Anti-Autism Coalition

Post Reply New Topic

Well, its trolling, no doubt, and blatantly indicative of severe Mental Health Issues, which is pathetically ironic.

But I must agree that:

A) Offensive as it is, its a 1st Amendment principle and I cannot in good conscience undermine the freedom to express one's ideas, however reprehensible those ideas.

B) If it has gone virtually unnoticed so far, the worst thing you could do is draw attention to it by acknowledging its existence.

Combat ignorance and hate speech with truth and honest information. Start your own page and let the truth speak for itself, so that their petty ignorance, if anyone sees it at all, can be seen for what it is.

Checked it. I've seen nothing more than a poor guy trying to get attention.

People seem to think that anything published on internet under the 'group' 'coalition' term or similar is actually a coalition or represents an opinion trend. But truth is that any poor bastard can open a Facebook page and entitle it as 'Whatever stuff coalition'.

He had his 15 minutes. Congrats to him. And move on.

This isn't a first amendment issue. It is astounding to me how many people do not understand what freedom of speech means.

This article covers your (and TheLibrarian's) fallacy rather nicely:

http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2009/0 ... titlement/



As far as it goes, I've had my services contracted as work for hire, and often would have to sign a "non-disclosure agreement" meaning that I cannot talk about materials I have access to with people who have not signed the same NDA. I've seen people lose jobs over NDA violations.

So: Is this a violation of my constitutional right to free speech? No. Why? I voluntarily agreed to the terms of the contract: I would receive access to materials I needed to do my job in exchange for not talking about those materials. And if I did not agree to that, I wouldn't get the job.

Similarly, when you sign up for an online forum, social networking site, or whatever, you agree to terms when you accept the terms of service. This is true for Facebook, twitter, and even Wrong Planet. Some of those terms actually do - legally - restrict your freedom of speech on those sites. If such measures are intolerable to you (as you have indicated), then you should probably vet the websites you sign up for more carefully - and staying here to post on WP is actually violating your rather strongly stated principles:

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt12459.html



Just an excerpt - there's more in the linked post.

Some of these are waived in PPR, but are in force in the rest of the forum.



Or just quietly report it and let Facebook take care of the page, as is stated in Facebook's terms of service. Which I did after reading the thread here.



It doesn't really work that way. Certainly a part of combating ignorance and hate speech involves truth and honest information (although I am having difficulty reconciling your position stated here with your statements about rap music the other day), but a part of it is understanding what allowing hate speech to flourish encourages, and how people get treated as a consequence.

It sounds to me as if the author you cite is trying to convince me that speech isn't really speech. I disagree; I say speech is speech, and action is action. And what is considered "hateful" depends on the person who hears it. For example, I find your position to be very offensive, but I sure don't want laws passed dictating that you can't express yourself. I will defend your right to express your views no matter what they may be--even "hateful" ones. Consequently, "hate" laws are nothing more than the co-optation by tyranny of traditional American democratic values, as well as the ultimate in intolerance. "Hate" laws of all types assume the Orwellian position that while all animals are equal, some animals are more equal than others. After all, if everything that anybody considered hateful was outlawed, everything would be against the law. It's all about what some people consider hateful, and what everybody else thinks really doesn't matter.

I think we have achieved clarity on this issue, as we know where each other stands. But I will never agree with you.

Last edited by Thelibrarian on 21 Jul 2013, 4:35 pm, edited 3 times in total.

I think they're a pathetic group of losers who have no lives.

Just seen it, reckon they're a group of profound un-intellectuals trying to conquer or overcome their desires to strategically involve a group of non-team players or terrorists to basically maintain or withstand a by-election of their own stupid accord that undermines themselves and looks bad on their employers. Rot in hell.

My NT wife was in tears reading this filth, especially the bit that suggests she should have had an abortion rather than let our son live!

I am not American, and don't give a toss for the American constitution, so I've reported them to facebook for hate speech. Sorry if that upsets some of your political sensitivities, but freedom of speech has a completely different meaning for me.

Awesome work Tyri0n! It is not good that such bigoted people try to make groups of hate against those of us on the spectrum.
Nothing leaves the internet. Let their actions follow them throughout their lives and people see who they truly are.

Another non American here, but one that strongly believes in free speech. To put this simply, I don't give a damn whether he thinks any of this, the fact is he really has agreed to the TOS, and this is unacceptable.

Even having said that, fair enough free speech allows you to say almost anything, but surely not to the point where it becomes obvious that there reason other than hate in what is being said? Hate speech is actually a crime in some countries. What if that guy isn't American? He's not covered by the Constitution then, surely.

