
Lawyer attacking The Oatmeal shocked by big mean Internet’s reaction - evo_9
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/06/lawyer-attacking-the-oatmeal-shocked-by-big-mean-internets-reaction/
======
grellas
_Lawyer attacking The Oatmeal shocked by big mean Internet's reaction_

The reaction of the lawyer is understandable, it being the sole prerogative of
lawyers to bully hapless victims into submission and, if not bully, at least
to trick and cajole them into giving them what they want and, if not that, _in
extremis_ , to get a true day in court for their client in which the victim
can finally speak up, and might even win, but then the client on whose behalf
the bullying is done pays in spades for the privilege of financing a futile
process in which everyone loses except, of course, the lawyers who invented a
system dating back at least to _Jarndyce v. Jarndyce_
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jarndyce_and_Jarndyce>) for the betterment of
society and only incidentally for those who might take a modest profit from
their humble efforts in the service of humanity.

~~~
StavrosK
Holy hell, that was one sentence.

~~~
sliverstorm
Try German, I hear sentences can go on for pages and pages.

~~~
JacobAldridge
It's Bloomsday on Saturday - the last two sentences in _Ulysses_ are 11,282
and 12,931 words long, respectively.

~~~
StavrosK
That's only because there's no punctuation. The sentences end, sort of, but
the full stops have been omitted.

------
meepmorp
Oh Jesus. The dumbass is trying to get IndieGoGo to shut down the fundraiser
for a supposed TOS violation. I can't imagine what world you live on where,
after the reaction that he's gotten from the legal threats, going after a
$100k charity fundraiser seems like a good course of action.

~~~
rogerbinns
Lawyers bill by the hour and by the action (eg writing a letter). How exactly
does the lawyer lose out?

~~~
WanderingEnder
Is the fundraiser a billable event to FunnyJunk? If I were FunnyJunk's
accounts receivables department, I would not want to be paying for him going
after something that isn't involved my case. The fundraiser is just a spite,
it isn't tortuous towards FunnyJunk.

~~~
taejo
I guess you mean tortious (wrongful) rather than tortuous (winding, full of
obstacles).

------
christiangenco
This lawsuit may be the first piece of original comedy to have been produced
by funnyjunk.

------
Tyrannosaurs
While in some senses it's pretty clear, in other's it's a tough one . I'm not
wild about mob rule (which this is getting elements of) but I'm not wild about
law suits by arseholes who in a reasonable world shouldn't have a leg to stand
on, and a legal system which will drown Inman in red tape and legal bills.

The best course of action is probably for funny junk to get try and wring some
minor concession out of Inman (that he'll inform them of any issues directly
before publishing them on his website or something similarly trivial) and drop
the whole thing.

Right now they've got some publicity and the cost of some of their (basically
crappy) reputation. I don't think it gets any better for them from her so
they'd be wise to cut and run. Whatever they may win if they did continue is
unlikely to be worth the grief.

~~~
mdc
>The best course of action is probably for funny junk to get try and wring
some minor concession out of Inman (that he'll inform them of any issues
directly before publishing them on his website or something similarly trivial)
and drop the whole thing.

Why should Inman concede anything? He's in the business of making fun of
people, so why should he give funnyjunk a pass? IMO, what he should do is have
their safe harbor protection invalidated because they don't conform to DMCA
takedown requirements and go after them in court, but he's indicated that he
wants to focus on his work. Funnyjunk should take that as the biggest gift
ever and slink off.

------
dllthomas
> [...] threatening to sue The Oatmeal for $20,000 for defamation [...]

This is incorrect. As everyone here probably knows, they demanded $20k to
_refrain_ from suing, they did not file a lawsuit asking for $20k.

~~~
overgard
What I'm curious about if anyone here is a lawyer is this: wasn't that demand
-- from a legal standpoint -- extortion?

~~~
ceejayoz
I'd imagine it's essentially a settlement offer.

~~~
Cushman
Naively, it seems like a settlement offer should only be legal if you have
actually filed suit. Filing requires you to put your cards on the table, and
opens you up to countersuits for wasting everyone's time. Otherwise, you're
essentially trying to claim support from the legal system without _involving_
the legal system.

Is there a reason that wouldn't work out well?

