ISP Reveals Scientology Critic (fwd)

An interesting case which was posted on "Surveillance List Forum" (6400 Members from 72 Countries around the World...

<http://www.thecodex.com/list.html>
"We don't spy on you... but we DO keep an eye on those that do..." )

Michael Juhre
<michael.juhre[_at_]aig.com>

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

> From: "Terrance L. Kawles" <tkawles[_at_]tco.com>
> Subject: Re: ISP Reveals Scientology Critic
>
> >4) From: FGM7516[_at_]aol.com
> >Subject: ISP Reveals Scientology Critic

THE "SAFE" STORY Internet service provider AT&T, in response to a subpoena, released the identity of a WorldNet subscriber to Bridge Publications, a corporate arm of the Church of Scientology. The subscriber, known as "Safe," allegedly posted portions of the church's doctrine to a newsgroup critical of Scientology. The church claimed that these postings violate its copyright, and under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, obtained a subpoena to induce AT&T to reveal Safe's personal information.

Bridge's attorney who filed the subpoena, said that Safe had made "unauthorized, verbatim postings," from the group's copyrighted doctrines. Safe contended that his postings were not verbatim.

The idea of using of the Copyright Law to control commentary is not new, but its use on a new class of people the previously did not have the unlimited potential of the Internet at their "mouse click" is.

The Church of Scientology

The Church of Scientology, of L. Ron Hubbard, Dyanetics, John Travolta, etc. fame, is well-known for its use (or misuse) of Copyright Law as a method of controlling critical comment pertaining to its doctrines. By copyrighting their writings, they seek to control direct reference to their writings in publications by outside parties. This technique is tantamount to the Pope (taking authorship/ownership and public domain issues aside) copyrighting the New Testament and suing Jimmy Swaggart for quoting the New Testament in any comments that may be critical of Roman Catholic doctrine.

Clearly, the fair use doctrine, used correctly by the commentor, allows the use of such copyrighted writings within the context of comment or criticism. The Church of Scientology knows that, but it hoping that the commentator does not have the stomach to fight them within the judicial framework. In addition, it may be their intention to set a precedent regarding these issues, thereby having a "chilling" effect on those potential commentators who do not have the stomach for defending their rights of commentary in a court of law.

As for Safe: are you really entitled to offer critical comment publicly in anonymity? Maybe the answer is "yes." But if you get harassed, the source of disclosure could only be a deep-pocket (via subpoena). Welcome a lawsuit.

As for the alleged harassment of Keith Henson: If such acts arise, you have potential causes of action for defamation, prima facie tort, assult, etc. Mr. Henson has a judicial remedy against a deep-pocket defendant, a scenario most lawyers are willing to undertake, perhaps even on contingency.

For both: the counter-suit is always an effective counter-attack, especially in jurisdictions where the prevailing party may be entitled to attorneys fees. Finally, on issues such as this, look for help from the numerous legal-aid type organizations that specifically defend these type of free speech issues.

Right to Commentary and Anonymity

Nonetheless, those who seek to comments are not Constitutionally entitled to anonymity. The potential abuse for anonymous comment is great: defamation, fraud, stalking, etc. Therefore, with rights come responsibility. If it is worth saying in publication, it's worth putting your name to it... the choice is yours.

It is also crucial to remember that there is a substantial difference between what you can say in so-called private/personal email between two parties and a public posting to a news group, chat room etc.

The First Amendment

It is unclear whether the first amendment grants an additional privilege to make unauthorized copies of protected works beyond that granted by the doctrine of fair use. While law experts argue that a separate defense against an allegation of copyright infringement does exist, courts have not agreed. Instead, courts have stated that the combination of the fair use doctrine and the fact that copyright does not prevent the copying of facts and ideas secures society's interest in free speech.

The Bottom Line.

1. Use only the exerpts needed to illustrate your commentary and/or criticism; you are not entitled to copy an entire copyrighted work.
2. Remember: copyrighted works are fair game for comment, criticism and (believe it or not) PARODY! and
3. If someone rattles their sabres at you over legitimate comment, criticism or parody, threaten them with a countersuit for malicious prosecution!