In New Scientist, there is an article describing the incident regarding Autism Speaks suing Abscout and NTspeaks.org. You can only read the first part of it online:
Voices of autism 'silenced' by charity
01 February 2008
Celeste Biever
Magazine issue 2641
An extraordinary dispute has broken out between people with autism and a charity that aims to help them. At stake is how such people are perceived by the general public.
Like many people with autism, an autistic blogger who goes by the screen name "Abscout" is angry about the way the condition is portrayed by some charities. To try and paint a different picture, Abscout set up a spoof website called NTSpeaks.org, a parody of the site of the New York-based charity Autism Speaks. The NT stands for neurotypical, a term sometimes used by people with autism to describe the rest of the population.
Last week, however, in response to demands from Autism Speaks, Abscout took the site down. Autism Speaks claims the site infringed its copyright, and that it could have confused people looking for information about autism. That in turn has outraged Abscout's supporters, who say ...
The url:
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/heal...arity.html
Gareth posted the full text
here.
I know alot of people love New Scientist, but I feel compelled to point out an error in their article. It would detract from the main point (the AutismSpeaks fiasco) to post this in the other thread, so I thought I'd post it here.
So, to get on with it, this is the quote:
Voices of autism 'silenced' by charity
01 February 2008
Celeste Biever
Magazine issue 2641
"The NT stands for neurotypical, a term sometimes used by people with autism to describe the rest of the population."
Auties/Aspies use the term "neurotypical" to describe the neurologically typical (aka, those who describe themselves as "normal"). We do not use it to describe "the rest of the population", as though our atypical neurology/ neurologies was the only one worthy of recognition. Many of us understand that there is an enormous variety of neurological types and ways of thinking, each with it's own value, and that ours is but one of many. This is why many of us also use the term "neurodiversity", and promote the concept this term embodies.
Normal people usually think themselves "the rest of the population".
I personally think what happened here is disgusting. For starters, I'm quite positive Abscout didn't use any logos officially licensed by Autism Speaks or edited any such pictures in a way that would bend copyright laws.
Say, this website sounds good. I'll look it up on the Internet Archive Wayback Machine (web.archive.org).
Oh, wait, he DID use copyrighted material, but the website should be protected under law because it was a PARODY!
BTW, that site is cool.
Normal people usually think themselves "the rest of the population".
How well I know it.
BTW: Love that quote in your sig, "To deny us the right to feel unashamed, disability intact, is to deny the right of dignity to not only ourselves, but to all who are disabled." Your own?
...and isn't Amanda Baggs awsome? She's the first Autism Rights advocate whose work I encountered. Became an instant convert.
Oops. Guess I got way off-topic. Sorry.
"Many of us understand that there is an enormous variety of neurological types and ways of thinking, each with it's own value, and that ours is but one of many. This is why many of us also use the term "neurodiversity", and promote the concept this term embodies."
I completely agree, and I also noticed that small error in the New Scientist article. I think autists are in a better position to understand that there are not only two neurotypes, but there are an unknown number of them. We as a group are aware that there is a great amount of diversity among those who self-identify as autistic or are diagnosed as such. Autists also tend to have friends that are unusual, if we have friends. It's clear to me that there are many people who are neither clearly autistic nor are "normal" in they way their mind operates, and are not simple cases of disability or mental illness either. I feel rather concerned for such people, as they are possibly even less likely than us to find others like themselves or to be properly understood socially and medically.
I saw a copy of the magazine in the shops today and this article looks great. I think the story was the only one on the page, and it had a photo to illustrate. I think it will be read by many people.
Is this weekly or monthly? I want to get it but can't find it. I'll try Chapters but it almost sounds like a weekly magazine in which case I missed it already.
It's a weekly. I find that if I shop around different shops have different editions because some retailers keep old stock and don't stock each edition. The story is in the February 2nd, number 2641 edition, with an X on the cover.
Good to know! I want to purchase a copy. I like to do that when interesting or landmark type things happen in magazines that pertain to a special interest of mine.
The quote, BTW outsideL00kinN, is mine. I wrote it in a post recently, and decided I wanted it to be part of my signature.