Slashdot Log In
Scientologists Force Comment Off Slashdot
from the i-guess-it-was-inevitable dept.
This is the first time since we instituted our moderation system that a comment has had to be removed because of its content, and believe me nobody is more broken hearted about it than me. It's a bad precedent, and a blow for the freedom of speech that we all share in this forum. But this simply doesn't look like a case we can win. Our lawyers tell us that it appears to be a violation of Copyright law, and under the terms of the DMCA, we must remove it. Else we risk legal action that would at best be expensive, and potentially cause Slashdot to go down temporarily or even permanently. At the worst, court orders could jeporadize your privacy, and we would be helpless to stop it.
We need to choose our battles and this isn't one we want to have. We want Slashdot to be a forum where you can say what's in your heart, but we simply can't defend an anonymous poster who violates copyright law. Keep that in mind when you post in both this discussion, and in others in the future. Post your ideas. Post your thoughts. And most of all, post your links. We need to play by the rules or it's game over.
Now there is the matter of this specific comment. It contained a text called "OT III", part of what is known as the Fishman Affidavit. This text is Copyrighted by the Church of Scientology. In compliance with the DMCA, we are removing it from Slashdot. In its place we are putting non-copyrighted text: Links to websites about the church of Scientology, as well as links to how you can contact your congressman about the DMCA. Thanks a lot to Jamie for putting this together.
First of all, we would like to point out that the text of OT III is available at many other places on the web. To many to list here in fact. Instead, try a Google search on "OT III" and "Fishman", which as of this writing (March 2001) returns over 250 pages. A broader search on AltaVista returns over 2,000 webpages.
Operating in the jurisdiction of the Dutch courts, Karin Spaink's Fishman Affidavit webpage has fended off two lawsuits from Scientology, one in 1996 and one in 1999. The latter suit, according to the page, is still being appealed. >From the link listed just above, you can click through to the Fishman Affidavit, which contains links to not only to an annotated copy of OT III, but to the documents on the other OT levels as well, number one through the disputed number eight.
If you would like a plain English explanation of OT III, see OT III Rewritten For Beginners, by Jon Atack. Its author is a former Scientologist who himself completed level OT III. The webpage contains nothing copyrighted by a Scientology organization. It is an explanation of what OT III says and what that means, along with commentary by the author. Jon Atack is also the author of A Piece of Blue Sky, which is a history of Scientology from before its founding to after L. Ron Hubbard's death. At the above link, you can either purchase it, or read it in its entirety online.
If you are interested in Scientology, you will want to visit Operation Clambake, at xenu.net. It seems to be the most important central resource for information on the organization.
You may also want to visit the Lisa McPherson Memorial Page, which claims that "Lisa died needlessly at the hands of Scientology." Her case is truly a tragic one and she deserves to be remembered. The site has a great deal of information on her death. Related is The Lisa McPherson Trust, which has not only information about Lisa, but a very large archive of interviews, court transcripts, news reports, testimonials, and videos about Scientology.
Here's a Slashdot story last year on eBay removing auctions for e-meters based on the Church of Scientology DMCA copyright allegations, which is odd because Copyright law doesn't cover a physical device.
If there's anything else about Scientology you want to know, you will want to see AltReligionScientology.org, which contains a huge list of links to all the sites I don't have room to list here.
The DMCA is actually five separate modifications to copyright law. Its Title I is known for providing legal protection for "technological measures" (typically encryption) which prevent copying; this is the part that empowered the MPAA to sue over DeCSS, to name the best-known example.
That's not the part that concerns us here; Title II is its other major modification of copyright law and that's what we're dealing with. Title II created 17 U.S.C. Section 512, and we're specifically looking at our liability under paragraphs (c)(1)(A), which says we have to act "expeditiously to remove or disable access to the [infringing] material." Here's the U.S. Copyright Office's 18-page summary of the DMCA as a whole. If 18 pages is too long for you, here's the American Library Association's much quicker summary
Here's a list of resources on the DMCA, including the DMCA itself in PDF format. The EFF page on the DCMA seems to relate mostly to Title I, the anti-encryption-circumvention portion, but it's too good not to mention anyway.
Don't know who your Congressperson or Senators are? That's OK, now's as good a time as any to learn. Finding your Senators is easy, just go to Senate.gov. To find your Representative, you just need your zip code. You can use the form on the website to write them if you're lazy, but if you want your message to have more impact, print it out and send it in a real envelope. Anything's better than nothing, though.
When you write, you'll want to write something they'll read. Here are the ACLU's tips for writing to your Congressperson or Senators.
Backfired! (Score:5)
The only winners here are the lawyers (once again).
Scientology isn't so bad (Score:5)
First off, I'd like to congratulate Slashdot for providing thoughtful feedback to the community on this important issue. I'd also like to thank them for slagging Scientology as I agree with claims depicting it as dangerous and sinister. In my opinion it is all of that and more.
My reason, however, for saying that Scientology isn't so bad is based on comparison with other religions. Sure, you posted a link to a site about a girl who was killed by the Scientologists...but what if the Catholic church had been the ones using the DMCA to repress content here? I can't imagine where to begin to discuss the number of people who have died at their hands. How many hits do you get on google when you search for the crusades? How about the 100 years war?
And I don't just object to catholicism. All forms of Christianity have their body count. How many died at the Salem witch trials? How many died in the holocaust?
Christianity isn't the only culprit. How many have died in Israel in the past year alone?
Religion kills. Period. It is a sickness and the cause of more misery and murder committed by man against man than any other human intellectual construct in history.
So, if we're going to slag the Scientologists for being kooks, we might want to remember that the majority of America believes they can talk to an invisible man every Sunday. Pretty kooky if you ask me.
Again, if I have offended anyone, I apologize. Please appreciate, however, that if you support a forum of free speech (in the spirit of Slashdot), then you have to put up with opinions like mine too.
Re:This is the end for slashdot (Score:5)
On the other end, speech that would present a "clear and present danger" (as I think the quote goes) is not protected. Classic example: shouting "fire" as a prank in a crowded area.
I think our current speech problems have to do with speech about businesses and IP, something which has not been given too much support in the past.
In the end, Slashdot got busted for copyright violation. Notice that we can still all sit here and say anything we want about the Church of Scientology, and they can't send Rob another cease-and-desist order. (They can picket our homes and places of business if we are really obnoxious, but that's a different story.)
This really isn't about free speech at all. Cut and paste has never been protected.
Hello? Andover doesn't exist anymore. Wake up. (Score:5)
For the record Andover.Net *did* go to bat to defend the free speech of Slashdot forums (remeber the UNISYS-GIF flamefest anyone?) even the nuisance trolls, more than once. We stood our ground even when we were about to go public when risking a lawsuit would've sank us.
Andover.Net was the best company I ever worked for, and the executives cared. We were able to buy Slashdot not by making the biggest cash offer (others offered more) but by offering a unique arrangment of editorial freedom that other suitors would not offer.
Anyway today I can't say if Andover.Net would've survived this cold market and stood up to this lawsuit today. You have to pick your battles. Right now we have bigger fish to fry here.
$cientology more powerful than Micro$oft (Score:4)
CAN'T WIN AGAINST SCIENTOLOGY! (Score:5)
Anyone who takes the time to do even a little bit of research into Scientology will realize that the organization will use *ANY* means, *LEGAL OR ILLEGAL* to harass, repress and *destroy* its opponents.
The Taco's life, and the life of everyone at Slashdot and Andover, would have become a living hell.
Scientology has a no-holds-barred *rule*: they are explicitly instructed by Hubbard's words to do *anything* it takes to win.
Which means Taco would have had his pets killed, his car trashed, his house picketed, his parents harassed, his business associates -- banks, etc -- sent packages claiming he's a pedophile, his entire neighbourhood pamphleted with the same pedophile claims, etc. Plus, he'd be challenged by a dozen or more legal suits.
Like I said, a living hell.
People have committed suicide because of Scientology harrassment.
Oh -- and the examples I presented: they're real life. Scientology has done exactly those things to opponents (and even the judges in their court cases!) before, and they'll do it again.
