Aspies For Freedom

Is there some kind of legal basis for which we can form an effective lawsuit?  Something along the lines of discrimination?

(Against Autism Speaks and CAN)

Aside from some possible slandering, what have they actually done that they could be sued for?  You can't just sue anybody that you don't agree with or don't like, they actually have to do something illegal first.

defrimation of charatcher possibly...but this would usually have to be attacks directly against you.  like if autism speaks came to me and told me i was a useless *** becuase i was autistic, i could sue them for defrmation of charatcher.  but otherwise, we're out of luck.  what they are doing isn't morally or ethically sound, but it's legal and they can do that.

Are they a public group or a private group?

I think public, but what's it matter?

If they are public then to exclude persons based on the fact that they have Aspergers (diagnosed), even if their slogan is "because they can't speak for themselves", they are discriminating against a recognized disability.  If we are talking about a USA based group here.

Of course, that would mean some AC (someone who deals well with criticism--not our strong suit)  will have to start out being the token on the board, and sue for the dubious pleasure of creating change from within.  If they are for "parents of" then an AC parent with a Specti kid will have to do it.  Must be strongly skilled in devil's advocacy.

Especially if the group's bylaws state that they politically represent said people, i.e. that they include input from those diagnosed.  Or prove where said representation is present.  They've got a battle raging in Canada right now trying to get some big curebie group to change their mission statement.  

As far as I've been able to tell, it sounds like they actually have a case (know 'nuthin 'bout Canadian law) but lack the resources to formally  make a complaint.  Seemed like it was still in the letters-of-complaint to key people stage, last I checked.

If a group is private, nothing you can do unless you are a direct employee in which case, you might could go with harassment in creating a hostile work environment but if its non-profit, it goes back to the mission statement.  

Public companies have to comply with federal laws (I think, not a lawyer).  Private companies have more leeway, especially if a state law is in support of the company practices in direct violation of federal law.

However, the feds are getting bolder about making individual entities comply to fed law at the expense of the state (and constitution, but that's another thread).  Unfortunately, on this issue, you got big pharma money and political clout behind the curebies.  

Of course pharma wants autism to be another endless epidemic that they must supply and with mandatory testing, force people to buy and/or comply in a multitude of ways i.e. Ritalin.  

I suppose at that point we can go for harassment but it will be too late.  The brainwashing of the sheeple will have been accomplished and we will be considered crazy people who don't know we are sick.  

That collective part of an NT works against us since the average NT will follow the herd in a heartbeat, even if it is over a cliff.  They never understand "how so many people could be wrong!"

Might could look into a charge of honest services fraud.  If they are supposed to be providing services to people with this diagnosis, and are refusing to provide services.  But it depends on if there's a membership, if any ACs are paid members whose needs are being ignored or overlooked, despite bylaws to contrary, then you might have a case.  

Important to find out their legal ground before you can start working on how to kick them off it.  Again, I only have a morbid fascination with the law, one of those interests, as it were.  Am not a lawyer.

I'd also think about more than one front.  Take a page from Cobert's book and use parody.  Can really do it up on the web ("The Onion" style).  It worked for the Democrats.  If you can ridicule an idea, sooner or later the sheeple catch on that it is, indeed, ridiculous.

Also, as is mentioned on other threads, begin our own counter psychological research.  Or better yet, develop a way to work with all these students (stick to H.S. and College) and get some "free" research.

Not so much to supply their research which doesn't always repay the community, but to look for opportunities to actually steer that research.  Possibly pair up some of our more scientifically minded individuals to exchange both knowledge and peer review of the original theory.

We can't get annoyed at their saying "you'll get a voice" if we don't get involved with what we want that voice to say.  If the curebies can pick and choose their theories, so can we.

Also being discussed, promoting our positives with the collective works of art and literature.  There are all sorts of e-zines or newsletters (much less work intensive) which small interest groups could do from the Spectrum including psychology, science, motorcycle repair then join a web ring for that larger group and integrate, spreading the love.

We've got to become a force before we can take on a force.

That is of course, if we don't get distracted by something sparkly.  Which is the point.  All specti need to learn how to compensate for our own weakness within the spectrum.  It will be odd to find an individual amongst us that could hold all this in their head so we will have to learn how to operate in smaller parts of the whole.....ACK!  Shut up mickie.

sorry for the wall 'o words guys.

okay, quick perusal of CAN so don't take this as gospel.

They supported and lobbied the Combating Autism Act of 2006.  Under  Act S.843 Section 2, 3(B)(1) "Expansion of Activities" it lists all the various sciences under which funding is available if targeting "autistic spectrum" research.  It is very inclusive; all schools represented and charged "to diagnose or rule out causes" including, but not limited to environmental, biological, genetic, neurological, basis and the treatment thereof.

---which means (I think, not a lawyer) this act covers everything we would want it to cover (haven't read the whole thing, just skimmed).  We have reasonable and legitimate basis of expectation.

Further in (2) Consolidations, Section 404H(a) cites Centers of Excellence defined in © as "an entity receiving funding under this title in its capacity as...."

Given the amount of fund raisers (my God those people are frenetic!) CAN is holding, my bet is they are aiming for a bunch of those "$5 billion over 5 years in research blah blah blah" by either already being, or are raising funds to become, one of those "Centers of Excellence" (who makes up these names?!)

