Scientology Crime Syndicate

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: Why The Scientology Crime Syndicate Needs Safe's Name and Address
From: armstrong@dowco.com (gerry armstrong)
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 20:23:06 GMT

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
> 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.

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

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.

Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank