Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Safe's situation
From: dbrower@us.oracle.com (David Brower)
Date: 4 Jun 99 00:15:23 GMT

I think Safe's expectation of anonymity is shot by the USC language that let's Co$ subpoena AT&T w/o a suit pending, and I don't think AT&T has a leg to stand up arguing against it.

The issue of fair use can only be settled with an action against a served party. What safe posted, despite the interleaved commentary, is the entirety of that document. It is not clear as a matter of law whether the added commentary makes the posting properly "fair use", which can only be determined by the court.

Anonymity on the net is under attack from all over. It appears that Co$ has discovered a tool to use with US courts to pierce layers. Just allege copyright violation, and make the ISP/remailer hand over the name. If you really want to be anonymous, it seems your should be using offshore remailers.

Frankly, I think it is cowardice to post things you think are fair use, and then try to duck behind pseudo-anonymity. Grady and Keith had the courage of their convictions in the things they have posted and have not hidden behind handles. And, as expected, they received the expected attention from the Moxons of the world. If you aren't ready to handle the harrasment, you shouldn't be posting chunks of things that come anywhere near the line on fair use -- and it is quite clear that posting the entirety of a document is wandering near the gray area. It seems fair to post segments and paraphrases, but quoting the whole thing is asking for trouble.

The only angle I see for Safe is a counterclaim based on SLAPP, which can only proceed if Co$ takes action against him (or her). If Co$ does nothing to the identified party, Safe is just under a cloud of perfectly legal intimidation. They can do that. They have the money and the staff. There's not much to be done about it in the narrow sense. -dB

Click here for some additional truth about the Scientology crime syndicate: XENU.NET