I was interested to read a post on the well known neurodiversity blog, left brain/right brain. This post discusses a certain lawsuit against a certain antineurodiversity blogger from New Hampshire. Those who have followed both the pro and anti neurodiversity blogs over the years can mostly likely surmise who this person is.
The individual in question is allegedly being sued for a post he wrote over a year ago. He stated that the organization now suing him was peddling "horseshit" and he called them "Jackasses". It seems strange that an organization, based on what it must cost to sue someone, would litigate for such a trivial reason and wait a year to file a suit. They allegedly stated that this blogger's post had a detrimental effect on their business, which seems far fetched, at least to me. Seems unlikely this suit would go very far, though I admit i'm not a lawyer or legal expert. LB/RB's blogger-in-chief, Matt Carey stated that he was conflicted about the lawsuit, but did not come right out and say how frivolous it was. There was also a dig at the unpopular (from the point of view of ND) blogger that had no relevance to the topic in question.
In a post written two days ago the blogger in question stated that he had not yet been served with the suit. I wonder what the probability is that someone would write on the internet that they were suing someone before a subpoena was handed down. This, to me, makes it very suspect.
Though Carey stated he was conflicted, some of the regulars of his blog seemed to have a celebratory attitude, including one of ND's most unsavory characters who has spent time harassing me and writing libelous things about your humble blogger on the internet (now deleted into the phantom zone).
I still remember Zach Lassiter's bogus story about autism speaks trying to put his t-shirt company out of business and Alex Plank, writing it up on the front page of wrong planet without doing any fact checking. Plank ironically enough solicited and received donations for his Autism Talk TV project from AS.
I also remember how the neurodiversity movement lied about this blogger claiming that he threatened Ari Ne'eman with death when all he did was write an inflammatory post stating that he wished ari ne'eman could be tried criminally and executed and asked Newsweek to "Kill Ari Ne'eman" referring to killing a favorable article they wrote about him.
I have to wonder if this is a real lawsuit or if this isn't just more lies and mischief from the neurodiversity movement who are just making the story up and posting it on the internet to stir trouble.
The blogger in question stated that he would provide updates, so I guess I'll just have to repeat the old cliche, "time will tell'.
Addendum: The latest news is that the lawsuit appears to be real although the blogger in question has not yet been served. Although he does not believe he's done anything wrong, he's offered to settle the suit in order to avoid the trouble or hassle or costs or all of the above that defending the suit would incur. Gadfly suspects neurodiversity will have a field day with this and will use this to claim proof of his guilt and mislead people who don't understand about settling to the avoid costs of litigation or other problems when fighting a trivial lawsuit. I guess there will be more on this topic and I will add to it when and if appropriate.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
it would be ironic, but i don't think so, think she's deleted all or most of your comments and does not care for you. Well she finds anyone who disagrees with her about anything reprehensible it seems.
I hadn't noticed LB/RB changing anyone's name. Though I won't put it as graphically as you, I agree the commenting on your situation was ludicrous. Since Matt Carey took over for Kevin Leitch, the blog has taken an even more ludicrous tone.
Actually that's a valid point. I think you can subpoena them or have them subpoenaed as witnesses and they are legally required to show up or you could have the judge issue a bench warrant for their arrest, though I'm not sure of that.
Jonathan, you're wrong. You can't compel someone to testify at a trial they had nothing to do with, though I sympathize with the notion.
Unfortunately for John, he's not entitled to a defense attorney because this is a civil defense.
However, from what I read, he clearly stated this was his opinion so I don't see how it rises to an actual offense. It's not likely a jury would rule in favor of the plaintiff in this case in New Hampshire. His best defense is to spend time talking about how ABA failed and to present the load of evidence that ABA has no longitudinal studies that support its marketing.
You're Anonymous: He's entitled to a defense attorney if he pays for it out of his pocket, and he might need one, as going pro per is rather difficult. Not sure if he can legally subpoena those individuals or not, you may be right about that. Though I agree with you about ABA, that would probably not be John's best defense. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to present from a preponderance of the evidence that JB hurt their business and his post compelled people not to avail themselves of the company's services, which I think is farfetched and he'll have a difficult time proving. I can't imagine they'd prevail if it were feasible to defend the suit.
I won't comment further, but I'll let Foresam comment on your post if he wants.
Sorry, I was unclear. What I meant to say was that he isn't entitled to a state paid defense attorney because this is civil and not criminal. He is of course entitled to hire or find someone that will work pro-bono.
I find the ND hypocrisy on this to be another telling sign that they are bankrupt of true thought and logical thinking.
Jonathan,
I don't know if you have noticed or not, but take a look at the blog dates on the Autism Hub. There are only a handful of blogs that are updating lately. Even LB/RB hasn't updated in 2 days. I remember a few years ago there would be a new post almost hourly.
I think the oxygen is finally escaping.
Post a Comment