Join the effort to sue Autism Speaks!

Post Reply New Topic

Give me some time to dig up some of their 'walk' propoganda. They have very cleverly worded everything they release to say funding supports 'autistic programs'. The infamous video and the 'public education' program it was a part of was nothing but advertising with a fancy name. Technically, this 'education' program functioned more like advertising and may have been more appropriately listed as a fundraising expense which changes the financial profile of the company. Again, its grey - but a good lawyer could make something out of it.

You want to find something bad. For me to publicly oppose an organization that seems to be creating awareness and dollars for research I'd need hard evidence. Until then it seems like philosophical differences and none of which seem least to me to hinder in general progress. Why don't you find a YouTube video of theirs and I can pick it apart psychologically. No one ever wants me to but it is very entertaining so please find one that "may" be false.

I posted a link to that video in one of your other threads I believe...

And, I never said it was false. I question how they are labelling their expenses. Calling something a program when it is really advertising changes the percentages of allocated dollars. If you suddenly reallocate 20% of the program budget to fundraising, the goal of the organization comes very much into question.

Again, it was a supposition. I'm not a crusader like you, ci.

I'm not sure how IRS does things. Also I know I am not a religious person because I cannot image that. However I've heard of the phrase "advertising program", "awareness program" and so on. A program can also indirectly market an organization while serving it's purpose and to me that is a more efficient and effective use of dollars in an organizations strategy.

My quandry is with the 'indirectly' part. I'm not so sure their 'education programs' are 'indirect' advertising. I'm leaning toward purposeful misdirection. This charity has an agenda - as all charities do. My issue is with their representation of it as something it's not. Yes, their research projects may yield some beneficial information but at what cost? Autism, in their words, is an 'epidemic' that they are looking to eradicate. I don't have issue with their research in as much as I have issue with their approach. I think their brand of advocacy is negative and damaging to the autism community. In this case, all publicity is not good publicity.

I put alot of 'I thinks' in there. I know my opinion does not help your position or agenda in any way. Again, I see something hinkey there and the more I look into it, the more suspicious it seems. If I had the connections and resources to make a real issue out of my suspicions, I just might - my belief that there is some sort of misdirection going on there is that strong. Still searching... stay tuned...

I just separate the two awareness types based on human rights and approperiateness.

1. Research agendas sees the disorder as the obstacle. They will not see the obstacles as anything positive simply because when they speak of autism they speak about the DSM aspects that see only the negative. Awareness will be emotionally driven at times to persuade to support the research to end the barriers and improve lives. (Autism is horrible and the reason for difficulty)

2. In day to day life in which someone must live and is aware and whom has ASD the self-esteem is important. No one wants to feel defective. So this is where the awareness toward an individual should be more prone to positive reinforcement. (autism while a disability also has positives.)

Modality conflict rule: When the right to treatment advancements conflicts with the right to dignity no matter who started it neither side can win. Each are serving as an injustice toward one another when they directly confront one another. It's best to coexist as each are protected human rights.

The conflict resides socio-culturally when the right to dignity (self-image) conflicts with the right to treatment and treatment advancement modality. Regrettably in an imperfect world and the laws being what they are little can be done legally. I think instead of advocating the injustice in awareness when that awareness seeks remedy for hardship there should be a focus on a persistent positive thinking type that can in a healthy way coexist with the right to treatment advancements by means of research.

Nathan Young

And I agree with your reasoning. I also agree with needing more positive thinking. This is also where we disagree.

I do not believe that the right to treatment should also sacrifice basic human dignity. You and I are well aware that Autism Speaks focuses, mainly, on those more affected on the spectrum - those with functioning issues. Their advertising does not make a distinction, it doesn't even address 'the spectrum'. It focuses on one aspect implying to possibly uneducated masses that THIS is the face of autism. Many with autism resent their tactics. If the main message received is that all autism is THIS - then that leads to a false conclusion about the spectrum and those on it. Their method of advertising was so volatile the UK branch split from their US parent because they were so opposed to their methods. That speaks loudly to me.

Much of the public information they make available is very generalized. If you haven't already, I'd suggest going to their site and just browse through the resources they make available to parents and professionals especially the tool kits. I have a definite opinion of the help they offer but I would be curious of your opinion.

I also notice that the stats on their home page keep changing. Last week the statistic 1 in 77 boys has now changed to 1 in 70. I cannot find this statistic published anywhere.

