• Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

Banned, legal question

Aspergers_Aspie

Aspergers_Aspie

Well-Known Member
I am banned from the autistic charity drop ins. I am unsure if I would have a legal case of disability discrimination or not. I am going to ask citizens advice scotland and so far I have contacted one law firm. Although I am engaging with my mental health nurse and the organisation turning point. And I agree to use cards with messages on for example like I don't want to chat right now or I need some time on my own if I get too stressed or anxious. I have went to the hospital on occasions and have contacted helplines like the Samaritans as I didn't want to act on suicidal feelings and not being able to access the drop-in is having a very detrimental effect on me. Does anyone know where I stand please, legally
 
Might be helpful to explain exactly why you were banned. Not from your own perspective, but from that of the online entity which banned you.

And whether or not in their eyes you may have somehow violated your nation's "Online Safety Bill", prompting them to delete your posts and remove you from their site. It's conceivable that posting suicidal feelings might prompt web hosts to act in order to be compliant with such a law, depending on how a host may interpret it.

Content that while legal, may be construed as harmful to both adults and children. Prompting them to act. If so, it would seem futile to attempt to litigate such a matter. (Though I can only speculate, not being proficient in understanding civil law outside the US.)

I'm also assuming the site and its server are UK based. Could get more complicated when they are scattered all over the planet.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9506/
 
Last edited:
People running a community have a duty of care to all members. Sometimes they are in a position where -- to safeguard the majority -- they must remove a minority of disruptive members. It is unfortunate for the disruptive members, but the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few... (ST II moment).

Not saying this is the case here, but if there is a need to protect the majority from a disruptive minority those who take this action are in excellent legal standing because of the mountain established case law supporting the practice.
 
velociraptor said:
People running a community have a duty of care to all members. Sometimes they are in a position where -- to safeguard the majority -- they must remove a minority of disruptive members. It is unfortunate for the disruptive members, but the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few... (ST II moment).

Not saying this is the case here, but if there is a need to protect the majority from a disruptive minority those who take this action are in excellent legal standing because of the mountain established case law supporting the practice.
Click to expand...
Well I have never threatened anyone
 
Aspergers_Aspie said:
Well I have never threatened anyone
Click to expand...
You don't have to threaten others to interfere with their ability to use a recovery community effectively. Also, what may not be a threat to you could very well be a threat to others. You generally have to really push buttons to be excluded from most recovery communities.
 
I haven't purposely upset anyone
velociraptor said:
You don't have to threaten others to interfere with their ability to use a recovery community effectively. Also, what may not be a threat to you could very well be a threat to others. You generally have to really push buttons to be excluded from most recovery communitiei
Click to expand...
 
It is sad such a thing happened. I hope you can sort it out for better or worse. Idk about your country's laws so i cannot comment.

Did they give you a written dismissal or anything that explains which rules you have broken or something like that?
 
Verbal dismissal
AprilR said:
It is sad such a thing happened. I hope you can sort it out for better or worse. Idk about your country's laws so i cannot comment.

Did they give you a written dismissal or anything that explains which rules you have broken or something like that?
Click to expand...
 
Sometimes people do not want you around for no other reason than you don't "fit in" with their culture-group.
 
Perhaps it might be best to keep in mind a more simplistic concept. That no civil legal body (whether your or ours) is likely to consider being banned from a web domain as a tort (a civil wrong).

That when you access or join a certain site or community, it's likely you must abide by their terms and conditions, which is likely to involve a subjective process of being assessed in terms of whether one has violated those terms and conditions.

And in consideration of UK laws, the emphasis isn't on the right of individuals per se, but rather the obligation of the host to act in a manner indicative of collectively protecting everyone within an online community. Perhaps even more so involving a recovery community as @velociraptor suggested above. Plus, just because laws are created is no guarantee that they will be enforced.

In other words, IMO it's unlikely you have any recourse at all. If this was not the case, most proprietary web domains would probably be considerably more reticent to ban much of anyone given legal repercussions that frankly are not in play. In essence while you may perceive yourself a "victim" of a particular web domain's policy, given their potential legal obligations as a host, it's more likely that you may be considered the offending party regardless of your grievances.
 
Last edited:
Aspergers_Aspie said:
I am banned from the autistic charity drop ins. I am unsure if I would have a legal case of disability discrimination or not. I am going to ask citizens advice scotland and so far I have contacted one law firm. Although I am engaging with my mental health nurse and the organisation turning point. And I agree to use cards with messages on for example like I don't want to chat right now or I need some time on my own if I get too stressed or anxious. I have went to the hospital on occasions and have contacted helplines like the Samaritans as I didn't want to act on suicidal feelings and not being able to access the drop-in is having a very detrimental effect on me. Does anyone know where I stand please, legally
Click to expand...
You're talking about a physical location, not an on-line site?

A place where people go in real life?
 
tree said:
You're talking about a physical location, not an on-line site?

A place where people go in real life?
Click to expand...

LOL....good question. ;)

Though somehow I don't see two burly bouncers on both sides of the entrance to keep anyone out. While they seem to have URLs, they also refer to physical addresses. I'd think the legal ramifications would be more fundamental relative to trespassing laws and far less confusing or complicated than anything pertinent to online considerations and jurisdictions if this is the case regarding adults.

Or do autistic adults have "extended rights" that circumvent such considerations of "unlawful exclusion" in Britain? I see in some cases autistic students and minors have such rights, but do adults?From what I see, for what the OP is seeking is only exclusive to minors and not adults. Though if anyone can find something substantive to the contrary, I'd like to read it.

Otherwise I can only surmise that autistic adults are ultimately still responsible for their own conduct wherever they may go. And that proprietors are free to regulate their establishment as they please when it comes to keeping order for the public good. Which interestingly enough could parallel similar legal considerations of online communities as well.

All that said, one thing I've learned over the years is how such issues in Britain seem consistently more favorable for autistic persons in comparison with the United States.
 
Last edited:
Judge said:
Otherwise I can only surmise that autistic adults are ultimately still responsible for their own conduct wherever they may go.
Click to expand...
I would certainly hope so. I need to own my behaviour. If I am acting like an arse it is 100% on me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Threads

Top Bottom