Article Jace Media Coverage Thread -

[Saul Goodman]

To what end? If Jace/Jan is mentally unstable, his threats are probably less credible. Worst case, he might merit a psych eval.

If he is mentally stable, his threats might be taken seriously.


Are we talking about prosecution or just a lawsuit? Because those are different things.

They are different things.

Civil suit: Brianna might have an action for IIED or harassment (these are really the only potential torts I can think of here -- assault doesn't really apply because of the necessary intent issues, and defamation would be a non-starter. That said, I don't really do civil litigation, so my knowledge is basically limited to 1L and bar prep. Perhaps @AnOminous or @waffle might spot something I missed).

However, given the -- ahem -- "complexity" of these events, and the myriad First Amendment issues that could be raised, she'd be looking at paying high five figures (minimum) out of pocket to litigate against a kid who is, as we say, judgment proof. And she'd be hard-pressed to show damages. That's money that could be spent on whatever it is she does with her Patreon funds. Civil suit ain't happening.

Prosecution: This is where things get hairier. There's the old saying that any prosecutor worth his salt can "indict a ham sandwich" if he wants to. Nothing Jace said or did constitutes a "true threat," but he did tiptoe towards the line a couple times. And, as we've seen with some of these "reporters," Brianna is great at making herself a believable victim. If someone in law enforcement (esp. federal) buys her story, I know a lot of prosecutors who -- out of a combination of ego and a need to keep up their stats -- will hang on tenaciously even after they learn the case is bad.

My advice to @THE WRITER (personal advice, which is not intended to create, nor does it constitute an attorney-client relationship): (1) Take an hour or two to go back and make sure you have a record of any potential "threats" Brianna might bring up so that you will be ready with context if necessary. (2) If someone from any law enforcement agency contacts you about any of this, politely and calmly tell them that you'd love to talk about it, that you know they're just doing their job, but even though you did nothing wrong, and Brianna is crazy and vindictive, and you have nothing to hide, your Uncle Saul said that you really should have counsel present for any conversations. Then find yourself a lawyer and schedule a formal meeting with the Jerkop (preferably a teleconference, which is almost always convenient for everyone involved and makes sure you and your counsel have a recording).

PS. If you need help finding a lawyer, PM me and I will contact my legion of flying monkeys / former classmates.

You guys are extrapolating on my original post, I just was toying with the notion of if it hypothetically went to court, which I do not think it ever will.

Brianna said in a couple of those articles that she wants to go to court and is actively talking with law enforcement. Will anything come of it? Probably not.

Will anyone believe Jan is evil/scary/crazy? Probably not. But to an outsider -- especially an older, more conservative person, as a lot of LEOs tend to be -- getting a load of Deagle Nation will be unsettling.

Again, everything will probably be fine. But given Brianna's publicly stated intention to go after Jan legally, and given how weird/crazy a lot of the Deagle Nation stuff can look, this isn't something to joke about. Yes, he did nothing wrong. But given the points above, he should be prepared.

 

[Skeletor]

The problem is not Jan getting an actual lawsuit, it's that a google of his IRL name returns stories of gamergaters and death threats. It's the same problem irresponsible journalist Ruben G. Baron, Baird College graduate, faces.

 

[Saul Goodman]

The problem is not Jan getting an actual lawsuit, it's that a google of his IRL name returns stories of gamergaters and death threats. It's the same problem irresponsible journalist Ruben G. Baron, Baird College graduate, faces.

As I said, I'm not worried about a suit. But, because of Brianna's posturing, a jerkop with a faulty sense of humor and a rogue SJW prosecutor could potentially cause problems. Hence my long-winded post, supra.

Also, I don't think Jan has Google issues. If he doesn't have a career as some sort of creative artist (creative autist?), I'll be shocked. And in that field, all of this is an excellent line on the CV.

 

[AnOminous]

However, given the -- ahem -- "complexity" of these events, and the myriad First Amendment issues that could be raised, she'd be looking at paying high five figures (minimum) out of pocket to litigate against a kid who is, as we say, judgment proof. And she'd be hard-pressed to show damages. That's money that could be spent on whatever it is she does with her Patreon funds. Civil suit ain't happening.

Note: Wu would not be looking for money damages. She is not interested in that. What she would want is injunctive relief, and even that, not for the actual purpose of protecting herself, but for having a piece of paper she could wave around on the Internet to show what a victim she is. So considering her copious disposable income and the actual collateral purpose of the lawsuit, we aren't talking about a lawsuit that would be prosecuted to the end.

