|Image provided by Reap Paden. Don't DMCA me!|
Whether you agree with the content of my work, hate me, love me, want to give me an Atheist Air Hug, or are indifferent, it should be quite clear that filing DMCA complaints which removes content that offers criticism is unacceptable. This seems to be nothing more than censorship.
If the image in question were the real problem, I would have expected to receive an e-mail kindly asking for me to remove the image. Instead, a legal complaint led to the removal of the post in question. This is not the behavior I would expect from skeptics who value free-speech.
If 'Surly Amy' is so confident of the strength of her arguments (that conferences should ban 'fake jewelry' and saying that intentionally offending people is not okay) and believes that her behaviors (namely rebuking people on Twitter for following parody accounts and crying because of, in part, a t-shirt) are justified there should be no problem with my offering criticism which is free of name-calling, personal attacks, slurs, etc. I don't see people like William Lane Craig filing DMCA claims as a response to my content.
It is still unclear whether 'Surly Amy' filed the DCMA complaint. It is possible that someone masquerading as 'Surly Amy' filed the complaint. 'Surly Amy,' though, has neither confirmed or denied whether she filed the DMCA complaint. Her fellow writers on the Skepchick network are also quiet about the incident. Why no response, 'Surly Amy?'
Back in 2011, I received legal threats for offering criticism of a local chiropractor. At the time, atheist blogger PZ Myers was very supportive and drew attention to the situation by authoring a post on his blog. Various other atheists and skeptics were similarly on my side with the belief that using legal action which results in or could result in a silencing of people offering criticism is unacceptable. I would expect the same support in regards to this DMCA complaint.
Thankfully, fellow atheists/skeptics have weighed in or otherwise have shown support concerning this issue:
Mike The Infidel
The Mad Skeptic
AVoiceForMen - via GirlWritesWhat
Tea Fueled Madness
Hopefully I can add you to the list. It's time for people in the atheist/skeptic community -- much like 'Surly Amy's' initiative for people to rebuke hate directed toward women -- to say that using legal action which results in censorship is unacceptable.
I'm not going to be bullied by people who file DMCA complaints which results in censorship and may result in my entire blog being taken offline. I have responded, as Google afforded me to, arguing that my use of the Surly-Ramics image in my post was fair use. Again, no matter what you think of me or 'Surly Amy,' filing DMCA complaints which result in censorship is unacceptable. It's ridiculous that this post even has to exist within a community which is -- last time I checked -- opposed to censorship of dissent.
The confirmation e-mail of my DMCA counter-claim is below: