Apparently, someone thinks that they are the only person allowed to have a public opinion about Burzynski in a moving picture, as false takedown order attributed by Google to Burzynski movie director Eric Merola’s production company has been issued against c0nc0rdance, who posted a very good video about the Clinic in February. Whoever did this, well, they done somethin’ ornery. -Skeptical Humanities
Entries in Internet-Censorship (19)
For the past several weeks Meryl Dorey of the Australian Vaccination Network has been engaged in a campaign of revenge again me for speaking out against her deceptive, fraudulent and misleading practices. It began in August with a few blog posts on the AVNs website titled “Dossier of Attacks on the AVN” where Meryl attempts to hurt her critics by posting complaints we’ve made against her.
However unlike Meryl Dorey the truth doesn’t hurt us; because we’re right while she is proven repeatedly to be in the wrong. So “exposing” us by posting content we freely make available ourselves doesn’t cause us any damage. It would appear that Meryl Dorey is baffled by this as she is constantly trying to cover-up her own actions, while her critics apparently have no need to cover theirs.
No doubt frustrated that her attacks were having such little effect Meryl Dorey decided to up her campaign against me and go after my Facebook account with the intention of censoring me from the “Stop the AVN” page despite the fact that she is not an admin there. To do this she takes advantage of the fact that Facebook has an automated complaints system that does not ask questions.
That's right just those two posts got me banned from all of Facebook for 24hours. The posts were on a Skeptics Facebook page not the AVN, but obviously they were seen by either Meryl Dorey or one of her supporters. I should point out that this can be done by anyone without any oversight from Facebook.
Of course she won’t stop there, not while she has crime (Perjury in the United States) and misdeeds to cover up. So when I posted a link to my blog on the Stop the AVN Facebook wall (A page Meryl has no ownership or admin claims to) it didn’t take long for her to pounce and hit the report button.
So once more Meryl Dorey has succeeded in censoring me, this all seems a little desperate. Meryl Dorey likes to bang on about how great freedom of speech is, yet she will do anything she can to prevent it.
Fortunately another Skeptic was on the case.
But this reposting was removed twice and I suspect Belinda was likely banned from Facebook after having two complaints filed.
Then another person decided to post my blog directly on the AVN’s Facebook wall. I’m sure the anti-vaxxers would not have been amused by this, but then again the truth always was offensive to them.
Actually the truth can be found by reading the link that appears on the SAVN wall. You don’t find the truth through censorship and suppression of information. Of course those with everything to hide have to choice but to engage in censorship campaigns because the truth is ultimately their undoing.
The user “Skeptic Militia” was kind enough to email me the Facebook takedown notices they received. Along with the resulting ban.
I’m no psychiatrist but Meryl Dorey seems to be getting quite desperate to censor her critics. Although this type of behaviour isn’t new, the AVN is known to abuse, harass and accuse people of child rape if they don’t fall into line with the anti-vaccination ideology. Just for the record Meryl Dorey has stated that she refuses to stop using the rape accusation.
So far at least 5 Facebook posts on the Stop the AVN Facebook page that includes a link to: http://www.danbuzzard.net/journal/how-meryl-dorey-lied-under-oath.html have been removed due to vexatious automated complains. Her insane determination to see the post censored has motivated me to contact the San Fransisco District Attorney's office to find out if anything can be done in regards to Meryl Dorey lying under oath. Originally it was just going to be a blog post but after such a hostile responce I think it's worth at least exploring the options since she's clearly rattled by it.
I also just got word from Facebook that this image has been reported as abusive.
Meryl is due in court on Thursday. So it probably wouldn’t be good for her if someone were to use the above screenshot as a demonstration of her lack of respect for the judicial system. Suggesting the courts may be Bias if they don't agree with you is unlikely to win any friends.
If anybody has screen shots of warning messages they’ve receive from Facebook. I request that they forward them to me via email: Dan@danscomp.net It would be much appreciated.
While I have no problem with people simply using words. It seems that the anti-vaxxers are determined to go to any length to silence criticism. That includes getting their critics disconnected from Facebook and as a consequence disconnected from friends and family who have come to rely on Facebook (despite my protest) as their primary form of communication.
I have stated previously that I would never sue anyone for their words, and my preferred “weapon” (For lack of a better word) is my blog loaded with yet more words that can address any misinformation stated about me. However now that my opponents are taking action beyond just words and attempting to influence a negative impact upon myself, my friends and family I feel that litigation may be the justified course of action. So far Meryl Dorey has succeeded in disconnecting me from my contracts twice, an online equivalent of cutting my phone line. She has also succeeded in censoring me from Stop the AVNs Facebook page, which she is not an admin and no body at SAVN has decided they want me gone. It is not Meryls place to decide that I should be censored from another person’s plat form, by abusing Facebook’s automated systems she has done just that.
