Slashdot Mirror
Scientologists Force Comment Off Slashdot
This is the first time since we instituted our moderation system that a comment has had to be removed because of its content, and believe me nobody is more broken hearted about it than me. It's a bad precedent, and a blow for the freedom of speech that we all share in this forum. But this simply doesn't look like a case we can win. Our lawyers tell us that it appears to be a violation of Copyright law, and under the terms of the DMCA, we must remove it. Else we risk legal action that would at best be expensive, and potentially cause Slashdot to go down temporarily or even permanently. At the worst, court orders could jeporadize your privacy, and we would be helpless to stop it.
We need to choose our battles and this isn't one we want to have. We want Slashdot to be a forum where you can say what's in your heart, but we simply can't defend an anonymous poster who violates copyright law. Keep that in mind when you post in both this discussion, and in others in the future. Post your ideas. Post your thoughts. And most of all, post your links. We need to play by the rules or it's game over.
Now there is the matter of this specific comment. It contained a text called "OT III", part of what is known as the Fishman Affidavit. This text is Copyrighted by the Church of Scientology. In compliance with the DMCA, we are removing it from Slashdot. In its place we are putting non-copyrighted text: Links to websites about the church of Scientology, as well as links to how you can contact your congressman about the DMCA. Thanks a lot to Jamie for putting this together.
First of all, we would like to point out that the text of OT III is available at many other places on the web. To many to list here in fact. Instead, try a Google search on "OT III" and "Fishman", which as of this writing (March 2001) returns over 250 pages. A broader search on AltaVista returns over 2,000 webpages.
Operating in the jurisdiction of the Dutch courts, Karin Spaink's Fishman Affidavit webpage has fended off two lawsuits from Scientology, one in 1996 and one in 1999. The latter suit, according to the page, is still being appealed. >From the link listed just above, you can click through to the Fishman Affidavit, which contains links to not only to an annotated copy of OT III, but to the documents on the other OT levels as well, number one through the disputed number eight.
If you would like a plain English explanation of OT III, see OT III Rewritten For Beginners, by Jon Atack. Its author is a former Scientologist who himself completed level OT III. The webpage contains nothing copyrighted by a Scientology organization. It is an explanation of what OT III says and what that means, along with commentary by the author. Jon Atack is also the author of A Piece of Blue Sky, which is a history of Scientology from before its founding to after L. Ron Hubbard's death. At the above link, you can either purchase it, or read it in its entirety online.
If you are interested in Scientology, you will want to visit Operation Clambake, at xenu.net. It seems to be the most important central resource for information on the organization.
You may also want to visit the Lisa McPherson Memorial Page, which claims that "Lisa died needlessly at the hands of Scientology." Her case is truly a tragic one and she deserves to be remembered. The site has a great deal of information on her death. Related is The Lisa McPherson Trust, which has not only information about Lisa, but a very large archive of interviews, court transcripts, news reports, testimonials, and videos about Scientology.
Here's a Slashdot story last year on eBay removing auctions for e-meters based on the Church of Scientology DMCA copyright allegations, which is odd because Copyright law doesn't cover a physical device.
If there's anything else about Scientology you want to know, you will want to see AltReligionScientology.org, which contains a huge list of links to all the sites I don't have room to list here.
The DMCA is actually five separate modifications to copyright law. Its Title I is known for providing legal protection for "technological measures" (typically encryption) which prevent copying; this is the part that empowered the MPAA to sue over DeCSS, to name the best-known example.
That's not the part that concerns us here; Title II is its other major modification of copyright law and that's what we're dealing with. Title II created 17 U.S.C. Section 512, and we're specifically looking at our liability under paragraphs (c)(1)(A), which says we have to act "expeditiously to remove or disable access to the [infringing] material." Here's the U.S. Copyright Office's 18-page summary of the DMCA as a whole. If 18 pages is too long for you, here's the American Library Association's much quicker summary
Here's a list of resources on the DMCA, including the DMCA itself in PDF format. The EFF page on the DCMA seems to relate mostly to Title I, the anti-encryption-circumvention portion, but it's too good not to mention anyway.
Don't know who your Congressperson or Senators are? That's OK, now's as good a time as any to learn. Finding your Senators is easy, just go to Senate.gov. To find your Representative, you just need your zip code. You can use the form on the website to write them if you're lazy, but if you want your message to have more impact, print it out and send it in a real envelope. Anything's better than nothing, though.
