Since some of the materials which describe the $cientology cult could be
considered to be copywritten materials, I have censored myself and The
Skeptic Tank by deleting any and all possible text files which describes
the cult's hidden mythologies. I have elected to quote just a bit of the
questionable text according to the "Fair Use" legal findings afforded to
those who report. - Fredric L. Rice, The Skeptic Tank, 09/Sep/95
From news.interserv.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!news.ecn.bgu.edu!feenix.metronet.com!uunet!in1.uu.net!news3.digex.net!usenet Wed Jul 19 09:29:01 1995
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (D. McGatney (hv))
Subject: Re: AOL Promulgates False Advertising Deliberately
Date: 17 Jul 1995 04:40:17 GMT
Organization: X-Aol-er <---> Badge of Freedom
References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.99.5
In article <email@example.com>, Tony@sidaway.demon.co.uk
>In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> email@example.com "D. McGatney (hv" writes:
>> In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
>> >In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
>> >Cerberus wrote-->
>> >[ON JULY 4th, AOL deleted all postings on the Scientology folders on
>> >which criticized Scientology, leaving all the postings intact by paid
>> >salesman who collect a commission on anyone they recruit into their
>> >>Can you guess which ones were deleted by the board monitor? On July
>> >>4th, no less. What a sense of timing, huh? Might be wise to delete
>> >>"America" from AOL. ...
>> >... this is clearly a violation of the ASUP.
>> DAwn Replies----->>>
>> AOL has a perfect right to delete all anti-Scientology posts.
> You miss the point. Two points, really.
While theoretically possible, I'd say that's highly unlikely.
> 1) The posts that were _not_ deleted may make AOL liable for false
> medical claims (see the recent NY State Trial Court ruling in the
> Prodigy case and the 1971 ruling forbidding the church to make
> medical claims).
AOL is not responsible for opinions expressed on its boards. Try
someday proving that a medical claim is false. The 1971 case is
old and decided by a state court; the Prodigy case dealt with libel.
> 2) AOL is not implementing its own ASUP, because it is allowing
> people with a commercial interest to police a board in such a
> way as to only leave ads for services in which they have a
> financial interest.
Perhaps. But how could you ever prove that the motive of those
policing the boards was $?
>> What you now need to ask yourself is this--> Do I want to support such
>> an organisation with my $$$$$ month after month after month?
> AOL may provide useful services to those who would otherwise have
> none. Leaving that aside, here is a very strong lever with which
> to persuade AOL to clean up its act.
AOL is a play with only one act--> GIMME $$$$$. They will clean up
nothing that is not related to the profit motive. And whatever
useful dervice they may provide to a few individuals are paid for
by these individuals many many times over. In some cases, forever.
> Boycotts will have limited effect while there is a strong head of
> pressure of people rushing to their nearest ISP (in many cases AOL)
> to replace those who defect.
> The real power lies in the courts. AOL _IS_ placing itself in a
> vulnerable position. Point this out forcibly enough and Steve Case
> will have to move his ass.
> I am not a US citizen, so I cannot just contact the US FDA, but I
> do think they would be interested in the AIDS post that appeared
> on AOL, which implied that a scientology exercise known as the
> False Intention Rundown can turn a HIV-positive person with an
> extremely low t-cell count (ie an AIDS sufferer) into a HIV-negative.
> It's a clear breach of the embargo imposed by the US Courts on
> claims by the cult. The recent NY State ruling implies AOL would be
> liable because the people who weed posts out of the folders are
> employees or agents of AOL.
> If any of you guys on 'sucks' are _really_ interested in
> burning Steve Case's ass, I suggest you investigate this one.
> If anyone's interested, email me and I'll repost the relevant
Again, AOL is NOT responsible for claims posted on its boards; those
are the opinions of the posters. And again, what some lower court
in NY decided in 1971 has *NO* effect on AOL. What- are you going to
enjoin AOL from doing business in NY?
C'mon. No offence, but wacko posts like this detract from the many
credible reasons for leaving AOL. And the fact that Scientologists
post their opinions on AOL boards just ain't gonna make it.
WHY AOL SUCKS--> http://www.cloud9.net/~jegelhof