Cinema Libre Studio, the distributor of the dishonest Andrew Wakefield anti-vaccination fiction-film, Vaxxed, has threatened an Irish autism-rights advocate with defamation.
Fiona O’Leary has posted the threats, from Cinema Libre Studio CEO Philippe Diaz, on her Facebook profile:
Wow you threaten to sue an Autistic Advocate and Mother to five children in West Cork!
Because I don’t want babies and children DYING from preventable diseases!
Because I have had enough of your lies about Vaccines causing Autism!
Because I am sick of how you exploit Autistic people!
How dare you!
Three days ago, Ms O’Leary posted a video response to Vaxxed creators, Del Bigtree and Polly Tommey, accurately calling out their recent hideous comments which vilify individuals with autism, as well as paediatricians.
A playlist of thirteen short videos of Bigtree/Tommey claims can be found here. Six examples follow, below.
On June 24 2016, Bigtree compared autistic children to chimpanzees and dogs:
On July 5 2016, Tommey declared that she and her “army” are “coming for” Senator Richard Pan, and that Senator Pan and others should “be scared”:
On July 9 2016, Tommey warned her followers to “stay away from paediatricians” who are “dangerous”:
On July 11 2016. Tommey declared that “there is no safe vaccine”:
On July 11 2016, Tommey stated that she will “never judge” a parent who murders their autistic child:
On July 11 2016, Bigtree advocated that anti-vaccination activists should start using their guns against their government:
Anyone who believes in the right to bear arms. To stand up against your government. I don’t know what you were saving that gun for then. I don’t know when you planned on using it if they were going to take control of your own body away.
It’s now. Now’s the time.
Fairly standard scare letter that these arse wipes put out hoping to shut down dissent with threats of legal action. Good luck with suing someone in the UK when all you have is these losers for um, experts. They will once again, be exposed for the crackpots and fraudsters that they are. I can see it now Wakefield/Bigtree/Tomley et al. fronts courts and starts waffling, she brings in a series of highly qualified medical practitioners and shoots them down in flames using science. They lose the case, have to pay her millions in fees etc. and they skulk home and make You Tube clips about how corrupt the courts are and that big pharma has bought of the justice system.
Well, when they ask Wakefield to state his qualificarions, he won”t be able to claim his medical degree, seeing as he has been struck off for his fraud.
This is awful. But, a supporter on Facebook found something interesting. She said she found that if this lawsuit actually went forward, the movie company would need an attorney in Ireland. That they didn’t use an American attorney to write the letter, just CC’d him, tells me they are cheap and probably bluffing.
Wait, they were too cheap to even have the threat sent by an actual lawyer in the first place? It’s like Wakefraud’s self-penned “legal threat” against Emily Willingham all over again.
The fact that Diaz appears to have lent his name to this suggests Wakefield has a lot of influence with him.
I would suggest Ms O’Leary looks to Arkell vs Pressdram (1971) for inspiration.
Maybe they’ll sue them in England.:P
This isn’t funny. Firstly, it seeks a ban on Fiona “making any statement to any person” about Vaxxed, which is an astonishing threat, particularly from a purported media entity, also presently distributing the most gravely defamatory material imaginable.
Secondly, having been similarly threatened by Wakefield – carried through with two years of vexatious legal process – I know that these people do do these things. Some of you might remember also Kathleen Seidel’s brilliant work on the Geiers. She was hit with vexatious litigation from a lawyer, and though she too ultimately prevailed, the burden must have been intolerable, and her amazing Neurodiversity website went pretty much dormant afterwards.
If they proceed, they won’t do it in Ireland or the UK, but would forum shop in the United States. The case would either be thrown out on jurisdictional grounds, or in an anti-slapp. But those things are massively complex and life-consuming.
This ought to be an instance of the Streisand effect, and I hope that everyone who believes in free speech will pay the closest attention to what’s going on here.
We have a contender for Ken White’s “Censorious Asshat 2016” award!
Hank: Sorry for not taking the time to did into everything O’Leary has said about ‘Vaxxed’, but what would be the basis for Diaz’s* claim “you are attempting to prevent the film from being exhibited”?
IANAL, but I’d think that would be a high legal bar, requiring more than public statements of “this should not be exhibited”. For one thing, for a business to claim harm, wouldn’t it have to have demonstrate sales prospects that could be undermined? In this case, exhibitors who would want to screen Vaxxed who somehow could have been dissuaded by O’Leary’s actions? The film industry sites that track box office numbers stopped tracking ‘Vaxxed’ at the end of April, which, I think, means it hasn’t had any normal theatrical runs since then. Or maybe it’s just off the radar since it does seem to be playing now at a cinema in Las Vegas. Regardless, the buzz that made it a sort of viable commercial property seems to be over, and the upcoming screenings listed on the site are mainly ‘theatrical on demand’, meaning one-offs where they have to pre-sell a certain number of tickets online before the theater will actually commit to a show. IOW, it seems most of the people, in the US at least, who want to see it in a theater have already done so. How can O’Leary prevent the exhibition of a film that doesn’t have enough market draw to be rented for exhibition anyway?
* Unless Diaz has a law background, he didn’t write this, and the stuff about “copying our legal counsel” might only mean that it was drafted by a personal attorney for one of the gang, rather than Cinema Libre’s formal legal rep. Maybe BD could say if this letter has the marks of one of the shysters Andy has used in the past.
might only mean that it was drafted by a personal attorney for one of the gang
You’d think that if someone with legal competence had written the letter, they would have been less vague about the damage being caused by Ms O’Leary’s criticism (other than “butt-hurt”). Surely the vagueness weakens the letter’s value as a warning, and weakens any future case. If Diaz meant “restraint of trade” he should have said so.
Probably that arsehole Clifford Miller.
No it wasn’t Miller. His language is far more ludicrous.
Good point, well argued. 🙂
Inquiring minds are wondering why Philippe Diaz directed his bumptious, vexatious barratry in the direction of Ms O’Leary, rather than at Orac, or any of the other people who gave VAXXED bad reviews and pointed out its fraudulence. Does he (or some other serial-litigant-manque behind him) somehow imagine her to be an easy target? Or is it that opposition from advocates who are actually on the spectrum is particularly damaging to his presentation of autists as bestial travesties of humanity?
What sort of fool sends his own legal letters then forwards them to his counsel? Twit. Total bluff.
Pingback: Vaxxed distributor threatened Fiona O'Leary – they're afraid of facts
She started a petition to stop any showing in Texas. I think that is probably what he is talking about
Pingback: Let us now praise famous women - Ocasapiens - Blog - Repubblica.it
Pingback: Vaxxed anti-vaccine film distributor threatens autism rights advocate | reasonable hank – autisticagainstantivaxxers