Cartoonist Donna Barstow Engages In Modern Online Version of "Hey, Guys, Watch This!"

You should never get in a shit-throwing contest with a flock of flying monkeys. Donna Barstow apparently didn't know this before, but she's finding out.

I learned about political cartoonist Donna Barstow from Rob Beschizza at BoingBoing. Barstow is a blogger (sort of), an author (technically), and, to my taste, an appallingly awful political cartoonist, gripped by some terrible compulsion to explain her cartoons in a caption when she posts them. Given her level of nuance, this is roughly akin to providing a listening guide to musak.

Barstow also has a history of drawing cartoons that elicit criticism, and then of threatening bloggers who post those cartoons as part of a fair use critique. As Beschizza says (with supporting links in his post):

It's not the first time Barstow has threatened critics who reproduce her single-panel cartoons. In 2009, she emailed the ISP of Alas, a Blog in an effort to have two posts accusing her of racism (1, 2) taken down. Renee Martin of Womanist Musing, who criticized the "Mexico" strip reproduced above and described Barstow as a "racist pearl clutcher", removed it at her request the same year. Pandagon, Volcanista, The Faithful Penguin, Kick and Radgeek all accused Barstow of racism over the same strip—and all were sent takedown demands.

This time, Barstow has turned her attention on a less compliant target — the denziens of the website Something Awful. To be fair to her, it's not like she lashed out at 4chan or something, but that seems to be her pure dumb luck. Barstow's complaint is that Something Awful forum goons posted and criticized her cartoons in a forum thread about bad cartoons. She began to lash out at Something Awful writers on Twitter. The steely dignity of her righteousness was perhaps diminished, just a little bit, by their Twitter handles:

Barstow went on to accuse Something Awful of copyright violations and "defamation," scorning the idea that posting her comics in a thread criticizing bad comics constituted fair use.

Pardon me for not linking to specific tweets on her Twitter account, but she blocked me as soon as I asked the defamation question. Also, pardon me for not being able to follow what she's saying in that last tweet about "targeting someone's political group."

Barstow soon found herself the target of insults, abuse, and — she claims — tweeted or emailed obscene images. That's obnoxious, juvenile, contemptible, and utterly predictable if you launch a broadside against a site like Something Awful.

But what about her legal claims? Barstow is right that Something Awful forum goons accused her of racism — largely on the strength of cartoons like this:

Donna Barstow may be right that this cartoon is not racist. It may simply be banal and loutish. But on the law, Donna Barstow is not right. She's very, very wrong.

First, she's wrong about copyright violations. Now, each alleged violation would have to be viewed in its particular context. But to the extent sites are posting her cartoons in order to criticize them — for instance, by posting that cartoon to argue that it's an example of bad cartooning or racism — then that's almost certainly fair use.

There are many cases out there I could cite for that proposition, but I'm going to indulge in bias and cite the opinion written by the late United States District Judge Richard A. Gadbois, a decent man who died too soon, for whom I clerked almost twenty years ago. Judge Gadbois' opinion arose from the famous Supreme Court case Huster v. Falwell, in which SCOTUS determined that the First Amendment protected a satirical cartoon that depicted Jerry Falwell as having a sexual encounter with his mother in an outhouse. Falwell later used the cartoon as a propaganda and fundraising device, putting copies of it in mailers saying, in effect, "look at what the Godless commie liberal haters are doing to me, please send money." Hustler, which has a sense of irony that is either overdeveloped or underdeveloped, sued for copyright infringement. Judge Gadbois found that even though Falwell's motive was partially to raise money, the fair use doctrine protected the copying, in part because the purpose of Falwell's use was different than Hustler's use:

It hardly needs stating that Reverend Falwell did not employ the ad parody for the same, intrinsic purpose as plaintiff. Hustler’s use of the work was satirical. It was obviously written to entertain the magazine’s readers, who would not be easily shocked by the language it contained. For defendants the article served an entirely different function. The Old Time Gospel Hour and the Moral Majority do not compete in the marketplace of ideas with Hustler magazine. In distributing the parody Falwell evidently meant to provoke the anger of his followers and to comment on the level of obscenity in the work. Avid members of the Moral Majority presumably would not rate the entertainment value of this article very highly.

The Ninth Circuit later affirmed Judge Gadbois:

Although the Defendants used the parody for a commercial purpose in the sense that they profited from copying it, they did not actually sell the copies to willing buyers. Instead the Defendants used the copies to generate moral outrage against their "enemies" and thus stimulate monetary support for their political cause. Moreover, as the district court noted, Moral Majority or Old Time Gospel Hour members would probably not be counted among Hustler's readers. Therefore, Hustler's creative incentives are not decreased because the Defendants are profiting from an activity that Hustler could not have taken advantage of. See Pacific and Southern Co., 744 F.2d at 1496. "Where the copy does not compete in any way with the original … concern [about copiers undercutting demand and discouraging creativity] is absent." Consumers Union, 724 F.2d at 1051.

Here, posting a comic from Barstow to criticize it, and her, is an even more compelling case of fair use. Even if Something Awful is making some sort of derivative advertising revenue from the incremental additional traffic, the forum posters who posted it are making no money, and the entire purpose is to criticize the art and politics of the cartoons. (That distinguishes the FunnyJunk affair, in which FunnyJunk users were reposting comics for their comic value, not to criticize or discuss.) Moreover, even if particular posts in the forum threads include just the cartoon, and not commentary, they exist in the context of a thread criticizing and discussing cartooning in general and bad cartoons in particular. Fair use doesn't involve many bright lines, but this looks like a case that Something Awful could win, handily.

Her rage aside, I think Donna Barstow knows this. After all, she reprinted an entire Ted Rall cartoon in order to criticize it (screenshot taken in case she memory-holes it). She's done things like that a fair amount. [Edit: Ms. Barstow has memory-holed her sites. Will post the Google Cache links when I get them.]

Similarly, if Barstow thinks that she can sue Something Awful and its goon squad for defamation for calling her a racist, she is similarly badly mistaken. First, Something Awful is completely immune for the comments of its forum visitors under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Second, calling Barstow a racist based on her comics is classic pure opinion absolutely protected by the First Amendment. This is not a case of opinion premised on false unstated facts, as if someone said "based on what I overheard Donna Barstow say, she is a racist." Rather it's pure opinion based on disclosed facts — the very cartoons she complains they posted. (Note that this strengthens the fair use argument.) Partington v. Bugliosi, 56 F.3d 1147, 1156–1157 (9th Cir.1995) ("when an author outlines the facts available to him, thus making it clear that the challenged statements represent his own interpretation of those facts and leaving the reader free to draw his own conclusions, those statements are generally protected by the First Amendment.") Such accusations of racism are routinely protected as opinion by the courts. See, for instance, Rambo v. Cohen, 587 N.E.2d 140, 149 (Ind.Ct.App.1992) (statement that plaintiff was “anti-Semitic” was protected opinion); Stevens v. Tillman, 855 F.2d 394, 402 (7th Cir.1988) (Illinois law) (accusations of “racism”); Smith v. Sch. Dist. of Phila., 112 F.Supp.2d 417, 429–30 (E.D.Pa.2000) (granting judgment on the pleadings after concluding that the accusation of racism was an opinion); Martin v. Brock, No. 07C3154, 2007 WL 2122184, at *3 (N.D.Ill. July 19, 2007) (accusation of racism is nonactionable opinion in Illinois); Lennon v. Cuyahoga Cnty. Juvenile Ct., No. 86651, 2006 WL 1428920, at * 6 (Ohio Ct.App. May 25, 2006) (concluding that in the specific context of the accusation, calling a co-worker racist was nonactionable opinion); Puccia v. Edwards, No. 98–00065, 1999 WL 513895, at *3–4 (Mass.Super.Ct. Apr. 28, 1999) (concluding accusations of racism are nonactionable opinion); Covino v. Hagemann, 165 Misc.2d 465, 627 N.Y.S.2d 894, 895–96 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1995) (concluding statement that plaintiff had “racially sensitive attitude” is not actionable). By contrast, cases finding that accusations of racism were actionable defamation usually involved implication of false facts. See, for instance, Overhill Farms v. Lopez, 190 Cal.App.4th 1248 (2010) (accusation that business fired workers for racial reasons was a statement of fact distinguishable from a mere opinion that farm owners were racist). And those are just the cases I found in about five minutes whilst distracted by yelling at an associate.

Barstow is currently experiencing the Streisand Effect — the inevitable consequence of throwing legal threats around on the internet. To the extent that effect includes forum goons sending her porn, it's regrettable. But to the extent it includes widespread publication and criticism of her bogus legal theories and her history of threatening critics, it's a good thing. Censorious threats deserve condemnation and ridicule, because they represent a willingness to abuse our broken legal system to suppress protected speech.

Have at it, Something Awful. But try to be the good guys, would you? I know that's a lot to ask of a flock of shit-throwing monkeys. But I believe in you.

Edited To Add: Thanks to someone on Twitter who pointed Ms. Barstow to my contact information, she just called me at my office. I would characterize the conversation as surreal. Among the things she said: (1) she saw that I didn't list copyright as an area of expertise, so how could I write about this, (2) she hadn't threatened to sue anyone, (3) she shouldn't have to put up with defamation, (4) how can I say bad things about her, (5) Obama created some sort of new copyright department but it was useless, (6) she was just trying to reach out to me person to person, and (7) she thought it was suspicious that I did not "sign" my post.

Is this real life?

Last 5 posts by Ken White


  1. eigenperson says

    To be fair to Barstow, maybe she blocked you because your tweet contained the phrase "cite to".

  2. Dan Weber says

    If I want to criticize a novel or a movie, I don't post the whole thing to show how it sucks. I post a relevant section.

    I guess that doesn't work with something like a one-panel cartoon or a painting. I feel a little of sympathy with the "artist" for that.

    Could I publish a book of an entire Far Side collection, claiming each one sucks, claiming each one is an individual fair use?

  3. Jasper Willikins says

    "based on what I overheard Donna Barstow say, she is a racist" is probably a true statement for most people that come into contact with her. I'm not saying it's factually true. I just have the personal unsubstantiated opinion that she is a racist person who has sex with her own dogs.

  4. says

    Thank you for believing in us, Popehat. Sometimes it can be hard to overcome our base instincts, but I know we can- EEEEEEEAAAAAHH OOOH-OOOH AAHHH-AAHHH!

  5. This Guy says

    If she has grounds for parodic use of her cartoons, what does she think State Farm can do to her?

  6. says

    So, it takes an attack on Something Awful to get someone at BoingBoing to look at your work?

    Their (BoingBoing's) "Submitterator" doesn't seem to do anything…

  7. says

    I wish she HAD tried to take on 4chan. Go big or go home.

    As to that Mexico comic. I…what? I don't even…

  8. says

    @Dan – don't feel sympathy for the artist…

    She seems to be attempting to prove she is actually the dumbest person on the right…

    Case in point – my twitter avatar was one used by Andrew Breitbart. Barstow can tell this, apparently, because I was told "The fact that you apparently stole Andrew Breitbart's avatar makes you worthless."

    What she didn't know – what she couldn't know, without spending 3 minutes scrolling through my timeline – was that the image is that of a painting, painted for Andrew…

    By my girlfriend's mother.

    In the end, I think Ken got closest when describing this dolt – "Imagine if Glen Beck drew Family Circus".

  9. C. S. P. Schofield says

    Somebody needs to take Ms. Barstow aside and explain to her that if you can't take criticism, you can't be a critic. I have to wonder how she got to this point without growing a thicker skin. Did nobody in her life ever speak to her in terms of anything other than praise?

  10. says

    Popped over to her timeline/feed/whatever for a second to take a look at the craziness for myself. Love how she thinks saying

    Many whites live there – I know them.

    makes the case *against* racism. Technically though, the worst she's guilty of (besides asshattery) is bigotry, not racism.

  11. alexa-blue says

    Ok. But if Something Awful threatens to sue Barstow for defamation, my head will a splode.

  12. Prefect says

    The obvious next step is for Leonard J. Crabs (SA's lawyer) to sue Jerry Falwell's estate.

  13. CCChicago says

    Being that this is SA, Goatse is inevitable. Goatse might as well be an unofficial SA mascot at this point.

    However, I've been a member over there for 8 years; for a bunch of internet-addled manchildren, on the whole they're a pretty good group of people who don't tolerate the stupid/racist/sexist dreck found on other corners of the web.

    Of course, any site with over 100,000 accounts is going to have a small minority of people who do stupid things, just as I'm sure that out of the millions of Oatmeal readers someone probably did some stupid stuff to Chaz. Doesn't make it the right thing to do, or endorsed by the vast majority.

    4chan is kind of like the paste-eating, wooden-spoon-banging-on-colander younger brother of the SA Forums.

  14. says

    @Prefect and Donna: website being "defamed" by a cartoonist over copyright? Mr. L.J. Crabs, Esq. might need to call in a specialost. I know just who you can call.

    He might be pricey, though — he just won a huge case.

  15. V says

    Her tweets are public, so isn't seeing her tweets as simple as logging out of twitter and pointing your browser to her twitter account?

  16. Dan Weber says

    Even if she's a complete asshole, she still deserves copyright protection for her work. She should have the same protections as Gary Larson; no more or no less. If the fair use argument works against her, it works against him.

  17. Connie says

    When I saw she was throwing mud at SA, I had to giggle. Do these people not look over websites before loudly pointing their finger at them and saying J'accuse? One look at any of the forums (Other than Let's Play where I used to lurk) would tell you what you're in for.

  18. A Goon says

    The linked post is from mid-2010; is there a more recent trigger to her Twitter campaign?

  19. says

    "You steal my cartoons (read definition of Fair Use – NOT on SA) and ignore my takedown & DMCA notices. That's evil,"

    You can always spot a finely tuned legal mind because they cast things in terms of "good and evil," right?

    I think the biggest surprise for me was that the BoingBoing piece described her as "Slate Cartoonist," implying that somebody pays money for her work.

  20. Phe0n1x says

    ………….she's trying to take on Goons? Right, because that's a smart idea. Just look at EVE.

  21. AwesomeFreddie says

    I know a lawyer who I'm sure would love to send a "give me $20,000 or I'll sue you for defamation" letter to SA on her behalf …

  22. GrimGhost says

    I heard about that, but I never heard how it turned out. I assume that the guy quietly paid, and FunnyJunk's lawyer is now $5,000 richer. Or am I wrong?

  23. Matt House says

    Ken, I'm…kinda disappointed here. I thought you were all about the free speech, not just free speech for people you like. Also, last time I looked, 'Mexican' was a nationality, not a race. Just like "Italians" or "French" are not a race, they're a -culture-. Get it right. And yeah, she's not a stellar cartoonist, but just because she's low hanging fruit does not excuse poor work on your part.

    Stating that Mexico is a crime-ridden nation, on the brink of anarchy, while true, is not racist.

    Even if she said "all Mexicans are subhuman obscenities, and need to be exterminated" it's -still- not racist. Because Nationality is not Race. You've got all kinds of different people racially speaking in Mexico.

    But if you're going to play the Race Card(tm), make sure you've got something to back it up.

  24. says

    As soon as I saw the words "Something Awful," I immediately thought, "This will not end well for her." You deliberately poke a beehive, you're gonna get stung, and there's no two ways about it.

  25. Lindsay K says

    What's especially mind-boggling to me is that the "copyright infringement" she's losing her shit over is in a thread that's over 2 years old. Shouldn't there be a statute of limitations on irrational hissy-fits? I'm also intrigued by the phrase "serious pornography." Is that like, really tragic pornography with an emo soundtrack where all the participants are sadface and coupling in front of still frames from tv news reports? Serious pornography is serious!

  26. says

    she still deserves copyright protection for her work.

    Sure she does…

    Except in instances where nobody gets copyright protection, like in this case.

    She isn't lacking in protection because she's a raging, deluded, un-educated asshole. She is all those things because she refuses to listen when she is told by people by far her better (myself excluded) that she's wrong on whether she has copyright protection in these cases.

  27. says

    Lindsay – a lotta Linkin Park played in the background, and there MIGHT be some self-cutting involved.

    Honestly, I assumed it was porn done to mimic economic news or something… Like that Bloomberg News stuff the sometimes show at oh-dark-thirty on USA or something, only with way more cock and tit…

  28. CCChicago says

    @Revol oh, yeah, saw that right away. I just meant that Goatse is pretty much par for the course for goons whereas she calls it "serious pornography."

  29. Dracos says

    GrimGhost, I sincerely hope you're joking with that statement. Otherwise look through this site at the 9 part story of Oatmeal vs. FunnyJunk.

    If you're serious though…No. Charles Carreon (the lawyer) made a fool of himself, and dismissed the lawsuit. Now we just get to wait and see what happens with the suit that was filed against him…

  30. says

    Donna Barstow: "I don't understand vulgarity and meanness…"

    I just wanna know what internet she has been using for the last bunch of years since, you know, EVER…

  31. Angstela says

    A lot of people on FB routinely add her cartoons to their wall and share them around because, god help them, they think they're funny. I really wish she'd go after those people and make them take them down.

  32. says

    Now see, I disagree. People posting her cartoons on Facebook provide me with a very valuable service…

    It lets me know that they have absolutely no fucking sense of humor, and that I would likely miss nothing if I simply removed their feed from appearing…

  33. alexa-blue says

    I'm curious about the link to her blog, where she's curated a bunch of cartoons she likes (linked from she's done things like that a fair amount.") In what way is that fair use? The title suggests the cartoons are "for your enjoyment" and her commentary is mostly praise of the cartoons for serving the purpose for which they were primarily intended, and then explaining them in prose, I guess for people with apperceptive visual agnosia.

  34. says

    @Matt House:

    Ken, I'm…kinda disappointed here. I thought you were all about the free speech, not just free speech for people you like.

    Matt, if this is satire, then congrats, you've punked me.

    If not, then criticism — even unfair criticism — does not violate anyone's free speech rights. That notion is unprincipled and silly. That is, in fact, something I write about all the time here.

  35. GrimGhost says

    @Dracos — yes, I was kidding. Right now, I predict that Tara's husband's legal career is carrion chuck (dead meat).

  36. A Nonny Moose says


    There have been cartoon criticism books published that included whole strips, or even whole story lines included within them. In many cases, no, the critics don't get a license.

    In terms of writing a book that "criticizes" the entire Gary Larson "Far Side" collection– you actually might be able to get away with it, yes. You likely couldn't simply put a caption of "And this comic sucks, too!" under each comic, though.

    But if you were somehow able to write a significant, substantial criticism of each and every comic, and integrate them into a larger, coherent argument that explains why you think Larson is the best (or worst) comic writer in history, you'd have a good chance of getting away with it (depending on how good your lawyer is, how the judge feels on a particular day, etc.). Your book would probably wind up being significantly longer (and likely more expensive to print) than a retail copy of the entire "Far Side" collection, but– it's possible that you could get away with it if you were serious in your criticism.

    As Ken pointed out, there aren't a lot of bright lines in "fair use", but legitimate criticism usually fits the bill. Figuring out what counts as "legitimate" criticism can be tricky sometimes, but the goons at the SomethingAwful forums are pretty clearly in "legitimate" territory, as much of a group of poo-flinging flying monkeys as they might be.

  37. joet says

    To be fair to her, it's not like she lashed out at 4chan or something

    To me, the difference between 4chan and Something Awful is that SA occasionally remembers to take its meds, and is allowed plastic utensils at lunch. They're both in the psych ward, though.

