Cinema Libre's Philippe Diaz Tries to Bully "Vaxxed" Critic into Silence

Cinema Libre Founder and CEO, Philippe Diaz
Source: Cinema Libre Studio

Apparently, Philippe Diaz, founder, president, and CEO of Cinema Libre Studio, is a litigious bully.

But, I'm getting ahead of myself. Let me back up and start by introducing you to Fiona O'Leary. Fiona is the mother of five children, living with her husband in Ireland. Two of her children are autistic, as is Fiona herself. Several years ago, she became an outspoken advocate for autistic rights, campaigning against quack autism treatments like MMS, chelation, GcMAF, and so on. Last year, she was featured in an Irish documentary called Bleach Cult, which detailed the bleach treatment known as MMS, a protocol created by ex-Scientologist Jim Humble. She also worked with the Illinois attorney general to shut down MMS promoter Kelli Rivera. In April 2015, Fiona and her husband, Tim, founded the charity Autistic Rights Together, an organization of autistic and non-autistic individuals dedicated to promoting the rights and respect for children, teens, and adults on the autism spectrum.

On July 19, Fiona started a Change.org petition to stop the film Vaxxed and its production team (Andrew Wakefield, Del Bigtree, and Polley Tommey) from spreading its anti-vaccine message (e.g., stating that there is no safe vaccine) in the state of Texas, and possibly beyond. The petition notes how the film and its production team are spreading misinformation about vaccines and autism around the country, particularly during the Q&A sessions after some of the screenings. Examples include Polly Tommey telling people that pediatricians are dangerous and should be avoided, Tommey saying that she would never judge parents who murder their autistic children, and Bigtree's urging of anti-vaccine activists to exercise their second amendment right to bear arms in their fight against vaccinations. Fiona also notes Bigtree's comments comparing autistic individuals to chimps and dogs, as well as how the supporters of Vaxxed ridicule autistic individuals who protest the film.

This is where we get back to Philippe Diaz and Cinema Libre's threats. On July 21, he sent a letter on the studio's letterhead to Mrs. O'Leary threatening her with legal action.

Beware the Wakefraud

The sun set long ago, and outside, the world sleeps. Only the occasional passing car breaks the tranquility of the night. Inside, a lone figure sits before a laptop. The lamp on the desk sheds a soft, if weak, light, nearly drowned out itself by the cold illumination of the monitor. The figure's fingers tap out a few final strokes, then move to the mouse. She drags the cursor across the screen and clicks "Publish". A sudden flash of lightning and thunder, then the room goes dark.

A low, quiet chuckle filters out of the laptop as the screen fitfully flickers back to life. On the screen, four words shed an ominous, baleful glow:

The Wakefraud had struck.

Defending a Fearful Magic

I suppose that writers should, in a way, feel flattered by the censorship laws. They show a primitive fear and dread at the fearful magic of print.

-- Sir John Mortimer, Clinging to the Wreckage, p. 183

I've been debating with myself whether or not to write this post. In fact, it's taken me a very long time to put my thoughts down, and I've even held this post back even after I finished it. You see, a recent post of mine was received somewhat, shall we say, unfavorably by someone. I had put down my thoughts on some general rules to follow when writing things on the internet, whether it's in a blog, comments on a newspaper article, Facebook, what have you. As some illustrative examples of what not to do, I included some screen shots of this individual's tweets and other comments, but never actually used the person's name in my own composition, though she did identify herself in the comments, later on. In fact, she left her comments only minutes after sending me an e-mail.

I had tried to inject some humor into the post as a means of keeping the issue light while still providing an educational point. But, as anyone who has done extensive writing or reading in the skeptical community, you can probably see where this is going.

How Not to Make a Fool of Yourself on the Internet: A PSA

It seems that there are people out there who may, perhaps, lack a certain understanding of just how the internet works. They may write some ill-advised comment which draws well-deserved criticism. They might follow this up with additional statements which serve only to attract more criticism, with a big ol' side of humiliation. Maybe they do not realize that in the internet, nothing is truly erased.

And so it is that I find myself here, offering up some advice to the poor, self-centered, crass, ignorant folk on the internet. Even though doing so may rob myself and other bloggers the entertainment of invoking the Streisand Effect, I feel that there are those who may benefit from some instructive illustrations.

