Re: Church's failed suits against Miller and Atack

I wrote:

> If there were lies in Miller's, Atack's, or Corydon's
> If there were lies in Miller's, Atack's, or Corydon's > books, then why, pray tell, weren't the authors and
> books, then why, pray tell, weren't the authors and > publishers sued for libel? You "church"
> publishers sued for libel? You "church" <spit> > certainly hasn't hesitated to sue for libel in other
> certainly hasn't hesitated to sue for libel in other > cases (like the ongoing Time magazine lawsuit). If
> cases (like the ongoing Time magazine lawsuit). If > nothing else, their failure to sue Miller, Atack, or
> nothing else, their failure to sue Miller, Atack, or > Corydon serves to prove that there was nothing
> Corydon serves to prove that there was nothing > libelous in any of these books.
> libelous in any of these books. Tony Sidaway <tony@sidaway.demon.co.uk> replied:

Au contraire, Diane. The church sued both Atack and Miller for copyright violation--and failed completely.

But a *copyright* infringement suit has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the information published. Copyright only deals with the ownership of intellectual property.

If the "Church" <spit> of Scientology[tm] could prove that information published in any of theses books was libelous, they would have been back in court in a second, suing for libel, just as they have sued Time Warner for the Time magazine article.

The fact that they haven't sued any of these authors or their publishers for libel is the strongest argument around that these books are telling the truth.

Diane Richardson ao579@yfn.ysu.edu