Theos-Talk Archives (June 1999 Message tl00069)

Here is an interesting case on the issue of anonymity on Internet which I
saw. 

The comment that is interesting is that:

"Nonetheless, those who seek to comments are not Constitutionally
entitled to anonymity.  The potential abuse for anonymous comment is
great: defamation, fraud, stalking, etc.  Therefore, with rights come
responsibility.  If it is worth saying in publication, it's worth
putting your name to it...  the choice is yours." 

Something to think about!!!!

mkr
===================================

> Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 14:48:09 -0400
> Sender: owner-cni-copyright@cni.org
> From: "Juhre, Michael" <Michael.Juhre@aig.com>
> Subject: ISP Reveals Scientology Critic (fwd)

An interesting case which was posted on "Surveillance List Forum" (6400
Members from 72 Countries around the World...

<http://www.thecodex.com/list.html>
"We don't spy on you... but we DO keep an eye on those that do..." )

Michael Juhre
<michael.juhre@aig.com>

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

> From: "Terrance L. Kawles" <tkawles@tco.com> 
> Subject: Re: ISP Reveals Scientology Critic 
>
> >4) From: FGM7516@aol.com 
> >Subject: ISP Reveals Scientology Critic 

THE "SAFE" STORY

Internet service provider AT&T, in response to a subpoena, released 
the identity of a WorldNet subscriber to Bridge Publications, a 
corporate arm of the Church of Scientology.  The subscriber, known 
as "Safe," allegedly posted portions of the church's doctrine to a 
newsgroup critical of Scientology.  The church claimed that these 
postings violate its copyright, and under the Digital Millennium 
Copyright Act, obtained a subpoena to induce AT&T to reveal Safe's 
personal information. 

Bridge's attorney who filed the subpoena, said that Safe had made
"unauthorized, verbatim postings," from the group's copyrighted
doctrines.  Safe contended that his postings were not verbatim. 

The idea of using of the Copyright Law to control commentary is not 
new, but its use on a new class of people the previously did not 
have the unlimited potential of the Internet at their "mouse 
click" is. 

The Church of Scientology

The Church of Scientology, of L. Ron Hubbard, Dyanetics, John Travolta,
etc. fame, is well-known for its use (or misuse) of Copyright Law as a
method of controlling critical comment pertaining to its doctrines.  By
copyrighting their writings, they seek to control direct reference to
their writings in publications by outside parties.  This technique is
tantamount to the Pope (taking authorship/ownership and public domain
issues aside) copyrighting the New Testament and suing Jimmy Swaggart
for quoting the New Testament in any comments that may be critical of
Roman Catholic doctrine. 

Clearly, the fair use doctrine, used correctly by the commentor, allows
the use of such copyrighted writings within the context of comment or
criticism.  The Church of Scientology knows that, but it hoping that the
commentator does not have the stomach to fight them within the judicial
framework.  In addition, it may be their intention to set a precedent
regarding these issues, thereby having a "chilling" effect on those
potential commentators who do not have the stomach for defending their
rights of commentary in a court of law. 

As for Safe: are you really entitled to offer critical comment publicly
in anonymity?  Maybe the answer is "yes."  But if you get harassed, the
source of disclosure could only be a deep-pocket (via subpoena). 
Welcome a lawsuit. 

As for the alleged harassment of Keith Henson: If such acts arise, you
have potential causes of action for defamation, prima facie tort,
assult, etc.  Mr. Henson has a judicial remedy against a deep-pocket
defendant, a scenario most lawyers are willing to undertake, perhaps
even on contingency. 

For both: the counter-suit is always an effective counter-attack,
especially in jurisdictions where the prevailing party may be entitled
to attorneys fees.  Finally, on issues such as this, look for help from
the numerous legal-aid type organizations that specifically defend these
type of free speech issues. 

Right to Commentary and Anonymity

Nonetheless, those who seek to comments are not Constitutionally
entitled to anonymity.  The potential abuse for anonymous comment is
great: defamation, fraud, stalking, etc.  Therefore, with rights come
responsibility.  If it is worth saying in publication, it's worth
putting your name to it...  the choice is yours. 

It is also crucial to remember that there is a substantial difference
between what you can say in so-called private/personal email between 
two parties and a public posting to a news group, chat room etc. 

The First Amendment

It is unclear whether the first amendment grants an additional privilege
to make unauthorized copies of protected works beyond that granted by
the doctrine of fair use.  While law experts argue that a separate
defense against an allegation of copyright infringement does exist,
courts have not agreed.  Instead, courts have stated that the
combination of the fair use doctrine and the fact that copyright does
not prevent the copying of facts and ideas secures society's interest 
in free speech. 

The Bottom Line. 

1. Use only the exerpts needed to illustrate your commentary and/or
   criticism; you are not entitled to copy an entire copyrighted work.

2. Remember: copyrighted works are fair game for comment, criticism 
   and (believe it or not) PARODY! and

3. If someone rattles their sabres at you over legitimate comment, 
   criticism or parody, threaten them with a countersuit for 
   malicious prosecution!