip code. You can use the form on the website to write them if you're lazy, but if you want your message to have more impact, print it out and send it in a real envelope. Anything's better than nothing, though.
When you write, you'll want to write something they'll read. Here are the ACLU's tips for writing to your Congressperson or Senators.
Backfired! (Score:5)
The only winners here are the lawyers (once again).
Scientology isn't so bad (Score:5)
First off, I'd like to congratulate Slashdot for providing thoughtful feedback to the community on this important issue. I'd also like to thank them for slagging Scientology as I agree with claims depicting it as dangerous and sinister. In my opinion it is all of that and more.
My reason, however, for saying that Scientology isn't so bad is based on comparison with other religions. Sure, you posted a link to a site about a girl who was killed by the Scientologists...but what if the Catholic church had been the ones using the DMCA to repress content here? I can't imagine where to begin to discuss the number of people who have died at their hands. How many hits do you get on google when you search for the crusades? How about the 100 years war?
And I don't just object to catholicism. All forms of Christianity have their body count. How many died at the Salem witch trials? How many died in the holocaust?
Christianity isn't the only culprit. How many have died in Israel in the past year alone?
Religion kills. Period. It is a sickness and the cause of more misery and murder committed by man against man than any other human intellectual construct in history.
So, if we're going to slag the Scientologists for being kooks, we might want to remember that the majority of America believes they can talk to an invisible man every Sunday. Pretty kooky if you ask me.
Again, if I have offended anyone, I apologize. Please appreciate, however, that if you support a forum of free speech (in the spirit of Slashdot), then you have to put up with opinions like mine too.
Okay, from the paper: (Score:3)
Right and Ability to Control: Napster has the ability to control the infringing activity of its users because it retains the right to block a user
Nothe that Napster retained the right to tamper with what its users were doing, and to block them. Furthermore:
In order to prove a contributory infringement claim, a copyright owner must establish the following elements: (1) some act of direct infringement (by end-users, for example); (2) that the defendant knew or should have known of the defendant of the direct infringement; and (3) that the defendant materially contributed to the direct infringement.
1&2 are fair enough, but 3? I don't think so.Also:
In order to prove a vicarious infringement claim, a copyright owner must establish the following elements: (1) some act of direct infringement (by end-users, for example); (2) that the defendant had the right or ability to control the direct infringer; and (3) that the defendant derived a direct financial benefit from the direct infringement.
The crucial point is number 2, Slashdot is perfectly free to sign off any 'rights' over what the posters here say
The paper makes one thing shiningly clear: P2P Systems have 2 choices. They van choose between total anarchy, and total control. The problem for Napster is that it did not choose either, and retained some control, and more importantly the right to such control. If slashdot went down the anarchy route, and from reading the posts one would think it had, then it would have nothing to fear. This is about retaining the right, and also exercising it, to tamper with users posts.
--
Re:This is the end for slashdot (Score:5)
On the other end, speech that would present a "clear and present danger" (as I think the quote goes) is not protected. Classic example: shouting "fire" as a prank in a crowded area.
I think our current speech problems have to do with speech about businesses and IP, something which has not been given too much support in the past.
In the end, Slashdot got busted for copyright violation. Notice that we can still all sit here and say anything we want about the Church of Scientology, and they can't send Rob another cease-and-desist order. (They can picket our homes and places of business if we are really obnoxious, but that's a different story.)
This really isn't about free speech at all. Cut and paste has never been protected.
Hello? Andover doesn't exist anymore. Wake up. (Score:5)
For the record Andover.Net *did* go to bat to defend the free speech of Slashdot forums (remeber the UNISYS-GIF flamefest anyone?) even the nuisance trolls, more than once. We stood our ground even when we were about to go public when risking a lawsuit would've sank us.
Andover.Net was the best company I ever worked for, and the executives cared. We were able to buy Slashdot not by making the biggest cash offer (others offered more) but by offering a unique arrangment of editorial freedom that other suitors would not offer.
Anyway today I can't say if Andover.Net would've survived this cold market and stood up to this lawsuit today. You have to pick your battles. Right now we have bigger fish to fry here.
