I was threatened by Wrong Planet based on my opinions here.

Post Reply New Topic

Here is my open and public statement based on them trying to restrict my free speech concerning Amanda Baggs.

First of all I am unaware of Amanda Baggs actually being a member here, but that point is irrelevant anyways. Amanda Baggs is a public figure who has appeared on various news outlets such as CNN. Given the publicity this has received and her willingness to seek it was a choice that she made. I believe that it is unfair to restrict reasonable discussion about someone in the community, especially someone so public. She is portraying a certain view point about Autism rather if she likes it or not. To reprimand all reasonable opposing views (or views that are questioning) is to silence all opposition in such a way that goes against basic human rights and constitutional democratic principles.

I am going to give YOU a warning, but first I want you to clarify something. What exactly did I do wrong outside of stating a valid set of opinions backed up with valid source material? Have I said or done anything outside of our constitutional right to freedom of speech? I have not threatened anyone, I have not insulted anyone directly. I am asking questions and trying to understand. I would chose your words carefully and with the full understanding of the other staff members and owners of Wrong Planet so that when you make such a statement it will truly represent WP. I am contacting the ACLU and I've already talked to a layer about this. For too long the internet has dictated an unconstitutional way of restricting free reasonable speech. A Precedent is going to be set but its a matter if you want to be a loser in such a fight. I pitched the idea to a layer to sue you for a sizable amount of money on the principle of giving the excess beyond layer's fees to charity. Do you really want to stand in the public lime light trying to restrict reasonable free speech without even the defense that I'm doing it for money? Good day. I will make this very public and I WILL IN FACT PRESS THE ISSUE TO THE FULLEST EXTENT OF THE LAW, WIN OR LOSE.

Pick your battles carefully WP.

I agree.  There should be free and reasonable speech.  I'll have to check out that site some more when I get a chance.  It is ironic that a community of Autistic people would turn around and persecute people based on opinions.  I don't care if they retort with site ownership and home rule excuse.  Walmart owns property where you shop, but they cannot break and or modify your constitutional rights now can they?  As long as you're following reasonable rules you are ok.

So go ahead and pick your battles WP.  You'll find me an intelligent and skillful debater.

I've asked around and I'm aware of other accusations that a certain moderator abuses his or her powers.  It would be a shame if WP got into a long drawn out constitutional law battle because of the statements and abuses of one member.  Thats why I say this member should now talk it over with the others before speaking for WP so that WP doesn't have any excuses for their statement(s).

I'm not familiar with the particular issue you were talking about, but owners of a website can restrict free speech in any way they like. They can ban anyone for any reason. It's like a private club.

I agree.  There should be free and reasonable speech.  I'll have to check out that site some more when I get a chance.  It is ironic that a community of Autistic people would turn around and persecute people based on opinions.  I don't care if they retort with site ownership and home rule excuse.  Walmart owns property where you shop, but they cannot break and or modify your constitutional rights now can they?  As long as you're following reasonable rules you are ok.