Disability discrimination ?

Greetings. Another example of "spin" (Dictonary definition is: "a particular bias, interpretation, or point-of-view, intended to create a favourable or unfavourable impression when presented to the public.") ...Replace the term "Autism" with "Black" and the same negative-associations would occur...

...but can anyone here answer that MAIN question? To do with The LAW...??

Robert124 said:

an example of disability discrimination or even breach of confidentiality?  By mentioning the person is autistic.

I will attempt to answer your point but I do not endorse what the Daily Mail has written in any way.

The paper has said that he has autism.  That is fact.  To show discrimination someone would have to prove this was said to imply autistic people inevitably or in many cases have a tendency to commit crime and were therefore not safe.

The argument from the DM would be that his autism had meant that he needed carers and he had comorbid mental health conditions.  They would argue that in this case, because of his known interview in which he stated his intention to throw someone from a height he should have been under supervision.  Their point would be that they were referring to the way autism affected this individual in a unique way, not that this applied to a group of individuals.  And in this case it was therefore justified in order to put the facts and to show that autism sometimes can lead to irrational  and was not implying that autism inevitably leads to such behaviour.

Myself I felt very uneasy that it mentioned that he was autistic.  But a court would have to be convinced that this was intended to stir up discrimination because of his autism, rather than the way he acted.  I also believe his autism was also mentioned in the court proceedings which I think would make any discrimination case or breech of confidentiality very unlikely to succeed.

I will attempt to answer your point but I do not endorse what the Daily Mail has written in any way.

The paper has said that he has autism.  That is fact.  To show discrimination someone would have to prove this was said to imply autistic people inevitably or in many cases have a tendency to commit crime and were therefore not safe.

The argument from the DM would be that his autism had meant that he needed carers and he had comorbid mental health conditions.  They would argue that in this case, because of his known interview in which he stated his intention to throw someone from a height he should have been under supervision.  Their point would be that they were referring to the way autism affected this individual in a unique way, not that this applied to a group of individuals.  And in this case it was therefore justified in order to put the facts and to show that autism sometimes can lead to irrational  and was not implying that autism inevitably leads to such behaviour.

Myself I felt very uneasy that it mentioned that he was autistic.  But a court would have to be convinced that this was intended to stir up discrimination because of his autism, rather than the way he acted.  I also believe his autism was also mentioned in the court proceedings which I think would make any discrimination case or breech of confidentiality very unlikely to succeed.

The BBC also mentioned he had personality disorders, but didn't go into this at length.. I don't know about other media.There was a research showing that any violence in autistic people is associated with additional personality disorders. That is actually more relevant to the causes o his crime than autism, but I doubt that media discussed the personality disorder at greater extent that autism. They should have.