I am concerned that this type of censorship will only increase if it is not stopped. Of course this is only the latest in a long list of attacks against critics.
So far Meryl Dorey has deployed the following tactics against her critics.
- Blogging - Nothing wrong with this, she’s entitled to her words as are her critics.
- False DMCA Complaints – She has committed a crime (perjury) under the laws of the United States in order to have her critics censored.
- Apprehended Violence Orders – She is attempting to obtain restraining orders against her critics including myself, without serving any summons. I may not be a lawyer but I’m reasonably certain that you need to follow correct serving procedures.
- Making false complaints to Facebook – This results in her victims being disconnected not only from Stop the AVN but also all their Friends and Family who rely on Facebook.
- Harassment – Meryl Dorey and her followers have engaged in a harassment campaign against grieving parents whose daughter died of whooping cough.
I am becoming increasingly concerned for the safety of people within the Skeptical community because while the anti-vaxxers have historically never posed a direct physical threat. The Australian Vaccination Network in particular it’s president Meryl Dorey appear to be getting more and more desperate to silence critics as time goes on. Perhaps the realisation that the truth hurts only them and not us is prompting them to look for methods beyond just words for silencing their critics.
Meryl Dorey, the president of the Australian Vaccination Network has lied under oath and I have the evidence to prove this. Meryl Dorey sought to remove a government letter from the internet in an effort to avoid some well deserved criticism. Here is a copy of a DMCA notice that she filed to have the following document removed from the internet: Letter from the OLGR revoking the AVNs charity status.
This is the complaint she filed:
*** BEGIN DMCA NOTIFICATION ***
Pursuant to 17 USC 512(c)(3)(A), this communication serves as a statement that:
I am the exclusive rights holder for material held at http://www.avn.org.au and
These exclusive rights are being violated by material available upon your site at the following URL(s):
I have a good faith belief that the use of this material in such a fashion is not authorized by the copyright holder, the copyright holder's agent, or the law;
Under penalty of perjury in a United States court of law, I state that the information contained in this notification is accurate, and that I am authorized to act on the behalf of the exclusive rights holder for the material in question;
I may be contacted by the following methods (include all): Australian Vaccination Network, PO Box 177, BANGALOW NSW 2479, AUSTRALIA; Phone - 612 6687 1699 - FAX 612 6678 0894 - Mobile 61414 872 032 - email firstname.lastname@example.org
I hereby request that you remove or disable access to this material as it appears on your service in as expedient a fashion as possible. Thank you.
Meryl Wynn Dorey
The Australian Vaccination Network, Inc.
[I omitted her absurdy long signature]
*** END DMCA NOTIFICATION ***
The result of this notice is that Ken McLeod who had originally uploaded the document to Scribd received a notice stating that the content had been removed.
Hello, ken_mcleod --
We have removed your document, "OLGR Letter to AVN Advising of Revocation 14-10-10" (id: 51133133) in response to a third-party notification or other indicia that this document was uploaded to Scribd.com without the authorization of the copyright owner. If you believe the removal of this document is the result of a mistake or misidentification, please visit our Scribd Support Desk to access the instructions for providing a counter-notification.
For more information, read about our Copyright Management System or contact us through email@example.com.
Please note that under Section 512(f) of the Copyright Act, any person who knowingly materially misrepresents that content was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification may be subject to liability. Please also be advised that we enforce our policy that provides for the termination of users who are identified as repeat infringers.
Thanks for your cooperation.
-Scribd Customer Care
So Meryl's complaint resulted in the removal of the document. She swore under penalty of perjury that the complaint was true and accurate, not only that but she also consented to the jurisdiction of the United States. The problem with this is that her complaint wasn't valid and she therefore has committed an offense within the United States.
Attn: Jason Bentley, Copyright Agent
539 Bryant St, Suite 200
San Francisco, CA 94107
Dear Mr. Bentley:
This letter is a formal response to a claim of copyright infringement against one or more of the documents that I’ve uploaded and published on Scribd.com. I believe the claims of copyright infringement are wrong and vexatious and should be rejected because:
1. The material in question is not copyrighted. The letter which I posted was from an Australian government department, (The New South Wales Office of Liquor Gaming and Racing) reporting its findings of their investigation of a fraudulent "charity", the so-called "Australian Vaccination Network" and its Public Officer, Ms Meryl Dorey, who I believe to be your complainant. The letter is a public document, and was first posted by Meryl Dorey on her Scribd account. Indeed, the letter and all the other material has been lodged in the New South Wales Supreme Court as part of the Discovery process, see the attached Court Lisiting. It is therefore in the public domain and may be reproduced by anyone.
