|
In Reply to: Re: A question Jane: posted by Joseph on August 20, 2002 at 15:15:07:
The question was, whose rights do you think are more important? I know when I read articles about, for example, David Berg, or Karen Zerby or king Peter (Peter Amsterdam), it is pretty clear who is being discussed. When I have read first hand accounts by others who have made it clear about abuses and had even a justice backing it up, even the family via a representative backing it up, I know 2nd hand and via legal document and by my personal experiences that this was within the realm of how the family operated. When people say the literature that was circulated within the family, such as the Davidito series and other "hot" lit, in order to protect the "family", I know FIRST hand that these existed because I saw them for myself, received them from the family and knew at some point in my life some of the people the letters pictured or whited out. (Knew intimately? NO.) But it is without a doubt that I know the family routinely LIES to protect themselves. I have been there and in that long enough to know this as a first hand FACT. I also know David Berg routinely scapegoated others for his own practices or had his direct family LIE outright about them. (i.e. the second 60 minutes around 1972). So, the question remains: Do you, (Joseph or Jane) support the family regarding posting of incriminating literature over the posting of this literature to give validity to first hand victims of which there are many, and many who I am sure will testify if copyright issues ever go to court, hopefully with a counter suit. Even if the "family" could afford long term legal wrangling, the exposure that would occur would be worth it. I hope every person with first hand knowledge that knows FIRST HAND what happened to them speaks out. AND i applaud those that expose the literature that has caused so much destruction to so many people. Maybe this is why people often wonder about "fence-sitting". I don't accuse anyone about what I don't know, but I can't see how anyone could back the family, inform the family of what others are doing (Not saying you are doing this...)on one hand and the be friends with "ex-members" who don't see the family as that organization that reached out to do everything they could to mend hurts they had caused. Obviously, from those with first hand info., this is not how it works. How do you recompense those who lost their lives? Or those that suffer from lasting fallout due to their experiences within?
So one more time, legalese aside, who do you support regarding the copyright issue, personally? Do you personally believe the family is being harmed unjustly by such exposure?
