A Letter to My Dog, Half Pint

This last year may have been the worst one of my life, but at least I've got the world's two greatest dogs by my side to help me stagger into 2018. Today's post features a letter to Half Pint. Benjamin will be getting a letter later this week--he'd never let me hear the end of it, otherwise. Also, this posts features a lot of short video clips of Half Pint being silly. Since I apparently can't do anything right these days, they are exclusively shot in vertical mode. Please accept my apologies (and cut me some friggin' slack).

Not Backing Down: Rambling Beach Cat interviews FunnyJunk.com lawyer Charles Carreon

(photo @ wikipedia)

When I decided to take a chance and call lawyer Charles Carreon on Friday afternoon, I wasn't expecting much of anything. Considering that the man has been under attack from large portion of the internet, I figured that no one would even pick up the phone (and if someone did, I would get a simple "no comment.").

Imagine my surprise, however, when Mr. Carreon actually did pick up the phone, answered my questions, and gave a very detailed analysis on why he feels he's on the right side of the disagreement between FunnyJunk.com and The Oatmeal.

For any of you who are unfamiliar with this controversy (and not currently seeking treatment for back injuries caused by the giant rock under which you have been residing), legal humor site PopeHat.com has an excellent three part series to help get you up to speed: Part IPart IIPart III.

Otherwise, onto one of the most unexpected interviews of all time. Carreon's words appear in blue and everything is sic'd (including my own writing; my wife/editor is not here to nag me about my multiple typos).

My first question for Mr. Carreon was about his attempt to shut down the The Oatmel's fundraiser. I didn't understand why he wouldn't instead just say that raising money for cancer and wildlife preservation was great, but it did not affect the damages that were owed to his client. The move seemed to cause more bad PR for himself and FunnyJunk rather than help his case.

Carreon replied that under California law, you must be properly registered to conduct a fundraiser, something he is certain that Mathew Inman (operator of The Oatmeal) and IndieGoGo (the crowdfunding site being used The Oatmeal) are not.

"You might think of it as the 'Pseudo Santa' law," he explained. "Anybody can get a Santa suit. Then around Christmas time, you can probably make pretty good money wearing one outside of Macy's, ringing a bell, and saying you'll give the money to the Salvation Army. But you can't do that."

Carreon went on to say that he had been in contact with the American Cancer Society and the National Wildlife Federation and confirmed that Indiegogo had not executed the proper fundraiser paperwork.  He explained that this missing documentation gives a sponsoring organization the power to shut down a campaign that may bring a charity itself into disrepute or injure its goodwill...or might be "using a charity as a human shield for a slander campaign inciting people to cyber vandalism," Carreon added.

While he didn't specifically mention Inman in his comment on cyber vandalism, he had directly accused him of instigating such attacks on his website. I asked him to confirm if he thought Matthew Inman was behind some of the recent trouble he had experienced:

"What he [Inman] has done...I am not entirely certain of the scope of it. I don't know if you're familiar with his cartooning--people having their heads thrown in a chipper, his character of a pterodactyl consuming blended brains with gusto--I've actually never seen anyone incite people to violence in that fashion."

"I don't actually expect anyone to show up at my house with a weapon.  But I think that when you insult someone by saying that their mother engages in bestiality, that is the first step in dehumanizing a person."

"It might not have seemed very dehumanizing when Walt Disney made Japanese people look silly with buck teeth and big glasses who could not pronounce their 'R's or their 'L's.  But it was dehumanizing, and the purpose was to direct evil intentions against them, which ultimately resulted in the only nuclear holocaust that ever occurred in the history of humanity.  I don't think Truman would have ever done that if we hadn't so dehumanized the enemy."

"When you dehumanize someone, that is the first step to inciting people. The emails that I've gotten...many of them wish me death or wish for the complete collapse of my law practice...and they are virtually all uninformed."

"They say I filed a lawsuit. I haven't filed a lawsuit.  They apparently wouldn't know a lawsuit if they saw it.  But they are willing to join the internet lynch mob and engage in cyber vandalism."

Carreon then detailed a few of the incidents that he has had to deal with this week.

His website was hacked and the password taken (which he was able to recover before any damage could be done). Someone also created a twitter account posing as him, which Carreon claimed constituted trademark infringement (due to his name being trademarked).

What really seemed to make Carreon angry about the twitter impostor, however, was the fact that he/she was being offensive, rude, and calling people names.

"They used that twitter feed to make a bunch of offensive statements that I would never make," he explained. "I don't call people dumbass, idiot, that sort of thing."

"Matt Inman was right there to egg them on when that occurred; he said 'This is like a man with his dick in a hornets' nest throwing his balls in it.'"

After mentioning Inman, Carreon speculated about his possible involvement in the false twitter account:

"I don't know if that's coincidence. Why was he on twitter at the same time the impersonator was? I don't know."

He went on to state that his email address was falsely registered for various websites, including some that were pornographic. Carreon firmly believes that this string of attacks was the work of Matthew Inman.

"I think that's cyber vandalism. I think he [Inman] incited it knowingly and intentionally."

I then moved onto the fact that FunnyJunk.com had posted Matt Inman's work without his consent or attribution. Carreon, however, stood his ground on why he felt his client had acted appropriately and Inman had not.

"Nobody can be accused of willful, felonious copyright infringement who has done nothing but operate a website in which user content is uploaded and they have not received DMCA notice. Inman never sent one DMCA notice. But he complained again in his usual bitching and moaning over the internet manner, so my client removed everything he could find."

"When I wrote the letter, I was unaware of any other Oatmeal comics being there. Inman apparently was.  He could have notified us of this in a DMCA notice a long time ago.  But he chose not to.  He chose to do the same thing he's done before, because he is a clever web user of the mob."

For anyone that is hoping for Matt Inman to counter sue FunnyJunk.com (myself included), Carreon had this to say:

"Matt's done a great job spinning it, but he's not going to sue FunnyJunk. He couldn't sue FunnyJunk. He couldn't even counter sue FunnyJunk for copyright infringement if we sue him because he hasn't registered the copyrights on any of those domains.  Even if he did an expedited registration...he would get no per incident damages because the "infringement" occurred before the registration.  He's got nothing."

"FunnyJunk is not suing him. FunnyJunk didn't sue him. So what are people bitching about?"

I replied that asking for $20,000 in damages seemed not only outrageous, but nearly impossible to prove. He replied that it did not need to be proven in hard damages; an expert on the witness stand could point out that advertisers would shy away from doing with business with FunnyJunk due to The Oatmeal's claims of copyright infringement.

I then asked him if he knew of any specific incidents of an advertiser not doing business with FunnyJunk due to statements made by The Oatmeal.

"You got people voting with their feet and trampling to get out of there," he replied.  "What do you think that does to your user base?  What do you think that does to your advertising money?"

"When you accuse someone of a crime, that's called defamation per se, and that means that no damages have to even be proven. Damages are presumed if you accuse someone of a crime or misconduct that reflects poorly upon their business and profession."

"Now he [Inman] accused FunnyJunk of willful copyright infringement, which is criminal.  That was in my letter, but apparently no one reads the letter; they just read the little funny words written around it. The bottom line is that he accused FunnyJunk of a crime that FunnyJunk did not commit.  Under those circumstances, the demand for $20,000 is perfectly common place."

If there was still any doubt about Carreon's resolve to weather the storm and see this case through, it was quashed it when he concluded with the following statement:

"That fact that he [Inman] wants to react by advocating net war against me and accusing my mom of bestiality makes him lower than the low. If people want to side with him, they better check their motivations, because I am the kind of person that that defends people from that kind of person."

"Anyone who thinks it's going to wreck my career because I stood behind my client, stand behind myself, and point at the wrong doer as a bully...they have absolutely no understanding of what makes a lawyer. They apparently think that a lawyer is a person who cowers, apologizes, and stands in a corner...That is not what makes a lawyer. That's a politician...that's your ordinary plebe that doesn't have any fight, doesn't have any skill, and wouldn't know how to find a legal weapon if they needed it."

"I'm fine. Am I angry? Yeah...but I keep my cool, and I keep working."

After his concluding statement (which I would have found very inspiring if I agreed with the side he represented), he apologized if he seemed rude at all (he didn't), we discussed the stupid name of my website, and I was left wondering how someone that seemed so smart, passionate, and strongly desiring to do the right could be fighting on what most people (myself included) see as the wrong side in an internet proxy war of good vs. evil.

Perhaps I should have asked more questions, but I wanted to hear Carreon out and give him the chance to say more than had been revealed in prior interviews...and he did not disappoint (and I'm probably a terrible interviewer, but whatever).

I'll close with three thoughts:

1. It's much harder for me to personify Charles Carreon as a force of evil after speaking with him. I truly believe he thinks that he's doing the right thing (along with the fact he was able to make some surprisingly good points). This brings me to my next point:

2. He may be certain that Matthew Inman coordinated attacks against him and his website, but I'm just as convinced that he did not. Inman took the time to mark out Carreon's contact info on his response letter and has not made one public call for any sort of retribution. For someone that seems to be very intent following the law to the letter, Carreon should cite better possible evidence for his theories of intentional harm than "he was on twitter at the same time as an impostor was."

3. I'm still firmly in The Oatmeal's camp on this one, but Carreon is much smarter, tougher, and determined than I gave him credit for.

He finished our phone conversation by informing me that he should have an even more detailed public statement on this matter sometime over the weekend.  Grab your popcorn, ladies and gentlemen.

Please feel free to leave a comment below. If you'd like to sing my praises or tell me how much I suck more personally, I can also be found on Twitter.


Anonymous said…
"When you accuse someone of a crime, that's called defamation per se, and that means that no damages have to even be proven. Damages are presumed if you accuse someone of a crime or misconduct that reflects poorly upon their business and profession."


"Due to security attacks instigated by Matt Inman, this function has been temporarily disabled."

He has just accused himself of libel or slander (I forgot which one is written and which one is spoken). He may seem passionate and strong, but he's also a very bad lawyer for perpetrating exactly the same offense on someone that he is accusing them of doing.
Anonymous said…
So if Youtube allows user-uploaded content and we get to watch bits of copyrighted films, then thats good and the owners who submit DCMA takedown requests are bad?

And if funnyjunk allows user-uploaded content, then its bad?

I don't think Oatmeal is funny or clever at all, and is really about monetizing the lower end of the bell curve, so I'm not invested in taking sides here.

It does seem inconsistent to support user-uploaded in one context and not in another. Its not a simple issue.

On the other hand, I don't like bullies and what Inman has done with the comics and stuff has removed any moral highground he had and some form of justice is needed about that.
V said…
Did my previous comment get stuck in a moderation queue?
Nick Nafpliotis said…
No--I got the email notification you posted it, but it's not showing up here. Can you please post again?
Nick Nafpliotis said…
Posted by V on June 16 2012 11:59 AM

wondered why California law would be relevant. Turns out Indiegogo is in California.

The bear loving mother depicted by Oatmeal is supposed to be FJ's mother. That was confirmed by Inman on twitter and should be clear from the context of (that section of) Oatmeal's reply (Carreon doesn't host comics, FJ does).

"When you dehumanize someone, that is the first step to inciting people."
Interestingly, people seem to be focussing on Carreon, a person, rather than on FunnyJunk the non-human (note: not inhuman) company/website. Seems it could be argued that FJ dehumanized itself by letting Carreon do all the writing and talking.

"It might not have seemed very dehumanizing when Walt Disney made Japanese people look silly[..] which ultimately resulted in the only nuclear holocaust that ever occurred"
Did he just Godwin the discussion?

"When I wrote the letter, I was unaware of any other Oatmeal comics being there. Inman apparently was. He could have notified us of this in a DMCA notice a long time ago. But he chose not to."
Inman wasn't required to. Carreon apparently investigated the Oatmeal enough to know about wood-chippers and pterodactyls, but seems to have neglected to see if there was anything to the issue of any of FJs hosted material infringing on the copyright of the Oatmeal's comics. Which is fair enough; Carreon isn't the Oatmeal's lawyer.

"Matt Inman was right there to egg them on when that occurred; he said 'This is like a man with his dick in a hornets' nest throwing his balls in it.'"
So Carreon does read Oatmeal's twitter, but not carefully enough to pick up on the bear loving clarification. Also, the hornets nest comment follows Inman's tweet of Carreon's message and it was not tweeted directly to any twitter account (let alone to the fake Carreon twitter account) or in reply to anything from the fake Carreon twitter account.

