Article 82425 of alt.religion.scientology:
Path: senator-bedfellow.mit.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!news.kei.com!sundog.tiac.net!news.sprintlink.net!EU.net!sun4nl!xs4all!utopia.hacktic.nl!not-for-mail
From: nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Big Suprise
Date: 29 Jun 1995 17:15:00 +0200
Organization: RePLaY aND CoMPaNY UnLimited
Lines: 251
Sender: replay@utopia.hacktic.nl
Message-ID: <3sug1k$msd@utopia.hacktic.nl>
NNTP-Posting-Host: utopia.hacktic.nl
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 12309     
XComm: Replay may or may not approve of off the contemt of this posting
XComm: Report misuse of this automated service to <postmaster@REPLAY.COM>

All Things Considered
National Public Radio
June 13, 1995

NA: This is NPR's All Things Considered. I'm Noah Adams

RS: And I'm Robert Siegel. A war of words between the Church of
Scientology and it opponents has turned into a legal battle
involving the Internet, the world-wide computer network. The
church is suing one of its former members, Dennis Erlich, for
copyright infringement, because Erlich distributed parts of
church publications on the Internet. The suit also targets the
people who gave Erlich access to the Internet. Those computer
network operators say the church is trying to shut down a
discussion forum used by its critics. Dan Charles reports.

DC: Discussion groups on the Internet, like discussions anywhere,
erupt into angry arguments from time to time, but there's one
that's in a constant state of open warfare. It's called
alt.religion.scientology, dedicated to debating the Church of
Scientology, a group founded by science fiction writer L. Ron
Hubbard.

Sherry Steele, of the Washington-based Electronic Frontier
Foundation, is paging through this discussion group.
Occasionally, she has to explain what some of the words mean. The
opponents of Scientology talk a lot about "Woody" and "Woodies,"
for instance.

SS: There's a particular person, who is Woody, who is a
Scientologist who posts a lot of doctrine, and when you see
things that are talking about "Woodies" plural, they're talking
about Scientologists.

DC: Supporters of the church, for their part, call their critics
"persecutors". The Woodies and their persecutors despise each
other so much, they've even started trying to wipe each other's
messages, like children with erasers fighting to get at a
blackboard written full of insults. On the Internet, only the
person who sent a message is supposed to be able to erase it, to
cancel it. But Dan Brown, a computer administrator at the
Electronic Frontier Foundation, says some people figured out they
could forge a message pretending to be from another person, and
cancel that person's message.

DB: They're trying to silence people, and they're not altogether
successful, because people are canceling the cancels.

DC: Supporters of the Church of Scientology were particularly
vigorous in trying to cancel messages from a former member named
Dennis Erlich. Erlich accuses the church of acting like a cult,
exercising mind control over its members and trying to silence
its critics. Sherry Steele says on the 13th of February, the
church took their campaign against Erlich one step further.

SS: Dennis Erlich was at home one day, and a group of people
started knocking at his door, saying they wanted to get in, and
they had a warrant.

DC: Those people were from the Church of Scientology. They were
there to search Erlich's house and to seize and delete his
computer files. They had a search warrant because they'd
convinced a local judge Erlich was sending church documents
around the Internet, illegally. Lisa Goodman, a public relations
officer for the Church of Scientology, says when Erlich copied
those documents, he was violating copyright laws, and disclosing
what the church considers its trade secrets.

LG: Dennis Erlich has put written works of L. Ron Hubbard, the
founder of Scientology, which violate copyright laws. He's put on
confidential materials, and he hasn't got our permission,
obviously. We sent him warnings for a long time, and finally, we
took this action.

DC: Goodman says Erlich distributed large sections of Hubbard's
books. Erlich says he only quoted as much as he needed in order
to make his arguments. The documents the church calls "trade
secrets," he says, the church gave him back when he was a member,
and he never promised to keep them secret.

Now if that were all, this would just be a simple case of alleged
copyright infringement, but the church took further actions that
some people say could have consequences for free speech on any
computer network. Lawyers for the Church of Scientology also sued
the people who run the computer networks that Dennis Erlich uses,
people like Thomas Klemesrud, who runs the local computer system
Erlich dials in to when he wants to send a message to
alt.religion.scientology.

LG: We absolutely informed about the situation and that it's
copyright violation, but he refused to do anything about it. This
is - he just refused and continued to protect Dennis Erlich.

DC: Thomas Klemesrud says there's so much material passing
through his computer system every day, tens of thousands of pages
worth, he couldn't possibly search through it for copyright
violations.

TK: This is the public domain. This is the etherial message
center, our culture, and I cannot filter through it for postings
that might be offensive to fringe cult groups.

DC: The Electronic Frontier Foundation for its part says that if
the people who operate computer networks have to worry about a
lawsuit whenever one of their customers sends messages other
people may find offensive or a violation of copyright, they'll
either go out of business, or stop allowing anyone to send any
messages that are remotely controversial.

SS: They're simply going to say, "I don't want the aggravation of
potentially being held liable for these messages, so you can't
put them on my network," and that's really very concerning to us,
that there are going to be private censors of messages on the
Internet. One of the things that are so wonderful about the
Internet is the rich array of opinions and the rich volume of
different types of information that you can see out there, and
we'd hate to see all of that just get shut down.

