Archive Message - 1995

Since some of the materials which describe the $cientology cult could be considered to be copywritten materials, I have censored myself and The Skeptic Tank by deleting any and all possible text files which describes the cult's hidden mythologies. I have elected to quote just a bit of the questionable text according to the "Fair Use" legal findings afforded to those who report. - Fredric L. Rice, The Skeptic Tank, 09/Sep/95 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- From!!!pipex!demon!!Tony Wed Jul 19 09:29:01 1995 Path:!!!pipex!demon!!Tony From: Tony Sidaway <> Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,, Subject: Re: AOL Promulgates False Advertising Deliberately Date: Mon, 17 Jul 95 06:59:35 GMT Organization: Her Majesty's Pleasure Lines: 138 Message-ID: <> References: <3tsl9u$> <3u6mci$> <3u7qjd$> <> <3ucpjh$> Reply-To: X-NNTP-Posting-Host: X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.29 In article <3ucpjh$> "D. McGatney (hv" writes: > >> > >> DAwn Replies----->>> > >> > >> > >> AOL has a perfect right to delete all anti-Scientology posts. > > > > You miss the point. Two points, really. > > > DAwn Replies----->>> > > > While theoretically possible, I'd say that's highly unlikely. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > 1) The posts that were _not_ deleted may make AOL liable for false > > medical claims (see the recent NY State Trial Court ruling in the > > Prodigy case and the 1971 ruling forbidding the church to make > > medical claims). > > > DAwn Replies----->>> > > > AOL is not responsible for opinions expressed on its boards. Try > someday proving that a medical claim is false. The 1971 case is > old and decided by a state court; the Prodigy case dealt with libel. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ AOL _is_ responsible for the opinions expressed on its boards, precisely because its employee or agent polices the board in question. So the 1971 case is old and decided by a District Court. This is still a precedent and it is still binding on the church of scientology. The prodigy ruling dealt with _liability_. It did not make any ruling on libel, simply whether Prodigy could be held _liable_ for the utterances on its board. > > > 2) AOL is not implementing its own ASUP, because it is allowing > > people with a commercial interest to police a board in such a > > way as to only leave ads for services in which they have a > > financial interest. > > > DAwn Replies----->>> > > > Perhaps. But how could you ever prove that the motive of those > policing the boards was $? > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ That's a straw man. The motive of those placing the posts is to promote something in which they have a financial interest. The motive of those policing the boards is immaterial, except insofar as they act as agents of the company. > > >> What you now need to ask yourself is this--> Do I want to support such > >> an organisation with my $$$$$ month after month after month? > > > > AOL may provide useful services to those who would otherwise have > > none. Leaving that aside, here is a very strong lever with which > > to persuade AOL to clean up its act. > > > DAwn Replies----->>> > > > AOL is a play with only one act--> GIMME $$$$$. They will clean up > nothing that is not related to the profit motive. And whatever > useful dervice they may provide to a few individuals are paid for > by these individuals many many times over. In some cases, forever. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > Boycotts will have limited effect while there is a strong head of > > pressure of people rushing to their nearest ISP (in many cases AOL) > > to replace those who defect. > > > > The real power lies in the courts. AOL _IS_ placing itself in a > > vulnerable position. Point this out forcibly enough and Steve Case > > will have to move his ass. > > > > I am not a US citizen, so I cannot just contact the US FDA, but I > > do think they would be interested in the AIDS post that appeared > > on AOL, which implied that a scientology exercise known as the > > False Intention Rundown can turn a HIV-positive person with an > > extremely low t-cell count (ie an AIDS sufferer) into a HIV-negative. > > It's a clear breach of the embargo imposed by the US Courts on > medical > > claims by the cult. The recent NY State ruling implies AOL would be > > liable because the people who weed posts out of the folders are > either > > employees or agents of AOL. > > > > If any of you guys on 'sucks' are _really_ interested in > > burning Steve Case's ass, I suggest you investigate this one. > > > > If anyone's interested, email me and I'll repost the relevant > > documentation. > > > DAwn Replies----->>> > > > Again, AOL is NOT responsible for claims posted on its boards; those > are the opinions of the posters. And again, what some lower court > in NY decided in 1971 has *NO* effect on AOL. What- are you going to > enjoin AOL from doing business in NY? Rubbish. You confuse a District Court ruling with the more recent NY State ruling. Both are in effect at this time, and together they are bad news for AOL. > > C'mon. No offence, but wacko posts like this detract from the many > credible reasons for leaving AOL. And the fact that Scientologists > post their opinions on AOL boards just ain't gonna make it. Read my post again. You will see that I provide two legal precedents which you have not bothered to check out. You seem to live in a world where something decided in the courts before 1972 is no longer applicable. Whose post is "whacko?" -- Xenu's Famous House o' Clams T-shirts! *All* profits go to MoFo to help with the Dennis Erlich Defense Fund. $15 per shirt, PIX @ Shipped in plain brown wrappers. Names/addresses kept in a Vera-proof place. Email to: Subj: SHIRTS (specify size) 4-8 weeks deliv


Return to The Skeptic Tank Alt.Religion.Scientology Archives Master List
Go to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.
E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank