Melody Maxim asks:
"Is it appropriate, (and legal), for Alcor to refer to people in the Dewars as 'patients'?"
The U.S. Constitution says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; _or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press_"
Of course it is legal for Alcor to say whatever they like. If you don't like it, it is also legal for you to disagree, using your own printing press, as you are doing.
Moreover, the issue of whether it is "legal" is really a read herring. Once upon a time it was legal for people to be enslaved on the basis of their skin color, but that didn't make it right
. Once upon a time it was illegal for people to marry others with a different skin color, but that didn't make it wrong
It is perfectly right for Alcor to say whatever they like and should certainly be legal from now on. And it is perfectly right and should be legal for you to disagree with them and try to persuade us that they are wrong. Indicating that you wish it was illegal for them to exercise their right to free speech makes it look like you can't prove your case and would prefer to just have them forcibly silenced.
Some of us would like to continue to hear both sides, not to have one side forcibly silenced or waste time in quibbling about stupid ideas like who has the right to use a particular word in a certain way in a country that recognizes the right of freedom of speech.
For the record, I'm not impressed by Alcor's attempts to use the law to remove free speech rights from persons like Larry Johnson, either.
I believe somebody recently noted that the level of discourse in the cryonics community could be removed by cutting down on the number of veiled legal threats. So how about we drop discussions of whether or not one side or the other should be silenced and get down to proving our case?