Allow Comments From Registered Funny Junk

Note: our entire series of posts most the Oatmeal five. Funnyjunk situation is now complied under the Oatmeal v. Funnyjunk tag.

Yesterday afternoon, I started getting tweets and emails (to both my work and Popehat accounts) and Facebook messages tipping me to a artificial-lawsuit-threat-on-the-internet story. As of this writing I have received thirty-one tips and suggestions that I offer pro bono aid to the recipient of the threat. For a while I was tempted to regard this as a reflection of my ain notorious puissance, and my expect-at-me-I'm-the-fucking-BATMAN mental attitude grew until it threatened to plummet into a noisy singularity of self-regard.

Then I realized: the alluvion of mail is not a reflection of me. The flood of post is a reflection of The Oatmeal being unspeakably awesome. I'1000 just the towel-male child they shout for to wipe the glistening beads of asskickery from The Oatmeal's noble brow.

Turns out I'm OK with that.

People were writing me because they know, from reading this or this, or from seeing the Popehat betoken, or from posts sparring with bogus-lawsuit-threateners, that I offering and coordinate pro bono help for bloggers faced with bogus defamation threats. The Oatmeal, unfortunately, is now the victim of such a threat.

No, wait. That's really not fair. Strike "victim" and "unfortunately."

The Oatmeal has responded to the legal threat in stand-upwardly-and-cheer way. Go read it.

Hither'due south the bullet. At that place's a site chosen FunnyJunk. FunnyJunk lets its users post amusing things they detect elsewhere, like videos and pictures and cartoons. Given the sort of people who hang out on FunnyJunk — a crowd I shall depict later — much of what is posted at that place is other people's work, scraped and slapped up without permission or attribution. FunnyJunk — which makes money from the advertising on its site, and gets traffic based on what is posted by its users on its site — maintains that information technology does not support such deport and that information technology responds to copyright notices. Last year The Oatmeal called bullshit on this model, and FunnyJunk and its flying monkeys responded in archetype passive-aggressive, whiny-entitled, mommy-mommy-he-beat-me-twice-at-Counterstrike-it's-non-FAIR grade.

So. This week, The Oatmeal got a bogus legal threat from Charles Carreon, ATTORNEY AT Police force. Mr. Carreon was involved in the sex.com case some time ago, a fact he conceals in roughly the same way that Al Bundy conceals that he used to play football for Polk Loftier. Mr. Carreon threatens a federal lawsuit for defamation and false advertising under the Lanham Trademark Deed [sic]. He does and so based on the fiction that FunnyJunk is "a competitor of the Oatmeal in the field of online humor." This is truthful in the sense that Sting is in competition with the homeless busker singing "Englishman in New York" in the subway. I can't practise justice to The Oatmeal'south caption of why the claims are factually bogus. I will note, however, that Mr. Carreon and FunnyJunk are past far the starting time people to endeavour the "you named me when you lot said hateful things about me; that's a trademark violation" gambit in a creative-like-a-preschooler-with-paste-and-glitter attempt to evade the protections of the Outset Amendment. Courts are increasingly getting wise to this endeavor to abuse trademark police force to chill gratis voice communication. I'd explain more than, but I'd prefer for FunnyJunk and Mr. Carreon to enjoy a voyage of legal discovery themselves at the appropriate juncture.

Mr. Carreon, past the fashion, demanded that The Oatmeal take down its criticism, and demanded the sum of 20 THOUSAND DOLLARS. The Oatmeal, instead, solicited money for wildlife and for cancer research, and has already reaped five times his $20k ask. Thus The Oatmeal in the space of 24 hours has already accomplished more for humanity than the collective members of FunnyJunk could do in a lifetime, even if that lifetime terminated immediately by a collective donation of vital organs to what presumably would be an extremely lax and not-judgmental medical facility.

The dispute led me to examine FunnyJunk. I found quite a few unattributed images that other people had created and posted elsewhere. I plant people supporting The Oatmeal by maxim that the FunnyJunk moderator was acting like "a Jew." I found people enervating to take The Oatmeal situation explained to them briefly; people also lazy to click links; people who would demand others to provide them with an executive summary of a lolcat caption. I found people angry at The Oatmeal because they are entitled — not only to free content, non only to free content they can reach instantly on the net, but entitled to their gratis content served directly to their cheeto-dusted fingers at their favorite ass-ugly hangout by their good pal, user nigg3rzsuklol. FunnyJunk appears to be cleaved into iii categories: (i) a few normal people who are unchoosy about where they view their reheated memes; (2) unloved and unwashed twelve-year-quondam boys, steeped in the internet tradition of poseur nihilism, the sort of twelve-year-old boys yous hope volition not hang out with your children, the sort of twelve-year-old-boys from the neighborhood who seem utterly unsupervised, unfed, and grimier than a crack-den's doorstep, the sort of twelve-year-old boys who inspire a secret and guilty sigh of relief and satisfaction when they are sent away to a secure "university" and thereafter are only seen lurking, oddly dressed and glaze-eyed, in the dorsum of family pictures; and (three) people whose lives are so unutterably sad that they feel cooler past hanging out with group (2).

