
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 news.interserv.net!news.sprintlink.net!dish.news.pipex.net!pipex!demon!sidaway.demon.co.uk!Tony Wed Jul 19 09:29:01 1995
Path: news.interserv.net!news.sprintlink.net!dish.news.pipex.net!pipex!demon!sidaway.demon.co.uk!Tony
From: Tony Sidaway <Tony@sidaway.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,news.admin.net-abuse.misc,alt.aol-sucks
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: <805964375snz@sidaway.demon.co.uk>
References: <3tsl9u$7t2@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <3u6mci$k99@nyx10.cs.du.edu> <3u7qjd$31s@news4.digex.net> <805806121snz@sidaway.demon.co.uk> <3ucpjh$emn@news3.digex.net>
Reply-To: Tony@sidaway.demon.co.uk
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: sidaway.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.29

In article <3ucpjh$emn@news3.digex.net>
           mcgatney@access.digex.net "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 sermoner1@aol.com 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 @ http://www.cybercom.net/~rnewman/scientology/tshirt/
Shipped in plain brown wrappers. Names/addresses kept in a Vera-proof place.
Email to: ladyada@gnu.ai.mit.edu Subj: SHIRTS (specify size) 4-8 weeks deliv