$cientology more powerful than Micro$oft (Score:4)
Re:would this have been different.. (Score:3)
It just so happens that science is the more commond and accepted religion now a days.
That's because science can demonstrate most of its claims. We can see that they are true. So when they use that information to build theories, we have a much easier time accepting them because they fit with what we've already seen to be true.
CAN'T WIN AGAINST SCIENTOLOGY! (Score:5)
Anyone who takes the time to do even a little bit of research into Scientology will realize that the organization will use *ANY* means, *LEGAL OR ILLEGAL* to harass, repress and *destroy* its opponents.
The Taco's life, and the life of everyone at Slashdot and Andover, would have become a living hell.
Scientology has a no-holds-barred *rule*: they are explicitly instructed by Hubbard's words to do *anything* it takes to win.
Which means Taco would have had his pets killed, his car trashed, his house picketed, his parents harassed, his business associates -- banks, etc -- sent packages claiming he's a pedophile, his entire neighbourhood pamphleted with the same pedophile claims, etc. Plus, he'd be challenged by a dozen or more legal suits.
Like I said, a living hell.
People have committed suicide because of Scientology harrassment.
Oh -- and the examples I presented: they're real life. Scientology has done exactly those things to opponents (and even the judges in their court cases!) before, and they'll do it again.
Scientology is one of the most evil organizations on this planet. By every metric you could possibly apply, they are the antithesis of good.
--
Re:This is the end for slashdot (Score:3)
The DMCA even effects places that have 'common carrier' status. The particular title referenced essentially makes common carriers liable for the copyright violations of the people who post stuff on the Internet using their equipment if they don't take down copyright violations quickly when notified of them.
This is a summarization of the various things I've heard people say about it, and not a result of my own reading. I am also not a lawyer. :-)
Lisa McPherson autopsy pics (Score:3)
-josh
I don't blame you (Score:3)
Stupid scientology.
Oh by the way, until it gets deleted here's a good link to the evils of the Church of Scientology: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Secrets/index.html
Re:I don't blame you (Score:5)
Gives new meaning to the term, "cult classic" don't it?
--
Re:This is the end for slashdot (Score:5)
demon.co.uk removing posts for illegality is a different matter, because nothing required them to do so. In this case, the law requires
Re:Backfired! (Score:3)
I don't begrudge anyone who practices Mormonism, nor if they want to proselitize door-to-door (although I politely tell them that as a devout Catholic they are wasting both their time and mine).
Scientology, on the other hand, acts viciously against anyone who distributes their copyrighted works. Why? Maybe they don't want their powerful
secrets revealed to an uncaring (and unpaying public). Most likely because they don't want to the public to realize what complete and utter gibberish it is.
Benefits of Andover (Score:3)
On the flip side, being part of a big company means you can't always take a stand. Your parent company also has more resources to lose, and thus sometimes you have to buckle under.
We'll never know if the old Slashdot would have fought off the religion-for-profit crowd, and some people on here are going to say Andover had a negative effect. Let's not turn this into a flame war - at least, not flame Andover, because we'll never know whether they had a positive effect or not.
Sad day for freedom of speech (Score:4)
This is the exact reason why systems like FreeNet are neened. They are the only line of defence against this misuse of intellectual property rigts. $cientology today, the goverment of China tomorrow...?
Ville Oksanen
SP4 and damn proud of it.
My DeCSS archive:
Re:Slashdot and Common Carrier status (Score:4)
Frankly, if Kuro5hin was choosing between having their site shut down by their ISP or deleting a post due to copyright complaints, my guess about how they would respond is a bit different than yours.
And finally, any poster who uses the phrase "common carrier" in discussing this situation has no idea what it means. (Hint: "common carrier" is a term that refers ONLY to a very limited set of telecommunications companies: mainly the various Bells.) We just posted (a week ago) a link to this paper [eff.org] which examines copyright issues with peer-to-peer services - most of it is applicable to slashdot too. Read it before you spout off about copyright issues.
I'm in two minds about this... (Score:3)
It means that slashdot is just as much a spineless corporate puppet as everyone thought it was.