I don't have a twitter account, but I expect that you'd have jump through some hoops to actually use multiple twitter accounts at the same time, which might be more annoying than it's worth. (constantly logging out and in, different browsers, different devices, installing applications designed for it)

"FunnyJunk is not suing him. FunnyJunk didn't sue him. So what are people bitching about?"
Obviously, Carreon's letter states that suing Oatmeal is an option. Carreon was apparently careful enough to not actually say that that would be the course of action they'd take if Oatmeal didn't comply with the demands.
V said…
Thanks. I had several links in there, apparently that interfered with the process somewhere.
I guess it's clear enough without most of the links.

One clarification: "Carreon's message" refers to the "Due to security attacks instigated by [...]" one.
Anonymous said…
Thank you for taking the time to find Mr. Carreon and sharing your conversation here.

I agree with you that he is not a "force of evil" although I sense a high degree of narcissism and abusiveness from his comments. Namely, that he sees outright attacks and hostility in the slightest of comments or actions towards him (or his client) and conversely has no capacity to see the same tendencies in his own behaviour.

I am firmly in the Oatmeal's camp on this dispute although Inman would have done himself a favour by leaving the bestiality cartoon out of the conversation and truly taken the high road. I don't think he's altered his legal claim on the situation but it was in bad taste.

Time will tell, but I'll bet he's likely destroyed whatever was left of FunnyJunk's advertising clout, which is rather ironic since losing ad revenue seems to have been the cause of FunnyJunk retaining Carreon in the first place. Are these the actions of a person who claims to be fighting for their client's best interests?
Anonymous said…
"1. It's much harder for me to personify Charles Carreon as a force of evil after speaking with him. I truly believe he thinks that he's doing the right thing (along with the fact he was able to make some surprisingly good points).

3. Carreon is much smarter, tougher, and determined than I gave him credit for."

Ignoring Inman or Carreon, I hope you have learned your lesson.

1 & 3 are the lessons that 99.9999% of the net needs to learn. The people you disagree with are probably as smart if not smarter than you. It does you no good to treat them like idiots, or declare them to be idiots, or declare them to be brainwashed or whatever. It weakens your arguments and makes you look like an arrogant jackass.
Anonymous said…
Translation: I'm a self-important egotistical dick who has no evidence and absolutely nothing to go on but my own personal feelings, but if I find incredibly esoteric points of law I can maybe threaten Inman into trying to settle out of court.

Carreon is a humorless putz who apparently channels Leonard Crabs. He couldn't make himself more ridiculous if he started wearing a clown costume 24/7.
FreePlay said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said…
“It's much harder for me to personify Charles Carreon as a force of evil after speaking with him. I truly believe he thinks that he's doing the right thing”

Hitler, too, thought he was doing the right thing.
Anonymous said…
You are pulling things out of your rear. Do some research and try again. Hint: defamation.
AsigotTech said…
He certainly should of sent DMCA notices instead of attacking first... /ME ducks BUT there is no doubt that funnyjunk knew they where there and had done for many years, therefore they knowingly hosted the stolen content and are in breach of the safe harbour framework - all Oatmeal need do is prove they knew they where there and deliberately left them and since they did take down a lot of them after his first complaint that seems easily provable.
Anonymous said…
Haha, I was waiting for someone to invoke Hitler or the Nazi. Sorry, you lose. Lol
Kevin Byrd said…
He should have just said 'no comment'. This is the kind of thing Inman's 'hornet's nest' comments were referring to, not the posts by the impostor.

Carreon is suffering from the most transparent case of not being able to admit he was wrong.
Guy said…
It is not defamation to accuse someone of plagiarism and then present the evidence of that plagiarism. Yes, you can defame with the truth, but this would not apply in this case because funnyjunk (a) provably did rip off The Oatmeal and (b) is not a private person but a very public website making money out of skimming other people's work.

To characterise puerile humour as accusing someone's mother of bestiality is just stupid. It shows what has been apparent for a long time: the guys at funnyjunk don't actually have a sense of humour.
Yogi said…
Umm, demanding $20,000 and an apology was sufficient provocation, especially as it came much later than the Oatmeal's original letter. Threatening a lawsuit would have led to a charge of barratry.
V said…
"He could have notified us of this in a DMCA notice a long time ago."

Oatmeal's lawyer wrote: "FunnyJunk does not appear to have a notice of designation on file with the Copyright Office."

CC has just tweeted a picture of filing paperwork (and payment, dated 25th of May, 2012).

So there appears to be quite a delay in updating those notices of designation at the Copyright Office, or something else is going on with that paperwork.
I wonder how those designated agents fit into the DMCA notice process, because 25th of May is not that long ago.
Chris Sherlock said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Chris Sherlock said…
Given that FunnyJunk did not publicize their DMCA registered copyright agent, then that would have been very hard for him to do.
Chris Sherlock said…
Actually, he's not. He has accused Matt Inman of instigating security attacks. By Carreon's own definition, that's defamation!
Chris Sherlock said…
Speaking of bullies, how does one "stand behind myself"?
Chris Sherlock said…
V, it's irrelevant because Funny Junk's website still doesn't satisfy DMCA 512.

According to 17 USC § 512(c)(2), safe harbor protections "apply to a service provider only if the service provider has designated an agent to receive notifications of claimed infringement"...

... HOWEVER, FunnyJunk LLC. need to provide these details "by making available through its service, including on its website in a location accessible to the public". They need to provide at least "the name, address, phone number, and electronic mail address of the agent".

And I'm sorry, but the webform at http://www.funnyjunk.com/copyright/ doesn't do this.

There are countless people who would be willing to testify that they didn't satisfy this requirement (and still do not).
Anonymous said…
I'm convinced this guy works for the Law Firm of Koppian and Paystin.
Anonymous said…
I hate it when things like this happen. I want to be on The Oatmeal's side... but he's been more of a butt than he really needs to. Reading CCs interview, I sympathize and want to support him... but he's also being more of a butt than he really needs to. That, and he doesn't really seem to know anything at all about how the internet works, and is really making a lot of bad calls because he thinks he does.

This entire scenario just makes me sad.
Anonymous said…
Oh my popcorn is ready alright. I don't know how long it will last though :/
Unknown said…
> I don't have a twitter account, but
> I expect that you'd have jump
> through some hoops to actually use
> multiple twitter accounts at the
> same time, which might be more
> annoying than it's worth. (constantly
> logging out and in, different
> browsers, different devices,
> installing applications designed for it)

Yep, you described that pretty accurately. I have multiple Twitter accounts for various blogs I don't want to spam my friends with (unless they want to read those blogs), and I eventually gave up and just ran those accounts through TwitterFeed, cos it is a HUGE p.i.t.a. to constantly log out, then log in under a different Twitter name.... I can't imagine how much spare time to waste I'd need so that I can have convos between Twitter accounts --and I imagine that Mr. Inman is at least a little bit busier than I am.
V said…
Thanks! I did not know that.
Unknown said…
Except that The Oatmeal *did* file DMCA notices, and after a while, not only were they falling on deaf ears, so to speak, but Inman just lost the patience to basically sit there filing DMCA notices for hours and hours, every day, knowing that it'd go no-where. Furthermore, as per the letter from Inman's lawyer, funnyjunk didn't even have a DMCA agent registered or posted to their site for contact, meaning that funnyjunk *loses* any DMCA immunity.

I, personally, am not convinced that Charles Carreon is "smarter than he seems", cos honestly? If a lawyer worth his salt and claiming to be as well-versed in Internet copyright law and Carreon claims he himself is, then he wouldn't have touched funnyjonk's claim of immunity with a ten-foot stick, much less any attempts to extort money out of The Oatmeal over a flimsy (at best) allegation of defamation that is so full of holes in not only layman, but legal logic that it'd be laughed out of court.

Carreon isn't "smart", he's a well-read narcissist and a bully.
John Radke said…
The official Twitter mobile apps, some third-party mobile apps, as well as web-based apps (e.g. Hootsuite) allow you to post to multiple accounts quite easily. The use case is perfectly cromulent: some people might need to post to their employer's Twitter feed(s), their own personal account, the non-profit they chair, etc.

Not that I believe Inman is doing this. But it's not actually impossible or even difficult to maintain multiple accounts.
Anonymous said…
You can easily post from different accounts if you use different browsers, also. Firefox doesn't know anything about the cookies that are saved in my Chrome or Opera browsers, nor does my Chrome browser know anything about Firefox's cookies.
Unknown said…

Charles Carreon was wrong about the copyright/allegations of criminal conduct claims (see Chris Sherlock's great analysis above). There's been no defamation suit for good reason. It would be thrown out and OATMEAL could win an ANTI-SLAP counterclaim.

All of Charles Carreon's comments about the satire of Oatmeal's work are just deflection and anger. No legal recourse is available. First Amendment and ANTI-SLAP prevent Oatmeal or anyone else from being sued for words.

OATMEAL now has a claim against Correon for claiming OATMEAL took his trademark twitter name, especially since this will be IMPOSSIBLE to prove even if Oatmeal did it. Too funny since he'll never sue.

There may be validity to the fundraising lawsuit. Nobody commented about that.
Anonymous said…
I wonder how many of these Anonymous postings are actually from Charles Carreon?
Anonymous said…
Just look at policians. Many have diplomas. Still, many of the same act in an idiotic manner.
It seems to be the case for Mr Carreon.
Ergo, idiots can be smart, but still be idiots.
And determined smart idiots are very dangerous.
Anonymous said…
You're not thinking with portals...
Anonymous said…
Who are you asking these questions to? If you are asking Nick Nafpliotis or Matthew Inman of The Oatmeal, then I don't know of their opinions on the DMCA or youtube, but you shouldn't make assumptions about whether they think the DMCA is bad, good, or even just ineffective.

If you are asking the internet at large, then the answer is obviously both "yes", "no", and "TITS OR GTFO".
Anonymous said…
"Inman never sent one DMCA notice."

FunnyJunk isn't registered with the DMCA (which is required to claim "safe harbor" immunity).
So, while they can (and probably do) ignore DMCA notices, they also don't have the legal right to use the "safe harbor" defense in court.
Anonymous said…
libel or slander:

Libel = written
Slander = Verbal.

Both have to be proven, and both require proof that there has been a negative impact financially.

Another note is that the accused must have KNOWN the information said or printed to be false. In order to be in any legal hot water. The Oatmeal couldn't have known.

End game.
Cass said…
I wonder how long it will be before Disney jumps in and decides to sue Carreon for insinuating that Walt Disney was the cause of WWII.
Anonymous said…
Godwin's Law.
Alareth said…
If you go back to the initial incident a year ago that began all this, all Inman asked for from Funnyjunk was attribution. If his comics were going to be on Funnyjunk they should have the a link to The Oatmeal.

He didn't demand money or damages, just the credit for his work. Is that unreasonable?
Angela said…
This is just speculation but I'm willing to bet that the site (Funnyjunk) was suffering losing money before the complaint/threat they made against The Oatmeal. ANY kind of publicity is good for the company, be it positive or negative. A defamation suit would be hard to prove for Carreon or Funnyjunk. They are smart beyond most peoples comprehension for this little plan. The Oatmeal hasn't participated in any libel. IF Mr Carreon's definition of libel is correct then they are BOTH guilty, Mr Carreon More so.
Angela said…
Alareth I do not believe its unreasonable. The original post we are commenting on from ANONYMOUS most certainly IS unreasonable. Its an uninformed opinion along with ridiculous rhetorical questions. (thats my opinion anyway)
Angela said…
CASS!!!! Good point. Someone SHOULD hit Carreon with his own absurdity.
Chris R. said…
This guy is going all in on the crazy train. He's also making knowingly false claims in his complaint as his email address is available on his previous blog ragingblog.com. Also check out charles-carreon.com
Anonymous said…

I believe you are right.

In fact if Mr. Carreon, wrote anything at all that he knew to be false - he's actually the one that could end up in potentially big trouble.

He may attempt to go after "The Oatmeal" claiming that the amount earned on advertising is wrong (which I think I read somewhere) - but - there is no way that "The Oatmeal" would know that was false. In fact it is possible to get that large of a paycheck though ads. So possibility makes it an acceptable thing to assume.

Knowing something is false is the key here.(Otherwise everyone in highschool that ever unknowingly repeated a rumor would have been sued for slander. Think about that mess!)
Anonymous said…
This guy is a total idiot. He's now acting in his own best interests instead of those of his client. Moreover, he's following up the claims against Inman, with actions eerily similar of his own. Never mind the Moral and Ethical concerns of attempting to sue two charitable organisations and the people attempting to to rally support and donate to them, irrespective of their initial motivation for doing so. Anyone with even a casual interest in law can see that the best course of action for resoultion, has long since been forgotten. Probably because there is no financial payoff at the end of it for him. I'd hardly go so far as to call him 'evil', but one should also not suffer fools gladly. And this course of action is indeed foolish.

If I'm FunnyJunk, I'm dropping my own clain, firing him; and distancing myself in every way from the guy suing the American Wildlife Foundation and American Cancer Society. If Carreon's assertions are correct, and FunnyJunk's advertisers were voting with their feet over a supposition by Inman over the legality of FunnyJunks M.O., they are in full blown 'get outta town' panic mode with any connection to a guy suing two CHARITIES. Proud of himself and contemptuous of others, attempting to coerce compliance through fear (of the law in his case); the only bully here is Carreon.
Anonymous said…
*should have
Anonymous said…
I, personally, am loving it. It's like if Charlie Sheen and Tom Cruise had a baby and sent him through law school.
Anonymous said…
I'm Mister Carreon and I find your accusation very offensive.
Anonymous said…
A guy named Matthew Chan runs a website called www.extortionletterinfo.com, and he is one of the people responsible for giving out Charles Carreon's contact information. He is one of those people responsible for "inciting people to cyber vandalism." Carreon should be going after people like Chan who is a real cyberbully, not Matthew Inman.



Anonymous said…
This has all been very educational...sorry this does not end w/a double pie in the faces.
Anonymous said…
I have to agree that there is probably little to no way that Matthew Inman would think of inciting these negative attacks on Carreon with the intention to deliberately defame him. As the article states, Inman has done nothing to publicly insult him in any way; the comment about having relations with a bear was directed towards the folks who run funnyjunk.com, not necessarily Carreon himself.

There was a similar situation about six months ago, famously noted as the "Ocean Marketing" incident. Penny Arcade released a post on its website about Paul Christoforo.

The internet stormed in with similar reactions toward Christoforo as they have recently with Carreon. Christoforo sent Penny Arcade an email with the following-

“You have the power Mike Please make it stop”

To quote Mike of Penny Arcade, however,

"The reality is that once I had posted the emails I didn’t have the power anymore. The Internet had it now and nothing I said or did was going to change that."

I don't feel Inman is resonsible for any of this. There was an angry post, much like with Penny Arcade. But because the internet seems to have a mind of its own, the internet's reaction to this recent event is nothing The Oatmeal could control. Once the post was up, there was nothing he could do.
Anonymous said…
Charles Carreon is a hypocrite, have you visited any of his websites and seen the hate and vitriol he spews? This guy and his wife (badly) Photoshop the faces of people they dislike into pornographic images as a means of satire. Yet, he gets his panties in a wad over a cartoon?

These are all on websites operated by Carreon and his wife:
Anonymous said…
You are aware that lawyers are required by law to publish their contact information, right? Their job requires them to be reachable.

Carreon knows that this complaint is superfluous for above reasons, but he sure fooled you.

We should sue you as a Doe to see which of Carreon's friends you are. Apparently that's what the legal system is for.
Anonymous said…
Great post, being able to have an objective interview with someone that you might disagree with, ask thoughtful questions and get a more faceted view of the situation. I'm in the camp that it is insane and stupid that he is demanding money and trying to shut down a fundraiser. In the court of public opinion that doesn't help you. That being said it is interesting to see the mob mentality released, it kind of reminds me of the Cook's Choice situation that blew up last year where protesting turned very sour and even advertisers were getting threatening calls. Anyway great interview and analysis of it...
Anonymous said…
Libel = Written
Slander = Spoken
Both = Defamation

Disqus Comments