2. The complainant has provided no copyright registration information or other tangible evidence that the material in question is in fact copyrighted, and I have a good faith belief that it is not. The allegation of copyright violation is therefore in dispute, and at present unsupported.
3. The complainant does not hold the copyright to the material in question, is not the designated representative of the copyright holder, and therefore lacks standing to assert that my use of the material is a violation of any of the owner's rights. If copyright ownership was to be asserted by anyone, it would have been asserted by the author, and it was not.
4, My use of the material is legally protected because it falls within the "fair use" provision of the copyright regulations, as defined in 17 USC 107. The "fair use" provisions allow for reproduction for the purposes of reporting, research, satire, and so on, and my post conformed to the Act. If the complainant disagrees that this is fair use, they must work directly with me, though legally viable channels, to resolve the dispute. Ms Dorey and the New South Wales Government have never contacted me to express any concerns they may have. Scribd and its employees under no obligation to settle this dispute, or to take any action to restrict my speech at the behest of this complainant.
5. The complaint does not follow the prescribed form for notification of an alleged copyright violation as set forth in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 USC 512(c)(3). Specifically, the complainant has failed to:
a.. Provide a complaint in written form. [17 USC 512(c)(3)(A)]
b.. Include a physical or electronic signature of the complainant. [17 USC 512(c)(3)(A)(i)]
c.. Identify the specific copyrighted work claimed to be infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works are covered by a single complaint, provide a representative list of such works. [17 USC 512(c)(3)(A)(ii)]
d.. Provide the URLs for the specific files on my web site that are alleged to be infringing. [17 USC 512(c)(3)(A)(iii)]
e.. Provide sufficient information to identify the complainant, including full name, mailing address, telephone number, and email address. [17 USC 512(c)(3)(A)(iv)]
f.. Include a written statement that the complainant has a good faith belief that use of the disputed material is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law. [17 USC 512(c)(3)(A)(v)]
g.. Include a written statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complainant is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed. [17 USC 512(c)
6. The complainant Meryl Dorey or her legal representatives, have never contacted me with their concerns, although they have my postal and email address.
7. The complaint is vexatious in that Ms Dorey is embarrassed to have been exposed in breaches of Australian legislation by the letter, and is attempting to prevent evidence from being published. She is attempting to prevent many documents from being published, and I ask that you regard her as a vexatious complainant and ignore her.
This communication to you is a DMCA counter notification letter as defined in 17 USC 512(g)(3):
I declare, under penalty of perjury, that I have a good faith belief that the complaint of copyright violation is based on mistaken information, misidentification of the material in question, or deliberate misreading of the law.
I ask that Scribd, upon receipt of this counter-notification, restore the material in dispute, unless the complainant files suit against me within ten (10) days, pursuant to 17 USC 512(g)(2)(B).
My name, address, and telephone number are:
FULL NAME: Kenneth Vincent McLeod
I hereby consent to the jurisdiction of the Federal District Court for the San Francisco, California judicial district).
I agree to accept service of process from the complainant.
(the above is the genuine signature of me, Kenneth Vincent McLeod)
This counter notification by Ken McLeod saw the Letter from the OLGR revoking the AVNs charity status restored to the internet by Scribd who were hosting it at the time. Now of course there are many of us hosting this document, ensuring that it will always remain online despite Meryl Doreys best attempts to remove content that is not hers from the Internet. Meryl is so determined to silence her critics that she is prepared to lie under oath. I wonder if she will do the same in a court of law?
Don't just take my word for it. Here's the original document of evidence collected by Ken: HERE’S PROOF THAT MERYL DOREY LIED UNDER OATH.
Case Closed...? (Or does the saga continue)
I'm wondering if somone has something to hide. This got removed from Facebook due to an anonymous automated complaint.
Charlotte Dawson has been in the news recently for being trolled on the Internet. That’s right just for being trolled this drama queen has generated headline across Australia for her alleged victimisation at the hands of some anonymous twitter users.
While I don’t agree with the actions of the trolls I also find it hard to have too much sympathy for Ms Dawson because she went troll feeding.
