So. One guy use a photograph in a 1318 word blog post. The (one) copyright owner of said photograph issues a DMCA takedown notice on THAT photograph, so the first guy stop using it (THE photograph). And THIS is what you are calling "Atheists Using DMCA Complaints to Silence Other Atheists"? This is what you describes as "has been hit with a Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) complaint, prompting Blogger to automatically remove one of his posts."?
Really? Well that says a lot in itself I guess. Everything I need to know anyway.
Mikko is right. in a sense... What I'm doing here?
kthksby
My recent post O Resgate de Dawkins: interlúdio

I don't worship nor demonize nobody, I may have agreement or disagreement on specifics. Here I'm asking on what basis vjack claim "Atheists Using DMCA Complaints to Silence Other Atheists", and even if that is true, what FtB have to do with it that deserve the implication he makes. Shouldn't be so difficult.
No I don't read Watson's or McReight's regularly, but I've seen in the last year the amount of vitriol, and real bullying Watson have recceived, and still are. Been called "cunt" and "twatson" is not exactly the kind of criticism of "their views" they should have to tolerate in their own blogs, if that is what you are talking about..
Yeah PZ seems to be the love-or-hate kind of guy. Nobody have to like him, agree with him, or even read him though. He's harsh for sure but many of his critics are as well in one way or another. Passive agressiveness, for instance, never sounds or reads harsh, it's always in a lower than average tone. So those who sees it out of context would think 'why he's so harsh with this lovely guy'? 'What a bully!'
Anyway even taking what you say at face value, that's not evidence of anything.
My recent post O Resgate de Dawkins: interlúdio

Why not?
My recent post O Resgate de Dawkins: interlúdio

The part that justifies the ENTIRE damn post.
If he is not "ready to claim blahblahbla" why even make the association in the first place?
My recent post O Resgate de Dawkins: interlúdio

The post title reads "Atheists Using DMCA Complaints to Silence Other Atheists". Looks like an accusation for me. One without ANY supporting evidence whatsoever. No evidence that were atheists making those DMCAs in the first place. No evidence that FtB have ANYTHING at all to do with it, even if it does rest proved (it's not as for today) that atheists make the complains. FtB cannot be accountable of what anybodyelse does. And BTW there's no evidence that those complains were motivated by conflicts in the atheist blogosfere, and no evidence that the complains have no basis.What if they have?
"it is a collection of bloggers hand-picked by PZ Myers and Ed Brayton for holding similar views" that doesn't make then like the Soviet Supreme. The evidence shows that to have "similar views" in some topics doesn't mean "similar views" in other topics. They have libertarians as well as left-wingers, for instance. They don't have white supremacists though, and I don't think they should, do you?
"apparently, they boot anyone who doesn't fit into their club. " Like what? What do you mean by "doesn't fit their club"? There are 36 blogs on different topics, written by 36 different people, there. Please be specific and provide evidence.
"their established history of bullying those who do not agree with them" 'Their' WHO? What do you mean? ALL and EACH one of those 36 people? What 'established story'? All I've seem is people whinning over expressed disagreement and calling it 'bullying'. Speaking about playing the 'victim card'....
My recent post O Resgate de Dawkins: interlúdio

No, IT IS like vjack is claiming that FtB (and odd claim in itself as there is no such entity as FtB. It's a network of bloggers (36 actualy), not comparable to CFI, or AA FTM) is trying to silence others, WITHOUT giving anything at all that even remotely resembles evidence.
W-T-F?
My recent post O Resgate de Dawkins: interlúdio

"I am not ready to claim that someone writing for Freethought Blogs or Skepchick has filed these DMCA complaints."
What? Really? Why are you claiming that these DMCA complains have anything at all to do with atheism, atheists, and/or Freethought Blogs then? How do you know atheists made these complains? And if you are "not ready" why wrote this in the first place?
My recent post O Resgate de Dawkins: interlúdio

Mas lembrem-se: por trás do verniz, a direita brasileira tem esse lado obscuro, que tantos paus-de-arara já nos deixaram de legado. Cuidado quando criticam o PSDB, o FHC, o Serra, os economistas liberais, porque eles são a parte luminosa da coisa, são os caras com quem dá para conversar, os caras que às vezes têm razão. O resto é só um acampamento de desesperados raspados do cesto de lixo do Concílio Vaticano II, remixados nas surradas hemorróidas do Bolsonaro.
Mais ou menos viu Celso. Na prática essa intelectualidade liberal toda não parece ter muito escrupulo na hora de recorrer à tropa de choque. Só não estamos numa situação de pré-golpe militar, porque os milicos em posição de o fazer não parecem muito dispostos, e tãopouco a burguesia digna desse nome. Fora isso os ingredientes estão todos no caldeirão.

Boas perguntas jccmeirelles. Porque não? A resposta, como você deve saber é que a única razão para que nada disso seja permitido é tabu religioso. Ou não é?
Você parece esquecer que a sociedade já permite inúmeros arranjos matrimoniais e familiares que são inconcebíveis do ponto de vista religioso. A começar pelo divórcio. A não muito tempo atrás existia a figura do bastardo, o flho/filha "ilegítimo", sem direito à herança ou mesmo ao nome de família. Também diziam que o divórcio iria destruir a "Família". Adultério era crime tipificado no código penal.
E a questão é realmente muito simples, quando removemos o véu do preconceito e do tebu religioso. A questão se resume a: quem raios você pensa que é para dizer às pessoas como elas devem ou não devem se relacionar entre si, na vida privada?

Parafraseando o próprio Celso: Aê, nego tem que saber que SPAM/HOAX é esporte de contato, ok? Foi mal aí.