Even if that were true (and if I recall correctly it was a ridiculously large amount that the parody site couldn’t possibly have been responsible for; and I suspect the large amount was also intended as a scare tactic), it would be the equivalent of Wal-Mart trying to sue because they’ve lost business as a result of folks saying Wal-Mart is evil. Which they probably have. But folks have the right to not patronize an establishment — or give funds to a so-called charity — because they’ve heard negative criticism of it. It’s the nature of the market.

I believe that was what Autism Speaks would’ve tried to prove since they claimed something like one-millionth of supporter decline due to the faux-site. How they could have proven that, I have no idea. But the threat of law suit, according to Kelly, included the claim that they had lost donations because of her parodied site.

As far as I know, Autism Speaks and the logo are actually trademarks, not copyrights, so it can’t even technically be called copyright infringement. If someone were selling T-shirts that could be mistaken for a similar product sold by Autism Speaks, then Autism Speaks might have a case. (The right to use or parody a company’s name in order to criticize that company has been upheld in court, though– I think one of the aspieweb threads you linked to in the original post mentioned a case where the right of protesters to use the Wal-Mart name and logo on T-shirts criticizing Wal-Mart was upheld.)

Part of me was reading with dropped jaw here until I read an affirmation of your position in your closing lines and your clarified viewpoint. I think it’s mature what you are doing and fairly wise given that a little “shock” value in your opening lines adds that much more to your point. It’s comforting to know your example here and respect your taking a higher moral terrain than Autism Speaks despite them. I highly doubt they’d afford the same respect sadly but I’m also about giving a benefit of doubt and being responsible for one’s journal.

With NT Speaks though I do believe they had a legal right to request the site either be seriously altered or taken down because a website (and correct me if I’m wrong) is considered a “creative work” and therefore is not covered under Fair Use under US Copyright Law.

Their behavior and their demands were, however, despicable. That’s what I objected to. Threatening a law suit for $90,000 was simply a power play; no normal person has that kind of money, let alone can afford to go to court, and they knew that. And it worked.