  38. RC says

    Ken, while I don't think you're wrong here, it feels somewhat targeted because you disagree with the content of the cartoons. I think you'd make your point more powerfully (if less entertainingly) if you didn't comment on her work – otherwise it muddies your actual point, and encourages comments on her cartoons instead of the issue you're tackling.

  39. Chris R. says

    If only she had an even crazier spouse who posted their thoughts to an online board…

  40. Chris Berez says

    Woohoo! Goons representing! Lowtax just needs to get Leonard J. Crabs on the case. That should take care of it.

  41. says

    @RC: Perhaps I'd be more persuasive, but I wouldn't be me. That criticism could be levied against almost every free speech post I write. It's the way I write.

  42. says

    Obviously, your articles on the rights of free speech would be a lot more credible if you didn't exercise your own so much. And less entertaining.

  43. Matt House says

    "Matt, if this is satire, then congrats, you've punked me. "

    Glee. I shall print this out, and frame it on my wall.

  44. says

    Enjoy! Meanwhile, I'm going to go think about how to edit all of your comments into a paean to something horrific. I think it may involve dead babies and showtunes.

  45. says

    I clicked on the link to her ramblings on the Ted Rall cartoon.


    There's some brain cells I'll never be getting back. Thanks a lot.

  46. Connie says

    @Tam – this is why I let others provide a filter and relay me the crazy second hand. Sanity points are a precious resource, you know!

  47. Gal says

    Pardon me for going on a tangent, but… Rambo vs Cohen? I think I've got a movie script to write.

    @Matt House: Put your reading comprehension cap on read again.

  48. Narad says

    I think the biggest surprise for me was that the BoingBoing piece described her as "Slate Cartoonist," implying that somebody pays money for her work.

    I was more perplexed by the Psychology Today listing under "Experts."

  49. David says

    I am also a member of somethingawful, and am thoroughly enjoying the coincidental intersection of popehat/somethingawful. Thanks Ken, popehat is the best!

  50. Matt House says

    @Ken – as an avid follower of your blog, it gives me great pleasure to have twigged someone as clever as you, even if for only a couple of minutes. Hence the comments about printing and framing. As as show tunes go, I'm partial to "Phantom of the Opera", and "Sweeny Todd". It should be relatively easy to segue in some dead baby, perhaps next to the meat pies…

    @Gal – which part should I be re-reading?

  51. Gal says

    Is flock the correct collective noun for Monkeys? Surely we can come up with something better. The first word that comes to mind is "tribe", but upon further thought I prefer "cacophony."

  52. Gal says

    @Matt House How about "Donna Barstow may be right that this cartoon is not racist. It may simply be banal and loutish. But on the law, Donna Barstow is not right. She's very, very wrong." for starters.

    As a matter of fact, if you can point me towards the part where he actually criticizes her for being racist, Well, I'll be very surprised.

  53. Matt House says

    @Gal – ah, you missed the bit where I admitted to satire/concern trolling Ken.

  54. Narad says

    Is flock the correct collective noun for Monkeys? Surely we can come up with something better. The first word that comes to mind is "tribe", but upon further thought I prefer "cacophony."

    It's tribe or troop, but these are flying monkeys. I'm somewhat partial to "grenadier" as a collective noun.

  55. says

    Tara is quoting Jung, FYI, but no movie yet.

    Yeesh, that's some ugly, ugly art. And some dreadful concepts. How on earth is this woman published?

  56. max says

    Earthbound monkeys' have the collective noun troop. I am only about 80% certain that collective noun for flying monkeys use troupe due to their fame as singers.

    Everyone sing the flying monkey song:

    O-ray-um, aye-oh-yah,
    Oreos, I eat ya,
    Oreos, I eat ya.

  57. Connie says

    According to the comic series Fables, flying monkeys are in a corp. Thank you, Buffkin!

  58. W Ross says

    When offered this article, she responds "Um, do you actually expect me to read through one more anonymous mudslinger in a site meant to attack ‪#Catholics‬ ? No, thx. @Magus @fcc"

    Uhh, the FCC probably doesn't need to know that. Also LOL. :P

    Everybody get your popcorn, I think she's about to Carreon.

  59. says

    So she's raging pretty hard. I wonder if she stopped to slow down and read things… Maybe she'd have some perspective. As an artist and designer, I'm used to people stealing and even profiting off my work, it's a shame, and it always makes me incensed at first, but I have to remind myself to calm down, because sometimes there's very little you can do about it. And then I pretend to feel flattered, but I'm mostly dying a little inside… :)

  60. says

    I guess that is one benefit of being an obscure editorial cartoonist. No one harasses me about my cartoons (except when I post to Reddit)

  61. says

    I encourage people to steal graphics off my site. Nothing I can do to stop people nicking stuff if they are so inclined, so I might as well look magnanimous about it. It's all ephemera anyway. Also, it's kind of awesome to run across something of mine in some obscure corner of the Web (happens occasionally).

    Anyway, the hardest thing isn't preventing theft. The hardest thing is getting people to look.

  62. W Ross says

    @Ken I'm the Paul Revere of Drama.


  63. W Ross says

    "D. Barstow ‏@cartooness
    Thanks. UK law for copyright is stricter than US, so look forward to working w/them. @stratjakt @fart @copyrightoffice @dmcatakedown
    Hide conversation
    Reply Retweet Favorite
    5:11 PM – 6 Jul 12 via web · Details"

    "I'll sue you in England!!!" What is she, a Scientologist? We're officially at 3 out of 10 on the Carreon Scale of Impending Fail.

  64. Kelly says

    Now we all have something to do with all that leftover popcorn!

    @W Ross- Oh good gods, just reading her twitter makes me twitchy.

    @Adam – I did laugh at her response to you on twitter. Boy, she just keeps digging the hole deeper.

    As for what to call the flying monkeys- I vote corp!

    Also, does this woman have any clue what sort of war she is starting? Or is it that she started this in hopes of the Streisand Effect kicking in since it was what happened with the whole Carreon vs Inman debacle?

  65. says

    @S. Weasel – It's really the best when you stumble across something you've made on a site where full attribution is given, that's pretty cool.

    @W Ross – Is "10" on the Carreon Scale also referred to as "Def-Con Ptero"?

    I'm surprised that they never called Inman a "Pterorist"… no I'm not, nevermind, that requires wit.

  66. HeatherCat says

    @Bearman, well mostly this is matter of opinion here, but I'd say because by comparison you're actually GOOD. Can't speak for reddit users though, I only know you on Google+.

    @W Ross – only a 3?? Well, guess you're right. She has only threatened there, not like she's sent C&D letters or put it into a bad song yet.

  67. W Ross says

    @Kelly It's interesting to see the two cases back to back cause you can see what's similar in these Streisand Effect fails, and clearly what causes these things is the inability to "fail."

