Path: senator-bedfellow.mit.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!eru.mt.luth.se!news.luth.se!sunic!trane.uninett.no!eunet.no!nuug!telepost.no!oslonett.no!oslonett.no!not-for-mail From: gisle@oslonett.no (Gisle Hannemyr) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.religion.scientology Subject: Open letter to Helena Korbin Date: 22 Feb 1995 16:22:27 +0100 Organization: Oslonett A/S Lines: 66 Distribution: inet Message-ID: <3ifkrj$6nf@hasle.oslonett.no> References: <3hotuk$1cq@news.rain.org> <3ht9t3$anp@bradley.bradley.edu> <3htrki$8vr@virek.mednet.net> <133017@cup.portal.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: hasle.oslonett.no Xref: senator-bedfellow.mit.edu comp.org.eff.talk:46804 alt.religion.scientology:35604 I've sent the following letter to CoS attorny (or somesuch) to Helena Korbin . I urge other supporters of free speech to do likewise. I am _not_ suggesting mailbombing Ms. Korbin, but I think it would be a good idea if she learnt that there a good number of people out there who view the Church's use of legal harassment and slander as unethical. ====================================================================== Dear Ms. Korbin, This letter is sent to you because you seem to serve the Church of Scientology in a legal capacity. I wish to express my concern about the Church of Scientology's appearant abuse of the US legal system and copyright law in an attempt to silence its critics -- as evident in the present civil suit targeting Dennis Erlich, Support BBS, and Netcom. I have followed the events that led up yo the the lawsuit (i.e. the debate about the merits of Scientology in Usenet newsgroup A.R.S.). It is clear that Mr. Erlich did nothing more than thousands of scholars and critics before him: i.e. excerpting stuff from a larger body of work for purposes of criticism and commentary. This type of use of copyrighted material is covered by the "fair use" clause in copyright law. This is _not_ illegal, nor does it warrant legal action. I have noted that Mr, Erlich isponent of the Church. During the A.R.S. debate, repeated claims about material being "misunderstood", "hearsay" and "out of context" was made by Scientology proponents. In order to show that nothing is "misunderstood", that his position is based upon "fact" and that they are in proper "context", Mr. Erlich used verbatim quotes to support his position in this debate. I have also noted that spokesmen from the Church of Scientology has posted slanderous press-releases concerning Mr. Erlich's past life. Such slander has no bearing on the present case, and the use of such tactics makes only serves to portrait the Church as vindictive and unethical. It is blatantly obvious that the slander campaign and the present legal action against Mr. Erlich, Support BBS and Netcom is not to protect the RTC's intellectual property -- it is and attempt to bully vocal critics of the CoS into silence. I am an author who earns his living from publishing books. The two principles I believe strongest in is 1) The intgrity of intellectual property, and 2) Freedom of speech. If I for a minute had believed that you had brought on this suit to protect the Church' intellectual property from theft or misrepresentation, I would have supported it. But it is evident that this is _not_ about intellectual property. This suit is about freedom of speech. Specifically: It is about the right to quote your opponents for purposes of criticism and commentary. I find it incredible that a religious body respond to criticism by using slander and legel haressment to silence it -- instead of standing up for it convictions in a free and open debate. As the US is a democracy, I don't think you have a chance of winning this one -- but before the case is dismissed you have managed to cause Mr. Erlich and the other defendants a lot of grief. I deeply deplore this. I also believe that your use of slander in this case has shown the large audience on the Internet what ethical fabric the Church of Scientology really are made off. If so, some good may have come of this. -------------------