One the one hand I see where this guy/gal is coming from. Slashdot seems to have sold out. For Malda and Co. to fight the Scientologists would generate major press both against Scientologists and that laughable piece of legislation called the DMCA. Just imagine:
Slashdot Takes Stand Against Both Scientology and DMCA
Geeks Put Oft-touted Ideology To the Test
Open Source Site puts money where mouth is in DMCA wrangle
But another part of me agrees with the blurb. It really isn't worth the time and trouble and lawyers' (more than one :) fees to fight something posted anonymously - especially if the Co$ decide they would like to go after the real poster and subpoena the IP or something.
would this have been different.. (Score:5)
If someone with a UID had posted the comment?
D.
Re:don't slam religion without a full picture (Score:4)
Y'know, you come off sounding every bit as self-righteous and narrow-minded as any preacher ever did.
But s/he never said that; the claim was that *some* of the good around us came from work inspired by or dedicated to religion - not all. Constructing strawmen won't help you deconstruct religion.
Because it is. You might not be religious, religion - particularly the organized kind - might have its flaws, but using phrases like "mass hysteria" or "brainwashing" or "fantasy" to descibe *all* religion is just obnoxious.
And what's wrong with faith? Solipsism is a singularly useless philosophy, and for anything else you need faith in *something*. Even Descartes recognized as much in his Meditations of First Philosophy, and that's really basic stuff. You seem to have a lot of faith, if I may say so, in your own perceptions and reasoning, incomplete as those might be.
So, again, what's wrong with faith? I'm not asking what's wrong with the Scientologists, or the Catholic Church, or with things that people who have faith happen to do. What's wrong with faith in and of itself? Obviously if one's faith is contradicted by observation that's one thing, but is there anything wrong with believing something not contradicted by observation?
Apparently you're not finished with being angry, though. The Church still seems to have quite a hold on you, if the mere mention of faith can cause you to have such a hissy fit.
Like you, I was brought up in a very religious environment. Like you, I broke away from it. Unlike you, I've learned to accept that what's right or wrong for me is not necessarily right or wrong for everyone, recognize that I have my own faith (even if it's not religious) and allow other people theirs.
And you always did. Religion doesn't change that; most don't even try.
Here's some news: from where I sit, your thought processes don't look all that great. I've met many religious people who could construct a better argument for their POV than you have done, and then present it more persuasively. Maybe religion isn't to blame for any deficiency in thought processes, and lack of religion is no panacea.
Re:Slashdot and Common Carrier status (Score:5)
Sigh. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
In the pre-DMCA world, the whole "common carrier" claim for service providers was basically conjecture based on analogies. It was never really litigated, and it certainly wasn't obviously written in any statute. People relied on it, but it might or might not have held up in court; the question was pretty muddy. I suspect that it would not have worked for Slashdot, which could not have asserted ignorance in the same way as, say, a Usenet server.
Regardless of whether the "common carrier" claim would have held up before the DMCA, it definitely will not hold up now, because the DMCA replaces all that uncertainty with a great deal of certainty. Service providers are obligated to take down supposedly infringing material under a very well defined set of procedures. US law has changed on this issue.
Assuming that Scientology has a valid copyright on this material (and it does), and assuming that there are no first-amendment freedom of religion issues muddying the waters (which I'd think there should be, but the courts do not seem to agree), there is absolutely no question that Slashdot was legally obligated to take it down. Chanting "common carrier" no longer has any legal effect, if it ever did.
I understand Scientology has a reputation for litigating bogus claims. This one, however, would seem to be (legally, not morally) valid.
It's not really worth fighting this sort of thing in court. The right response to Scientology is just to overwhelm them with the volume of criticism.
You can get yourself into a lot of trouble by listening to half-informed amateur interpretations of the law.
Probably not (Score:5)
The article said the comment contained a text called "OT III"
If it contained the entire text,or a substantial part of it (several paragraphs), without any other commentary, then it violates copyright law, pure and simple. However, if it contained a small part of the text (a few sentences), with commentary on that text, then it would be criticism, and would "fair use".