    By trying to mitigate, litigate, legislate, and vindicate every disagreement, you're punching a pool of tar. The more force you use to punch it, and the more tar you're punching, the more stuck you get and the harder it is to pull out.

    She is furiously punching tar, lol.

  68. HeatherCat says

    Oops, I missed Exodor's post there – looks like we have now reached level 4.

  69. somebody says

    I'm a somethingawful goon as well, and I'm excited that the forum made the news on your awesome blog.

    Barstow's angry little campaign follows an all-too-familiar pattern — a well-known, professional something-or-another goes apeshit and makes a complete ass of him/herself as soon as he/she learns how to use the internet. SA sees that happen all the time, and each new occurrence is pretty reliably hilarious.

  70. W Ross says

    @HeatherCat Be patient. :D The delicious lulz are coming, and I suspect they'll be enough to feed the whole family. That being said, calling out 4chan pushes it to a solid 4.

    @John Ammon Another person who thinks they "know" the Internet who's about to find out that pride goeth before destruction, a haughty spirit before the fall. That's why I always warn them once nicely, I just can't enjoy it unless it's on purpose.

  71. Swindapa says

    "Jiminy Jeepers" gets +1 internets for a well conducted troll.

    /b/ would never use her stuff – too banal, not shocking or dumb enough.

  72. says

    Oh. Ohhhh. She thinks 4Chan is Channel 4? This has reached dear god no, there's an escaped axe murderer in the neighborhood, don't go in the basement to see if you blew a fuse level.

    I think I may have moved beyond amused.

  73. W Ross says

    @SAers, welcome to the Legion of Haters >:P!

    Popehatters don't take kindly to folks to fuck with the First Amendment.

  74. W Ross says

    (These tweets? :))

    D. Barstow ‏@cartooness
    You'd be surprised that most people DON't know about ‪#SA‬, nor do they want to. How is this a breakdown? I do the right thing. @franirwin
    View conversation
    Reply Retweet Favorite
    5m D. Barstow ‏@cartooness
    Are you STILL talking about the snake cartoon? THEY STOLE EVERY IMAGE ON THAT WALLPAPER SITE! Learn to use the net. @Punch_You @dese1ect
    View conversation
    Reply Retweet Favorite
    7m D. Barstow ‏@cartooness
    Were you fibbing before? Disappointed in you. @BlackclawFM
    View conversation
    Reply Retweet Favorite
    25m D. Barstow ‏@cartooness
    How so? @Punch_You @dese1ect
    View conversation
    Reply Retweet Favorite

  75. says

    S. Weasel – That would explain the UK copyright law tweet >_< the elegance of the troll was funny enough, but the addition of her misunderstanding what they were referring to, and apparently intending to contact a major British broadcasting company… only to humiliate herself… I might begin to cry tears of joy… If she actually does it, well, I might pee myself a little.

  76. Kelly says

    @ W Ross- LOL! Thanks for that visual, she very much is. I am going to sit back and watch the show- calling out 4chan was just a Very Bad Idea. Watching her twitter is like watching a train wreck… She definitely has a sound of 'Nobody likes me, everybody hates me' AND is now claiming that she is 'doing the right thing' and is not having a very public breakdown.

    Popcorn anyone?

  77. Narad says

    7m D. Barstow ‏@cartooness
    Were you fibbing before? Disappointed in you.

    Yes, as though "Johnny Vapes" were a likely real name.

  78. HeatherCat says

    Squeee! Can't wait to see what happens next – I'll have another reason to LMAO when I drink some wine later!!

  79. W Ross says

    It's so beautiful to watch it live. It's like good theater, really. You need to see it as it happens to appreciate the subtleties.

  80. Kelly says

    W Ross- Oh my giddy aunt! I agree with you 100%.

    Also, Ken, has your phone rang yet? Also, I wasn't aware you were an anonymous gamer. Is that her code for 'badass lawyer'?

  81. Connie says

    Bwahahah. This has lifted my spirits after a craptastic Friday at work.

    And I stand (sit) corrected. It should be a corps of flying monkeys. (Wife-like typing detected?)

  82. says

    She's going to go after 4chan? Excuse the caps, but AHAHAHAHAHA. There isn't enough popcorn in the world. Too bad about the timing, though, my birthday was over a month ago.

  83. Chris R. says

    Omg she should get Carreon to sue 4chan and anonymous. That would be like the epic internet shit storm. Seriously, you'd open any browser in the world and just lol cats crapping everywhere would take over.

  84. Christopher Swing says

    I don't know why but I'm still shocked that people can NOT know these things about the internet. And I shouldn't be, not everyone's been on it forever… but.

    Do we need to start making PSAs for these clueless people?

  85. W Ross says

    Holy #(*$

    We have reached Level 7 on the Carreon scale. She has called Ken. We are three points away from a full Carreon.

    Everyone hug your loved ones and pray.

  86. Kelly says

    "Canadian is also not a race" Thank you W Ross.

    Is she reading this? If so, are we giving her ideas?

  87. W Ross says

    D. Barstow ‏@cartooness
    When I talked with Kenneth P White his voice was shaky. He said he would call @eff & many other places if I intimidate him! ‪#law‬
    Reply Retweet Favorite


  88. Chris R. says

    There must be some sort of cosmic censorious douchery vortex swirling over the U.S. right now. They just keep popping up.

  89. Kelly says

    W Ross- Holy batcave, Batman! I… there are no words… just wtf at this point.

  90. Narad says

    She's protected her tweets, and some of us are blocked…

    Just sign out. It appears to be individual blocks with a nonobvious error message.

  91. W Ross says

    @Kelly "Every time I try to get out, they pull me back in…"

    Viva la Resistance!

  92. Kelly says

    Chris R: Umm WHAT?! Seriously.

    W Ross: Still a 7 on that scale or does her most recent tweet up that to an 8?

  93. W Ross says

    1m D. Barstow ‏@cartooness
    Just now on the phone Kenneth P. White, LLP told me he thinks I'm a bully, & I make frivolous lawsuits. He says I'm homophobic & racist.
    Reply Retweet Favorite
    1m D. Barstow ‏@cartooness
    I can't believe that when I call a lawyer in a downtown LA lawfirm, like Kenneth P. White LLP, he thinks I am trying to scare him! Just me.
    Reply Retweet Favorite
    50s D. Barstow ‏@cartooness
    Kenneth P. White LLP has no background in copyright, though he wrote that article. He said I am a bully & my call to scare him didn't work!
    Reply Retweet Favorite

    OK, I'm calling it. This is has gone from 3 to full Carreon in less than two hours. This is not a drill, people. Everyone get your popcorn and put on your helmets.

