# ********Censorship or Moderation?

[ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Marquis [Marquis] on November 10, 1999 at 09:09:43 {AAJB0ph6mYOJikFWJ7tMc9QpzHSPFY}:

In Reply to: *******Censorship or Moderation? posted by Friend on November 10, 1999 at 06:08:22:

Friend said:
According to that FPP statement links should be deleted to copyrighted material when that copyrighted material exists without authorization by the legal copyright owner.

This is ridiculous, and a rule made to be able to "remove" unwanted information. Since when did anyone need to ask permission to link to anything online? There has been cases where siteowners and webmasters had to remove a company logo - even though the logo image file were placed on a page as a link to the original site. This was because the company did not allow anyone to misuse their logo.

In this case Kent have published the Elder Manual, which is a book the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society would rather see the public did not know at all. And they do not want the Jehovah's Witnesses to know the actual content either. In spite of the fact that most of the material therein has been published in the Watchtower or KM before.

There is, though, a major question as to this subject. Copyright is used mainly for two reasons:

1) To make sure the content is not tempered with.
2) To take care of the economics involved.

The Watchtower have, they claim, no economical interests in this matter, and as long as the text is not quoted out of context it should be fine. It would have been far worse if someone quoted selected parts, gave comments on them, and thereby made the book look different than intended.

By publishing the work in original form this danger is avoided, and the reason for all the problems is evident: The Watchtower do not want others to know the content.

The question is, naturally, why they want to hide these facts. Is it theocratic warfare strategy? Probably, because the content will make politicians and police officials worried as to the internal justice system inside the Jehovah's Witnesses congregations.

Then you said:
As for Kent's contention that he is innocent of any copyright infringement because "the police dropped the case", as I have already
demonstrated, such is not exclusive to innocence. Kent just assumes he is innocent because he has not been prosecuted.

Have you heard of circular reasoning? You accuse Kent of doing your errors. You assume Kent is guilty because you feel he is - and that he should be convicted. You also insinuate he has broken the law - which is slander. And, it is prosecutable according to the law in any country. Libel is the word normally used in such cases.

When you accuse someone of breaking the law, you are the one that will have to substantiate the claim. Kent does not have ti prove himself innocent - you have to prove him guilty. And I am not so sure you are the expert on Norwegian law you pretend to have. But again, Kent is using his own, and often full name, his real email address, and he has even given us his address, telephone numbers and other data. You, on the other hand, operate from an "anonymous" Hotmail account.

Why do you do that? What happened to the freedom of speech you claim to have? Are you afraid someone from the Mother-organization will punish you for being a bad boy, playing on the dangerous internet?

All things considered, I believe you better be a bit more careful with your accusations. If someone wanted to sue you, a Hotmail address will not help you one inch of the road….

Marquis

Follow Ups:

- *********Censorship or Moderation? Friend crtn 09:53:48 11/10/99 (0)
- *********Censorship or Moderation? Friend 09:52:49 11/10/99 (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject: *********Censorship or Moderation?

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ FAQ ]