When you write, you'll want to write something they'll read. Here are the ACLU's tips for writing to your Congressperson or Senators.
The only winners here are the lawyers (once again).
I know I'll get flamed for this, so I'm posting anonymously. I don't mean to offend anyone, but I feel I might.
First off, I'd like to congratulate Slashdot for providing thoughtful feedback to the community on this important issue. I'd also like to thank them for slagging Scientology as I agree with claims depicting it as dangerous and sinister. In my opinion it is all of that and more.
My reason, however, for saying that Scientology isn't so bad is based on comparison with other religions. Sure, you posted a link to a site about a girl who was killed by the Scientologists...but what if the Catholic church had been the ones using the DMCA to repress content here? I can't imagine where to begin to discuss the number of people who have died at their hands. How many hits do you get on google when you search for the crusades? How about the 100 years war?
And I don't just object to catholicism. All forms of Christianity have their body count. How many died at the Salem witch trials? How many died in the holocaust?
Christianity isn't the only culprit. How many have died in Israel in the past year alone?
Religion kills. Period. It is a sickness and the cause of more misery and murder committed by man against man than any other human intellectual construct in history.
So, if we're going to slag the Scientologists for being kooks, we might want to remember that the majority of America believes they can talk to an invisible man every Sunday. Pretty kooky if you ask me.
Again, if I have offended anyone, I apologize. Please appreciate, however, that if you support a forum of free speech (in the spirit of Slashdot), then you have to put up with opinions like mine too.
On the other end, speech that would present a "clear and present danger" (as I think the quote goes) is not protected. Classic example: shouting "fire" as a prank in a crowded area.
I think our current speech problems have to do with speech about businesses and IP, something which has not been given too much support in the past.
In the end, Slashdot got busted for copyright violation. Notice that we can still all sit here and say anything we want about the Church of Scientology, and they can't send Rob another cease-and-desist order. (They can picket our homes and places of business if we are really obnoxious, but that's a different story.)
This really isn't about free speech at all. Cut and paste has never been protected.
For the record Andover.Net *did* go to bat to defend the free speech of Slashdot forums (remeber the UNISYS-GIF flamefest anyone?) even the nuisance trolls, more than once. We stood our ground even when we were about to go public when risking a lawsuit would've sank us.
Andover.Net was the best company I ever worked for, and the executives cared. We were able to buy Slashdot not by making the biggest cash offer (others offered more) but by offering a unique arrangment of editorial freedom that other suitors would not offer.
Anyway today I can't say if Andover.Net would've survived this cold market and stood up to this lawsuit today. You have to pick your battles. Right now we have bigger fish to fry here.
For Taco's sanity's sake alone, he had to delete the post.
Anyone who takes the time to do even a little bit of research into Scientology will realize that the organization will use *ANY* means, *LEGAL OR ILLEGAL* to harass, repress and *destroy* its opponents.
The Taco's life, and the life of everyone at Slashdot and Andover, would have become a living hell.
Scientology has a no-holds-barred *rule*: they are explicitly instructed by Hubbard's words to do *anything* it takes to win.
Which means Taco would have had his pets killed, his car trashed, his house picketed, his parents harassed, his business associates -- banks, etc -- sent packages claiming he's a pedophile, his entire neighbourhood pamphleted with the same pedophile claims, etc. Plus, he'd be challenged by a dozen or more legal suits.
Like I said, a living hell.
People have committed suicide because of Scientology harrassment.
Oh -- and the examples I presented: they're real life. Scientology has done exactly those things to opponents (and even the judges in their court cases!) before, and they'll do it again.
Scientology is one of the most evil organizations on this planet. By every metric you could possibly apply, they are the antithesis of good.
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
Gives new meaning to the term, "cult classic" don't it?
--
Vidi, Vici, Veni
They concede nothing. THe DMCA, which IS A LAW that /. must obey, says they MUST remove the material at once. SO they did. It's not a 'choice'. Their other choice was to contest the copyright. (won't work.. it IS copyrwritten by COS)
/. to remove the post.
demon.co.uk removing posts for illegality is a different matter, because nothing required them to do so. In this case, the law requires
...if it hadn't been an AC?
If someone with a UID had posted the comment?
D.
I keep trying to pick fights, but I can't shake this Excellent karma.
