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 news.interserv.net!news.sprintlink.net!dish.news.pipex.net!pipex!demon!sidaway.demon.co.uk!Tony Wed Jul 19 09:29:01 1995
Path: news.interserv.net!news.sprintlink.net!dish.news.pipex.net!pipex!demon!sidaway.demon.co.uk!Tony
From: Tony Sidaway <Tony@sidaway.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,news.admin.net-abuse.misc,alt.aol-sucks
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: <805964375snz@sidaway.demon.co.uk>
References: <3tsl9u$7t2@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <3u6mci$k99@nyx10.cs.du.edu> <3u7qjd$31s@news4.digex.net> <805806121snz@sidaway.demon.co.uk> <3ucpjh$emn@news3.digex.net>
Reply-To: Tony@sidaway.demon.co.uk
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: sidaway.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.29
In article <3ucpjh$emn@news3.digex.net>
mcgatney@access.digex.net "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 sermoner1@aol.com 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 @ http://www.cybercom.net/~rnewman/scientology/tshirt/
Shipped in plain brown wrappers. Names/addresses kept in a Vera-proof place.
Email to: ladyada@gnu.ai.mit.edu Subj: SHIRTS (specify size) 4-8 weeks deliv