I think if he didn't draw the bear picture Carreon wouldn't have taken it person...

Codhisattva · on June 18, 2012

Not so much against the charities - just the use of the charities as a shield for Inman's slander.

Inman has really screwed up. The personal attack against Carreon was an over reaction and largely unnecessary.

icebraining · on June 18, 2012

Personal attack?! What do you call threatening to sue a person for $20000? Any decent person, lawyer or not, should have refused to write such a letter.

Besides, nothing in Inman's blog post indicates the attack to be directed against Carreon, he just assumed it was. In fact, seeing as he uses phrases like "your website", it makes more sense to assume the attack is against FunnyJunk and/or its owners.

Goladus · on June 18, 2012

Eh, it's only an overreaction if you have no sense of humor and don't consider how offensive and stressful it is to be shaken down for $20,000 the way Inman was.

Codhisattva · on June 18, 2012

Generally speaking, rational people control their reactions and act in appropriate ways. This is especially true in stressful situations.

An over reaction can be justified by stress, but it is not excused. And in this situation, Inman is going to be held accountable for his actions.

pavel_lishin · on June 18, 2012

> And in this situation, Inman is going to be held accountable for his actions.

I agree. I hope he gets what's coming to him for raising over $100k in charitable donations.

Goladus · on June 18, 2012

Did Inman misrepresent any of Carreon's actions?

If not, then the lawyer has no one to blame for the harassment he has earned, other than the individual harassers themselves.

And if we're talking about rational, appropriate reactions: the right reaction for Carreon is to apologize for what he did. It's the first step in reconciliation and it's normal human behavior. Carreon apologizes and comes to an understanding with Inman, who tells everyone about it and the outrage cools off.

Carreon's reaction isn't rational, it's calculating and vengeful and probably greedy. The harassment is unfortunate and where illegal, it's appropriate to punish. But that's not what he's doing.

davegauer · on June 18, 2012

> Inman is going to be held accountable for his actions.

Seriously? Am I suddenly living in a world in which people can be 'held accountable' for drawing a picture of someone's mom seducing a Kodiak bear? When did this happen?

Codhisattva · on June 19, 2012

Libel? Incitement? There's a line - not just of decency but also of the law.

Goladus · on June 19, 2012

http://www.scribd.com/doc/96850920/FunnyJunk-The-Oatmeal-Res...

sk5t · on June 18, 2012

Want to know how I know you don't know what constitutes slander in the US?

rprasad · on June 18, 2012

Want to know how I know that you don't know what constitutes slander in the U.S.?

Because you think that a picture is slander. A picture is libel, which is a related but separate concept. Both slander and libel involve defamatory statements, but slander is restricted to transitory (i.e., spoken) statements whereas libel refers to published (i.e, written or drawn) statements. Video is either libel or slander depending on how the defamatory statements are presented .