Who Loses? Scientology (Score:4)
I, too, hate it that /. removed the comment. Scientology earns another black eye, some more negative exposure. That's a nice end, but the price paid (the means) may not be worth it. But in the grand scheme of things, they lose.
And isn't it Cosmic Justice that John Travolta's money goes to laywers, because of what he did to us in Saturday Night Fever?
Re:Benefits of Andover (Score:3)
I'm glad I'm not the only person who's realized this.
I watched the reaction when Co$ issued the forged rmgroup alt.religion.scientology that started this whole mess years ago.
The reaction was the same as today's - another half-million very pissed-off geeks ended up a new chew toy.
If I want to read about Xenu and the volcanoes, I can get it anywhere on the 'net today. Just like MP3s and DeCSS, it's everywhere, and they can't put the genie back in the bottle again.
Unlike RIAA and MPAA, however, the Co$ is constrained by its own doctrine not to adapt to changing times.
Thus, we see MPAA making the first moves towards friendly relations with the DivX ;-) But Co$ is constrained by its own rules to "always attack, never defend". Its members are punished for trying to apply "the tech" (the words of Hubbard) in innovative ways - even talking about the idea of adapting - is considered "out-tech" and is a punishable offence in the cult.
In the '50s, when the cult was designed, this was a pretty good memeset - highly self-reinforcing, and the "always attack" spin-doctoring (e.g. "when attacked, turn the attack around and say that you welcome investigations of your critics") worked great in the media regime back then.
In the age of the 'net, it's not just useless to try to shut down criticism, it's counterproductive, in that every attempt to do so will result in wider dissemination of the verboten information.
This is a classic "Operation foot-bullet" for the cult. They aimed at Slashdot, fired with both barrels, and now every Slashdot reader knows (a) how low the cult is willing to stoop, (b) everything they could possibly want to know about OT III via search engines and several years' worth of mirrors already set up, and (c) all the other juicy information in the URLs in the article with which Slashdot's editors replaced the OT III posting.
Before Today: "Yet another copy of that Xenu story".
After Today: Ten links detailing OT III, OT III written in English, as opposed to $cienospeak, Jon Atack's book, Operation Clambake, the eBay story about the galvanometers, the needless death of Lisa McPherson, and another huge page of links.
OK, maybe the clams have gotten a clue and realized that the only way to shut down sites that expose $cientology is through the Slashdot effect.
But I doubt it.
Re:Lisa McPherson autopsy pics (Score:3)
Unless rotten.com isn't using the actual autopsy pics, that link is entirely on-topic for this thread.
This is what happens to you when your cult decides that you need to be strapped to a bed and left in isolation to die of dehydration.
The day you die, your corpse is taken, not to the nearest hospital, not to the next-nearest hospital, but five hospitals away, where (what a coincidence!) the doctor (who pronounces you dead on arrival) is a $cientologist.
He then concludes that you were alive when your cult realized you were feeling really bad that day, but that (aaw, shucks!) you tragically died on the way to the hospital.
Re:Slashdot and Common Carrier status (Score:3)
don't slam religion without a full picture (Score:3)
Score: 4 (Insightful)? What are the moderators smoking today? This AC is spewing nothing but Flamebait.
How dare you associate the Holocaust with Christianity? The Holocaust was the sick dream of one sick man, who has been quoted that when the Jews were gone, the Christians were next. Hitler hated God and anything that had to do with Him.
"Religion kills." Sadly, it's true that people have killed in the name of religion. But try looking at the whole picture. Some of humanity's greatest science, art, and literature was also inspired by God. Newton was on a quest to "think God's thoughts after him," and his contemporaries were sometimes disappointed that he spent a majority of his later years writing about the Bible rather than science. This is a common theme throughout the Renaissance. Bach, Beethoven, Michelangelo...so many of history's greatest minds were inspired to that greatness by their Creator. This is the Renaissance we're talking about here, man! One of mankind's greatest intellectual awakenings!
