How's everyone feeling about funnyjunk vs the oatmeal?

[DM]

Firstly, is that, as I understand it, FunnyJunk nor Charles Carreon sued the oatmeal: INSERT A BUNCH OF STUFF ABOUT DEFAMATION

He isn't suing cancer and wildlife foundations because they defamed him, he's suing them because he's a raging douchebag. Thanks to currently being in the depths of bar review hell, I get the angle he's trying to play against them as some sort of sick, twisted take on third party beneficiaries of contracts, but it's premised on unmitigated bullshit in the first place. He's going to lose that case, and he's going to lose it HARD.

 

[capefeather]

Yeah, even if Carreon has all these good intentions, he really should have handled this differently. It's been pointed out that he "knows" computers and the internet somewhat, but it really should not have escalated to this. The claims he's made have honestly been ridiculous. It's like trying to sue Bill O'Reilly for a crime committed by one of his fans. Or trying to sue Take-Two for a school shooting. At this point, he's just going to get misunderstood (at best) and get MORE hate messages and attacks.

btw I do find this from that ars article kind of disturbing:

"I am not a politician," he says sternly when asked about the apparent discrepancy. "I have not deceived anyone. I am not able to stand armies. It is entirely distinct. The grounds for engaging in savage satire of people who are murderers [is a] completely different situation. That’s like comparing touch football with warfare.”

I don't care how evil you think someone is. That doesn't give you a free pass to do things that you later condemn.

 

[penguin344]

How anyone could ever think suing charities is a good pr move is entirely beyond me.

Yeah, FunnyJunk isn't going to win this.

 

[verbatim]

Carreon is representing himself, and not FunnyJunk, in the lawsuits. He hasn't done anything for FunnyJunk beyond the C&D letter.


I've been reading up on internet legality and a lawsuit against Imman for speaking badly of his trademarked image (himself) isn't fruitful because its not a commercial endeavor (I think, if DM could talk more on how this is going to go down I'd be most appreciative).


Worth reading. It's not 100% unbiased (pretty hard to be in a case like this) but it does a good job of explaining the case. Also pretty cool is that the author has offered his services to the various charities being sued free of charge.

 

[Flounder]

He isn't suing cancer and wildlife foundations because they defamed him, he's suing them because he's a raging douchebag. Thanks to currently being in the depths of bar review hell, I get the angle he's trying to play against them as some sort of sick, twisted take on third party beneficiaries of contracts, but it's premised on unmitigated bullshit in the first place. He's going to lose that case, and he's going to lose it HARD.

Like I said, I don't really agree with him or his actions except that his image is totally ruined, I'm in no way defending this guy who is definitely a huge prick

 

[6-Dimension]

it's pretty obvious that this is a classic case of two people being jackasses but one of them being funny and thus garnering all the public support.

that said i'm part of the public.

this

but i mean really suing the american cancer society what is that hahaha

 

[Temperantia]

Like I said, I don't really agree with him or his actions except that his image is totally ruined, I'm in no way defending this guy who is definitely a huge prick

His image was ruined by his actions, not Inman's. Really, the $20,000 demand that he made of Inman started this all and really needed no mocking beyond showing this ridiculous, unfounded shit to the public.

 

[DM]

I've been reading up on internet legality and a lawsuit against Imman for speaking badly of his trademarked image (himself) isn't fruitful because its not a commercial endeavor (I think, if DM could talk more on how this is going to go down I'd be most appreciative).

Are you saying that the lawsuit will fail because the allegedly defamatory statements were not made in a commercial context? Because that isn't the law, defamatory statements can be made in any context whatsoever. As I read the Oatmeal's original response to FJ's letter, I saw statements that might be construed as defamatory, but really, I don't think Carreon has a leg to stand on.

 

[iDunno]

I'm just going to say Carreon actually has a chance to win the case so that, in the case he does win, I will seem like the smartest poster in this thread and will therefore gain the respect of my peers.

 

[Fatecrashers]

gain the respect of my peers.

that ship sailed long ago

 

[iDunno]

Sorry for being consistently terrible.