* SCIENTOLOGY ^(tm) v. the INTERNET Here is a somewhat lengthy aricle for Fido netters. It

* SCIENTOLOGY ^(tm) v. the INTERNET

Here is a somewhat lengthy aricle for Fido netters.  It's not
likely that the curtain will ever fall upon this drama (human
frailities being what they are) but at least we can watch and
enjoy the show and perhaps even learn who the antagonists are
and what motivates their actions.

Hopefully The Electronic Frontier Foundation will publish the
Dennis Erlich case if it's ever truely concluded.  The June 23
date has passed so perhaps there is additional information
coming.

The Skeptic Tank will start to carry all the information I can
find on the many issues and cases involved and will make them
available for FileRequest as they come in.  (I will also try
to find out what I can about whether "inducement to suicide"
is a crime here in the United States and Canada and if so,
what it entails since I'm greatly curious.)  If anyone has any
information on these issues, please send them to my system.
Comments and opinions are also welcome.  A Magic name
FileRequest of ERLICH will return a list of all the files that
relate to case.

                - Fredric Rice, The Skeptic Tank, July 1995

^ "Scientology" is a trademark of the
  Religious Technology Center (RTC)


0-=

ftp://ftp.skeptic.com/pub/skeptic/03.3.jl-jj-scientology
http://www.skeptic.com/03.3.jl-jj-scientology.html
From _Skeptic_ vol. 3, no. 3, 1995, pp. 35-41.

The following article is copyright (c) 1995 by the Skeptics
Society, P.O. Box 338, Altadena, CA 91001, (818) 794-3119.
Permission has been granted for noncommercial electronic
circulation of this articles in its entirety, including this
notice.  For information about a special Internet introductory
subscription rate, see the file subscription-rates or contact
Jim Lippard (lippard@skeptic.com).

SCIENTOLOGY v. the INTERNET
Free Speech & Copyright Infringement 
on the Information Super-Highway

By Jim Lippard and Jeff Jacobsen

The power to control the dissemination of information is the
power to influence the beliefs and actions of human beings.
Nothing has transformed civilization in such dramatic and
unforeseen ways as the development of informaion technology
which affects that power. The printing press, the telegraph,
the telephone, radio, and television have altered societies by
increasing the speed of communication, the quantity of
information that can be communicated, and the potential number
of recipients of any message. As each new technology becomes
cheaper to use, the ability of individuals to create and spread
their own messages is enhanced, and control over the flow of
knowledge becomes decentralized. Institutions and individuals
that require the ability to control information to retain power
have found themselves ousted as technologies have undermined
that ability.

   The Internet, a global network of interlinked computers, has
given individuals the power to obtain information on virtually
any subject from all over the world. It has also put into their
hands the ability to communicate any message, almost instantly
and at extremely low cost, to a potential audience of millions.
Further, the technology exists and is used today to allow these
communications to be anonymous or private and readable only by
the intended recipients. The possible consequences of the
technology of computer networking that worry many people.
Anonymous and private communication can be used by terrorists,
drug smugglers, and child pornographers, which the U.S.
government offers as argument in attempting to justify
restrictions on the use and export of encryption technology.
Businesses that exist by controlling the distribution of music,
film, and books rightly fear obsolescence as individuals are
able to transmit these works to each other directly in digital
form. Many organizations may rightly fear having their
innermost secrets broadcast over the Internet.

   Falling into the last category is the Church of
Scientology (COS), which has seen texts of secret Scientology
teachings, affidavits and declarations from court cases, and
even entire books by Scientology critics, made publicly (and
anonymously) available on both the Internet and the Usenet, a
collection of thousands of public discussion forums known as
newsgroups. Rather than answering the criticism, Scientologists
have responded in their standard manner-by attacking their
critics with confrontation and litigation. This article is a
summary of recent events in what began as the battle between
Scientology and its critics and, because of these tactics, is
now the battle between Scientology and the Internet.


The alt.religion.scientology Newsgroup

The main forum for discussion of Scientology on the Internet
is a Usenet newsgroup known as alt.religion.scientology (a.r.s).
This newsgroup was created on July 17, 1991, with a forged
"newgroup" message from the MIT Artificial Intelligence
Laboratory posted under the name of "David Miscaviage" (the
misspelled name of the head of the COS). In early 1992, three
additional (non-forged) newgroup messages for the group were
posted from the Lockheed Corporation, New York University, and
the University of Maine in an attempt to increase the
propagation of the newsgroup throughout the Usenet. At first,
the newsgroup was mainly a forum used by members of the "Free
Zone" (a group founded by ex-Scientologists to promote L. Ron
Hubbard's ideas independent of the COS). As time went on,
however, critics of both Scientology's doctrines and techniques
("tech") as well as the organization itself came to dominate
the discussion on a.r.s, and the Free Zoners formed a separate
newsgroup-alt.clearing.technology.

   Although there were the usual Usenet "flame wars" on a.r.s.
between Scientologists, Free Zoners, and critics, there was
apparently no coordinated action taken by the COS against its
electronic critics until 1994. In the summer of 1994, a
disgruntled Scientologist forwarded a copy of an electronic
memo to an a.r.s critic. Elaine Siegel of Scientology's Office
of Special Affairs (OSA) had apparently sent the memo to
several Scientologists on the Internet and America Online as a
plan to handle electronic criticism of Scientology. The memo
was promptly reposted to a.r.s. It read:"As you know, there has
been quite a bit of false and derogatory information going out
over the Internet by a few detractors, squirrels [relapsed
Scientologists], etc....We have a plan of action that we are
taking, to simply outcreate the entheta on these newsgroups
(alt.religion.scientology and alt.clearing.technology)...." Ms.
Siegel went on to explain that critics should not be engaged
in debate, but 40 to 50 Scientologists should post
pro-Scientology materials every few days so that "we'll just
run the SP's [suppressive persons] right off the system. It
will be quite simple, actually."

   On September 14, an anonymous poster claiming to be a
concerned Scientologist also posted a plan to handle the
Internet critics, allegedly originating from the COS and filled
with citations to Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letters
(HCOPLs), which are organizational and administrative policies
authored by L. Ron Hubbard. This plan was more elaborate, with
individuals assigned to Legal, Security, Success Posting, and
even Humor assignments. The goal was to have "no less than 50
posts per day for the next month."

   If these posts were genuine, it was clear that the church
had begun to take great interest in the a.r.s newsgroup. But
while some signs began to surface that some of these plans
were being put in operation, nothing particularly out of the
ordinary occurred on a.r.s until November 10, 1994, when two
men came to the door of former Scientologist Arnie Lerma, who
had been posting court documents pertaining to Scientology on
a.r.s., with a document for him to sign. It was a yet unsigned
affidavit in his name which declared that he recanted his
attacks on Scientology and that he had "left the Church
entirely because I could not maintain a high enough ethical
standard and wished to protect the organization from my
destructive behavior." Lerma refused to sign. Within an hour
after the men left, he received a fax accusing him of posting
illicit materials to the network and stating that "THE COS IS
WILLING TO SETTLE THIS MATTER OUT OF COURT AND WITHHOLD ANY
FURTHER LEGAL OR INVESTIGATIVE ACTION IF YOU WILL AGREE TO
CEASE AND DESIST ALL YOUR ACTIVITY AGAINST THE CHURCH AND
ANSWER SOME OF OUR QUESTIONS TO CLARIFY THIS MATTER." Lerma
reported these events to the FBI and to the Washington Post,
which reported on December 25, 1994, as did the Associated
Press on January 3, 1995.


The "Cancelpoodle" Arrives

Scientology teachings are sharply divided into two sections.
First, a member attains the state of "clear" by practicing
the publicly available psychological counseling techniques of
Dianetics. This supposedly involves the elimination of the
"reactive mind," which is responsible for all automatic,
stimulus-response behavior. After one becomes "clear," however,
the next levels of training are secret and their content is
jealously guarded from the uninitiated. Of these Operating
Thetan (OT) levels, numbering I-VIII, only OTIII had been
publicly exposed after a court case included the teachings of
this level in court exhibits. On December 24, however, someone
using an anonymous remailer in the Netherlands posted OTI,
OTII, and "New OT" (NOTs) issues 34, 35, and 36 to a.r.s.
These documents included such things as a description of how
"Teegeeack" (Earth) came to be populated 75 million years ago
by "thetans" (souls) when the evil ruler Xenu of the Galactic
Federation cast them into Hawaiian volcanos and blew them up
with a hydrogen bomb to solve his local overpopulation
problems. Former Scientologist Dennis Erlich, a regular
contributor to the a.r.s newsgroup since August 1994, posted
articles commenting on some of the material and pronounced it
genuine. Suddenly the material Scientology reveals only after
the investment of considerable time and money was accessible
to a potential audience of 30 million Internet users.