Scientology is one of the most evil organizations on this planet. By every metric you could possibly apply, they are the antithesis of good.
--
Re:I don't blame you (Score:5)
Gives new meaning to the term, "cult classic" don't it?
--
Re:This is the end for slashdot (Score:5)
demon.co.uk removing posts for illegality is a different matter, because nothing required them to do so. In this case, the law requires
Sad day for freedom of speech (Score:4)
This is the exact reason why systems like FreeNet are neened. They are the only line of defence against this misuse of intellectual property rigts. $cientology today, the goverment of China tomorrow...?
Ville Oksanen
SP4 and damn proud of it.
My DeCSS archive:
Re:Slashdot and Common Carrier status (Score:4)
Frankly, if Kuro5hin was choosing between having their site shut down by their ISP or deleting a post due to copyright complaints, my guess about how they would respond is a bit different than yours.
And finally, any poster who uses the phrase "common carrier" in discussing this situation has no idea what it means. (Hint: "common carrier" is a term that refers ONLY to a very limited set of telecommunications companies: mainly the various Bells.) We just posted (a week ago) a link to this paper [eff.org] which examines copyright issues with peer-to-peer services - most of it is applicable to slashdot too. Read it before you spout off about copyright issues.
would this have been different.. (Score:5)
If someone with a UID had posted the comment?
D.
Re:don't slam religion without a full picture (Score:4)
Y'know, you come off sounding every bit as self-righteous and narrow-minded as any preacher ever did.
But s/he never said that; the claim was that *some* of the good around us came from work inspired by or dedicated to religion - not all. Constructing strawmen won't help you deconstruct religion.
Because it is. You might not be religious, religion - particularly the organized kind - might have its flaws, but using phrases like "mass hysteria" or "brainwashing" or "fantasy" to descibe *all* religion is just obnoxious.
And what's wrong with faith? Solipsism is a singularly useless philosophy, and for anything else you need faith in *something*. Even Descartes recognized as much in his Meditations of First Philosophy, and that's really basic stuff. You seem to have a lot of faith, if I may say so, in your own perceptions and reasoning, incomplete as those might be.
So, again, what's wrong with faith? I'm not asking what's wrong with the Scientologists, or the Catholic Church, or with things that people who have faith happen to do. What's wrong with faith in and of itself? Obviously if one's faith is contradicted by observation that's one thing, but is there anything wrong with believing something not contradicted by observation?
Apparently you're not finished with being angry, though. The Church still seems to have quite a hold on you, if the mere mention of faith can cause you to have such a hissy fit.
Like you, I was brought up in a very religious environment. Like you, I broke away from it. Unlike you, I've learned to accept that what's right or wrong for me is not necessarily right or wrong for everyone, recognize that I have my own faith (even if it's not religious) and allow other people theirs.
And you always did. Religion doesn't change that; most don't even try.
Here's some news: from where I sit, your thought processes don't look all that great. I've met many religious people who could construct a better argument for their POV than you have done, and then present it more persuasively. Maybe religion isn't to blame for any deficiency in thought processes, and lack of religion is no panacea.
Re:Slashdot and Common Carrier status (Score:5)
Sigh. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
In the pre-DMCA world, the whole "common carrier" claim for service providers was basically conjecture based on analogies. It was never really litigated, and it certainly wasn't obviously written in any statute. People relied on it, but it might or might not have held up in court; the question was pretty muddy. I suspect that it would not have worked for Slashdot, which could not have asserted ignorance in the same way as, say, a Usenet server.
Regardless of whether the "common carrier" claim would have held up before the DMCA, it definitely will not hold up now, because the DMCA replaces all that uncertainty with a great deal of certainty. Service providers are obligated to take down supposedly infringing material under a very well defined set of procedures. US law has changed on this issue.
Assuming that Scientology has a valid copyright on this material (and it does), and assuming that there are no first-amendment freedom of religion issues muddying the waters (which I'd think there should be, but the courts do not seem to agree), there is absolutely no question that Slashdot was legally obligated to take it down. Chanting "common carrier" no longer has any legal effect, if it ever did.