  94. Swindapa says

    Does anyone else get that surreal feeling when you realize that the story you are following is happening RIGHT NOW? This happened to me with Carreon, too.

    @Ken – Apparently you threatened to call the EFF on her because you were scared of her "intimidation?"

    I am vastly amused.

  95. Kelly says

    @ W Ross: Hee!

    @ Chris R: Wow. Just wow. Are we sure she isn't Tara using another name?

  96. Chris R. says

    If anything ever happens to Tara (I hope not, she seems like a special person), Charles should remarry with Donna. Omg. Epic.

  97. Kelly says

    S Weasel's tweet had me laughing so much! 'step away from the meat grinder'.

    @Chris R. Ohhh… wow. Epic as in oh gods the end is nigh!

    @Swindapa: Oh yeah, I am with you on that.

    What exactly does she hope to prove by mud-slinging in Ken's direction?

  98. says

    @Chris R

    If she joins forces with Carreon, the internet is going to blow up. Stop trying to destroy the internet.

  99. Kelly says

    @ Chris R: Do you know how difficult it was to not tweet back 'define *real*'? I may be dying laughing right now.

    @ John Ammon: Ahh lack of pterodactyls, I knew something was missing!

  100. Joe says

    Someone should tell her Ken’s voice was shaky because he was trying his best not to crack up laughing. She is really quite the card to think that Ken would be so skeerdt of her. Seriously what is she going to do – draw a tasteless cartoon of him. Oh the horror.

  101. W Ross says

    D. Barstow ‏@cartooness
    Thanks! Wondering whether I should shut down all my sites. :( Tears. @eesperan
    View conversation
    Reply Retweet Favorite
    10m eesperan ‏@eesperan
    @cartooness I can't believe the people r STEALING from u!!! What's Wrong with people? Can u steal them back? GET REVENGE! ‪#artistsunite‬
    Retweeted by D. Barstow
    Reply Retweet Favorite
    23s D. Barstow ‏@cartooness
    Unfortunately not, Chris! Kenneth P. White LLP said several times that he thought I called to intimidate HIM! @dese1ect @EFF
    View conversation
    Reply Retweet Favorite
    5s D. Barstow ‏@cartooness
    Helpful, or making fun of me? @Konjuro @LeroyDonohoe
    View conversation
    Reply Retweet Favorite
    37s D. Barstow ‏@cartooness
    @dese1ect I've seen his name tons here. Is he a real attorney?
    View conversation
    Reply Retweet Favorite
    1m D. Barstow ‏@cartooness
    It's okay for me to call an attorney who has just called me an appallingly awful political cartoonist & misquoted me. @killhamster
    View conversation
    Reply Retweet Favorite
    18m Stoaty Weasel ‏@sweasel
    O, @cartooness – you would not believe how many vile and horrible behaviors are perfectly legal. Do please step away from the meat grinder.
    Retweeted by D. Barstow
    Reply Retweet Favorite
    24s D. Barstow ‏@cartooness
    Gotcha. @LeroyDonohoe @astomoi
    View conversation
    Reply Retweet Favorite
    24m Ryan 'Leroy' Donohoe ‏@LeroyDonohoe
    @cartooness You can actually hide img data in a video, not surprised these thieves would spread :files: this way.
    Retweeted by D. Barstow
    Hide conversation
    Reply Retweet Favorite
    4:33 PM – 6 Jul 12 via Twitter for Android · Details
    37s D. Barstow ‏@cartooness
    Interesting. @LeroyDonohoe
    Hide conversation
    Reply Retweet Favorite
    4:57 PM – 6 Jul 12 via web · Details

    We have now gone from aggressor to passive aggressive and then back to aggressive. This is fascinating.

  102. sithson says

    Some one tweeted her, and suggested that she higher CC… I need a new keyboard and screen, I LOL so hard

  103. Chris R. says

    She should love Ken, his last name is White. All her friends are white. Jeez.

  104. says

    For the record, I did tell her that I thought that calling me was an attempt to intimidate me, and that it wouldn't work. So there's some truth in what she is saying.

    I'm not sure if my voice was shaking. I tend to get a little draggy in the midafternoon.

  105. says

    Also, for the record: I did not tell her that I was siccing the EFF on her. The EFF is not my personal army.

    I did tell her, when she asked me if I enjoy writing about people like that, that I enjoy standing up to bullies, and that I enjoy referring cases to organizations like the EFF to help people facing bullies.

  106. Kelly says

    @ W Ross: If by fascinating you mean really hilarious, then yes.

    @ Ken: I applaud you for not laughing until you cried while trying to deal with her.

    @Chris R: BA HA HA!

  107. Kelly says

    @ Chris R.: Did she hurt your feelings? I think that was what she was aiming for, lol. *eye roll*

  108. W Ross says

    By the way if she blocked you, just log out of twitter and look at it. It's a public feed. And ZOMG she just won't stop. I actually had to warn her just ONE more time so I wouldn't feel bad watching this.

    But she's choosing to Keep Calm and Carreon.

  109. Kelly says

    Not just blocked, but EVIL!

    D. Barstow ‏@cartooness

    He sent me to a fake site. EVIL. @franirwin @dese1ect

  110. Margaret says

    Some people need to step away from the Twitter. I repeat, just step away.

    (I'm so glad I'm not on Twitter.)

  111. W Ross says

    Tara Carreon is posting now too, I think she's jealous that we've found another.

    Post something more provocative and we'll look over there, Tara. We don't care about your bullshit tonight; there's a better act on.

  112. says

    If there's a lol-god, she's calling Carreon right now. If the lol-god smiles upon us, Carreon's agreeing to take the case. If the lol-god wants to unleash the four horsemen of the apoclolypse, Ken is Doe #1 until they reveal the true identity of this anonymous gamer.

  113. Nick says

    Well, I'm officially blocked, just for telling her that her childish rantings were a blogger's dream and she should look up the "Streissand Effect".

    Luckily, she hasn't blocked my dog on twitter, yet…yes, my dog as her own twitter…shut up.

  114. W Ross says

    Nobody ever blocks me and I don't know why. I'm just too lovable to block I guess.

  115. Swindapa says

    I didn't mean to imply that you ACTUALLY threatened to sic the EFF on her. I meant to highlight the ludicrous-ness (ludicrality?) of the suggestion that you would run to the EFF for defense, when you are obviously capable of defending yourself.

    Sorry if that was unclear (on review it was).

  116. says

    Oh nice, to borrow a phrase from Matt Inman, she just "Napalmed the Jungle"… She does know that it won't prevent the spread of the stuff already hosted elsewhere… right? Who am I kidding, she doesn't know how to "internets" very well.