   On December 27, the COS contacted the Netherlands remailer
operator, who promptly announced to a.r.s that he had
disabled the anonymous account of the user responsible. On the
same day, an event took place which focused the attention of
free speech activists on a.r.s. A person using the name "Harry
Jones" issued a cancellation for an article posted by Dennis
Erlich commenting on the OT materials. The cancellation, issued
from an account with Netcom, a San Jose-based national Internet
service provider, was easily traceable to its origin but was
soon followed by more sophisticated cancellation messages.
These later messages were all directed at postings by
Scientology critics, but now were done in such a way that
they could not easily be traced to the account which
originated them. The unknown person responsible for these
cancellations was dubbed the "Cancelpoodle," a variant on the
name of the "Cancelmoose." (The Cancelmoose, an anonymous
individual who cancels indiscriminate mass postings of
articles known as "spam," is generally accepted by the Usenet
community. This is because the Cancelmoose does not cancel
articles on the basis of content, but only removes articles
which are widely duplicated and waste disk space and the time
of Usenet readers. He also makes reports on what is cancelled,
including a full copy of the original article, and performs
the cancellations in such a way that site administrators can
refuse to accept them at their own sites. The Cancelpoodle,
by contrast, targets specific content in its decision to
cancel.)

   Dozens of postings by a.r.s critics have been cancelled
by the Cancelpoodle, in many cases with a cancellation
message that claims the posting is "CANCELLED BECAUSE OF
COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT." Many of the articles by Scientology
critics which have been cancelled, however, contained either
no copyrighted material whatsoever or only brief quotations
falling within the bounds of "fair use" for commentary and
criticism. One of the authors of this article (Jacobsen) saw
several of his critical postings which he considered fell well
within the bounds of "fair use,"cancelled. One of the earliest
articles cancelled by the Cancelpoodle was a "decree of the
commencement of oral trial," a court document from Spain dated
December 12, 1994, describing criminal proceedings initiated
against COS president Heber Jentzch, and leading Spanish
Scientologists, for "felonies of illicit association, threats,
coercion, usurpation of functions, false accusation,
simulation of felony, illegal arrest, crimes against the Tax
Administration, crimes against freedom and safety in the
workplace, intrusion, crimes against the public health,
injuries, damages, abuse, slander and inducement to suicide."

   After several weeks of cancellations, Netcom modified its
Usenet software to make it easier to trace the origin of
bogus cancellation messages. The result was that when Netcom
cancelled the accounts of several abusers, cancellations began
to surface from accounts at other Internet service providers. A
series of cancellations posted from Deltanet, a provider based
in Orange County, California were issued from an account
obtained by two persons who showed up late one night at the
Deltanet office shortly before it closed. They had told
Deltanet that they needed immediate access, and paid in cash.
The true identity-or identities-of the Cancelpoodle has yet
to become public knowledge. The COS denies any knowledge or
connection with these activities.

   Regular participants on a.r.s have responded to the
Cancelpoodle by simply reposting whatever is cancelled. One
regular even wrote a program which automatically posts a
public notice to a.r.s about any articles which are cancelled
from the newsgroup. Anonymous posters have also responded by
reposting the secret church materials to a wide variety of
other newsgroups on the Usenet, a tactic which has been
condemned by many Scientology critics for its violation of
accepted standards of "netiquette."


Enter the Attorneys

While the Cancelpoodle was deleting specific postings on
a.r.s, church attorneys initiated action against on the
newsgroup itself. On January 3, Thomas Small, an attorney for
the Religious Technology Center (RTC, the corporate entity
that holds the copyrights and trademarks of Scientology) sent
notice to the operators of anonymous remailers stating that
two newsgroups were being used to violate the COS's
copyrights. "The spread of infringements and misappropriations
by the users will be lessened if you lock out from your
systems the two newsgroups involved, alt.religion.scientology
and alt.technology.clearing [sic], limiting the potential for
reposting and downloading." Small's notice spoke of impending
action against individual copyright infringers and suggested
that remailer operators might also be the subjects of
litigation. He concluded by asking that remailers "confirm that
you have blocked access to these newsgroups through your
remailer. If you are unwilling to do so, we ask that you
inform us as to the reasons for your position." A number of
remailers responded by limiting their ability to be used to
post to newsgroups.