So I guess what I'yard maxim is that I dorsum The Oatmeal in this fight.

It's not going to get well for FunnyJunk. Even if the threat letter wasn't just stagecraft — a big assumption — they're going to become curb-stomped in court, whether in initial motion practice or in a proctological discovery entrada waged by costless-voice communication-supporting pro-bono lawyers (let'southward just say I'1000 not the only one offering to help). Their lawyer has just given himself +eleventy in "censorious twatwaffle" on Klout, and the Streisand Result is looming.

Pack it upward and go home, FunnyJunk. This isn't going to plow out well for y'all.

Edited To Add: Marc Randazza, whose First Amendment credentials are extraordinary, and who has routinely stood up against thuggish threat letters, has this to say about Mr. Carreon:

I have known Charles for a few years, and know him to be one of the good guys. I did inquire him "what the fuck were y'all thinking?" when I kickoff saw his letter.

I think he just made a judgment error, which is different from saying that this consequence exposes a latent character flaw. I've never known him to exercise anything similar this before, and I am prepared to give him a First Amendment mulligan. Allow he who has never fucked upwardly before cast the first stone. Well, ok, cast stones even if you lot accept fucked up — since he might have asked for it and he tin probable handle it, but I enquire anybody to try and retrieve that Charles has been on the right side of the good fight far more times than he's been on the wrong side. On balance, he's one of the expert guys, and I call up he's engaging in some valuable self-reflection correct now — which is itself a sign that he is one of the good guys.

This doesn't change my evaluation of the alphabetic character in question. But Marc's word is worth a lot with me, and I recognize that anyone — perhaps especially a lawyer — can take a very wrong-headed approach to something on a bad day.

Second Edit: OK, with all respect to Marc, I take back my charitable thoughts based on his words near Charles Carreon. According to MSNBC:

Carreon tells me that Inman'south web log post was interpreted as a complaint — similar to a DMCA takedown discover — and that the content the cartoonist listed in information technology was removed from the FunnyJunk website promptly. He besides explains that he believes Inman'due south fundraiser to be a violation of the terms of service of IndieGoGo, the website existence used to collect donations, and has sent a request to disable the fundraising campaign. (The fundraising website has only responded with an automatic message and so far.)

So, The Oatmeal tried to turn this into something practiced — something that would benefit wildlife protection and cancer inquiry — and Charles Carreon had a snit and tried to close information technology downward because it was embarrassing to him and his client?

Fuck him. He's vermin. He's non forgivable. Let whatsoever proficient he has ever done be wiped out. Let the proper name "Charles Carreon" be synonymous with petulant, amoral censorious douchebaggery.

(Sad, Marc.)

Third Edit: In fairness to Marc, I gave him a shot at amending his prior statement, which he did:

Despite my earlier charitable comments, I can not find any words to defend trying to shut the fundraiser down. I can't fifty-fifty gin up a pocket-size do good of the incertitude on that one. I can see an ill-considered demand every bit a mistake in judgment while hoping to gain an advantage for your client. But taking a shot at the fundraiser would not exercise that – it would just be lashing out to hurt bears and cancer patients? Holy fucking shitballs inside a burning biplane careening toward the Statue of Liberty, Helm! I promise that the reporter but got the story wrong, because if non, that'south more fucked up than a rhino raping a chinchilla while dressed up in unicorns' undergarments.

Fourth Update: In in this follow-upward postal service I critique Carreon'southward proffer that his letter was non bullying, but making fun of it is.

Fifth Edit: Welcome, really alarmingly large number of Darths & Droids
readers. Nosotros are Star Wars geeks hither, though nosotros more often write about free speech and corruption of the legal system and stuff. To bear witness our bona fides, and testify the connection between your favored topics and ours, the talented PencilBloke fabricated y'all a drawing:

Sixth Edit: OK, our legal department is insisting that I make clear that I am not claiming that Charles Carreon is in Ewok. Equally far as I know, he is non. He actually more reminds me of JarJar. I'chiliad non saying that FunnyJunk is an Ewok either. It'southward more like the Sarlacc Pit.

Seventh Edit: More than ligitious Ewoks:

Nathan Burney'south Ewok achieves personal service whilst on meth:

Gretchen Koch's Ewok is better dressed than I am. Non that that'southward a high bar, almost days:

Last 5 posts by Ken White

• At present Posting At Substack - August 27th, 2020
• The 4th of July [rerun] - July 4th, 2020
• All The President's Lawyers: No Bill Thrill? - September 19th, 2019
• Over At Offense Story, A Postal service About the College Blackmail Scandal - September 13th, 2019
• All The President'south Lawyers: - September 11th, 2019

walesnoblithated.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.popehat.com/2012/06/12/hey-did-somebody-say-something-was-going-on-with-the-oatmeal/

Share this post