DC: It's not just the Scientology case that's put computer
operators in the line of fire these days. On Capitol Hill,
members of Congress are debating a law that would make it a crime
to knowingly transmit indecent material to anyone under the age
of 18. Someone like Klemesrud could potentially face jail if he
gives high school students unrestricted access to the Internet,
because there's pornography out there on the Internet as well.
And just to make matters more confusing, a judge in New York
ruled last month if you run a computer bulletin board and you do
try to screen out messages that are obscene or abusive or
libelous, you can actually increase your chances of getting sued.
That's because the act of screening those messages gives you
editorial control, the judge said. That makes you a publisher and
makes you responsible for the material you let through. So, at
least sometimes, if you're operating a computer bulletin board,
the less you know about the material that's on that board, the
better off you are.

This is Dan Charles reporting.

NA: David Post has been following the civil suit by the Church of
Scientology. He is a visiting associate professor of law at
Georgetown University Law Center.

Mr. Post, a lot of issues here, a little confusing. What's the
one that interests you most?

DP: It's hard to know which is the most interesting. I think the
point that was made regarding the potential liability for service
providers is extremely important. They might be between a rock
and a hard place, now. Congress is talking about making them
monitor to make sure that there's no obscene or indecent
material. If they do monitor, they get hit with this publisher
liability. I think there is a serious threat to the continued
viability of the robust discourse on the Internet.

NA: That argument's pretty strong that was made there. If you do
start paying attention to it, you're responsible for it. That
would stand up, I would think.

DP: Well, that's - it has stood up so far in court. I mean
there's, I think, still a serious question as to whether simply
screening messages at some level converts you into the New York
Times or NPR, for that matter - really, standing behind the
message and publishing it to the world, adopting it for your own.
I think it is hard to argue, from what I know of this Scientology
case, that the service provider in any sense was standing behind
these messages and putting them out in the way that the New York
Times puts out a story, or the Atlantic Monthly, or a real
publisher.

NA: I see. Now, I'm confused about this part of it. How much does
the seizure of this material - they went - the church people went
to Dennis Erlich's house. They took floppy disks. They took hard
disks. They took personal correspondence. He said they even took
some of his songs that he's written. How much of that actually
enters into the case, because the church is suing him? What does
it matter that they went to his house and got this material?

DP: Well, I think that's a good example of how the old models of
the law might not be fitting this new line of electronic
communications terribly well. The Scientologists were proceeding
under provision of the copyright statute that allows judges to
order seizure of infringing material. This was designed for the
boatload of bootleg CDs that come into New York harbor, and
before they can distribute those, the true copyright owner runs
into court and says, "Hey, wait a second. I didn't authorize
that. Let's stop that distribution." Now that, in the world of
physical goods and publication - companies that are in the
business of infringing, if you will - that may make some sense.
In the new context of the Internet, we're all publishers. Mr
Erlich, like you, like me, like millions of other people, has the
ability to broadcast material to millions of people at the touch
of a button. That, it now turns out, subjects him to this kind of
seizure of his electronic world. Everything he's got on his hard
disk is suddenly open to seizure on a claim that he has
infringing material. I think it's potentially a very serious
threat to everybody.

NA: Because they're seeing material on the Internet, the church
is seeing material there, and they're going after the rest of it,
you say.

DP: Well, that's right. They're saying, "He's got all of this
infringing material. In order to stop him from posting this to
the Internet, we've got to grab physically grab it, before he can
distribute it any further."

NA: Let's take it into another realm. Let's say that I am a
disgruntled auto designer fired by Chrysler, and I don't like my
company any more, and I go up on the Internet, I criticize them,
and in doing so, I say, "Well, there's something wrong with the
way the company's operating," and I disclose a bit of inside
information. Same thing?

DP: It's potentially the same thing if you do that at a dinner
party conversation, also. The difference now - and we've all been
living with that law for a long time and we don't think much
about it in our dinner party conversations. Now, we have what
amounts to dinner party conversations with several million people
at a time, and suddenly, the potential for this kind of lawsuit,
the potential damage and the potential exposure is so much
greater because the tools make communication so much easier, in
effect.

NA: But if it is only criticism and not in any way a trade
secret, that's not a problem.

DP: Well, that's certainly true as stated. If it's only criticism
and not a trade secret, there's nothing wrong with that and you
have a first amendment right to criticize and speak freely. The
problem is who decides whether it's criticism or a trade secret.
Going back to Mr. Erlich, again. The Scientologists have alleged
trade secrets. They've alleged copyright infringement. Erlich is
denying those claims. The Scientologists have gone to a judge and
persuaded him enough that he would go out and order this - this
seizure of the material, so if you can get that far, even if it
may turn out, of course, that Erlich wins this - this suit - that
he was not infringing copyright and he was not disclosing trade
secrets, but that won't get back to seizure. That has already
happened and it's a done deal.

NA: David Post. He's a visiting associate professor of law at
Georgetown University Law Center in Washington.

DB: Dan Brown, EFF Computer Administrator
DC: Dan Charles, Reporter
DP: David Post, Associate Professor of Law
LG: Lisa Goodman, Scientology Media Relations Officer
NA: Noah Adams, Host
RS: Robert Siege, Host
SS: Sherry Steele, EFF Lawyer
TK: Tom Klemesrud: Computer Network Administrator