   On January 10, RTC attorney Helena K. Kobrin issued an
"rmgroup" (remove group) control message for the
alt.religion.scientology newsgroup. In the text of the
zmessage, Kobrin offered the following justification for the
removal of the newsgroup: "(1) it was started with a forged
message; (2) [it was] not discussed on alt.config; (3) it has
the name 'scientology' in its title which is a trademark and
is misleading, as a.r.s is mainly used for flamers to attack
the Scientology religion; (4) it has been and continues to be
heavily abused with copyright and trade secret violations and
serves no purpose other than condoning these illegal
practices." Since most Usenet sites don't automatically honor
rmgroup commands and since several prominent Usenetters
immediately issued additional "newgroup" control messages for
the newsgroup, there was no negative effect on
alt.religion.scientology's distribution. In fact, the attempt
had the opposite effect, as it attracted the attention of site
administrators and free speech activists. Many responded to
Kobrin's arguments, pointing out that discussion on alt.config
is not a necessity for alt newsgroups; that the forged
"newgroup" was followed by non-forged "newgroup" messages; and
that it is unacceptable practice to "rmgroup" a newsgroup that
is receiving heavy use. Perhaps realizing this tactic to be a
mistake, the church has made no further attempts to remove the
newsgroup. Instead, it has followed through on its threats of
litigation against individual posters mentioned in Thomas
Small's notice to the anonymous remailers.


The Dennis Erlich Case

At 7:30 a.m. on the morning of February 13, 1995, a group of
people showed up at the home of ex-Scientologist Dennis Erlich
with a "writ of seizure."  Erlich refused to answer the
doorbell and called the police, but the 911 operator informed
him that he had to let his morning visitors into his home
because they had a warrant. Over the next 7.5 hours, Erlich's
personal papers and correspondence, financial records, and
computer were examined.  Photocopies were made, and over 300
floppy diskettes and two 120 MB tape backups were confiscated.
Numerous files were deleted from his computer, leaving it in
an inoperable condition. Erlich was also served with papers
declaring him the subject of a lawsuit for copyright
infringement, also naming Tom Klemesrud, system operator of the
L.A. Valley College Bulletin Board System (BBS) which Erlich
used, and Netcom, the Internet provider for that BBS, as
defendants. Klemesrud and Netcom were named on the grounds
that they should have taken action to prevent Erlich's alleged
copyright violations from being posted to the Usenet. A
temporary restraining order was issued against Erlich,
Klemesrud, and Netcom prohibiting the publication of
Scientology materials on the net.

   As early as August 1994, Erlich had exchanged
correspondence with RTC attorney Small about some of his
postings to a.r.s. Up until the raid, Erlich had been an
active critic of the church on a.r.s, often using information
from his own experiences of many years in a high position in
the church, posting followup articles to anonymously posted
articles containing church scriptures along with his own
commentary. Erlich's follow-ups contained quotations from
the anonymously posted articles to which he was responding.
Small accused Erlich of violating church copyrights by posting
these church scriptures without permission. Erlich responded
in a September 7, 1994, letter that "I'll be happy to retract
but you must first provide me with the materials whose
copyrights I supposedly violated." RTC then persuaded Northern
California District Judge Ron Whyte to approve the writ of
seizure used to raid Erlich's home.

   In a posting to a.r.s on February 14, 1995, Helena Kobrin
justified the raid on the grounds that "Erlich has repeatedly
posted published and unpublished materials on the
alt.religion.scientology newsgroup which are subject to
copyrights registered with the United States Copyright Office.
Attempts by my clients to engage Mr. Erlich in any meaningful
dialogue have met with an absolute refusal to communicate-he
would not even speak with my clients' representatives." Other
Scientologists on the net began a campaign to discredit
Erlich, posting allegations that he had abused his wife and
children and even killed his pets.

   After initial hearings, Klemesrud and Netcom were dropped
from the temporary restraining order, and Judge Whyte made
it clear that Dennis Erlich still had the right to post to
a.r.s and comment on Scientology materials so long as he
stays within the bounds of "fair use." After Erlich posted
some additional Scientology materials to the net, the church
filed a motion to have him declared in contempt of court. The
San Francisco law firm of Morrison and Forester took on
Erlich's case, and through their efforts Judge Whyte suspended
further motions in the case until a hearing scheduled for June
23, 1995. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has set up a
Dennis Erlich Defense Fund to assist Erlich in paying his
court costs.


The Penet Raid

Finland is a country known for its respect for independence,
individuality, and privacy. It is fitting, then, that the
most used and best known anonymous remailer, known as
anon.penet.fi, is in Finland. Johan (Julf) Helsingius'
Internet remailer handles an estimated 7,000 postings per day.

   On February 2, 1995, Helsingius was contacted by an
American representative of the Church of Scientology,
informing him that his remailer had been used to publicly
post information stolen from a private Scientology computer
and requesting the identity of the poster. When Helsingius
responded that he could not reveal that information, he was
told that Interpol would be making a request to the Finnish
police for the information. The next day, Finnish police
contacted Helsingius requesting the same information, and
informed him that a warrant would be obtained if necessary.

   On February 8, Finnish police arrived at Helsingius' home
with a warrant entitling them to seize information about all
users of his service, but he persuaded them to settle for
the identity of the single requested poster.  This marked the
first time that any public authority has required a remailer
to divulge the identity of a user. But what is perhaps more
startling (because of their respect for privacy) is that the
Finnish police almost immediately gave this information to the
Church of Scientology. Helsingius reports that his legal
representative received acknowledgment of receipt of the
information within an hour of divulging it to the
authorities.

   The Finnish newspaper, Helsingin Sanomat, reported on
February 18 that someone had broken into a Scientology computer
system and stolen information that was publicly posted on the
zInternet via Helsingius' remailer on January 23. This date led
to speculation about what information taken from the church
would cause the Scientologists to take such drastic measures in
response. The speculation has focused around an article posted
to a.r.s via anon.penet.fi on that date by someone using the
name "-AB-" which has subsequently been confirmed to be the
user whose identity was sought and obtained by the Church of
Scientology. Oddly, this article had nothing to do with secret
church teachings, but was about an incident nine days
previously involving Tom Klemesrud, the system operator of the
BBS used by Dennis Erlich.


The "Miss Blood" Incident

On January 14, Tom Klemesrud visited a Los Angeles bar after
returning from a convention of BBS sysops in Denver. According
to Klemesrud, a woman came up to him at the bar, they began
conversing, and then they went to another bar.  At the second
bar the woman allegedly told him that she was an IRS agent,
showing him a laminated ID card with the letters "IRS" in
blue. The subject of Scientology came up, and she mentioned
the names of IRS agents who had been involved with the
investigation of Scientology's tax-exempt status in the 1980s.
Eventually, says Klemesrud, they ended up at his home where he
says she asked to see his BBS because she was supposedly
investigating Scientology's tax-exempt status. After asking a
few questions about users of the L.A. Valley College BBS, the
woman excused herself to use the bathroom.  When she did not
return immediately, Klemesrud says he went to check on her and
saw blood on the floor through the partially opened doorway.
The woman spread blood around Klemesrud's bathroom, carpets,
chairs, and bed, and police were called to the scene. According
to the police report, the apartment was quiet, there were
bloody jeans on the hall floor, and blood was smeared in the
bathroom and on the bed. Klemesrud was sitting in a chair and
the woman was sitting on the bed. Klemesrud told the officers
that his shotgun was in the kitchen, and they retrieved it from
a closet in the kitchen area. The police report states that
Klemesrud said he let her into his apartment because she
claimed to be an IRS agent, and that she went into the bathroom
and began cutting herself. He also reported that she was trying
to frame him in an attempt to silence Church of Scientology
critic Dennis Erlich (the police report confusedly states that
Klemesrud was a "critic for" Scientology). The woman's account
in the police report, on the other hand, stated that they had
met in a bar the previous week and she came to his apartment
that evening. She stated that he loaded his shotgun when she
entered the bedroom, pointed it at her, and stated, "How do you
like that, I can kill anybody I want." She explained the blood
as the result of a medical problem with rectal bleeding and
hemorrhoids aggravated by alcohol and stress, and denied any
involvement with Scientology or acquaintance with anyone in
Scientology. Klemesrud says that while he originally was under
the impression that she was cutting herself in the bathroom,
he is now convinced that she was cutting open "a bag, bladder,
or balloon nestled in her crotch" which was filled with blood
and which he both saw and poked when she turned to sit on his
bed and spread blood on it. He maintains that "if this is a
medical problem, then she has an intestine or artery running
outside her body filled with cold almost coagulated blood."

   Klemesrud was arrested on a charge of assault with a deadly
weapon and released on $30,000 bail the next morning, while the
woman was allowed to leave the scene without any examination. A
police detective was subsequently unable to contact her. The
District Attorney rejected the charges, refusing to prosecute.

   Dennis Erlich posted a short account of the incident to
a.r.s on January 15, 1995, while another version of what
happened was anonymously posted on January 23 by "-AB-." The
latter posting claimed that its author "called in a very big
favor owed me" to obtain the name and telephone number of the
woman involved in the incident with Klemesrud, and sent "a
trusted friend (aspiring investigative reporter)" to interview
her. This version of the story agreed with Klemesrud's account
that they had only met the evening of the incident, rather
than the week before. It then goes on to claim that Klemesrud
had accused her of being in the CIA, threatened her with a
shotgun, demanded that she have sex with him, and repeatedly
telephoned the Church of Scientology until she called 911.
Klemesrud says that he called the FBI and 911 as she
single-mindedly moved repeatedly between the bathroom and the
bedroom and spread blood around. He grabbed his shotgun from
the corner of his bedroom and placed it in the kitchen, then
hid it in the closet. He says that he never mentioned the CIA,
and believed her to be an IRS agent until he first saw the
blood.