~~~
slapshot
Because it would be nothing other than a subsidy for lawyers and a further
drain on the court system. There are many thousands of disputes every day that
are settled with informal settlement offers, and many hundreds that are
settled with formal settlement offers. Most of these never make it to court.

For example, if a tree from your yard falls into your neighbor's yard, they
might have a claim against you. Instead of forcing them to file a lawsuit, you
offer to pay for a new fence and landscaping to replace the stuff that got
squished. (Or, the neighbor demands that you pay for the fence and landscaping
instead of filing suit.) There's no reason for the neighbor to have to
actually file a lawsuit against you in order for you to work out the issues.
The threat of a lawsuit is always there, but making a lawyer actually fill out
the paperwork and pay the filing fees is a pure subsidy to lawyers.

------
dkhenry
Hi internet vigilantes lets have a chat,

I know this lawyer has done something we think is both morally wrong, legally
dubious, and unintelligent. However the real life harassing of this individual
is not something a civil society should condone. I would hope that at least
the mob of individuals who frequent this web site would be a little classier
then both Matthew Inman ,and the internet at larges response.

Why does it appear the internet only has two modes, Blind Adoration and
Violent Lynch Mob ?

~~~
ereckers
Lynch mobs are real things and have a real history. Lynch mobs as defined,
always results in the death of a person or persons at the hands of a mob. An
attorney who bit off more than he can chew and as a result received a number
of nasty emails is not the victim of a lynch mob.

~~~
freehunter
Though it could be argued that a digital lynch mob could be defined as a group
who "kills" someone online. If this gets any more out of hand, how much
business or reputation do you think this lawyer would have left?

A digital lynch mob killed HB Gary Federal. It's happened before.

++edit++ guys, I wasn't arguing that this guy deserves reputation or has a
right to do whatever he wants. I was arguing that a "lynch mob" can and does
exist on the Internet. Like the parent said, lynch mobs harass and sometimes
kill people. Digital equivalents to lynch mobs exist.

~~~
danilocampos
> A digital lynch mob killed HB Gary Federal. It's happened before.

It hasn't happened before because HB Gary Federal is not a person and thus
cannot be killed.

No one can be "killed online." Killing is the ending of a human life. It is a
word with a very specific meaning. Even if Internet action somehow led to
someone's death, they still would not be "killed online" – they would be
killed. In reality. By a person or group of persons. Not by "online."

Is this conversation really happening? This needs to be explained?

~~~
freehunter
_No one can be "killed online." Killing is the ending of a human life. It is a
word with a very specific meaning._

Nonsense. All the time I go into Task Manager and kill processes. I was
working on a project that went over budget and it got killed. When I get out
of my car, I kill the engine.

Kill does not only mean the ending of human life. It's possible to kill ideas
or even non-biological physical processes.

~~~
danilocampos
A very splendid example of deliberate obtuseness, sir/madam. I hereby grant
you the degree of Doctor of Internet Trolling, with all the rights, privileges
and honors thereto pertaining. A very nice parchment is coming in the mail –
you can display it proudly beside your many collected downvotes.

~~~
freehunter
Trolling? I put "kill" in scare quotes for a reason... the use of words
expressing something other than their literal intention.

~~~
danilocampos
It's all good, homie. Don't gild the lily. You've already hit the home run by
comparing the very real, very brutal killings of blacks, gays, and other
minorities at the hands of actual, real lynch mobs to silly Internet
jerkoffery. And car engines!

Let your masterpiece speak for itself.

~~~
koide
Sorry to intrude, but <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kill> makes
the OP's a valid observation. Digital lynch mobs certainly can defeat or in
extreme cases put an end to an organization.

Now, OP's edit comparing the digital killing to the actual, life ending,
killing is indeed unfortunate.

~~~
freehunter
Is it any worse than calling an argument a "flame war"? Or arguments saying
that if corporations are people, there should be a corporate death penalty?

I wasn't comparing digital death to real life death. Those words we put into
my mouth; I never made that argument. I even used scare quotes to hint that
it's a word being used out of traditional context. It's possible to have real-
life terms translate into digital concepts without necessarily implying the
1:1 correlation that some have assumed. When my mouse dies it doesn't mean
I've committed animal abuse, it just means I need to recharge the batteries.

I just like to have interesting discussions. That's why we're all here.