Paying to Volunteer

This past weekend, while many were getting together with family and friends, sharing in feasts, watching TV and spending too much money on holiday shopping, a story erupted among skeptic circles. Like many such matters, it began with the actions of an apologist for what is, at best, questionable science and at worst rank quackery. An individual, Marc Stephens, put himself forth as representing one Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski. Mr. Stephens, you see, took it upon himself to defend the reputation of the good doctor, going so far as to rattle his saber and issue legal threats to Andy Lewis (aka Le Canard Noir) of Quackometer and teenage skeptic Rhys Morgan. They were to take down their less than complimentary writings about Dr. Burzynski or face a libel suit. We've seen this kind of thing before.

May As Well Try to Stop a Storm...

Clouds gather on the horizon. Thunder, like deep, rolling laughter, rumbles forth. A storm is gathering. Watching the approach from a vast, flat plain, a lone figure stands, clad all in maille and wearing the livery of his liege lord, shouting defiance to the heavens while brandishing a long metal pole. Marcus had always envisioned himself a great warrior, yet his simpleness of mind was apparent as he stood on that plain, watching the storm draw nearer and nearer.

Behind him rose the small, yet ornately decorated manor house of his lord, Stanis, whose wealth was accumulated through false promises to those desperate enough to turn to him for succor. The manor was surrounded by open land sloping gently down to the building. Its moat was filled with the dreams and hopes of the sick who sought relief at its doors.

Lightning flashed, arcing through the air between cloud and servant, drawn to the idiotic pomp enshrouding Marcus. Bolt after bolt zigged and zagged to the metal man, and every one then being drawn to the manor house and the lord watching from its lone turret. The more Marcus shook his fist impotently at the sky, the more frequent and powerful grew the display of light. He would as soon try to silence a speaker of truth as stop the storm about to plunge him, and his Stanis, under a flood.
_____________________________________________________________
To put this all in context, check out the posts linked by Liz Ditz, Josephine Jones and Anarchic Teapot. For how the storm started, check out Rhys Morgan and Le Canard Noir. And if you like this little story or think that the tin man needs some more well-directed shocks, please consider sharing this on Twitter.

Doctor's Data Inc. Uses Legal Threats to Silence Criticism

I know the title of this blog is "Silenced by Age of Autism", but I have, in the past, spoken up in defense of free speech in other venues, as well, such as Simon Singh's libel case in the U.K. and how the English libel laws affect everyone. The need has arisen, once more, to venture away from AoA's censorship and talk about another recent attempt to us litigation to silence critics. Please bear with me, as this is a long post.

A Victory for Free Speech

Those interested in free speech and rational critique of ideas probably already know about Simon Singh's case in the U.K. Singh was sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association for some comments he made suggesting that the practices they promote are, well, bunk. An initial ruling by Justice David Eady appeared to be a major setback to Singh's case. However, he appealed and won the right to defend his comments as statements of opinion, rather than statements of fact.

Well, it appears the BCA has decided that it can no longer prevail and has dropped its libel suit against Singh. You can read more about this at Sense About Science.

While this is a major victory against the BCA's attempt to censor scientific criticism, the British libel laws are still in place. If you have not already done so, join the effort to revise the law to end the practice of using the legal system to censor critics. These laws don't just affect those living in the U.K.; they everyone, everywhere, thanks to libel tourism.

Big Libel Gig in the Skye

Okay, so it's in London's West End, not the Isle of Skye.  What, you may ask?  Why, The Big Libel Gig.  If you happen to be in the U.K. on March 14, you may want to consider getting tickets to this.  See the link for details and help support libel reform.

Help Fight Legal Censorship and Libel Tourism

If you are reading this blog, you probably have an interest in censorship issues.  Well, right now, there's a fight going on in the U.K., a long-overdue attempt to reform that country's libel laws.  What brought this to the fore and has garnered so much attention is a libel suit against Simon Singh, who is being sued by the British Chiropractic Association over a statement he made a while back.

This case is important, because it doesn't just affect Simon.  It affects everyone who writes anything online.  If you think that you are safe, keep in mind that if anything you write ends up being distributed in the U.K., you can be sued there.  It is a haven for libel tourism.  The U.K. libel laws can basically function as a means of bullying people into submission; wealthy plaintiffs can sue critics into silence and submission.

So what can you do about it?  You can sign a petition.  Right now, they have about 17,000 signatures.  They need 100,000.  So go to the petition and sign it.  If you do, let me know.