   On January 24, the Los Angeles Times contacted Scientology
for comment on the story, but the request was declined. That
evening, however, the Church of Scientology's OSA faxed what
was apparently a signed declaration by the woman involved to
the Times. This declaration gives an account of the incident
which is virtually identical to that posted by "-AB-,"
including the erroneous detail that Klemesrud had a 10-gauge
shotgun (it was a 12-gauge, as described in the police report).
No newspaper article on the incident was published.

   This incident raises numerous unanswered questions: Who
is "-AB-"? Where did he obtain his information? Why did the
zChurch of Scientology later fax almost exactly the same
information to the Los Angeles Times? Why did the Church of
Scientology take such extreme measures to obtain "-AB-"s
identity?  Why would a woman with no connections to
Scientology give her declaration to the Church of Scientology
rather than the police?


Protesting the Church of Scientology

On March 13, the authors of this article along with three
others picketed the Scientology building in Mesa, Arizona
to protest the church's treatment of alt.religion.scientology.
The Scientologists called the police, but since picketing is
legal in the U.S. provided it is done in an orderly manner,
the policeman advised the picketers not to cause any
disruptions and left. The picketing was quiet and no
disruptions or arguments occurred. Just before the protest
ended, the Scientologists photographed each of the picketers.
As the picketers left the scene, a man with a camera waited
to take photographs of their cars as they drove by, perhaps
to obtain license plate numbers. The protest was relatively
uneventful, and prompted one article in the Religion section
zzof the Scottsdale Tribune on March 18.

   On March 24, however, Eugene Ingram, Scientology's
principal private investigator, showed up at the place of
employment of one of the authors (Jacobsen) and began taking
photographs. Recognizing Ingram, Jacobsen immediately asked
him, "Do you have a warrant for your arrest in Tampa,
Florida?" Ingram replied, "Not anymore." Jacobsen then checked
and confirmed that the Tampa warrant for Ingram's arrest for
allegedly impersonating a police officer was still valid, but
Ingram had left. The next evening, Ingram visited Jacobsen's
sister's home and asked about Jacobsen's financial status.
He was told to leave and did so. Ingram was next seen driving
through Jacobsen's neighborhood in such an unusual and
frequent manner that neighbors called the police. At one point,
Ingram questioned a 13-year-old neighbor, asking him if he knew
Jacobsen, and showing him one of the photographs taken on
March 24. Ingram did not question any of the adults who were
present outside the home at the same time as the young teen.

   On March 28, Jacobsen was served with a subpoena ordering
him to be deposed by Scientology's in-house attorneys
regarding a case filed by the director of the Cult Awareness
Network against a cult front group. On April 4, Jacobsen
received a telephone call from his local phone company,
reporting that someone claiming to be him had made three
attempts to access computer data from his phone bill. These
attempts were unsuccessful only because he had previously
placed a pass code on his phone accounts on the advice of
another church critic who had been subjected to the same
intelligence-gathering technique. These events suggest that
the Church of Scientology took the protest more seriously
than an outsider might imagine.


"Ruin Him Utterly"

Why does the Church of Scientology use such an "iron fist"
approach to criticism? Consider what L. Ron Hubbard, founder
of the church, taught was the proper method of handling any
perceived outside threat. For example:

   "The DEFENSE of anything is UNTENABLE. The only way to
defend anything is to ATTACK, and if you ever forget that,
then you will lose every battle you are ever engaged in,
whether it is in terms of personal conversation, public
debate, or a court of law. NEVER BE INTERESTED IN CHARGES.
DO, yourself, much MORE CHARGING, and you will win." (Emphasis
in original. L. Ron Hubbard, Magazine Articles on Level 0
Checksheet, p. 54.)

   "The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather
than to win.  The law can be used very easily to harass, and
enough harassment on somebody is simply on the thin edge
anyway...will generally be sufficient to cause his
professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him
utterly" (ibid, p.  55).

   "ENEMY - SP [suppressive person] Order. Fair game. May be
deprived of property or injured by any means by any
Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May
be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed" (HCOPL, 18 October
1967, Issue IV).

   "This P/L does not cancel any policy on the treatment or
handling of an SP" (HCOPL, 21 October 1968, the supposed
"Cancel" of Fair Game, which really just abolishes use of the
name "fair game.")

   These passages are sacred scripture to a Scientologist, as
are all of Hubbard's writings on Dianetics and Scientology. So,
to do other than attack a perceived enemy would be to
contradict church doctrine.


