Since some of the materials which describe the $cientology cult could be considered to be

Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

Since some of the materials which describe the $cientology cult could be considered to be copywritten materials, I have censored myself and The Skeptic Tank by deleting any and all possible text files which describes the cult's hidden mythologies. I have elected to quote just a bit of the questionable text according to the "Fair Use" legal findings afforded to those who report. - Fredric L. Rice, The Skeptic Tank, 09/Sep/95 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- From!!!pipex!demon!!Tony Wed Jul 19 09:29:01 1995 Path:!!!pipex!demon!!Tony From: Tony Sidaway Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,, Subject: Re: AOL Promulgates False Advertising Deliberately Date: Mon, 17 Jul 95 06:59:35 GMT Organization: Her Majesty's Pleasure Lines: 138 Message-ID: <> References: <3tsl9u$> <3u6mci$> <3u7qjd$> <> <3ucpjh$> Reply-To: X-NNTP-Posting-Host: X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.29 In article <3ucpjh$> "D. McGatney (hv" writes: > >> > >> DAwn Replies----->>> > >> > >> > >> AOL has a perfect right to delete all anti-Scientology posts. > > > > You miss the point. Two points, really. > > > DAwn Replies----->>> > > > 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). > > > DAwn Replies----->>> > > > 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. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ AOL _is_ responsible for the opinions expressed on its boards, precisely because its employee or agent polices the board in question. So the 1971 case is old and decided by a District Court. This is still a precedent and it is still binding on the church of scientology. The prodigy ruling dealt with _liability_. It did not make any ruling on libel, simply whether Prodigy could be held _liable_ for the utterances on its board. > > > 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. > > > DAwn Replies----->>> > > > Perhaps. But how could you ever prove that the motive of those > policing the boards was $? > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ That's a straw man. The motive of those placing the posts is to promote something in which they have a financial interest. The motive of those policing the boards is immaterial, except insofar as they act as agents of the company. > > >> What you now need to ask yourself is this--> Do I want to support such > >> an organisation with my $$$$$ month after month after month? > > > > AOL may provide useful services to those who would otherwise have > > none. Leaving that aside, here is a very strong lever with which > > to persuade AOL to clean up its act. > > > DAwn Replies----->>> > > > AOL is a play with only one act--> GIMME $$$$$. 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 > medical > > 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 > either > > 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 > > documentation. > > > DAwn Replies----->>> > > > 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? Rubbish. You confuse a District Court ruling with the more recent NY State ruling. Both are in effect at this time, and together they are bad news for AOL. > > 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. Read my post again. You will see that I provide two legal precedents which you have not bothered to check out. You seem to live in a world where something decided in the courts before 1972 is no longer applicable. Whose post is "whacko?" -- Xenu's Famous House o' Clams T-shirts! *All* profits go to MoFo to help with the Dennis Erlich Defense Fund. $15 per shirt, PIX @ Shipped in plain brown wrappers. Names/addresses kept in a Vera-proof place. Email to: Subj: SHIRTS (specify size) 4-8 weeks deliv


E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank