The Board of EFA has noted with concern the criticism of EFA Board member Jeremy Malcolm for representing the Church of Scientology in a conflict with Steve Zadarnowski's web site and posts to Usenet. In many respects the Board shares those concerns, given that the Church has instructed Jeremy to employ legal process to stifle Steve's criticisms and comments on the Church.

While supporting the right of anyone to legal advice and representation, EFA is of the view that the use of defamation law to stifle free expression and debate is to be condemned in the strongest terms. EFA is ready, willing and able to support any person who has their rights to free speech threatened by the legal process.

To respond to concerns that the presence of Jeremy Malcolm on EFA's Board compromises EFA's committed stand for freedom of expression, Jeremy has voluntarily stood down from the Board until further notice.

On behalf of the Board, I thank him for this action. While the Board acknowledges that a lawyer's own views are not to be assumed to be those of any individual client, the perception of divided loyalties would be damaging to the reputation of EFA and may dissuade people from seeking EFA help in a legal conflict, especially concerning the Church of Scientology. Jeremy has entirely absented himself from EFA meetings and online discussions for the time being so as to remove any possibility of conflict of interest.

Jeremy has not resigned from the Board of EFA. The Board, including Jeremy, are in discussion as to the circumstances under which he will continue his unpaid and committed work for EFA in its civil liberties charter.

I would like to emphasize that throughout the present dispute, Steve has been in regular contact with myself and all information has been dealt with on a confidential basis. Anyone who is cautious about contacting an organisation rather than an individual over a litigious issue is welcome to contact myself as EFA Chair or Irene Graham as EFA Executive Director.

As to the threat by the Church of Scientology against Steve's site and Usenet posts, on behalf of EFA I deplore the heavy-handed use of the legal process to stifle criticism of the Church and note that the site has been mirrored elsewhere. Defamation law, an uncertain and expensive legal process, is ill-used in relation to the Internet. The 1999 amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act, strongly criticised by EFA for its censorship provisions, nonetheless created section 91 which protects ISPs from liability as publisher in circumstances not yet tested in Court. EFA supports the establishment, through a test case, of the proposition that threatening the ISP as a tactic to stifle online expression is unlawful in Australia and such conduct may, in turn, give a right to a counter-suit.

In any event, Steve's web site and Usenet posts represent opinion and social commentary that deserves the highest standards of protection as free speech. EFA is committed to assisting persons in his situation and to offer such support as may be of help, including legal assistance.

Both myself and the Board will be pleased to answer any concerns that may linger regarding this issue, and the furore over this issue has prompted EFA to consider and document its procedures for ensuring that there are transparent and visible processes for avoidance of even the appearance of conflict of interest.

On behalf of the Board,
Kimberley Heitman, Chair
Electronic Frontiers Australia
www.efa.org.au

Go Back