Censor This!! !

Post Reply New Topic

http://autisticsspeak.wordpress.com/

I wish I knew more about this. It's weird. I'm confused. I edited some of my original comments because I was commenting on the wrong blog entry. I'm even confused about what I'm confused about. I hate Aspie politics.

I hope that it will be possible to separate the issue of a grossly offensive article from the issue of editorial censorship of the forum. But I guess that Socrates made a very poor judgement in his content and Autism Speaks is taking the opportunity he gave them to act the bully.

Assuming this is all true, that is.

All we've seen is the grossly offensive posting deleted from here - the thread discussing it is still present - and from the blog, with a comment alluding (but nothing more) to an injunction. Is it possible it's all a work of fiction intended to drum up traffic for the blogger involved?

I am seeing a level of tolerance regarding anti Autism Speaks threads even though Autism Speaks is sponsoring Alex's video series.

I am troubled by the apparent hostility between factions within the autistic community. Being that it is such a human trait, I shouldn't be surprised.

From what I've read so far, Autism Speaks gets all butthurt whenever people compare them to Nazis (which, yes, envokes Godwin's Law, but who gives a s**t?). Of course, they further establish what people think of them by censorship of people online. I mean, isn't that what the nazi's did? Didn't they try to censor and harm those who disagreed with them? I'm not saying that they are Nazi's, but they persistently fail to convince us that they mean well and that they are a good organisation. For them to try and sue people for practising free speech online is abhorrent.

So, in protest, I think we should continue to compare autism speaks to nazi's, not because the accusation is absolutely true (I don't know if autism speaks as an organisation condones nazi-esqueeugenics), but because we have a right to express our opinions. Furthermore, who cares about what some loser says on the internet about you? it's not like they are publishing a book that is meant to be taken as fact. People on this forum have criticised scientology, christianity, Islam, liberalism, conservatism, objective morality, relativist morality, aspie pride, autism cures, abortion, abstinence, peta, etc. What makes Autism Speaks so goshdarn special that we're not allowed to say what we feel about them?

So HEIL AUTISM SPEAKS!
Yeah, come and get me.

Last edited by MindBlind on 01 Nov 2010, 8:31 am, edited 2 times in total.

well, you are new here. Stick around, you haven 't seen anything, yet.

I might know even less than you, but there really is no need to know anything at all. Politicos exist just about everywhere, and they sometimes like playing even around here.

Alex is going to keep this site here for whatever reason or reasons, and we all get to make use of it simply because it is here ... and that is that.

Trolls and Plants come and go, and the moderators here do a fine job at keeping this site usable and useful ... and that is that.

So, and especially since I never understand much about overall dynamics anyway, I say we all just keep posting as we do and let the politicos eventually become bored with even themselves and just move on along.

lol! True.

Libel actions are massively expensive and frought with risk. What is to be achieved? Censorship doesn't work - the offending material can be republished anonymously anywhere in the world. Damages may be awarded, but the defendant may be a man of straw. If an action were to be funded by a multimillion dollar charity, future donors might think twice about how their money would be used, and might choose to donate elsewhere.

A lawyer's letter might bully someone into taking a website down. But that's not much of a victory.

Yes, they can undo themselves quite nicely all by themselves.

Reading between the lines, I don't think the problem is anyone speaking out about Autism Speaks or even being negative about Alex. The problem was taking satire too far and making offensive mock up pics of a non-public person in an article. There is no freedom of speech that allows a person to use images of a private person in any way they like, no matter what high minded purpose they think they have. Do you have any idea how many pieces of paper must be signed before my kids can even be shown on the fringes in a student teacher's video?

I'd appreciate it if someone could clarify my understanding of the chain of events here, if they could:

1) a poster posted a post which was a rather nasty commentary on Autism Speaks. (note: I found the piece to be quite humorous, but that doesn't change the fact that it was nasty.)

2) The post in question was deleted from WP.

3) A PM was (allegedly) sent to the OP, advising him that the post had been deleted after WP was contacted by Autism Speaks about it. (please note that we - or at least I - have no way to verify a: that such a PM was sent b: that the reason for removing the post was accurate stated c: assuming that a & b are true, whether the post was removed at the instruction of A.S. or after it being brought to admin's attention by A.S. - there is a difference)

4) The OP made an extremely offensive blog post elsewhere about Alex, including some highly insulting comments about Alex's sister.

5) Several threads were started (and subsequently deleted) on WP commenting on the original, deleted post, in direct violation of one of the stated rules for posting on WP.

6) The OP of the satirous post, and the offensive blog post, has a legal action brought against him.

7) Rampant speculation ties point 4 and point 6 together without any (publicly available) evidence.

8 ) Several threads were started on WP commenting on the deletion of the posts mentioned in point 5, also in direct violation of one of the stated rules for posting on WP.

I'm not speculating on motives, or making judgements (at least, not yet! ). I'd just like to be reasonably clear on the timeline before I say anything else.

Is the above substantially correct? If not, could someone provide a correction?

Thanks.

Last edited by another_1 on 01 Nov 2010, 11:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

The OP of the original deleted thread quoted the article from another site and is not the same person as the blogger who wrote the article which has triggered a lawsuit.

It is comforting to know that, at least in internet forums, Aspies are just as asinine as NTs in regards to 'freedom of speech', deleting posts, complaining about such deletions, and in general going nuclear over what is often worthless blather.



In the words of Rodney King,

"Can't we all just get along?"

There may not be a case in the court yet. The blog involved is showing a tiny fragment of a legal letter threatening proceedings for injunctions and damages. A Claim might not have been and might never be issued.

Doesn't the loser pay litigation costs in the U.K.?