There is an old saying that goes back at least as far as the 1980s. “Don’t Feed the Trolls”
On the Internet a “Troll” is a person who attempts to incite an emotional response from others by either posting offensive material or performing an action that causes inconvenience and frustration to other users of the medium in use. The best way to deal with trolls is by NOT giving them exactly what they want so they get bored and leave. As someone who’s been dealing with internet trolls since the 90s I can confirm that this is a tried and proven method for dealing with the issue.
However Charlotte Dawson decided to engage with the trolls instead. First mistake, she has also been retweeting some of the trolls messages to her followers. Honestly what sort of moron thinks it’s a good idea to help spread the trolls’ message as far and wide as you can? These trolls are anonymous; as a result ALL publicity is good publicity.
Of course now the politicians are wetting themselves in excitement as they are now given a new excuse to remove free speech and privacy from the public internet.
HATE-filled Twitter trolls who anonymously taunt, threaten or urge their victims to take their own lives are on notice from today.
Today we launch a campaign to stand up to the faceless bullies and to urge Twitter to unmask them and turn them in to authorities so they can be prosecuted.
Kevin Rudd has 1.2 million followers - more than any other federal MP - and he last night committed to the campaign from China with the declaration: "The time has come for us to build a bridge over the trolls."
Attorney-General Nicola Roxon is also behind the campaign: "Cyber bullying is reprehensible and has no place in our society.
"What we need is strong co-operation from governments, law enforcement and the community. But we also need the assistance of US-based social networks." -News.com.au
It quickly gets to the point where the persecuted becomes the persecutor. This is where the #StopTheTrolls comes in. The aim is to bully Twitter into disclosing user details so the Australian Government can punish people for what they said online. That’s right; you can be punished for saying something that upsets people.
People not just trolls, often choose to be anonymous on the Internet because they either don’t believe what they say strongly enough to put their name to it. Or because they face serious consequences for speaking out be it government persecution or litigation.
By removing anonymity and punishing trolls all that will happen is the trolls move to more secure form of anonymity and people with a “legitimate” need of anonymity might not have that option available. Of course what is or is not a “legitimate” use of anonymity is purely subjective.
Terms like ‘Hate Speech’ are thrown about far too easily in today’s society. But classifying what is and isn’t ‘Hate Speech’ is a value judgement. I have people accuse me of ‘hate speech’ simply for disagreeing with them. So the idea that the government could or should punish people for something based on opinion of another should be a concern to all Australians, not just trolls.
I deal with ‘trolls’ a fair bit. What I post online tends to attract them and it’s the reason user comments below need to be approved by a moderator before they appear. Yet, I still stand by what I’ve been saying for the last 14 years. Don’t feed the trolls, don’t give them the recognition and attention they crave, they will get bored and leave.
Also don’t do a massive Dawson Drama Queen. That only empowers them.
A shit storm is currently brewing over a controversial Facebook page entitled "Aboriginal Memes" the page is now offline but I collected the photos from it so you can see what the fuss is about. Photos Now offline. (I think I've made my point.)
Communications Minister Stephen Conroy has weighed into the debate over a racially abusive Facebook page, saying he thinks it should be taken down.
SBS reported yesterday on the Facebook page, which allows posts with racially abusive "memes" about Indigenous people. The page was temporarily removed, before re-appearing on the site with a tag noting that the content contained "controversial humour".
However the really horrific thing that I personally found about this page was not the content at all, but rather the fanatical Anti-freedom of Speech groups that setup for the sole purpose of suppressing another persons speech. Yes, that speech is distasteful but supporting free speech means that we must often defend distasteful things.
A page Called Make Facebook Shut Down Aboriginal Memes
Has sprung up in protest of the Aboriginal Memes page however this situation is nothing more than people seeking to suppress another person’s speech because they happen to find it distasteful. I find it disturbing how many people are radically opposed to freedom of speech in this country. Except of course when it's their own speech then all of a sudden they are suddenly in favour of it.
But this only shows a gross lack of consideration for what free speech means for all of us. Because you cannot possibly claim to support freedom of speech while simultaneously seeking to suppress another. Free Speech is a right that must be given to everyone on equal ground regardless of its content.
When supporting the Freedom of Speech you don't need to agree with the opinions of others but unless you are prepared to defend their right to say whatever they like you cannot call yourself a supporter of Free-Speech and nor can you reasonably expect others to respect your rights when you do not extend that courtesy yourself.
I hate having to defend those whom I disagree with, but it seems I am required to do so more and more often in order to defend free speech these days. This is one of those times.
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. -Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense. -Carl Sagan