What she'd want is some kind, any kind of preliminary injunction, to "prove" victimhood. Then the case would likely be abandoned and eventually dismissed for lack of prosecution. That's pretty much what Wu did with the original TRO, which she never even bothered serving.

So we're talking something like stalking or harassment. These civil actions generally require not only a threat that would cause a reasonable person apprehension, but a threat that actually did cause such harm. No point granting relief without harm.

This case falls down on a couple points. Let's assume for the sake of argument that Jan's schtick actually constituted an actionable threat at some point. I don't think it did, but someone could probably gin up something half convincing.

To establish the actual apprehension, though, Wu would have to testify to actual fear of Jace. And then face cross examination on her own behavior surrounding the supposed threats, which would show behavior completely inconsistent with actually being afraid, the most obvious of which is repeatedly taunting the supposedly scary, scary bad man.

Another issue is that an injunction is prospective (forward-looking). It doesn't need to just show past harm (that would be fixed by money damages), but a likelihood of future harms that must be prevented. I doubt Wu could show this unless Jan keeps it up.

(Note: I'm not talking criminal cases because that's even more speculative than this. Also, a criminal case doesn't require proving the victim was actually afraid, because it's proscribing a different kind of offense, one against the public order, and it's the behavior itself the state is going after.)

 

[Saul Goodman]

@AnOminous , Good point. I totally didn't think of that angle.

I was mainly talking criminal liability. And you're right, it is speculative -- but, that's my line, and I've seen equally specious crap cause serious problems for people on more than a few occasions. Again, not something that happens all the time. But enough that, having seen a couple of the vids in question and having read Wu's quote about "redoubl[ing] my effort to put him in jail" in the Jezebel article, I think @THE WRITER needs to take things seriously if anyone with a badge contacts him.

 

[AnOminous]

I think @THE WRITER needs to take things seriously if anyone with a badge contacts him.

Agreed. But only then. And of course, should mind his p's and q's about anything too edgy in relation to Wu.

 

[Wally Balljacker]

This has all become one big dog and pony show, hasn't it? It's to be expected, of course; I mean, you can almost feel the assmad dripping through the screen. Having said that, I don't recall this much vitriol thrown at Sacha Baron Cohen for doing essentially the same thing, several times, but with a budget.

I doesn't matter, Jan is having the time of his life right now. This ride is getting funner each day, and I can't wait until they install the splash zone.

 

[blackie toy]

What I love more than anything is now that we know Jan is in a different state, we can turn discussion of a prospective civil suit on Wu's part into a conflict of laws spergfest. So fucking excited about that, even if the likely outcome is going to be forum law.

 

[parkourdad420]

If Jan was in legal danger he would have been arrested already. Police aren't dumb, the North Brookfield cops were clearly somewhat amused by this. Cops deal with murderous psychos every day, some autist making youtubes is not going to bother them. It's actually not illegal to threaten to street race someone yet. Brianna Wu presents as an insane transsexual, she is not going to garner a lot of sympathy from crusty old cops. You can take a restraining order out on pretty much anyone in Massachusetts, that doesn't mean anything.

I guess she could try to sue him. It would be insanely stupid, so she probably will.

 

[AnOminous]

Having said that, I don't recall this much vitriol thrown at Sacha Baron Cohen for doing essentially the same thing, several times, but with a budget.

Actually a few of his victims tried to sue him on the grounds of aggravated butthurt.

I think most of his legal problems were due to releases signed under false pretenses.

What I love more than anything is now that we know Jan is in a different state, we can turn discussion of a prospective civil suit on Wu's part into a conflict of laws spergfest. So fucking excited about that, even if the likely outcome is going to be forum law.

One good thing is that if Wu tries to pull local influence bullshit, the case can be easily removed to federal court where they have less patience for bullshit. Especially since Wu would probably claim millions and zillions in damages.

 

[Jonzun]

New article from The Daily Dot:
Trolling female gamers in the name of satire isn't funny—it's abusive

 

[AnOminous]

New article from The Daily Dot:
Trolling female gamers in the name of satire isn't funny—it's abusive

Par for the course for the Daily Dolt. Wake me up when one of these dittoheads discovers there are more keys on their keyboard than CTRL+C and CTRL+V.