Like I said - alot of little things do not add up. It is all very polished and clean on the surface but little red flags keep popping up for me. I'm not LOOKING for something to be wrong, rather I went to them initially for support and stopped and did a double take at what I was finding.

I am unsure about stats. I don't tend to believe much of anything unless absolute proof is availible. This can be annoying to some.

What I perceive is a risk is sensitivity used to create contempt against treatment development progress. I see it as a potential psychosocial political tool evading treatment development rights. When anyone says most people with autism "believe" this or that way I don't tend to believe it. It's another reason why I don't support ASAN entirely because there is no democratic model in place for the advocacy to vote on issues or receive input by individuals determined to have an ASD prior to enacting policy advocacy effecting individuals with ASD.

The social and political dangers in the autism community are that of any extreme bickering with one another to protect an extreme point of view. Due to the fact so much is unknown and the social issues faced are beyond typical complexity seeking absolute understanding and holding fast to generic and generalized human rights laws I think is required. I cannot assume Autism Speaks or those that wholly support Autism Speaks are doing anything wrong nor can I of an individual seeking acceptance. However the two combined in conflict it is my opinion to side with the right to treatment advancements but acknowledge the benefits of interpersonal positivity that is separated from a disorder label.

I'm not sure that I have any more enlightened thoughts on this than those I had when I posted much earlier in the thread. That said, this thread is starting to confuse me. Given the topic, I think we need to be clear about how we're attacking Autism Speaks and why. I think we've heard enough about the "censorship" or freedom of speech issue. We can ignore that one. The remaining issues seem to be: do we believe in what they're doing, and do we believe what they're saying. The "what they're doing" part does not make for good litigation, assuming that's what everyone wants. That makes for good protests and rallies and such. And we're all going to have different opinions on that. The "what they're saying" part is what does make for good litigation. Basically, a non-profit can do pretty much anything it wants to -- and solicit as much money as it can to do it. But, it can't lie. Once it does that, the IRS, the attorneys general of the states where it's incorporated and headquartered, and probably a bunch of other federal and state agencies will get involved. I actually don't know (because I don't do this kind of work) whether private plaintiffs even have standing to sue a charity. But, someone or something does. If you think you've discovered fraud -- not so much in the embezzelment sense as in the misrepresentation in public documents sense -- at Autism Speaks, then the lawsuit discussion can go forward. Otherwise, we should probably all make signs and march around their headquarters. Or not -- depending on personal views about the organization.

While I'm not motivated to march in an Autism Walk because simply I like sticking to my regular environments and thoughts I do feel compelled to protest ASAN but have no means to. I really dislike how they used signs calling people walking pity which to me is degrading and insulting. I think this topic comes down to how one views autism. I view it for the most part as something the hinders me from participating in typicality and I find it very hurtful when others claim how good it is and people trying to help are socially and politically attacked.

I am an aspie that feels that culture is directing us in a way that devalues us as a whole. We are the arbortors of the real world. We need fair instructions that will help us find out niche. Without fairness there is no life that you will feel comfortable to me. I have always believed that those people who feel life is boring. You have to have the courage you tell society to f**k off because they have no idea whats going on. Life is a giant mystery and the courage to go on is of he utmost importance.

I am not sure if the big bad N.T's are devaluing. Remember the conceptual premise culturally of a diagnostic label is dysfunction. To cure dysfunction is seen as the moral and ethical thing to do. However part of the moral and ethical is the acceptance for what is and to include what is. It's hard to accept sensory integration disorder or things which agreeably burden an individual in his or her own personal beliefs of autism and themselves. I would say the telling society to F-off has created more problems then good. Wisdom and constructive action are manifest of the results. There is no real great original sin done unto the aspie's per say as others would have others believe but we do all know that the rejection of difference that is not changeable or that if not chosen by an individual which result in exclusion and reduced functionalism should not be ethically pardoned. The best way to be constructively oppositional defiant and find respect in doing so is to in spite of difference demand from yourself in in ones intents nothing other then success which is reasonably possible and anything less then these intents is not the N.T's fault for being the said N.T's.

According to their Income-Tax-Exemption documents (990 form), they give a lot of money to specific universities here in the USA for "autism research." Just wish they'd cut back on that and start giving it to the families who need that money to pay for their kids' therapy, STEP programs / IEPs in school, etc.