Sigh. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
In the pre-DMCA world, the whole "common carrier" claim for service providers was basically conjecture based on analogies. It was never really litigated, and it certainly wasn't obviously written in any statute. People relied on it, but it might or might not have held up in court; the question was pretty muddy. I suspect that it would not have worked for Slashdot, which could not have asserted ignorance in the same way as, say, a Usenet server.
Regardless of whether the "common carrier" claim would have held up before the DMCA, it definitely will not hold up now, because the DMCA replaces all that uncertainty with a great deal of certainty. Service providers are obligated to take down supposedly infringing material under a very well defined set of procedures. US law has changed on this issue.
Assuming that Scientology has a valid copyright on this material (and it does), and assuming that there are no first-amendment freedom of religion issues muddying the waters (which I'd think there should be, but the courts do not seem to agree), there is absolutely no question that Slashdot was legally obligated to take it down. Chanting "common carrier" no longer has any legal effect, if it ever did.
I understand Scientology has a reputation for litigating bogus claims. This one, however, would seem to be (legally, not morally) valid.
It's not really worth fighting this sort of thing in court. The right response to Scientology is just to overwhelm them with the volume of criticism.
You can get yourself into a lot of trouble by listening to half-informed amateur interpretations of the law.
The article said the comment contained a text called "OT III"
If it contained the entire text,or a substantial part of it (several paragraphs), without any other commentary, then it violates copyright law, pure and simple. However, if it contained a small part of the text (a few sentences), with commentary on that text, then it would be criticism, and would "fair use".
Best Slashdot Co
I mean, how can a website like slashdot hope to fight the good fight against a bunch of brainwashed zealots who'se religion is to take as much money as they can from their members.
Hey, they managed to stand up to Microsoft.--
I would be a paid subscriber if Taco and Hemos weren't such cunts
The comment itself probably didn't get anywhere near the exposure the headline and removal will get. So, while it may seem that our boys at /. have sold-out or are spineless, I see it as creative rebellion.
I am, however, slightly worried about the implications of editorial control over the forums now. Does this mean the common carrier defense is no longer valid? Personally, I don't think so, simply because in this case, they were alerted to the problem, then asked to remove. If they had noticed it themselves, then removed it, I'd be taking a different stand....
"his would seem to mean that clearly Scientology is the more powerful evil corporation when it comes to asserting proprietary control over their technology"
I think you have a good point there. Socially, an evil, corrupt "religion" like Scientology is FAR more dangerous to society than ANY corporation.
Scientology is like the 1980's televangelists, only far worse. I've read xenu.net for quite some time. This is an organization that has a history of using "secret police" against their members AND people who dare dennounce them. They've been busted by the FBI more than once.
They hide behind copyright to keep outsiders from knowing the truth about them. I'd have to say that ANY religion that claims it's "bible" is copyrighted and proprietary would have to be viewed with suspicion...
Fortunately, Scientology isn't trying to convert the masses, which keeps them out of most people's lives. You can't BE a Scientologist unless you are filthy rich, because you have to pay vast sums of money for "training" etc. This isn't exactly a "church" that collects offerings to use for the poor. Scientology's one foothold is among the Hollywood Left, Tom Cruise, Nicole Kidman, John Travolta, etc.
What Scientology WANTS to do, in my opinion, is convert the rich and powerful (who fund them), whereby they will get control over the masses.
What an example of how just totally evil the DMCA is as a law... It protects corporate cartels (MPAA), and for-profit "religions" (cult more properly describes Scientology though).
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
Fisherman's Affidavit Sorry I couldnt past it cause of lameness filter.
Trust the source!
*Comment removed by The Church of Scientology for violating Section 512 of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. All your rights are belong to us. And now that we're friends, come join us in our religion. Remember, if it wasn't for us, there would be no Battlefield Earth*
This action by Slashdot is not the end of Slashdot, nor is it legally binding (IANAL). It is nothing more than a prudent move in our current "Freedom of Speech" climate.
As we all know, Freedom of Speech does not exist in this country. When the constitution reads "Congress shall make 'no' law...", and those in congress interpret this as "Congress shall make 'some' laws...", then a move made to preserve your own existence could only be called prudent. We have to choose our battles.... in this case the comment itself was removed, but links can be provided and instructions for how to obtain the text through serch engines can also be provided.
One does not weather a storm by attempting to sail through it at full sail.
I'll add a sig just as soon as I clean up this room...