I understand Scientology has a reputation for litigating bogus claims. This one, however, would seem to be (legally, not morally) valid.
It's not really worth fighting this sort of thing in court. The right response to Scientology is just to overwhelm them with the volume of criticism.
You can get yourself into a lot of trouble by listening to half-informed amateur interpretations of the law.
Probably not (Score:5)
The article said the comment contained a text called "OT III"
If it contained the entire text,or a substantial part of it (several paragraphs), without any other commentary, then it violates copyright law, pure and simple. However, if it contained a small part of the text (a few sentences), with commentary on that text, then it would be criticism, and would "fair use".
Who Loses? Scientology (Score:4)
I, too, hate it that /. removed the comment. Scientology earns another black eye, some more negative exposure. That's a nice end, but the price paid (the means) may not be worth it. But in the grand scheme of things, they lose.
And isn't it Cosmic Justice that John Travolta's money goes to laywers, because of what he did to us in Saturday Night Fever?
Name Change? (Score:4)
So will you guys be changing your name from Andover to Bend-over?
ROLCIOF
(Rolling on the floor cause I'm on fire)
Good way to handle this!! (Score:4)
Re:History of Strongarm Tactics (Score:4)
By way of example, if Microsoft had the forsight to copyright their infamous "Halloween Documents", the Justice Department's case against them would have been considerably weaker.
If somebody is engaging in fraud or other illegal activities, documents which incriminate them that leak out should be considered fair game to republish as an act of critical speech.
CoS / IRS Closing Agreement (Score:4)
Re:I don't blame you (Score:5)
I mean, how can a website like slashdot hope to fight the good fight against a bunch of brainwashed zealots who'se religion is to take as much money as they can from their members.
Hey, they managed to stand up to Microsoft.--
Kudos! (Score:5)
The comment itself probably didn't get anywhere near the exposure the headline and removal will get. So, while it may seem that our boys at /. have sold-out or are spineless, I see it as creative rebellion.
I am, however, slightly worried about the implications of editorial control over the forums now. Does this mean the common carrier defense is no longer valid? Personally, I don't think so, simply because in this case, they were alerted to the problem, then asked to remove. If they had noticed it themselves, then removed it, I'd be taking a different stand....
Re:$cientology more powerful than Micro$oft (Score:5)
I think you have a good point there. Socially, an evil, corrupt "religion" like Scientology is FAR more dangerous to society than ANY corporation.
Scientology is like the 1980's televangelists, only far worse. I've read xenu.net for quite some time. This is an organization that has a history of using "secret police" against their members AND people who dare dennounce them. They've been busted by the FBI more than once.
They hide behind copyright to keep outsiders from knowing the truth about them. I'd have to say that ANY religion that claims it's "bible" is copyrighted and proprietary would have to be viewed with suspicion...
Fortunately, Scientology isn't trying to convert the masses, which keeps them out of most people's lives. You can't BE a Scientologist unless you are filthy rich, because you have to pay vast sums of money for "training" etc. This isn't exactly a "church" that collects offerings to use for the poor. Scientology's one foothold is among the Hollywood Left, Tom Cruise, Nicole Kidman, John Travolta, etc.
What Scientology WANTS to do, in my opinion, is convert the rich and powerful (who fund them), whereby they will get control over the masses.
What an example of how just totally evil the DMCA is as a law... It protects corporate cartels (MPAA), and for-profit "religions" (cult more properly describes Scientology though).
For free speech (Score:5)
CENSORED (Score:5)
Re:This is the end for slashdot (Score:5)
This action by Slashdot is not the end of Slashdot, nor is it legally binding (IANAL). It is nothing more than a prudent move in our current "Freedom of Speech" climate.
As we all know, Freedom of Speech does not exist in this country. When the constitution reads "Congress shall make 'no' law...", and those in congress interpret this as "Congress shall make 'some' laws...", then a move made to preserve your own existence could only be called prudent. We have to choose our battles.... in this case the comment itself was removed, but links can be provided and instructions for how to obtain the text through serch engines can also be provided.
One does not weather a storm by attempting to sail through it at full sail.