If they are, then I would think honest services fraud could apply in some fashion.  The way could be open to start a counter "Center of Excellence" that focused more on providing the type of services or research we prefer.  (If one isn't a Libertarian.)

Another thing to keep an eye on, trace the money.  Find out who their biggest funders are and look for relationship within the government, then you get the Ethics groups after them (provided of course the Chairman isn't on some CAN board of directors, then you might have trouble initiating an investigation).

Especially watch for big pharma involvement and any medicinal "solutions". You might could trace bias and get funding yanked, or non-profit status removed.  Another avenue of shenanigans is to watch any relationship with the FDA.

Okay, NOW I'll shut up.

But just because they don't have an aspie on their board doesn't necessarily mean they would refuse to let one on, it just happens that no aspie so far has signed up.

It's like when a company grows to a certain point, if everybody working there are white men, then all kinds of accusations start pouring in saying that the company is sexist and racist, yet the problem isn't that they refuse to hire anyone who's not a white man, it's that no black women have applied for the job, nobody ever pays attention to that logic when they're focused on bringing the company down.

Then an aspie/autie (who is qualified) needs to try and join autism speaks...

so go ahead then, I know I don't want to be associated with them.

that's the problem but a quite legitimate standpoint.  Change from within is ...well, a borderline effort in futility.  But you are right that options should be considered because ignoring them will end us up cured mandatorily.

I think the Canadian's have a stronger stance.  Watch their bylaws and make sure they are following them.  If they provide research or services, especially if under a non-profit title, make sure they toe the line of federal laws in practice.

If they behave themselves then we'll just have to grin and bear it until we can change the majority's mind at large.  

But I know this too...

There are public high schools in the rural south still handing out bibles at graduation.  No one bothers to check and the local community prevails.

If this is going to be the next pop-research project "cure autism now" then there will be a lot of (probably dummy-front pharma) jerry lewis's getting on the bandwagon.  We've already got a puzzle piece.

It will be heresy to question these wonderful people who are doing so much towards such a worthy cause... uh huh...then I've got a bridge for sale over here in Brooklyn, for you. A LOT of NT Shenanigans take place behind that curtain.  

The end-justify-the-means, type people--especially if the end is profit.

These types often trip on the fine print.  Besides, if its really pharma that's producing questionable medications without unbiased research then you have a whole slew of tripwires with FDA laws but, in the current political climate, getting the FDA off its *** is another kettle of fish.

A lot of the curebies are dumb--naive--hypochondriac (I don't know which) enough to get snared in the pharma web o' lies.  They'll get fleeced, we'll be guinea pigs, and pharma gets rich and the "lawmakers" get campaign money so they can keep telling the rest of us what to do.  

In that case you go after pharma, make sure they are in compliance or push for legislature to corral how much influence they can have in research and/or development.  

And you watch what kind of FDA laws they are trying to get around.  I'll have to do more research but a lot of these "fast track" approvals of the FDA are something like 65% undocumented.  Approval is granted contingent upon supply of research within a set time period post approval.  The equivalent of "we'll take your word for it; take all the time you want getting the papers together."

The assumption is that the literal paper needs to be collected organized, boxed and shipped.  

What is happening is preliminary research is submitted as proof to the FDA while the substantive research that actually fulfills the legal requirements is either started, or not (some cases especially in some of the recent recalls) and it is not until some outside group blows the whistle, that the FDA is galvanized into action.

That's when you find out that substantive research proves the preliminary research true only at great cost.  Oops.

Unfortunately the FDA hasn't been so swell at cooperating and has had to be be indicted itself a couple of times for willfully not following its own laws, or policing its requirements.  

But it might be easier to convince a public attorney of a case than a private lawyer.  Especially without money and also in the light of the current grumbling amongst the ranks over Gonzales' shenanigans.

I'm so sorry.  Did it again.  Is this to much of a soapbox?

Simple solution. They claim to speak for Autism, because it can't speak? (that's their justification, no?)

Simple, simple. We speak. We sue them for slander and libel. Here we are, writing away. Autism can't speak? Let it type. Or write. Heck, we could even try to become mimes!

We should research them, learn what they're saying, then launch a suit with all of the ammo they've given us.

At least get their children help and care! I don't know what kind of parent would talk about wanting to kill their own child, but they shouldn't have access to this child if they express they want to kill him or her!

I think a law suit, even if it didn't work, would at least bring mainstream attention to the issue of CAN and their goals, and what WE think of ourselves, not what CAN thinks we think. They aren't like us, they can't think like us. Only I know my mind as well as I do, and the same can be said about you knowing yourself. They evidence their misunderstanding of us by symbolizing us as puzzle pieces, all wonky and unsolvable.

We should crack down, get together, and form up for email campaigns, and the like. We know what we think. Why not let them have a 'piece' of our minds? (yes, was intending a bad pun)

If I was old enough and there was a group where I live, that would've happened long ago. In fact I'd probably be in a Juvenile Detention Centre for blowing up Huntingdon Life Sciences, Bob Wright, CAN offices, the lot!!! As it is I am the Autism representative at my school and I have to deal with people who reckon Autism is crippling and needs a cure every day. I think that the best way to deal sidewith discriminating people like the CAN and Autism Speaks at this time is with the media. We must get them on our side. A documentary celebrating talented people with Autism would be great. Does anyone know somebody with contacts?

Why do people always want to cure everything they dont understand? Curing autism so everyone falls into the "normal" catagory is like hitler and his master race.