More Recent Events

For several weeks, a group of pro-Scientology posters seemed
intent on overwhelming a.r.s with off-topic posts, single
paragraph posts of questionable interest, and single sentence
follow-ups to long articles which requote the entire posting
being replied to. Between March 26 and March 30, 1995, for
example, just two of these mass posters placed 139 articles on
a.r.s between them, for an average of 28 per day. This tactic
was reminiscent not only of the Scientology plans for handling
the group mentioned above, but of a plan suggested by
Scientologist Russell Shaw, who on January 28 posted that the
way to stop critics was to out-post them. "Now, I'm not talking
about a paltry 100-200 posts a day. I'm talking about ENOUGH
of the success stories to really 'paint over' all of the
graffiti. If a particular newsgroup had 100 negative posts a
day going to it, then we would need to post at least 2000-3000
success stories a day to that newsgroup." Recently, however,
this technique has been all but abandoned, probably because it
is very simple to "killfile" particular posters so that you
don't see their articles at all.

   More extreme responses have also occurred. Church attorneys
have sent letters suggesting potential legal actions for
copyright violations against at least four other critics.
Another a.r.s critic, Grady Ward, received an unannounced visit
on April 14 from two Scientologists at his Arcata, California,
home. One of the Scientologists, Jeff Quiros of the San
Francisco Church of Scientology's OSA, drove five hours to
Arcata only to leave and return to San Francisco after Ward
phoned police without speaking to him.

   One of the most recent tactics adopted by Scientologists
on a.r.s has been to criticize anonymous posters or those
using pseudonyms, as well as investigate them and reveal
their real names. In one case, a user posting under the name
TarlaStar was shocked to find her real name posted to a.r.s
by Scientologist Andrew Milne after receiving a strange phone
call from someone named "Judy" claiming to be an employee of
Internet Oklahoma, her network access provider. (Internet
Oklahoma employs no one named Judy.) She was further
surprised and angered when Scientologist "Vera Wallace" (a
pseudonym) reposted not only her real name, but her home
address and telephone number. Wallace wrote to a.r.s on April
11 that "It is Andrew's right, as it is mine, to post the name
of anyone who is hiding behind a phony name while spewing
forth lies...No one is telling you to stop your tirades, but
at the same time, no one can tell me not to find out who you
really are and publish your name for all to see." Other
Scientologists on a.r.s have made similar condemnations of
anonymous posting, contradicting a statement by Los Angeles
church spokeswoman Karin Pouw in a February 28 AP story that
"We have nothing against anonymous posters...It's a great
freedom and the right of everyone to communicate as long as
anonymity is not used to cover up a crime."


Conclusion

It remains to be seen what the long-term consequences of the
Internet conflict are for the Church of Scientology or its
critics. Court documents, declarations, and secret teachings
of the church continue to appear on a.r.s.  The church appears
to be willing and able to engage in further litigation against
critics on the basis of copyright infringement. At the same
time, however, Scientology itself faces legal battles as
several high-ranking Scientologists are about to go on trial
in Spain. According to Lawrence Wollersheim, RTC chairman
David Miscavige continues to avoid subpoenas as Wollersheim
attempts to collect the multimillion dollar judgment he was
awarded in his case against the church which went all the way
to the U.S.  Supreme Court.

   One thing seems clear, and that is that the critics have
the upper hand on the Internet. The Church of Scientology's
usual strategies for handling critics backfire when harassment
is reported on the network whenever it happens, almost as soon
as it happens, potentially to millions all over the world.


Additional Information

The best source of information about Scientology's activities
on the Internet is, of course, the alt.religion.scientology
newsgroup. Ron Newman's web pages give a well organized account
of recent events with hyperlinks to supporting documentation:

http://www.mit.edu:8001/people/rnewman/scientology/home.html

   The Electronic Frontier Foundation's web site has documents
pertaining to the Dennis Erlich case
(http://www.eff.org/pub/EFF/Legal/Cases/CoS_v_the_Net/).
FACTNet (Fight Against Coercive Tactics Network) archives are
available on the web (http://www.xs4all.nl/~fonss/) and via FTP
(ftp://ftp.rmii.com/pub2/factnet/). Other recent articles about
Scientology and the Internet have appeared in _Time_ (January
16, March 6), the _Los Angeles Times_ (January 25, February
14, February 22), the _Washington Post_ (February 2), the _St.
Petersburg Times_ (August 3, 1994) and _Internet World_ (April
1995). Books on Scientology include _A Piece of Blue Sky:
Scientology, Dianetics, and L. Ron Hubbard Exposed_, 1990, by
Jon Atack, Carol Publishing Group; and _Bare-Faced Messiah:
The True Story of L. Ron Hubbard_, 1987, by Russell Miller,
H. Holt.