~~~
koide
> I was arguing that a "lynch mob" can and does exist on the Internet. Like
> the parent said, lynch mobs harass and sometimes kill people.

This is what I mean for a bit unfortunate, because it obviously refers to
actual death.

The argument, of digital lynch mobs being able to heavily damage (which is one
definition of kill) corporations or people, I agree with.

------
themstheones
People need to stop applauding the internet retaliation mobs. Flaming this
lawyer's email won't have any positive effect. If you want to show your
support, donate to the charity, don't engage in anti-social behaviour.
Generally speaking vigilantism and mob-vigilantism are negative.

Whether or not the target in this reddit / 4chan / whatever pile-on deserves
it, taking part isn't good internet citizenry.

~~~
white_devil
> If you want to show your support, donate to the charity

That doesn't affect the way this shitbag lawyer goes about conducting his
chosen profession. This actually might.

------
anujkk
While the response by oatmeal in form of blog post and fund raising campaign
was funny and comical in nature, he has got a legal counsel in Venkat
Balasubramani and here is the legal response :

[http://www.scribd.com/doc/96850920/FunnyJunk-The-Oatmeal-
Res...](http://www.scribd.com/doc/96850920/FunnyJunk-The-Oatmeal-Response)

------
tibbon
Maybe this is just me, and is taking things too far... but it would seem that
perhaps, just perhaps, we should consider de-barring lawyers who make too many
frivolous claims against others and fail in court? Currently, it takes you
getting to a Jack Thompson level to get booted from being able to sue and
threaten others.

The net effect of this is that fewer lawyers would be willing to take on
frivolous claims and there would be less litigation overall. Of course this
would only apply to plaintiffs, as everyone needs to be able to defend
themselves against as many claims as needed.

------
demian
For some lawyers, lawsuits are just "business transactions".

They move in an eviroment where lawsuits are just amuniton in a game. They
believe it's ok to use them, so they get suprised with this kind of response.

------
esbwhat
Interesting that in a conflict involving only men, somehow there's still a
cheap image of an unattractive woman being tossed around by the Oatmeal. Feels
kind of mysoginistic. Would the image have the same effect if it was a man?
Doubt it.

~~~
jack-r-abbit
While it probably would have carried the same emotional sting if he'd said,
"Here's a picture of your dad trying to get some dolphin love", there is a
time honored set of jokes entirely devoted to disparaging another person's
mother... many of which involve some over exaggerated take on their mother
being fat and/or ugly. Although I am not aware of any that involve bear love.
For more information you might check if Google has any suggestions for "yo'
mama jokes".

~~~
esbwhat
I know it exists, but my point is that it's mysoginistic.

~~~
jack-r-abbit
_Misogyny: The hatred or dislike of women or girls_

I know it exists, but I don't see it here.

~~~
flogic
No, it's there. It's just so ingrained most people don't notice it. Insults
like that are almost always targeted at the target directly or the women
around them. That's because society places women on a weaker level. Also
notice the emphasis on fat and ugly. It implies that if a woman isn't pretty
she isn't to be valued. In terms of misogyny in our society, it fairly mild.
However, it still qualifies because it exploits the general power imbalance.

~~~
jack-r-abbit
No, it's not. People fought hard for women to be treated equal. You can't pick
and choose what you want to be treated equal on and what you want special
treatment on. Either everyone is fair game for jokes or nobody is. Which is
it?

edit: also, misogyny is about a hate or dislike of women (which would imply
all women... or it would have said _a woman_ ). So while it does exist in ways
that some assholes have a messed up view against all women... a cartoon
depicting a fat woman chasing a bear is not making any sort of statement of
hate of women... or even just hate of fat women. This cartoon is a fat woman
chasing a bear. If it was a fat man chasing a bear... then it would be a
cartoon of a fat man chasing a bear. If it was a skinny man with a mohawk
chasing a purple bear on roller skates then it would be a cartoon about a
skinny man with a mohawk chasing a purple bear on roller skates. But the
second there is a woman involved... holy crap that cartoonist is being
misogynistic? I don't buy it.

~~~
esbwhat
>You can't pick and choose what you want to be treated equal on and what you
want special treatment on. Either everyone is fair game for jokes or nobody
is. Which is it?

This is a very optimistic world view. If people tend to continuously harrass
black people, even for something that is obviously in the nature of the
insult, racist (e.g. calling them stupid athletes or something), would you
have that same stance? Either everyone is fair game or no one is, so it's okay
to keep making fun of that black guy, cause he's allowed to make fun of us as
well?

The point is that it's not fair game. This is a conflict involving no women.
Yet we still see one being attacked, in a way that you can't really attack a
man. You can call a man unattractive, but insults along those lines don't have
the same punch, because men aren't defined by the way they look, they're not
being objectified. Even when you are using it negatively, it's still
objectification.

And the other point is that it's always women. I don't hear very many "your
daddy" jokes.

