Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Why The Scientology Crime Syndicate Needs Safe's Name and Address
On Fri, 4 Jun 1999 04:18:34 +1000, Zed <hendersn@zeta.org.au> wrote:
> I see the articles which Safe posted containing alleged copyright
In my opinion, your belief is an accurate conclusion. The same
conclusion would be accurate for the "$ecret" $criptures.(The Hubbard
"policy letters" which Safe quotes are not considered ""$ecret"
$criptures" but are extremely broadly distributed and utterly
"non-"Secret," although still "$criptures."
$cientology's basic philosophy, policy and practice is fair game.
Copyright law, and all law, is used by the cult per policy to forward
fair game. Their apparently paranoid "protection" of their copyrights
is to protect this fruitful fair game facet. David Miscavige and his
regime do not give a flying fig about protecting Hubbard's writings.
They care about fair game.
Safe's quashing of the subpoena seeking his identity should (IANAL:)
be based on this fact.
Safe also has a religious expression defense which should be asserted
in the first document filed. If anybody has a religious defense for
posting whatever he wants of $cientology's $criptures it is our very
own Scientologist, Safe. The safe expression of $cientology is an
essential part of his religion.
Everyone's posting of Safe's posts containing Hubbard's writings,
does, however, help to point out the idiocy of copyright law - to the
extent it is used by DM's $cientology to forward this frightful
Frankenstein - in this irrepressible internet age.
My reason for posting my May 23 response to Safe's "Dead Agent" post
was precisely because I had quoted Safe completely, and added enough
commentary to get us both over any conceivable copyright infringement
rap. Way ahead of Ava Paquette, Esq.
I think Safe's situation could even be the little spark to get this
bomb for $cientology - the use of copyright law, and every other law,
to harass, and generally turning the House of Justice into a den of
thieves - in front of the US Congress.
I think it's good to keep up in lights, wherever possible and safe,
what exatly it is $cientology is seeking to suppress, even if their
seeking to suppress it is merely an excuse to do a little intel, do a
little intimidation, do a little Dev-T, do a little fair game, get a
stat.
Boy, I sure hope AT&T's internet folks are keeping an eye on all this.
And I sure hope our folks are keeping an eye on AT&T.
(c) Gerry Armstrong
Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.
From: armstrong@dowco.com (gerry armstrong)
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 20:23:06 GMT
> material are being reposted with gusto. Much as I like the show of
> support for Safe, I hope people aren't missing the point here.
>
> It is my belief that the Co$ couldn't care less what excerpts of
> their scriptures Safe posted. All that I think matters to them is that
> he posted _something_ which could give them an plausible excuse to
> fish for his real name. What it actually was that he posted is
> irrelevant. Now Safe has a good chance of being stripped of his
> anonymity, and I believe that, rather than any attempt to prevent
> distribution of the Church's publically available scriptures, is the
> Church's aim.
Click here for some additional truth about the Scientology crime syndicate:
XENU.NET
The views and opinions stated within this web page are those of the
author or authors which wrote them and may not reflect the views and
opinions of the ISP or account user which hosts the web page. The
opinions may or may not be those of the Chairman of The Skeptic Tank.