Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology From: dennis.l.erlich@support.com Subject: What Rights? 1/2 Message-ID: <9509151517.0LHDX02@support.com> References: <43c70t$ouk@tesla.netline.net> Organization: L.A. Valley College Public BBS (818)985-7150 X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Distribution: world Date: Fri, 15 Sep 95 15:17:32 -0700 Lines: 178 A Reader asks: >Tell the story of how you came into possession of your Seekrit Droppings >(does the TRO or your lawyers allow it?). Sure thing. I was publishing a newsletter for ex-scienos called 'the inFormer'. I guess word got around that I was speaking out against the cult in a forthright manner and people began sending me their horror stories and allowing me to publish them (sometimes without their names) in the rag. Also I received, anonymously, some of the materials I posted to ars. No one has ever said that I came by these items in less than a fully legal manner. >Did you ever sign a non-disclosure agreement with Co$? No. Nothing that would bind me from disclosing what I have, in the manner which I have. They asked me about some checksheets and other items that supposedly had my signature on them, but the documents in question were, I believe, doctored or bogus in some other way. But in any case, would not have prevented me from whistleblowing on the illegal activities of the cult or preaching as I see fit in a public forum. >Without non-disclosure, it would >seem that you simply bought books from a publisher, so it's just a book >that can be lent, sold, destroyed, whatever. Also, Co$ would not have >the right to take it back. Most of the materials I am still waiting to get back are legally obtained books which could be purchased at a used bookstore. >My hidden agenda in all this is to goad the Net into developing a >procedure for disseminating the Seekrit Droppings and other copyrighted >material in a way that is immune to attack by the Co$ lawyers and clams. I think it's up to our (hopefully) honorable Federal Judges to protect our rights to examine and criticize the religious beliefs contained in the Phatman's Droppings. If I am neither permitted by law nor qualified to do so with regard to what was formerly my my religious ministry, then probably no one else will be permitted to either. >The current spate of anonymous spams is not well received by newspapers >and other media what have a personal interest in seeing copyright law >enforced. The US's main export in the next century will fall somewhere into the broad catagory of Intellectual Property. If we let this fact and the greed it might engender run roughshod over our civil rights, everthing a roaring economy can buy will be meaningless. We will be subject to search and seizure without due process for criticizing those who can afford what one poster called "cash-register justice". Me: >: You guys are having lots of fun trying to outguess the judges >: that have to rule on these matters. Your focus seems to be >: on application of regulation instead of broad principles of >: common law. Reader: >Nah. We're trying to develop a strategy to prevent another round of >lawsuits. We see the pain it has caused you and very prudently want to >avoid that! Raise a public ruckus! Get these reporters to get the judges up to speed on public sentiment against the scienos censorship goals. The only thing the scienos will understand is a knock on their door from a man with a big badge and a court order to open up. >: I am not a giant corporation whose "commerce" >: and communication can be regulated by some complex licensing >: agreement I never was party to. >Complex licensing agreement? Are you talking about USC 17 or some claim >made by the clams in testimony? If the former, yes it's scary because >not many people _really_ know it. I believe you're referring to fair use? Yes. If the judges and lawyers can't sort it out, how is the average Joe Whistleblower to know? >If the latter, I have missed it in the proceedings. I don't have the codes memorized and neither do most of the ars readers. This isn't a law newsgroup. >: I am a minister who has a right to preach as he wants. The >: government's gonna have to learn to live with and defend the >: rights I've been granted by the First Amendment. It's that >: simple for me. > >The 1st Amendment has limits. And they are not for mortal man to set. The Supreme Court is the final adjudicator of those limits. Seems to me they take *any* restraint against free speech, press and religion pretty seriously. There must be a compelling reason to limit public debate, criticism and comment. Right off the top of my head, I can't really even think of one. >As I delve into Copyright law, I see that >it is written to protect some pretty big business interests. While we >all have the right to speak, we don't have the right to deny a publisher >their livelihood, even if it is the Church. It stinks, but its >what keeps Dolly Parton going. I am a songwriter. I understand what it is to own an intangible like a song. I have no problems protecting the exploitation of intellectual property. But as one of my song writing teachers once said. "There's no point going into action when someone cops one of your songs. Wait til they make some actual money from it ... *THEN* SUE THE HELL OUT OF THEM. This is way different from what the scienos have done to me. I broadcast at my own expense. I make no money criticizing or testifying against the cult. >For small potatoes like us, I think the trick is to be like the judo >master who does not confront an opponent's force head-on, but rather >uses that opponent's force against him. Co$ is a bloated bureaucracy >with astronomical expenses. By (legally) showing the scam to all who >want to see it, we cut the income that feeds the lawyers and the whole >thing implodes. Right. >[name snipped] >P.S. I admire your heroism (though no doubt you would gladly trade your >SP5 w/ cluster for a normal life). You charged the hill and got shot up >pretty badly. However, yours was "the shot heard 'round the world". Then I issued a successful warning. >Two months ago, I lived a carefree life, having forgotten those weird >Scientologists my wife and I had left 15 years ago. Then someone >whispered "a.r.s.", I found FactNet, and saw what they really are. Now, >I'm into spreading the word whenever possible. So, sit back, do some >cheerleading, and leave the charge to the second wave. Ra, ra, ra! "We want our eyballs back." - R. Crumb >On a personal note, I have noted your cynicism for the legal system. Who, me? >Cynicism is a monster that will devour you, friend. Cynicism helps me keep my expectations low. That way I'm never disappointed. >While the legal >system causes you great pain, we will eventually find a legal way to >as-is the Church. [Scieno-babble alert!] Of course we will. And perhaps that way another Waco/Jonestown tragedy can be averted. >So, try not to dwell on the current mess with >your wife and Co$ - it will only make you crazy(er) and less able to >think your way out of your current situation. You have the ability to >affect your destiny. [ Continued In Next Message... ]