Scientology Lawsuit had ONE weakness
Created on: June 12th, 2006
Scientology Lawsuit had ONE weakness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell Basically, parodying stuff is consitutional and is enforced by the first amendment.

Sponsorships:

Vote metrics:

rating total votes favorites comments
(3.89) 218 3 31

View metrics:

today yesterday this week this month all time
0 0 0 0 7,731

Inbound links:

views url
43 https://www.bing.com
6 http://216.18.188.175:80
3 http://www.google.com.hk
1 http://www.google.com

Add a comment

Please login or register to comment.
June 12th, 2006
(0)
i dont get it, but 5'd for scientology. though, i'm pretty interested to know what you're talking about
June 12th, 2006
(0)
Go to the site I put in the description, it'll explain it better than I can.
June 12th, 2006
(0)
pwned
June 14th, 2006
(0)
B-but Larry Flynt got shot and paralysed!!!
June 14th, 2006
(0)
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.
June 14th, 2006
(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.
June 14th, 2006
(0)
5d for free speech!
(0)
Precedent just owned Scientology
June 14th, 2006
(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.
June 14th, 2006
(0)
Everything a YTMND ought to be. Maketh thy mouth alive with Diet Ko-Ka-Ko-LUH.
June 14th, 2006
(0)
pwnd
June 15th, 2006
(0)
5 for law knowledge! Plus pwning $cientology.
June 15th, 2006
(0)
Either Scientology can lose their tax exempt status or they can stfu when people choose to make fun of them.
June 15th, 2006
(0)
DAMN RIGHT, or just watch People vs. Larry Flint. Good movie.
June 15th, 2006
(0)
C-C-C-C-C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER
June 15th, 2006
(0)
great one, well thought out
June 15th, 2006
(0)
5 if you can beat them at their own game, then it really means that they must suck.
June 15th, 2006
(0)
Scientology gets pwned again
June 15th, 2006
(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.
June 15th, 2006
(0)
Yes. Good try, but charges of IP violation are not about libel and emotional distress.
June 15th, 2006
(0)
"Fair comment and criticism" is the best part of the fair use doctrine.
June 15th, 2006
(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.
June 15th, 2006
(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.
June 15th, 2006
(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
June 15th, 2006
(0)
5 for Hustler magazine
(0)
Ka-five!
(0)
Stick it to the man!
June 17th, 2006
(0)
The law student in me had an orgasm at this.
July 19th, 2007
(0)
Nice, but I don't think this is a parody/libel thing. They're suing because all church materials are copyrighted.