Just got threatened with a lawsuit by supporter of A$

Post Reply New Topic

There are tons of very negative stuff said about Autism Speaks daily here and as far as I know nobody has been sued for a post they made here.

True! I guess he/she/they never heard of WP or other groups/forums like it. She'd have a field day if she could see this place! Or maybe she just thought *I* had never heard of them and that I was acting alone, and was trying to scare me thinking I was alone.

Maybe ASD people could take a class action for damages against Autism Speaks for their cruel and hateful defamation of everyone on the ASD spectrum, (such as the video I Am Autism which is currently being discussed). Hmmm, I hadn't thought about that before, though I was once party to a successful class action and learned a lot from the process, from filing to the eventual award of damages. The case was heard in the US, and I received my share of the damages awarded even though I was not resident, as did others in several other countries.

So class actions can be international, and usually proceed on the basis that the legal counsel representing the plaintiffs (us in this scenario) will receive a set percentage of the damages awarded if the suit is successful, no fee if the suit for damages is not successful. Some legal firms specialise in this.

Such an action could be set in motion quite easily by using the Internet and also carefully preserving the evidence in a safe place from hackers... nice thought

I am IN!! ! I would definitely join the class-action suit. Maybe start a thread on that, B19. I remember once saying something similar, I think asking people if they would help me class-action the Judge Rotenberg Center.

There is a world of difference between exercising your right of holding an opinion (as you did, as we all do here, as people do everywhere every minute of every day) and making a hate speech video aimed at an entire class of people who have UN protection (in its stated principles and articles on people with disabilities) from that kind of abuse. The right of free speech is not an unlimited right, even in the USA.

Quite seriously, I think such an action might possibly succeed. Probably won't happen in my lifetime though. These things don't move very quickly, even after the suit is filed with the Court. Could take up to 10 years unless (say) AS chose to make a decent enough settlement out of court by notifiying the lawyers representing the plaintiffs and if most of the plaintiffs agreed to accept out of court and the lawyers thought that option better than proceeding.

Ah, but isn't it best to have charges brought against them?

If there's a settlement, though, we could start a pro-autism charity with the money...

You deserve a medal for telling them off. Don't be afraid of them.

I think the publicity that was adverse to them would be massive. Obviously expert witnesses would be called by the plaintiffs to demonstrate that ASD is not Psychopathy. That is not a hard thing to demonstrate to a legal standard of evidence.

A lot of other stuff adverse to them (like the way they use the donations) would suddenly be under the spotlight too, if a class action happened. The media love a scandal...

PS: In a class action, damages are paid to each litigant individually. This could potentially be of huge benefit to those whose co-morbids prevent them from being able to accrue much in the way of savings, cash reserves, sufficient income to feel secure.

Here is a very comprehensive reference to what a hate crime is, and what the International agreements are:
It's a big read, (worthwhile if you have time and inclination) though if you want to cut to the chase, scroll to page 27 and read on to page 30. After page 80, there are practical guidelines for mounting an action group.

https://www.coe.int/t/dg4/youth/Source/ ... Online.pdf

This next reference is short, on Disability Hate Crime from Wikipedia, and amongst other things outlines the Mathew Shepard Act in the USA and the implications of that legislation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disability_hate_crime

I hope that would happen. It would not surprise me if the American mainstream media might keep on ignoring it because Wright is one of the boys. Even if they did cover it they are so ignorant and biased about Autism they might turn what should be a positive into a negative. All my hope is online, that is the primary way millennials communicate, that is not as familiar to the Wright's generation and beyond their control, tech is where Autistics have always had a foothold,

These things are usually influenced by which party has the most to lose. We don't have much to lose; Autism Speaks has a lot to lose: reputation, credibility, donations, and whatever other sources of income and benefit that they have. Not having much to lose can be a position of strength. Conversely, as I see it, we have a lot to gain. In all sorts of ways.

Oh the "I am Autism" propaganda? Yeah, I've seen that. A$ put that out ages ago.

We so need to do this! We should start a poll asking who's in and have them post only if they're in.

The age of that video seems irrelevant as a legal issue, because age doesn't minimise harm - quite the opposite - the longer it runs the more harm it spreads. However if a statute of limitations applies (I don't know if it does) then the age of the video would be an issue - if you are outside the time limit of the number of years people have to lodge a civil action. Can anyone enlighten me as to whether in the USA an SOL would apply to a civil action for damages?

The first step in a class action would be gathering a selection of legal opinions on how viable an action would be - in terms of law, in terms of precedent judgments, in terms of anything that is pertinent; these can be obtained free of charge by the firms that do this kind of work. Here is a link to a website of just one of these firms (as an example) so you can see what services and information they typically offer:

http://www.schneiderwallace.com/expertise_ada.php

If a class action was viable then it would be optimal for a coalition to be formed linking all the groups that share the same viewpoints on AS propaganda, and as for WP, I don't know how Alex would feel about WP itself being nominally involved or not - his view is that primarily WP is a support site, and it is his site. So maybe WP members who wanted to be part of a class action would have to join other groups (I don't know, it's just one of the issues that theoretically would have to be negotiated). We can already broadly define the "class" of people who have suffered harm - ie people on the spectrum - and membership of that spectrum would entitle any individual (not just members of support groups) to join the class action if they chose. The members who are self-diagnosed would probably have to get some written material demonstrating their status on the spectrum from credible sources.

I do see and agree with your point CGG that to take an action like this, it has to be done as a "disability rights" case (there seems no other way legally open) and there are many of us who don't accept disability identity. I don't describe my self as "disabled", though there are specific areas in which I am hampered compared to NTs.

Still, I would join an action for disability rights, because the harm the potential defendant is doing is harming me and members of my family by depicting all people on the spectrum as psychopathic. The more people who join the class action, the stronger its political impact will/would be. But first things first, you would have to find out if an action is legally viable in the circumstances that apply.

PS Remember that the USA has signed (but not ratified) UN Conventions that describe relevant rights and principles. Presumably they were signed because the USA had read and accepted those principles were true and fair. The case would have to be filed in the USA because the harm originated in the USA (assuming the video was made there and shown there).

Theoretically if it became an international class action, it could become huge, and the more people who joined it, the more damages the lawyers acting for the plaintiffs would seek.

I meant to add that a relevant factor may be the intention that Autism Speaks has in the claims it makes. Intention is always important in law. Over in the general forum there is a thread started by ASS-P about the percentage of ASD people who are (said to be) employed. People who have joined the thread are now discussing that no evidence or research seems to exist that demonstrates the 85-87% figure. Several of us have done searches and can't find anything at all that shows that.

Bob Wright has claimed that this figure is about 85% (there is no credible research to support the claim, it appears to be made up) and that ASD people are a big drain on resources as they each cost 3.2 million to others in their lifetimes. There is no good evidence for either of these claims - none for the 85% claim at all, and one spurious study AS funded which came up with the absurd $3.2 million claim.

Propaganda which makes false claims is a distinct form of harm - I believe it is Bob Wright's intention to cause harm - the misinformation does specific harm to the target population (us) and is likely to promote stigmatising myths that the general public take as fact (which is another harm). So just in this example, the harm takes a multitude of forms. Primarily though it is "likely to increase prejudice against a protected group" and further disable their attempts to obtain viable employment.

The UK Trades Union Congress also used the 85% figure in their guidance document distributed to UK based businesses last year. I have no idea how they came across this figure, but know that we still use 1:100 as the estimated rate of prevalence.

This is the website and the guide is linked from there halfway down the page.

https://www.tuc.org.uk/equality-issues/ ... -workplace