~~~
jack-r-abbit
There is a difference between making fun of someone that is a woman and making
fun of some one _because_ they are a woman. But logic fails when emotions get
involved. I'm done with this stupid argument.

~~~
esbwhat
You will find it's not just the why, but also the how. Again, to put it in
terms of a racial equivalent to make the point more clear, if I use a racial
slur against somebody because they're pissing me off, I'm not insulting
them/making fun of them because they are of that race. That does not make it
okay, however. Motif isn't the only thing that matters, and that's the point.

~~~
jack-r-abbit
We are still talking about the same thing right? The picture of a fat woman
chasing a bear? There is no possible way that we will ever be on the same page
if you think a drawing of a fat woman chasing a bear is anywhere near the same
as using a racial slur. You can continue to spout such absurdity all you want
but that doesn't make you right. Good day.

------
drpgq
I do enjoy watching the lawyer who drafted the letter squirm. Hopefully other
lawyers will take note.

~~~
officemonkey
Are you kidding? He's laughing all the way to the bank.

Let's say Inman sent the $20,000 check. The lawyer would get _at the most_
$10,000. Now, he's known as the "lawyer whose mother loves bears," appears on
MSNBC, and has his station elevated to an "legal expert on matters of the
internet."

You can't pay for that kind of publicity. His indignation is probably tempered
with a good dose of gratitude.

------
brokentone
It's disappointing that our legal system accepts obvious abuse like this (the
underlying case). I do hope that this idiot lawyer doesn't try and do
something with "inciting mob action" simply by posting the details of this
case to a loyal fanbase.

Time to enact significant penalties for those who engage the legal system for
frivolous lawsuits.

~~~
jcromartie
The legal system is probably not even involved at this point. The lawyer
simply asked for $20K under the threat of a further lawsuit.

~~~
MartinCron
Exactly, it's not like lawyers have to run their aggressive threatening
letters past judges before they go out.

Most "law" doesn't really touch the legal system.

------
NathanKP
First of all I think the lawyer is clearly wrong to take such a foolish case,
yet I don't think it is right that so many people chose to attack him
personally. Ultimately he's just doing the job he was hired to do.

If he can make some money off FunnyJunk pushing obviously doomed-from-the-
start legal action, then the only loser is FunnyJunk. And realistically
FunnyJunk probably did it for the press coverage and extra traffic that will
result.

The Oatmeal wins reputation and traffic, FunnyJunk gets lots of traffic (and
more bad reputation as a troll), the lawyer gets money.

Welcome to how the internet works.

~~~
timwiseman
"Ultimately he's just doing the job he was hired to do."

"I was just following orders" never makes a good excuse for doing something
that is patently wrong. It is even less so for an independent lawyer who has
tremendous discretion to refuse to take a case.*

*Just to be clear, once a lawyer begins working on a case for a client there are ethical rules that (within limits) require him/her to follow the client's directives and work for the clients best interests. The lawyer also may not be always be free to cease representation once it has begun. But an independent lawyer can generally freely refuse to accept a case.

~~~
davorak
What about the case if a lawyer is being paid a retainer?

------
DigitalSea
Just wait for Anonymous to get involved if FunnyJunk's lawyer tries stopping
the charity fundraiser, whoa. Then he'll witness an army being marshalled.

~~~
skore
Yeah, they'll DDOS his site for, like, a whole week or so.

 _shrug_

------
rhizome
_Lawyer attacking The Oatmeal shocked by big mean Internet’s reaction_

He's just playing dumb.

------
darkarmani
Isn't this actually libel: "I really did not expect that [The Oatmeal] would
marshal an army of people who would besiege my website and send me a string of
obscene e-mails,"

------
trustfundbaby
When you come out with someone with a knife, you make certain assumptions that
can prove to be _brutally_ wrong when your opposition whips out a shotgun.

