Re: More on the AOL situation

Carl Kaun writes:

All in all, a really tacky situation. Censorship in the absence of guidelines for posting to boards, at least that I could find. Censorship without advance or followup notice of it. Open propaganda by Scientology without even a hint that the topic might be controversial, and indications of where other discussion could be found. Horizontal spamming of boards (8 boards for Scientology - come on). Content-free vertical spamming of boards (messages without content that waste my $ to read). Tacky. Probably not worse than what you'd expect from AOL, but tacky all the same.

Yes, indeed it is a tacky situation, Carl. There R&E Forum guidelines are published in the "Welcome" (or whatever) section to the R&E board. The guidelines specifically state that doctrinal/theological disagreements are not to be voiced on the board, with the exception of a few named folders.

However, even a cursory examination of other boards in the forum show lively debate going on with nary a hint of censorship. This leads me to believe that it is the Scientologists themselves who instruct the AOL censors which messages are to be deleted in their folders. I wouldn't doubt if a little Kobrin Korrespondence has made the censors quite eager to please.

What the critics are posting on the Scientology boards is NOT doctrinal/theological disputes. If AOL wants to keep the critics out of the Scientologists folders, then they need to provide an area with equal access to tis critics.

I have already written one letter (as a subscriber) to AOL, indicating my concerns, and also stating "I'd rather have my children exposed to pornography than unadulterated Scientology propaganda". Despite an auto-responder that said my message would be answered in 24 hours, I have not received a reply in more than a week. I will be writing more letters.

My first letter to DNIII and Sermoners1 was answered by Sermoner1 (Jerry White--a Baptist deacon). I responded to his comments, suggesting remedies to the current problem, but have not yet received a reply from him. I'll be writing again tomorrow.

It is difficult to know what action might be taken. Based on what I read, I think it is possible that messages to the Scientology boards are primarily scanned for negative comments, and that messages that can appear upbeat and still get a message across (e.g. by satire) might elude the censors for some time. If you take this tack, you may need to avoid posting any message that gets removed, as I suspect that the censor gets sensitized to names as well. I intend to pound on AOL's potential liability as a publisher, given the recent Prodigy decision, and based on my observation that some of the postings in fact constitute advertising.

I have made a suggestion to Sermoner1 that might help to alleviate the problem. I'll write you about it, Carl.

Diane Richardson ao579@yfn.ysu.edu