Also, their likes have doubled in the time this thread has been here, just pointing that out...

I'm not responsible for the fact that my rather legally and logically sound as well as completely factual position is something you find offensive, although I do know that you digging your heels in after presented with such information is completely predictable:

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas ... _backfire/



I'm not immune to this tendency either, but at least I am aware of it.

I also do not think that hateful speech is quite so subjective as you claim. We live in a society which means we have a shared context about a large number of things. Some of that shared context, unfortunately, happens to be prejudice - notions about how some people are more equal and more deserving of respect than others (there are many categories to this, and people fit into multiple categories of either or both sides of that line). Racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, fat hatred, ableism/disableism, classism, etc. all play a role in how people are perceived and treated.

Now, should any society foster an environment in which equality is nothing more than a polite fiction, a veneer covering decades or centuries of negative bias - often bias that carries with it violent and sometimes murderous connotations? Should the people who are subjected to such treatment be forced to bear it and only ever respond politely with truth and facts? Is it wrong for such people to find ways to minimize their time around such hate because that might involve asking someone to take their opinions elsewhere?



Talk about your basic straw men. I discussed this with you in a different thread where you did not actually read the links I gave you and insisted that I never gave you any information that explains the purpose for hate crime laws. Hate crime laws do not make marginalized people more equal than others. They're intended to both address crimes that are committed against marginalized group (such as murdering Matthew Shepard to send a message to gay people in that community) and to address the fact that often crimes against members of marginalized groups are not prosecuted quite as vigorously as crimes against members of privileged groups. Further, such laws also apply to bias crimes against majority groups - they're not restricted to marginalized groups. A law addressing racial violence is just as applicable to a white person being murdered for being white as it is to a black person being murdered for being black.

You are profoundly ignorant on this issue, and that is why I stopped discussing it with you in the other thread.



If that is the case, why do you post on this forum which is constructed and run according to the principles I described in my post? I know I don't hang around places that I find so offensive.



Freedom of speech has a completely different meaning for a significant number of Americans. Those who take it to such extremes are not the majority. Just an extremely vocal, extremely entitled, minority.

I believe in freedom of speech too, But not when its abused to spread hatred against minorities (or anyone come to that)

My personal creed is that free speech should come with responsibilities. It should not be a free for all to allow any hate group to abuse other peoples human rights to live their lives free of hatred and bigotry. If you want the right to freedom of any kind, you should respect other peoples freedoms just as vigorously as you defend your own.

Essentially, TheLibrarian, the kind of free speech you advocate makes the internet a playground for straight, able-bodied cisgender white men, and everyone else is free game and no right to object to being dehumanized, bullied, and abused as long as such dehumanization, bullying, and abuse is ~speech~.

What you are proposing makes one particular demographic significantly more equal than others. It kind of boggles me why you would argue that trying to defuse such speech is what would be the cause of ~more equal than others~ when the problem already is that the people in question are already routinely treated as less equal in many contexts. Yeah, sure, some angry straight white guy on the internet not being able to spout hatred about women and people of color as much as he wants is such a harsh injustice compared to economic inequality, having one's body constantly be subjected to hostile legislation, not being able to marry the person one loves because they happen to be the same gender (or fifty years ago, the couple being members of two different races).

Not being able to say horrible things about people whenever and wherever you want to just sounds like the worst injustice anywhere.

Bit of cross posting there. I'm glad to hear that not all americans take free speech to such extremes Over here in the UK, we hear so much from the far right that we get a distorted view of what american beliefs actually are!

The peculiar and hypocritical element of this particular kind of argument (that people are free to say whatever they want, whenever they want, however they want, to whomever they want) is how these same people get up in arms toward anyone who objects to such things. In another thread, someone told me I had no right to object to a song lyric because the guy who sings it has freedom of speech. Somehow, I and others apparently do not have the freedom of speech to object to the song lyric. How does that even make sense? At least that one hasn't appeared in this thread.

For me, I think freedom of speech should be such that, anyone can say what they like, and anyone may object. When there is an objection, there follows a discussion on whether the objectionable material was in fact a violation of any rights, laws, etc, and if so it would not be repeated. Sadly we don't appear to live in such a reasonable world...

Well maybe this is off topic now, but I find the Anti-Autism Coalition quite funny. They are sooo reactionary!
Like a little kid needing any attention at all, even "bad" attention.
Also they're depending upon the noticability of the autism movement (work with me on this phrase lol) for their own attention.
They hide their faces too lol.