0-=

The "Science" in Scientology
A Note From the Publisher to Scientologists Reading This
Article 

"Ideas and not battles mark the forward progress of mankind."
-L. Ron Hubbard, posted on the board room at the Religious
Technology Center in Los Angeles.

It is the policy of _Skeptic_ to offer individuals and groups
the opportunity to respond in a subsequent issue to anything
written about them or their claims. A quick glance through the
Forum sections of our back issues will reveal that we are more
generous in space and open to responses of any kind than any
other magazine we know. We will extend The Church of
Scientology the same courtesy. The Church of Scientology may
submit a single response to the above article that will be
published in the next issue of _Skeptic_, up to 2,000 words
in length.

   Stories of how Scientologists often respond to articles
about the church are legion and legendary. Perhaps they are
even exaggerated (one hopes). Our interest in publishing this
article is strictly in the free speech aspects of
communication and debate on the Internet, not in Scientology
or its claims.  _Skeptic_ has made no public statement about
the church or its claims, and indeed, if a court decides that
some of what has been posted on the Internet is a violation of
copyright or trade secrets, or surpasses the fair use
guidelines, then we certainly would not endorse such postings
(any more than we would want people republishing our
copyrighted articles without permission). On the other hand,
neither do we endorse the tactics alleged to have been used
by Scientologists to silence actual or potential critics,
especially those who have not violated any copyright or trade
secret laws and who merely wish to report on the activities of
the Church, which is perfectly moral and legal. Let me try to
convince you why it is to your benefit not to silence critics:

   1. It is bad publicity to try to silence critics. It makes
the public think that you have something to hide and that you
are afraid of something being exposed; like a secret cult or
conspiratorial cabal.

   2. It calls attention to the critic and his criticism that
might otherwise have gone unnoticed. E.g., raiding a critic's
home resulted in numerous articles in major newspapers and
magazines, as well as many more postings on the Internet that
would not have happened otherwise.

   3. Your critics might be completely right and you would
have just squashed the truth.

   4. Your critics might be partially right, and you would
have missed part of the truth.

   5. Your critics might be completely wrong, but in the
process of examining their wrong claims, you discover the
truth, how thinking can go wrong, and improve your own thinking
skills.

   6. In science (and you do call yourself "scientology"), it
is not possible to know the absolute truth about anything, and
so we must always be on the alert for where we have gone wrong
and how others have gone right.

   7. Being tolerant of critics means you will have a greater
chance of being tolerated when you are critical.

   All of these points, of course, assume an underlying
foundation of rationality, fairness, and an openness to those
who do not necessarily share one's viewpoints.

   An interesting philosophical question that is raised in this
debate is whether religious doctrines received through some
form of revelation, or scientific doctrines discovered in
nature, can be copyrighted, protected, and held in secret.
Certainly books, videos, CDs, magazines, and other forms of
communication and publication can and should be copyrighted.
But religious principles and scientific discoveries themselves?
Some say yes, though most scientists and theologians would say
no. The reason is simple. In order to determine the truth
about some claim, the best procedure is to broadcast to as
many people as possible, the claim, the evidence for the claim,
and the theory that best explains the claim (this is called
publishing), in order to get critical feedback. Darwin was a
genius at this. He literally wrote thousands of letters to
experts all over the world asking for criticisms of his
theory before he published it. In this way he defused most
criticisms before his book was even published. Since you have
adopted the name "science" in the title of your church,
perhaps you would be interested in receiving critical
feedback on your claims in a scientific manner. If so, perhaps
an experimental protocol could be established to test your
claims. If not, we have no interest in engaging in any hostile
exchanges with the church. If you wish to keep your claims and
doctrines secret that is your business and we will respect
this. But this is not how either science or religion is
normally done in the quest for truth. I look forward to
receiving your response.  -Michael Shermer, Publisher

0-=

Jim Lippard has an M.A. in Philosophy from the University
of Arizona and was the founder of the Phoenix Skeptics.  He
authored "Sun Goes Down in Flames: The Jammal Ark Hoax," in
_Skeptic_ Vol. 2, No. 3 and is _Skeptic_'s contact person on
the Internet.  He may be reached via email as
lippard@skeptic.com.

Jeff Jacobsen has a B.A. in Religious Studies from Arizona
State University.  He was in a small Christian cult from
1972-1978.  He is a contact person for the Cult Awareness
Network, based in Chicago. He may be reached on the Internet
as cultxpt@primenet.com.