Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Like other users of the Internet, I appreciate the fact that I can surf the
Web with anonymity--at least I think I can. But your June 14 article about the
use of "John Doe" suits to determine users' identities misses a very important
point.
It is one thing to say that people who use the Internet are entitled to
privacy when their actions do not interfere with the rights of others.
But if one posts critical or accusatory messages in a public forum, such as a
chat room or electronic bulletin board, is it reasonable to expect that his
identity will be kept secret? Consider the rights of the victim (i.e., the
target of the criticism). If somebody made negative comments about you, don't
you think you would have the right to know their identity, if it was
ascertainable? The right of privacy is not absolute.
CARY A. PETZEL
Mr. Petzel misses a very important point: Criticism doesn't make you a
victim. You may have curiosity to find out who's saying nasty things about you
on the internet, but no right to find out unless there is actual libel
involved.
The Digital Millenium Copyright Act is fatally flawed in a number of places,
but nowhere so much as in it's lack of recourse for those on the receiving end
of it's terms.
The DMCA has reasonable provisions for libel and copyright infingement, but no
adequate provisions for the misuse of those provisions for pure harassment. As
we've seen in numerous cases, one of them being the one of the formerly
anonymous 'Safe', organizations such as the Church of Scientology and
corporations are using the provisions for libel and copyright infringement in
bad faith. They claim to be pursuing a court action but have yet to actually
do so.
I know of numerous cases so far where the Church of Scientology has blatantly
and fraudulently claimed copyright infringement only to use the provisions of
the DMCA to harass. If the 'Church' is not just folowing it's religious
precept, as given down by Hubbard himself, to use the justice system to harass,
then it must actually file a copyright lawsuit against 'Safe' or sue for libel
or whatever other justification it has claimed for it's call to the DMCA.
Since no copyright infringement or libel actually exists it's obvious that the
so called 'Church' will not so do. Of course the DMCA gives 'Safe' and other
true victims of harassment recourse. That is to sue the harassing party.
Unfortunately the only penalty that they can claim against that party is for
'damages' which are intangible in the case of a lost anonymity that opens one
up to other well documented harassing actions of the perpetrator, or in the
case of claimed copyright infringement, leads to the purpose of the complainer
in the first place; to still criticism.
The DMCA must be changed to allow heavy penalties for fraudulent claims.
Joe Lynn
Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.
Subject: Internet Privacy-Letters to the Ed. LA Times
From: zinjifar@yahoo.com (Zinj)
Date: 21 Jun 1999 11:59:31 -0500
Yucca Valley
zinjifar@yahoo.com
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.