 

[Lipitor]

New article from The Daily Dot:
Trolling female gamers in the name of satire isn't funny—it's abusive

These articles are all hilarious. They got caught with their pants down and now they desperately need to stick with their narrative on this story no matter how ridiculous it gets. They should of known better from the start, but they just couldn't resist a chance to blow this up into a "what a victim!" story. They're desperately trying to rewrite reality to make it seem like their mad cuz he actually did something fucked up, rather than just them being butthurt for being humiliated after publishing so many hyperbolic articles before they knew the truth.

 

[Saul Goodman]

One good thing is that if Wu tries to pull local influence bullshit, the case can be easily removed to federal court where they have less patience for bullshit. Especially since Wu would probably claim millions and zillions in damages.

Someone needs to let Wu know that Jan has $75,001 in his bank account.

 

[waffle]

@Saul Goodman I don't know about Mas and Maine, but in a lot of states Intentional Infliction of emotional Distress requires another tort to latch on to and Harassment is only a crime, not a tort. That probably isn't the case back east, but even then Wu would have to pay a lawyer out of pocket hourly to take on these suits because Jan is obviously judgment prof and they would be flimsy as fuck.

IIED usually requires a showing that you are picking on some kind of known mental weakness and I don't think you could show that. Similarly, harassment usually requires a showing that it was clearly communicated to the defendant to cease contact, and that the contact was direct. I don't think public tweets not directed @wutranny would generally count. on top of it all, there's the fact that Wu is trying as hard as possible to be a public figure. Not to mention the huge problems with intent and reasonableness of Wu's apprehensions.

 

[Tookie]

Now the Washington Post has gotten in on it, again basing their coverage entirely on the BuzzFeed article. They're really going out of their way to demonstrate how lazy reporters are. The WP is at least relieved Jan signed a contract promising to never do anything like this again:

Jace Connors, the bizarre YouTube personality who claimed he crashed his car while driving to the house of a female game developer, was … actually a fictional character! In a truly alarming story earlier this week, Buzzfeed unmasked Connors as the sketch comedians Jan Rankowski and Sam Hyde, who said the whole thing was intended as a satire of Gamergate. (This seems like a good time to review the definition of satire.) Rankowski has, fortunately, been forced to sign a contract that said he wouldn’t make any more videos in this vein.

The irony is this is their article on "fake things on the internet."

 

[LU 961]

http://www.oplayer2.com.br/quando-a-zuera-gringa-perdeu-a-nocao/

Apparently, the news has even reached Brazil of all places.

I can only understand bits and pieces of the article, but it basically seems to defend Wu and say that 'harassing a person and inciting others to violence' is no joke.

 

[buttsbuttsbutts]

Buzzfeed unmasked Connors

 

[Saul Goodman]

@Saul Goodman I don't know about Mas and Maine, but in a lot of states Intentional Infliction of emotional Distress requires another tort to latch on to and Harassment is only a crime, not a tort. That probably isn't the case back east, but even then Wu would have to pay a lawyer out of pocket hourly to take on these suits because Jan is obviously judgment prof and they would be flimsy as fuck.

IIED usually requires a showing that you are picking on some kind of known mental weakness and I don't think you could show that. Similarly, harassment usually requires a showing that it was clearly communicated to the defendant to cease contact, and that the contact was direct. I don't think public tweets not directed @wutranny would generally count. on top of it all, there's the fact that Wu is trying as hard as possible to be a public figure. Not to mention the huge problems with intent and reasonableness of Wu's apprehensions.

Harassment is a statutory tort in several states. And MA has a broad invasion of privacy statute that covers most of the same ground.

I generally agree with your analysis though. Although @AnOminous might have a point that she'll file just to have the paperwork so she can prove she's a "survivor."

 

[AnOminous]

@Saul Goodman I don't know about Mas and Maine, but in a lot of states Intentional Infliction of emotional Distress requires another tort to latch on to and Harassment is only a crime, not a tort. That probably isn't the case back east, but even then Wu would have to pay a lawyer out of pocket hourly to take on these suits because Jan is obviously judgment prof and they would be flimsy as fuck.

Massachusetts has a harassment statute. The relevant definition of "harassment" is as follows:

“Harassment”, (i) 3 or more acts of willful and malicious conduct aimed at a specific person committed with the intent to cause fear, intimidation, abuse or damage to property and that does in fact cause fear, intimidation, abuse or damage to property[.]

I'm not sure, but this may be the very statute used to get the TRO that Wu posted previously. The records of proceedings like these are "impounded," that is, not public.