  117. says

    Anyone want to do me a favor and post links to the Google cache version of the two links to her site above showing her making fair use of cartoons?

  118. Laura K says

    @ Margaret: I have loved your comments. They are brilliant evil in the best way. So thank you!

    @ WRoss…YES! WEEPING ANGLES!–now that was ALSO frakkin GENIUS

  119. W Ross says

    "Is Ken a first Amendment Lawyer?!?"
    "But then why does Ken get involved?!"
    "Well because he thought it was good sport! Because some Kens aren't looking for anything logical like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. Some Kens just want to watch the litigious burn."

  120. says

    @Michael: "I am unimaginative, only quasi-literate, and a dubious artist, but I skim the headlines on once a week."

  121. Dave says

    Wow, if she really gets Charles Carreon to sue SA and 4Chan I think the internet will finally gain critical mass, and become self aware. Then in the immortal words of Private Hudson "Game over, man, game over."

  122. Malecus says

    I must say, if Popehat keeps coming up with such entertaining reading, I may just have to convert it to my homepage!

    And I'm volunteering the terms "Coprocyclone", and/or "Blitzkot" to describe a gathering of flying monkeys.

  123. Myk says

    Shit's about to get *real* interesting: Chris R ‏@dese1ect
    Hire Charles Carreon, he's a no non-sense White Hat Lawyer @cartooness
    Reply Retweet Favorite
    2h D. Barstow ‏@cartooness
    @dese1ect I've seen his name tons here. Is he a real attorney?
    Hide conversation
    Reply Retweet Favorite

  124. Myk says

    And Chris – you are SO my hero now!
    Leonard J Crabs ‏@LeonardJCrabs
    @LeonardJCrabs @dese1ect @cartooness Nice try getting my account banned asshole. You have a civil action coming your way and no mistake.

  125. says

    @dese1ect I've seen his name tons here. Is he a real attorney?

    I'm sure we've all been wondering the same thing on and off…

    (Sorry for the double post, no comprendo tags here.)

  126. Narad says

    Whoever deployed the Markov chain generator does not seem to know where to set the tedium knob.

  127. Thorne says

    "…and no mistake"…?!

    I'm wondering if that "literally" should have read "no exaggeration".

    (That one's for you, Ken. ;) )

  128. HeatherCat says

    Keep Calm and don't Carreon/I mean "Blink". Don't Blink.

    Dammit, it's too much fun to just read via you guys' takes!!

  129. W Ross says

    I still think you've got a shot. Tell her you think she's pretty and her art is good. YOLO, amirite?!?

  130. W Ross says

    Its interesting, the buttons she chose to button vs not button. Kind of a power girl thing?

  131. Chris R. says

    Ok fine. Let me email her…

    Dear Donna,

    I am sorry I linked you to the wrong website. I meant to link you to not It is very troubling that you called me evil, because I think so highly of you. I really admire your subtle curves and shading (both in your art and on your body). I believe we could be a great team. With your artist ability and my penchant for saying dumb things, we could even write a book together as we laid by the beach making sweet love while drinking Boone's Malt Liquor.

    With Respect & Dedication,

  132. BearLoveGirl says

    Okay, since "Mexican" and "Chinese" and "Italian" aren't races, then "spic," "chink," and "wop" aren't racist epithets? Even though race is defined as "a group of persons related by common descent or heredity?" Ah, semantics. An ignorant bigot by any other name…

    And I like how Barstow is putting bigger and bigger copyright notices on her cartoons. It's just like the teenagers over at Deviant Art.

  133. Chris R. says

    Good idea. Kind of like when recently NASA let us tweet aliens. I tweeted "A/S/L" I hope they get back to me!

  134. says

    @Chris R.: Balls, I forgot all about that. I was going to say "When considering whether to wipe the human species off the face of the universe, please disregard reality television."

  135. Chris R. says

    @M, yeah once they put the whole particle collider thing together with Snooki, they are pretty much guaranteed to think we're dangerous.

  136. Thorne says

    @Chris R

    Just to give you fair warning, if you get a response of "3200 cycles/Fleegarn/V'Drixxt System", you'll find Chris Hansen from 'Dateline' waiting to ambush you.

    Learn from my mistake. Fuckin' Fleegarns.

  137. Jeff S says

    I wonder if by commenter Chris R giving bat shit banana sammich crazy Donna Barstow the satirical Carreon site ( and her, in her bat shit banana sammich crazy mind, realizing that it's a 'fake site', if it will help Doe v. Carreon? (not that it needs any help, anyway)

  138. says

    Tara's posted her video (wait, should I be doing this on a Carreon thread, or does this blog function like a conversation?). They bought a domain name for it ( and everything.

    It's a snooze, sadly.

  139. Kelly says

    @ Chris: Morning made and I've not even had coffee yet!

    I am almost wary to see what she comes up with today though.

  140. Laura K says

    @Chris R–loved the Snooki/particle collider remark and so. damn.glad. I wasn't swigging coffee at that moment.

    You know this seems like stating the obvious, arguing that criticsm of a written piece or artwork (I shudder to put that tag on Barstow's stuff; it's got to be the sort of thing even Rush would only print on his toilet paper.) and it is obvious but I appeciate what I've learned on Popehat at the same time. I've been censored, and shut down and ignored and refused in my attempts to print one idea or another. I've had wonderful books by others ripped out of my hands on the grounds of specious morality-patrolling. But Popehat–and all you commenters have given me the first understanding that people try to do this sort of frazzicled crap–that they try to cry censorship–and now copyright if people criticise their work. So asside from all the beautiful, lovely snark (which is a thing of beauty that should be a joy forever.( Oooops! John Keats will be after me now!)you've taught me something valuable. Thanks!
    And yes, I was that clueless, and yes, I needed to get an idea that this stuff happens sooner rather than later. Sarcastic remarks may ensue; my appreciation remains genuine.

  141. darius404 says

    The Carreon site has 1 interesting feature: it proposes the introduction of a new tort:

    The Introduction of a New Internet Tort, acronym “DIRA” Distributed Internet Reputational Attack. In this section, I will explain of legal basis for the theory of a new tort, that will stand in relation to the old tort of defamation as newsprint stands in relation to the Internet. The need to protect individuals from the exponential power of technology to invade privacy was the subject of a recent Supreme Court case that gives some guidance in the field.

