From declanm@netcom.com Thu Aug 24 21:57:13 1995 Return-Path: Received: from po8.andrew.cmu.edu by mail.netcom.com (8.6.12/Netcom) id HAA05311; Tue, 22 Aug 1995 07:32:52 -0700 Received: (from postman@localhost) by po8.andrew.cmu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA05399; Tue, 22 Aug 1995 10:25:15 -0400 Received: via switchmail; Tue, 22 Aug 1995 10:25:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from unix18.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Tue, 22 Aug 1995 10:24:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from unix18.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Tue, 22 Aug 1995 10:24:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mms.4.60.Jan.26.1995.18.43.47.sun4c.411.EzMail.2.0.CUILIB.3.45.SNAP.NOT.LINKED.unix18.andrew.cmu.edu.sun4c.411 via MS.5.6.unix18.andrew.cmu.edu.sun4c_411; Tue, 22 Aug 1995 10:24:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4kCSWT600YUuQ78FUX@andrew.cmu.edu> Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 10:24:31 -0400 (EDT) From: "Declan B. McCullagh" To: Fight Censorship Mailing List Subject: More on Scientology vs. Carnegie-Mellon References: <+cmu.andrew.graffiti.bboard-censorship+MkA=fpy00UfCE10XkA@andrew.cmu.edu> Status: RO X-Status: Carnegie Mellon's attorneys seem unwilling to take a stand against the Church of Scientology. The school's counsel is the law firm of DeForest & Koscelnik, which CMU retained in the fall of 1993 when the Defense Department started a criminal investigation of the university's handling of contracts (which is still ongoing, BTW). Walter DeForest is at wd2b@andrew.cmu.edu; Jackie Koscelnik is jk8e@andrew.cmu.edu. The firm is at 412-227-3100, 412-227-3130 fax. Koscelnik sat with me on the newsgroup censorship committee sparked by Rimm's "obscenity" claims; months after I resigned from it, the committee decided to uphold the original ban of most of the alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.tree. -Declan --- For more info on the Church of Scientology, check out: EFF: http://www.eff.org/pub/EFF/Legal/Cases/CoS_v_the_Net/ Jerod Pore: http://www.well.com/user/jerod23/clam.html Dave Touretzky: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Fishman/ Ron Newman: http://www.cybercom.net/~rnewman/scientology/home.html David Dennis: http://amazing.cinenet.net/scientology.html Modemac: http://www.tiac.net/users/modemac/cos.html Skeptic Magazine: http://www.skeptic.com/03.3.jl-jj-scientology.html Bob "Sloth" Bingham: http://www.sky.net/~sloth/sci/sci_index.html Tilman Hausherr: http://www.snafu.de/~tilman Daniel Tobias: http://www.webcom.com/~dtobias/sosueme.html ---------- Forwarded message begins here ---------- X-Added: With Flames (bblib $Revision: 1.4 $) Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 22053;andrew.cmu.edu;William Bardwell Received: from unix14.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for bb+graffiti.bboard-censorship@andrew.cmu.edu ID ; Mon, 21 Aug 1995 22:39:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from unix14.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Mon, 21 Aug 1995 22:39:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from BatMail.robin.v2.14.CUILIB.3.45.SNAP.NOT.LINKED.unix14.andrew.cmu.edu.sun 4c.411 via MS.5.6.unix14.andrew.cmu.edu.sun4c_411; Mon, 21 Aug 1995 22:39:00 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 21 Aug 1995 22:39:00 -0400 (EDT) From: William Bardwell To: Bulletin Board Administration Subject: Re: Scientology vs. Carnegie-Mellon -- Impending Censorship? In-Reply-To: References: <+cmu.andrew.graffiti.bboard-censorship+MkA=fpy00UfCE10XkA@andrew.cmu.edu > John Ockerbloom writes: > In any case, if Dave T. or anyone else here wants to put up pages > critical of Scientology that don't raise any serious copyright > concerns, they should be welcome to do so. (You could, for instance, > get a copy of the OT documents from the California court, and then put > up a page explaining their meaning and critiquing them in plain > English, without actually reproducing the text beyond clear 'fair use' > guidelines. Given the jargon-laden style of the extracts I've seen, > this might be useful even to folks who have the court records > already.) People should be free to do this without any hindrance from > the University, even if the Scientology organization disapproves and > makes threats. Unfortunatly this is not the case... I had, a month or so ago, been reposting posts that contained small excerpts (which I beleived to be protected by the "fair use" exception) from some of the OT documents, that had been canceled by someone apparently working for the CoS. CMU received notices indicating that the CoS (RTC specificically) considered these to be inviolation of Copyright law (partially due to the claim that these are unpublished documents that the excerpts were from) and Trade Secret law. The CoS lawyer asked that a) the reposts be removed b) my account be removed or I be reprimanded and promise never to do it again. The reponse which they were given was that I promised not to knowingly violate relevant laws. I subsequantly reposted further material (I did not and do not believe any of my actions were illegal), and the CoS lawyer sent further complaints to CMU. I am currently under orders not to post any of the said material in any quantity until the CMU lawyer has had time to review the issue. To date I have not heard any conclusion from the CMU lawyer (I have spoken with him and presented the issues as I see them.) I am afraid that CMU would infact rather not give me an answer, because no matter what they choose someone will be annoyed, and because the CoS will probably only get whiny if further material is posted. William Bardwell wbardwel+@[cs.]cmu.edu