Uncyclopedia and autism?

Post Reply New Topic

Or can you?
DUN DUN DUN DUUUUUUN~

No, I don't think you can.

actually, there is porn on wikipedia. If you see their legal disclaimer it says "Wikipedia is not censored. So, there may be content considered objectionable, and even pornographic in articles such as the one on pornography, or the penis.) (sorry if that got censored).

There are NO pornograhic pictures on Wikipedia's Pornography article (the video only barely qualifies in my book). The images on the Penis article can be described as educational - which also provides a difference (art and education come from the same side of the fence).

We are talking about hardcore porn when we talk about Encyclopedia Dramatica. As I said - there is a difference.

I find the article on AS extremely horrible. Let's all go and reform it. Who's with me?

I laughed at this. Not insulting or offensive at all. People round here need to grow thicker skins if only because crying wolf makes us look bad.

An effort done by a member of AFF has only antagonized ED. The only way to fight it is to ignore it. It's parody, and they're protected under the right to parody as much as NT speaks is. http://www.ntspeaks.com/
Autism Speaks found it offensive, and it was taken down. It has been restored, however, and is protected under legal rights for parody.

ED is parody, and if you can't accept that, it's your problem, not theirs.

I don't agree with it being "parody" (way too nasty for it to be that IMO) - but I do agree about ignoring it. It's not worth it. That's why I did the article on my Wiki - for closure.

And don't forget, parody is only a defence under US law (as far as I know). I know it's not a defence in Australia.

It's parody, and in parody, someone is going to get offended; especially those being parodied. It doesn't matter if you don't feel that it's parody, since it is in fact parody. If being nasty is a disqualification for parody, then why is Mad Magazine still running? They've parodied everything from Buffy the Vampire Slayer to Willy Wonka. What about Scary Movie 1, 2, and 3? Epic Movie? Borat? Just because they offend those that they lampoon doesn't mean that they're neccesarily no longer parody.

Personally, you're insulted by it, like a member of Autism Speaks woud be insulted by the site NTspeaks. There's no difference, but for the reactions of those being parodied.

Parody is parody, and having it tried in Australia will be a waste of effort. It won't go to court, as any Judge worth their salt would know exactly why they cannot try such a case. International Law is what keeps the world's balance. If someone doesn't want to see it, they shouldn't click that link and look at it. If they keep coming back to it, they're just getting themselves worked up, and angry for the sake of anger.

I agree with Tequila on this, though. It's just silly to get worked up over something like that article.

Joeker - under International Law, when something is published (whether it be the Internet, a newspaper or a book) an action taken against such publication is deemed to have occurred where the offended person saw it. In my case - Australian Law applies.

And there is a precedent for this. The Wall Street Journal (publishing in the US) printed a story that defamed Australian based mining mogul Joseph Gutnik. Gutnik read the story in Melbourne. He took Dow Jones - the publishers of the Journal - to court for it. Dow Jones tried to argue that the case should be heard under US law, but when the matter went to the highest court in Australia, the High Court - they ruled (under International Law) that the case had to be heard under Australian Law - and in the Supreme Court in Victoria.

So - just because ED and Uncyclopedia claim "parody" that is only a defence if the offence is deemed to have occured in the US. Otherwise, it would be the law of the country that the offence is deemed to have occured.

In Australia, the definition of parody and satire is not the same as it is in the US. I have no doubt that if an Australian was offended by something on that site, and there was something there that was a violation of a local law - they could sue and the matter would be heard here. Whether or not they would win depends on the exact details.

And don't compare ED to those other examples. They set out to lampoon. ED sets out to offend. Big difference. Uncyclopedia sets out to be rude. Also a difference.

And remember also - it only takes one click. The key is not to get involved (ie try to edit it and so on).

C'on, TLPG, they parody everything. I'll bet the Neurotypical Syndrome was written by an aspie. It's also funny as hell, and even borders on offensive.

It's a joke. They both are.

I'm not laughing, Silver. I like a joke. I like parody. These two sites are neither.