In May 2023 Fitzgerald and World Wisdom obtained an injunction from the Indianapolis U.S. District Court prohibiting Murray from distributing or selling copies of Third Wife of the Muslim Shaykh Frithjof Schuon within the U. S. (though not outside the U. S.), and also requiring YouTube to delete certain videos made by Murray. For the book, see earlier post here.
Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath have pointed out to me that the injunction also prohibits Murray from “disseminating… information of any type concerning or in any way related to Frithjof Schuon, Catherine Schuon, or Michael Fitzgerald, including disseminating this information through any and all blogs and social media platforms” and that “interactive computer services that operate, host, or otherwise control websites which host this content are ordered… to remove such… postings.”
I am not a lawyer, and I am not sure on what basis anybody can be prohibited from disseminating such a wide class of information. But I accept that the Indianapolis U.S. District Court has made this prohibition, whatever its reasons, and I know that Blogger, which hosts this blog, is subject to the jurisdiction of the court. I accept that the comments made on this blog by Murray concerned Schuon, and so I have reluctantly removed them—reluctantly because, apart from anything else, I believe in freedom of speech as an important human right. But the injunction made by the Indianapolis U.S. District Court leaves me no choice.
A draft of this post was shown to Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath, who “respectfully decline[d] to comment.”
6 comments:
Wasn't Schuon who said : "Il n'y a pas de droit supérieur à celui de la Vérité" ? But here is a much better quote : Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them.
Do I have it right that this lawsuit stems from a 1995 NDA by Murray that prohibits her from talking about Schuon in any way? I tried to read the original complaint, but the Scribd website is now unusable, requiring me to wait through multiple ads before reading each page.
In response to A.M.: Yes, that is my understanding. Plus a bit of breach of copyright too, as there was a photograph reproduced to which MM did not have the copyright.
Hello everyone and a great thanks Pr Sedgwick for your excellent work that I follow since years now.
The usual tactic of the "Schuonic"'s cult is indeed to play on copyright by threatening prosecution against those who would dare to publish compromising information about Schuon and his group. But it is a method that can only work in the USA or on media dependent on the laws of this peculiar country.
That there is really such a possibility of legal coercion in the USA is moreover an anomaly: on this account it would be then quite possible to ban any work dealing with thorny subjects under the mere pretext that this work reproduces extracts from texts under copyright! We can imagine, among other things, what investigative journalism or historical researches would become under such conditions!
This is one of the means used by the schuonic's cult since the beginning of the revelations following the Bloomington trial, in order to censor discordant speeches and informations.
Do people belonging to the schuonic's high hierarchy still believe that Schuon was an incomparable spiritual master and for some even a super avâtara? It is after all possible because credulity has few limits. But it seems to me that for some of these "disciples" it is above all a question of doing everything possible to prevent the idealized image of Schuon from being tarnished by unsavory aspects so that the collapse of this image does not lead to the fall of all the publishing business and the influence of the schuonic's net among certain circles.
A rather complete file on the Schuon affair was published on the web some years ago with suggestive illustrations. In order to circumvent threats of prosecution for copyright infringement, the webmaster of the site chose to publish graphic reproductions of the sandalous photos. But it was probably an unnecessary precaution because, as I said, the sometimes weird American laws don't apply universally.
I however don't believe that it can strictly be applied in the USA, as the schuonic's inquisition claims. It would be indeed such a serious attack on freedom of research and expression, only conceivable in a dictatorship.
That's why we can guess that the schuonic's headquarter lie by exaggerating the reality of possible prosecutions.
Lying was so much often the order of the day with Schuon and his "spiritual elite", all through their past activities, that such a persistence in lying would only show that, over the years, this incongruous cult remains faithful to this particular aspect of the teaching of its divine master !
Can I get this right, please? Only in the US the book is banned? Is that correct? Can someone publish what they were told by Maude outside of the US?
Yes, that is my understanding. So long as it is really outside the US, i.e. not on a web server that can be accessed from the US.
Post a Comment