Scientology controversy

Church of Scientology

Scientology building in Los Angeles, California
Formation	1954
Headquarters	Gold Base
Location	Riverside County, California
Chairman of Religious Technology Center	David Miscavige
Website	www.scientology.org

Since its inception in 1954, the Church of Scientology has been involved in a number of controversies. When mainstream media outlets have reported alleged abuses, representatives of the church have tended to deny such allegations. Many critics have called into question several of the practices and policies of the Church of Scientology regarding its dealings with its critics and detractors.

The church maintains strict control over the use of its symbols, names and religious texts. It holds copyright and trademark ownership over its cross and has taken legal action against individuals and organizations that have quoted short paragraphs of Scientology texts in print or on web sites. Individuals or groups who practice Scientology without affiliation with the church have been sued for violation of copyright and trademark law.

Although U.S. intellectual property law allows for "fair use" of material for commentary, parody, educational purposes, etc., critics of the church such as Gerry Armstrong have argued that the church unfairly and illegally uses the legal system to suppress "fair" uses.

One example cited by critics is a 1995 lawsuit against the Washington Post newspaper et al. The Religious Technology Center (RTC), the corporation that controls L. Ron Hubbard's copyrighted materials, sued to prevent a Post reporter from describing church teachings at the center of another lawsuit, claiming copyright infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and that the circulation of their "advanced technology" teachings would cause "devastating, cataclysmic spiritual harm" to those not prepared. In her judgment in favor of the Post, Judge Leonie Brinkema noted:

When the RTC first approached the Court with its ex parte request for the seizure warrant and Temporary Restraining Order, the dispute was presented as a straight-forward one under copyright and trade secret law. However, the Court is now convinced that the primary motivation of RTC in suing Lerma, DGS and the Post is to stifle criticism of Scientology in general and to harass its critics. As the increasingly vitriolic rhetoric of its briefs and oral argument now demonstrates, the RTC appears far more concerned about criticism of Scientology than vindication of its secrets.