Beware of Xenu! Although there has been much press over the RIAA suing those who download music on the internet, the first group to pioneer lawsuits against individuals for online activities was the Church of Scientology. They have sued many people for making public secret documents about what Scientology really thought and taught - and it's no surprise, considering what some of those documents contained.

Wendy M. Grossman ponders the Scientology legal cases in the Inquirer:

The question raised by these cases, and of Keith Henson ,Grady Ward , and others, is where you draw the line between freedom of speech and what the CoS likes to call "copyright anarchists". Spaink is pretty clearly motivated by her belief in freedom of speech as an inalienable right; she also hosts anti-abortion The Nuremberg Files that was ordered offline despite being pro-choice herself. Some of the other Net critics seem to be driven more by a belief that exposing the inner workings of the CoS is in the public interest and, perhaps, simply liking a good fight. The CoS's own view of these folks as "anti-religious extremists" is clear.

Judges have not always agreed – Judges Kane and Brinkema in Colorado and Virginia respectively, have ruled that the documents' availability from multiple sources outside the CoS mean they are not trade secrets , even though they are protected by copyright. This is, of course, part of what the Net critics were trying to achieve: ready accessibility to information about what Scientologists are ultimately taught so prospective members can make an informed choice. Copyright terrorists or public-spirited citizens? You decide.

Personally, I'm in the "public-spirited citizens" camp. Facts cannot be copyrighted; ergo, any factual statement about what Scientology teaches cannot be copyrighted. Ideally that would be the end of it - people are informed and the facts are out. Unfortunately, it is necessary to throw original documents into the mix because without them, who would believe the reporters? The truth is stranger than any fiction that people could come up with (then again, Scientology was founded by a science fiction author), so the documents prove that the reporters aren't lying.

The Church of Scientology should perhaps be happy that reporters have been scrupulous enough to include original documentation to support their claims. Otherwise, people could have just said any old thing and gotten away with it. And, if Scientology isn't embarrassed about what has been revealed, what's wrong with people knowing the truth before they get involved?

Read More:

• Scientology: Basics
• Scientology: American Critiques
• Scientology vs. the Internet
• Scientology: Court Cases
• Scientology: L. Ron Hubbard