Without the influence of Jesus Christ, this world would be a much sadder place. You really need to read What If Jesus Had Never Been Born? [amazon.com] by Kennedy and Newcombe to get the full picture. Social justice, respect for human life and decline of cannibalism, the end of slavery, rise of medicine/arts/science...all can be attributed in great part to the message of Jesus Christ: Love God, and love your neighbor as yourself. These are the results of faith in action.
Flamebait != Disagree
Re:don't slam religion without a full picture (Score:3)
Also, you seem to be saying that without God, Newton & Bach & Beethoven & Michaelangelo never would have any anything great. At least, it's what you're clearly implying. "Respect for human life" can be attributed to Jesus? What are you smoking? Respect for human life existed long before Jesus did. Hell, look at the Bible for proof: the ten commandments tell you not to murder (though God subsequently orders the Israelites to slaughter hundreds of little villages on their way to the promised land).
Some of WESTERN SOCIETY'S greatest literature/art/music (not much science, however) has been "inspired" by God, however it's utterly irrational to say that works equally as powerful/great would not have happened in the absence of Christianity. Why? Look at all the L/A/M/S that had nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity! The Arabs were leading the world in science up until the Renaissance. No Christianity there (except where the Crusades tries to bring it in, as a pretext for looting everything in sight). The Chinese -- again, no Christianity there -- were way ahead of the west in science, literature, art, and music, long before JC came around, and long after, too.
Religions have always been a source of cultural material, because they are usually so pervasive in the lives of people who believe. Claiming that Christianity is special among religions because it's done "so much good! Look!" is ludicrous.
Name Change? (Score:4)
So will you guys be changing your name from Andover to Bend-over?
ROLCIOF
(Rolling on the floor cause I'm on fire)
Re:Scientology Haiku... (Score:3)
Hmmm...
Ron Hubbard's drones
censoring Slashdot comments
with a "clear" concience?
-- WhiskeyJack
Concessions. (Score:3)
However, I have to make a concession in this case. The CoS (in this case the Church of Scientology, not the Church of Satan) have a nasty reputation for having things go their way, and I can only be relieved at the fact that slashdot still has its servers.
If this sounds dramatic, talk to some people who were mrerely suspected of having CoS-copyrighted material about six years ago. When they quit the CoS, they also (unwittingly) forfeit their home computers and all storage devices.
I'd post a link to the info, but it's been years since I read it, and no longer have a link. Sorry.
Steve
Christ (Score:3)
Rate me on Picture-rate.com [picture-rate.com]
Good way to handle this!! (Score:4)
Re:History of Strongarm Tactics (Score:4)
By way of example, if Microsoft had the forsight to copyright their infamous "Halloween Documents", the Justice Department's case against them would have been considerably weaker.
If somebody is engaging in fraud or other illegal activities, documents which incriminate them that leak out should be considered fair game to republish as an act of critical speech.
obfuscated C contest (Score:3)
Or, could anybody please post a piece of C code (or is it perl) which I'm sure exists. It has variables named after certain words from English, and coincidentally certain space beings. It's a funny piece of code because it almost reads like English. Anyway, it does something useful and I'd like to use it.
Our lawyers tell us that it appears to be a violation of Copyright law,
How can your lawyers think it's a copy of a copyrighted work unless the crazy cultists provided a copy of the original text to compare against? Could you post that as part of your full disclosure of the case? They sent it to you.
we simply can't defend an anonymous poster who violates copyright law.
In taking down the deleted story, is Slash also turning the IP address of the poster over to the bad guys?
Re:I'm in two minds about this... (Score:3)
Before today will be remembered as the heady days when folks posted freely their musings. Soon we'll start sliding downward toward full active moderation and censorship, albiet benevolent at first. I think too that this is a good demarkation of the new internet climate, I find it ironic that this comes right after Katz latest diatribes.
--// Hartsock
CoS / IRS Closing Agreement (Score:4)
Re:Scientology Haiku... (Score:4)
used as weapon; Taco bends
but he never breaks
Re:I don't blame you (Score:4)
There was a probably apocryphal story I was told many years ago by the then editor of a big SF mag. Apparently a sales clerk in a branch of Barnes & Nobel (or similar) was asked by a customer for ten copies of the latest Mission Earth epic. After being told that they only had five in stock the customer looked confused, said "Oh. I was told to buy ten," and left the store.
