From declanm@netcom.com Wed Aug 30 05:32:33 1995 Return-Path: Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu by mail5.netcom.com (8.6.12/Netcom) id VAA22575; Tue, 29 Aug 1995 21:36:43 -0700 Received: (from postman@localhost) by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA19858; Wed, 30 Aug 1995 00:38:04 -0400 Received: via switchmail for fight-censorship+@andrew.cmu.edu; Wed, 30 Aug 1995 00:38:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Wed, 30 Aug 1995 00:37:22 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Received: from COCORICO.SPEECH.CS.CMU.EDU (COCORICO.SPEECH.CS.CMU.EDU [128.2.209.176]) by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA11954 for ; Wed, 30 Aug 1995 00:37:09 -0400 To: fight-censorship@andrew.cmu.edu Subject: She's Back! Reply-to: Dean.Benjamin@cs.cmu.edu Date: Wed, 30 Aug 95 0:36:27 EDT From: drb@COCORICO.SPEECH.CS.CMU.EDU Sender: drb@COCORICO.SPEECH.CS.CMU.EDU Source-Info: Sender is really drb@COCORICO.SPEECH.CS.CMU.EDU Status: RO X-Status: CMU's (in)famous alumna, Martha Siegel, the she of Green Card fame, has resurfaced to defend Scientology from its critics! I'd guess this is a letter to the editor, or perhaps a column. -- Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology From: nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) Message-ID: <41v31h$kvc@utopia.hacktic.nl> Subject: Big Suprise Date: 29 Aug 1995 15:00:33 +0200 Online providers want censorship, first amendment Arizona Republic Sunday, August 27, 1995 As one who has long been publicly involved in the Internet-censorship issue, I find the Church of Scientology flap (Republic, Aug. 21) yet another instance where Internet-access providers, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the rest of the hard-core Internet inner-circle clique are displaying blatant hypocrisy. As I understand it, copyrighted, confidential Church of Scientology material was released on the Internet without the church's knowledge or permission. That is copyright infringement, plain and simple. Now the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the other usual Internet suspects are piously invoking the First Amendment in an effort to absolve Internet-access providers from responsibility for enforcing copyright laws. A while back, the same arguments were made following incidents of Internetters engaged in defamation. It is reasonable that online providers be treated like the phone company and not held liable for their customers' message content. The fact is, however, that most access providers, by their own choice, don't act like the phone company. Instead, they make up rules for controlling behavior and content, require customers to sign them, and close accounts without notice as their mood dictates. While online providers cling fiercely to these tools of censorship, they are equally adamant about denying responsibility for content where upholding actual laws is involved, especially when there is risk of being taken to court, as in the Scientology case. I don't believe online providers have either the right or the responsibility to control speech on the Internet. I do believe that the two go together. Right now, providers want to have it both ways, and they should not be allowed to get away with it. If they wish to control user content, they should also be held responsible for that content. At least one court, in New York, has already agreed with this position in a libel suit against Prodigy. Martha S. Siegel Scottsdale