------
javert
I personally thought the illustration was in very poor taste, and I can't
comprehend someone finding it entertaining. (If anyone wants to talk about how
Americans don't get humor, please just spare me.)

------
Evernoob
This guy should really be sued for malpractice.

------
kgosser
I wonder what the hacker community and Inman's fan base collective reaction
would have been if FunnyJunk downloaded Inman's work off of Pirate Bay
instead.

~~~
saraid216
"Damn, FunnyJunk is stupid. Couldn't they have just grabbed the image files
off Inman's site?"

------
planetguy
Internet vigilantes do seem to have a somewhat confused reaction to copyright
law.

The Oatmeal trying to get its content taken down from FunnyJunk: good.

Most other copyright holders trying to get their content taken down from
almost anywhere else on the internet: bad.

It isn't even about the legal niceties of the situation, it's about the _vibe_
, man.

~~~
MiguelHudnandez
The only distinction I can think of is that in this case, copyright claimant
is the original artist, and not a corporation.

In cases of movie & music piracy, the copyright claimant is a corporation. I
suspect that copyright violators will rationalize the act as something that
has negligible effect on the artist.

~~~
MartinCron
So, the distinction is self-serving and intellectually dishonest
rationalization? Not exactly surprising.

~~~
fleitz
I believe this is the same distinction the movie/music industry uses between
what they rip off and what their potential customers use.

I mean I'm sure right now the RIAA is taking down most of their electronic
back catalog until they figure out how to compensate the original artists
behind the Amen Break sample.

~~~
MiguelHudnandez
For anyone with 20 minutes to spare, here is a great video explaining the
prevalence of the "Amen Break" sample.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SaFTm2bcac>

------
Karunamon
Buddy you haven't seen anything yet.

------
MultiRRomero
It's hard to understand and celebrate the glories of the Internet as a vehicle
for "freedom and free speech" and all that good stuff, when all too often
large communities within it participate in acts that are all too banal and
primitive as is mob vigilanteism.

So is the Internet truly a pinnacle of a civilized and free society, or the
regression into a barbaric state? Cause this seems pretty barbaric to me...

(I am not condoning the lawyer's or FunkyJunk's actions. I think they are
wrong. I just think there are better and more civilized ways of reacting to
and handling this).

~~~
EvilTerran
Alternatively, there's no higher proportion of mobbish vigilantes now than
there has been in the past, they can just form into fewer, larger groups
thanks to instant global telecommunication, and you can come across them more
easily for the same reason.

Just like there aren't any more natural disasters than there were 100 years
ago, we just hear about more of them because it's so much easier to send the
news now; and there aren't any more... say... underwater-basket-weavers now
than then, they're just easier to find now because they're gathering on
facebook and etsy.

~~~
scotttobejoking
I don't think you properly take into account some of the internet factors that
actually make a higher proportion of mobbish vigilantes:

1 - Visibility, which you yourself mention. We get to see injustices that we
would never see before. Also, like you say, we get to see mob reactions that
we would never see before and so we have many more chances to join mobs in a
day. 2 - Ease of response. It's easy to post vitriol. It hardly takes any time
at all, and you don't even have to walk to someone's house or disrupt your
plans for the day. This is a direct result of internet tools that make
communication easy, which didn't exist before. 3 - Anonymity, and lack of
physical presence. People say things anonymously on the internet that they
would never in a million years say to someone in person.

Basically, it's just easier to be in a mob these days...

------
jack-r-abbit
FunkyJunk and this lawyer are the types that Anonymous needs to be bringing
down. What a bunch of waste of space douche-wagons.

~~~
dhechols
"Space douche-wagons" is now officially in my vocabulary. Thank you.

~~~
TeMPOraL
> "Space douche-wagons" is now officially in my vocabulary. Thank you.

I think it was supposed to be grouped the other way, i.e. "What a (bunch of
(waste of space) douche-wagons)"

but hey, "space douche-wagons" is a nice phrase too :).

~~~
meepmorp
Is the reanalyzed version parsed as [[space douche] wagons] or [space [douche
wagons]]?

~~~
TeMPOraL
I'd say the latter.

