I dig the stare decisis, but the YTMNDs listed in the complaint don't bear the same disclaimers, which I would latch on if I were a lawyer for those Scientologist freaks. That said, the disclaimer Max put up should keep the main site up, but if this is the only defence we can mount, I see all the named YTMNDs being deleted.

attorney

June 14th, 2006

7:43:37 PM CDT

(0)

Husler V. Falwell - Public figures (or institutions) not able to sue for libel or slander damages. Their presence in the public eye does not allow for these lawsuits. Its how the tabloids always get away. Boom Headshot. Nice YTMND, very well thought out.

CaptainRescue

June 14th, 2006

7:54:05 PM CDT

(0)

5d for free speech!

seppukukaishaku

June 14th, 2006

8:07:32 PM CDT

(0)

Precedent just owned Scientology

roddy

June 14th, 2006

8:22:37 PM CDT

(0)

It's not just about the disclaimers. Scientology claims they are so well known and famous how in the world can anyone "confuse" their mark with the parody?

June 14th, 2006

(0)

June 14th, 2006

(0)

Well done.

djccheck

June 14th, 2006

9:15:23 PM CDT

(0)

Everything a YTMND ought to be. Maketh thy mouth alive with Diet Ko-Ka-Ko-LUH.

Refractor

June 14th, 2006

9:39:47 PM CDT

(0)

pwnd

OneTopJob6

June 15th, 2006

2:02:54 AM CDT

(0)

5 for law knowledge! Plus pwning $cientology.

jdodger

June 15th, 2006

2:17:02 AM CDT

(0)

Either Scientology can lose their tax exempt status or they can stfu when people choose to make fun of them.

nutnics

June 15th, 2006

2:33:35 AM CDT

(0)

DAMN RIGHT, or just watch People vs. Larry Flint. Good movie.

jorrar

June 15th, 2006

2:33:39 AM CDT

(0)

C-C-C-C-C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER

veritechryan

June 15th, 2006

2:47:00 AM CDT

(0)

great one, well thought out

swantz

June 15th, 2006

3:03:47 AM CDT

(0)

5 if you can beat them at their own game, then it really means that they must suck.

heeroyuy135

June 15th, 2006

3:05:01 AM CDT

(0)

Scientology gets pwned again

Popsman

June 15th, 2006

3:34:40 AM CDT

(0)

Umm, no, more like lack of any judicial ground to stand on. That was a libel case, if I remember correctly, this is a cease and desist request.

Rafe

June 15th, 2006

3:39:55 AM CDT

(0)

Yes. Good try, but charges of IP violation are not about libel and emotional distress.

AngryRabbi

June 15th, 2006

5:11:09 AM CDT

(0)

"Fair comment and criticism" is the best part of the fair use doctrine.

furrykef

June 15th, 2006

5:20:58 AM CDT

(0)

I'd give you four stars for knowing about that case, but they're right, it's not really relevant to the Scientology case.

MrLegend

June 15th, 2006

6:37:30 AM CDT

(0)

Shhhh... Don't you know scientologist have already took over the judicial branch and nearly 2/3 of the Senate and House. We need to set up a hunting trip with the leaders of scientology and dick chenney before it's too late.

Maos

June 15th, 2006

11:11:27 AM CDT

(0)

scientology has no argument, but then again, if they've got judges in their pockets, it may not matter that this site is protected by the good ol' first. corrupt politics? America invented them

redsox3524

June 15th, 2006

11:50:18 AM CDT

(0)

5 for Hustler magazine

TheGrandMystic

June 15th, 2006

11:58:45 AM CDT

(0)

Ka-five!

ObadiahtheSlim

June 15th, 2006