    In United States v. Antoine Jones, the Supreme Court announced a new rule governing the use of GPS trackers. The Court had previously held that no warrant was required before attaching a radio-signalling tracker to a car because the car’s movements while travelling on the public highways were not private. That precedent could not apply to a situation where the an automobile’s movements were monitored round the clock via remote GPS tracker, effectively detailing the entire pattern of the driver’s life over an extended time period. Such an invasion of privacy was an order of magnitude more serious than tracking the radio pulse emitted by a car that was basically going from point A to point B. So a warrant was required. Justice Sotomayor, writing the concurring opinion:

    Awareness that the Government may be watching chills associational and expressive freedoms. And the Government’s unrestrained power to assemble data that reveal private aspects of identity is susceptible to abuse. The net result is that GPS monitoring—by making available at a relatively low cost such a substantial quantum of intimate information about any person whom the Government, in its unfettered discretion, chooses to track—may “alter the relationship between citizen and government in a way that is inimical to democratic society.”

    Analogously, the frequency of DIRAs makes it apparent that old laws concerning defamation need reforming to take account of the pernicious effects of allowing Internet mobs to run riot, placing meaningful limits on what is fair play in the realm of social media. Suggestions will be made for ways to deal with the problem that will protect publishers from being required to play censor, including the creation of a new DIRA tort. See the article on the related subject Stern, Nat, Creating a New Tort For Wrongful Misrepresentation of Character.

  142. Gal says

    @darius404: It appears the Carreons are attempting to create a new niche for lawyers – Waaahmbulance chasing.

  143. Michael says

    "The Old Time Gospel Hour and the Moral Majority do not compete in the marketplace of ideas with Hustler magazine."

    This might be the funniest thing I've read on this site. No offense to any of the regular contributors, of course.

  144. says

    @HeatherCat thanks.

    "@Bearman, well mostly this is matter of opinion here, but I'd say because by comparison you're actually GOOD."

    While i think 80% of cartoonists draw better than I do, I forget that I still draw better than the 20% (and those who don't draw at all I guess).

  145. says

    @ttl interesting post. Though while I am not indicating at all she is a racist (I think depending on the context of the joke, you could go in several ways with it), it is interesting that the defense used is that feminists can't be racist.

  146. Nate says

    Right up until she memory holed her websites I thought she was trolling (having seen the Streisand Effect during the CC saga, she thought she could benefit from it). Alas, I had given her more credit that she deserves. She's far from going Full-Carreon though, she's not even launched a law suit yet, she'd have to be skinning puppies to go as far as the suing charities CC did. Also, no photoshopped penis pics or nazi rants. ;)

  147. Jack B. says

    If there's any photoshopping to be done, someone needs to cut the Crying Statue of Liberty out of some of Kelly's Onion cartoons and paste them into some of Barstow's cartoons. Kelly was the first thing that came to mind when I saw one of Donna Barstow's cartoons.

  148. says


    Stupid internet. I think it's broken.

    Says the woman that refuses to post free entertainment for us on the weekends… :)

  149. Chris R. says

    @S. Weasel, she blocked all communication to the outside world. What Carreon should have done right away. Maybe she learned? Who knows.

  150. says

    Sweet zombie Jesus, it's a wonderful thing to watch the cheese slide right off someone's cracker in public, right there on the internet in front of God and everybody.

  151. Kelly says

    I go away for a few hours and come back to 'Sweet zombie Jesus' and talk of needing biker vests. Lol!

    Also, do we are think she is through? Or did she delete everything in a preemptive sort of move before she goes full Carreon (perhaps with his help?!)

  152. Chris R. says

    @Kelly, she's made these censorious threats before and flown mostly under the radar. Right now she's getting her first real taste of the Streisand Effect, which for most well balanced people is dissuasive enough. It takes real asshats to stare Streisand in the face and keep talking. We'll see.

  153. Kelly says

    I would say she landed in the middle of the radar this time. You're right though, wait and see if she can take the heat or just made a run for it.

  154. Myk says

    @Chris @W Ross – I propose "First Amendment Posse" as the name, "Fast Action Response Team" as the chapter

  155. Onideus says

    Very odd this…

    "Moreover, as the district court noted, Moral Majority or Old Time Gospel Hour members would probably not be counted among Hustler's readers."

    …given the "Howard Stern Effect"…in that people in general LIKE hating things and will listen/watch/buy simply, "to see what they'll do next". The people who HATE you often tend to be some of your biggest "fans" on the whole. Strange but true.

  156. Gal says

    @M: I think the 4chan business was a hoax to begin with, as I understood it. And it seems like Barstow (Am I the only one fighting the urge to call her Barstool?) has come to her senses.

  157. Matthew says

    Given that she was sure that 4chan was Channel 4, in the UK, I don't she would have got very far anyway.

    That indecision cartoon is predictably stupid. Stuff you haven't dealt with comes into your in-tray and goes to your out-tray once it's done. It doesn't come into an unnamed third tray until you decide to put it in the in or the out tray.

  158. Nate says

    @ Matthew, clearly she had a logic fail. But then we shouldn't be surprised since she never got the memo that if you have to explain it, it's not funny (and nothing of hers I've seen yet is funny).

  159. Valerie says

    @ W Ross I know the Weeping Angles are way back in the thread, but I could not keep my nerd card if I did not point out that the Angles do not make it so people never existed – they just take the years they have left and shoot them back in time. Otherwise the Doctor & Martha could not have warned Sally Sparrow about the danger from 1967. Just sayin'

    In this case, the Angles would only be suspect if a crappy, bigoted, anti-Mexican cartoonist appeared somewhere in the past… oh wait. Nevermind.

  160. says

    Oh, dear me, Tara is likely to bust my Schitz-O-Meter if she carries on like this. Did she just declare herself a deity?

  161. Grifter says


    I know it's just an autocorrect thing…but I have this image of the "Weeping Angles" now…triangles bent over themselves as though they're crying, but secretly with nasty big, pointy teeth.

  162. Mike K says

    I've never had a problem with auto-correct… Then again I am extremely weird…

  163. Phe0n1x says

    awwww she protected her Twitter. What am I to do with all this tasty popcorn now?

  164. says

    She's gone silent on Twitter. :-( She hasn't blocked me yet but the last tweet showing was about the "evil" person who directed her to a "fake" site, lol. I think this one's over.

  165. W Ross says

    I think she was all fluster and feathers. If she was going to file something, it would have been filed by now.

    I think she might have figured out how the outside world works, which is an equally good win as her having a meltdown. If she chooses not to do this shit ever again, then yay.

    If she does, this situation will simply repeat itself. It's the Circle of Internet.

  166. W Ross says

    "But what happens when there's too many self important, papa?"
    "You see son, the trolls eat the self important…"
    "But who eats the trolls?"
    "Other trolls, and the police if they go to far.. but normally age."
    "What happens when they age?"
    "They too often become self important, and…"
    "Are eaten by the trolls!"