By Molly Wood Associate editor, CNET Reviews (9/27/02)

How scary is the "Church" of Scientology? Well, I waffled on whether I should even write the column you're about to read, because I figured I'd get CNET sued just by bringing up the topic. But I couldn't stay out of the fray. I find it terrifying that any criticism of Scientology is fast disappearing from the Web, thanks to ill-conceived copyright laws and an apparently rampant fear of being sued.

Church of lawsuit-ology

For the second time this year, the Church of Scientology has successfully pressured a Web site I truly respect into removing links to a site that criticizes the Church. This week, the Internet Archive, the 100-terabyte-plus digital library about which I penned my first column, is one Web site smaller. The missing site is Xenu.net, operated by a Norwegian businessman named Andreas Heldal-Lund. Internet Archive representatives say the Scientologists demanded the site be taken down, saying it contained copyrighted excerpts from church documents.

The Church has issued no less than seven separate complaints against Google.

If this Xenu.net situation sounds familiar to you, it's because the Church of Scientology successfully pressured another of my favorite sites, Google, into removing links to the same site last March. (Google later reinstated most of the links but excluded some pages that contain allegedly copyrighted material.) In its own cease and desist letter, the Church asserted that it had succeeded in pressuring five separate ISPs to remove the same site. According to Web watchdog Chilling Effects, the Church has issued no fewer than seven separate complaints against Google, and at least two other sites, using, in most cases, the hideously vague Digital Millennium Copyright Act as its tool of choice.

Stand up and fight

The Scientologists have a long history of litigious attacks on critical works. In 1999, Amazon.com removed (and later restored) a book that criticized the Scientologists. In 1991, when Time Magazine published an intensive cover story investigating the Church and the suicide of one of its members, the Scientologists promptly sued for libel. The lawsuit was dismissed, and indeed, the Scientologists' lawyer, Helena Kobrin, was fined in 1994 for filing frivolous lawsuits. But the Church has been disturbingly successful with its Web challenges, mostly because many sites tend to reflexively delete links without checking to see whether they're actually in violation of the DMCA or other copyright laws. The DMCA is just that scary. While Xenu's operator, Heldal-Lund, has the right to challenge the copyright infringement claim, he won't because the DMCA also requires him to submit to U.S. jurisdiction if he does--a costly, exhausting, and potentially risky (at least financially) proposition.

The Scientologists have a long history of litigious attacks on critical works.

But if the DMCA is the vehicle the Church of Scientology uses to bulldoze its way through its would-be critics, I'm saddened to see that so many site operators have lain down without a peep. Whatever the merits of Scientology--and frankly, I'm inclined to think there are none--in a free society, everyone should have the right to research alternatives. I'm embarrassed that a self-proclaimed digital library--a library--would be cowed by threats of a lawsuit and claims of copyright infringement. I, along with many, many others, was horrified when Google bowed to the same demands and applauded mightily when some--but not all--of Xenu's content was restored.

A cult propagates its beliefs among members by isolating them from opposing viewpoints, by stamping out dissent, and by controlling information. I don't want to see Web sites doing that job for them just because we're afraid of a little uncharted legal territory.

Go Back