I so want to believe that happened.
--
Re:I don't blame you (Score:5)
I mean, how can a website like slashdot hope to fight the good fight against a bunch of brainwashed zealots who'se religion is to take as much money as they can from their members.
Hey, they managed to stand up to Microsoft.--
making lemonade out of lemons (Score:3)
I echo his call for people to write to there rep/sentor; remmeber: if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
Operation Footbullet (Score:3)
The Mormon Church -- er, I mean, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"* -- once pulled a similar feat when they sued to get Jerald and Sandra Tanner (two of their most prominent critics) to remove several pages of copyrighted material. The material was from the General Handbook of Instruction, a book of procedures and policies used by LDS bishops, and it described how to get one's name removed from the records of the Church.
So the Mormon Church sued, the Tanners took down the material after a protracted legal battle, replacing it with a link and later with a summary of the material. Meanwhile, hits to their website [utlm.org] tripled, and it became very popular in "anti-Mormon" circles for everyone to have their own electronic copy of the General Handbook of Instruction. The Tanners have a summary of the whole legal battle [utlm.org], for anyone interested. I think it's relevant to the discussion because they discovered that linking to the copyrighted material -- as /. has -- still opened them up to liability.
* Lately, "The Church" has been strangely obsessed with media outlets using its "proper name."
Kudos! (Score:5)
The comment itself probably didn't get anywhere near the exposure the headline and removal will get. So, while it may seem that our boys at /. have sold-out or are spineless, I see it as creative rebellion.
I am, however, slightly worried about the implications of editorial control over the forums now. Does this mean the common carrier defense is no longer valid? Personally, I don't think so, simply because in this case, they were alerted to the problem, then asked to remove. If they had noticed it themselves, then removed it, I'd be taking a different stand....
Scientology Haiku... (Score:3)
Mad about writings
on Slashdot, seems as though my
thetans are still here.
Re:$cientology more powerful than Micro$oft (Score:5)
I think you have a good point there. Socially, an evil, corrupt "religion" like Scientology is FAR more dangerous to society than ANY corporation.
Scientology is like the 1980's televangelists, only far worse. I've read xenu.net for quite some time. This is an organization that has a history of using "secret police" against their members AND people who dare dennounce them. They've been busted by the FBI more than once.
They hide behind copyright to keep outsiders from knowing the truth about them. I'd have to say that ANY religion that claims it's "bible" is copyrighted and proprietary would have to be viewed with suspicion...
Fortunately, Scientology isn't trying to convert the masses, which keeps them out of most people's lives. You can't BE a Scientologist unless you are filthy rich, because you have to pay vast sums of money for "training" etc. This isn't exactly a "church" that collects offerings to use for the poor. Scientology's one foothold is among the Hollywood Left, Tom Cruise, Nicole Kidman, John Travolta, etc.
What Scientology WANTS to do, in my opinion, is convert the rich and powerful (who fund them), whereby they will get control over the masses.
What an example of how just totally evil the DMCA is as a law... It protects corporate cartels (MPAA), and for-profit "religions" (cult more properly describes Scientology though).
Re:For free speech (Score:3)
For free speech (Score:5)
Re:would this have been different.. (Score:3)
Wait a minute. Wait a minute! Hawaii didn't exist 75 million years ago!
OMG, Scientology is a bunch of made-up crap!
CENSORED (Score:5)
Re:This is the end for slashdot (Score:5)
This action by Slashdot is not the end of Slashdot, nor is it legally binding (IANAL). It is nothing more than a prudent move in our current "Freedom of Speech" climate.
As we all know, Freedom of Speech does not exist in this country. When the constitution reads "Congress shall make 'no' law...", and those in congress interpret this as "Congress shall make 'some' laws...", then a move made to preserve your own existence could only be called prudent. We have to choose our battles.... in this case the comment itself was removed, but links can be provided and instructions for how to obtain the text through serch engines can also be provided.
One does not weather a storm by attempting to sail through it at full sail.