Mickey Mouse Is Now In the Public Domain. Well, Sort Of.
Even though only one very specific version of the character is free to use, it still represents a positive step for creative expression.
The copyright on Mickey Mouse expires today, meaning The Walt Disney Company no longer has the exclusive rights to the character. Does this mean you can put Mickey in your own cartoon? Not exactly.
Under current law, works released between 1924 and 1978 are copyrighted for 95 years. As a result, the thousands of works copyrighted in 1928 enter the public domain today, meaning anyone can use or reprint them without permission. That includes books like D. H. Lawrence's Lady Chatterley's Lover and films like Charlie Chaplin's The Circus. But the most high-profile addition is Steamboat Willie, the animated short that marked the debuts of both Mickey and his longtime paramour, Minnie.
The cartoon depicted Mickey Mouse working aboard a steamboat, making music, and vexing the boat's captain, a large cat named Pete. The slapstick humor, anthropomorphized animals, and objects of later Disney works are present, although Mickey is much more mischievous—the antagonistic dynamic with a giant cat is more reminiscent of Tom & Jerry cartoons than the Mickey Mouse familiar to modern audiences.
The seven-minute film was revolutionary: It was the first cartoon to feature synchronized sound—rather than just a silent film with background music—and audiences loved it. Mickey Mouse spawned a franchise that over the following century would earn more than $80 billion and make Disney one of the most powerful media companies on the planet.
Losing out on its rodential cash cow would be a huge blow, and Disney jealously guarded its creation. When Steamboat Willie premiered in November 1928, U.S. law dictated that it would enter the public domain no later than 1984. But two different laws, one passed in 1976 and another in 1998, extended the maximum copyright term, each by twenty years. Each law passed after strenuous lobbying by Disney: The latter statute, the Copyright Term Extension Act, has been derisively referred to as the Mickey Mouse Protection Act.
Today's expiration implies that Disney was either unable to secure another extension or unwilling to try. In recent years, Republican lawmakers have signaled their unwillingness to extend copyright law any further on Disney's behalf. Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.) even introduced the Copyright Clause Restoration Act of 2022, which would cap copyright terms at a maximum of 56 years—notably, the same term in effect when Walt Disney first released Steamboat Willie.
But this doesn't mean that Mickey is completely free. The copyright that expires today only applies to Mickey Mouse as he first appeared: rat-like and mischievous, with pupil-less eyes and no gloves. All other interpretations, introduced later—including the magnanimous Mickey who greets visitors to Disney theme parks dressed in a bow tie and tails, with white gloves and human-like eyes and facial features—remain under lock and key.
"We will, of course, continue to protect our rights in the more modern versions of Mickey Mouse and other works that remain subject to copyright," a Disney spokesperson told the Associated Press in a statement.
And while Mickey may lose copyright status, he will remain Disney's exclusive trademark. According to Jennifer Jenkins, director of Duke University's Center for the Study of the Public Domain, any new use of Mickey must ensure that it is unlikely to be mistaken for a Disney product. "There might be a risk of confusion if you use Mickey as a brand identifier on the kind of merchandise Disney sells," Jenkins writes. "Consumers may also be confused if Mickey is used in an artistic work in a way that suggests it is a Disney production, for example by appearing as a logo at the beginning of an animation."
On January 1, 2022, A.A. Milne's Winnie-the-Pooh entered the public domain, bringing the characters with it. The following day, wireless company Mint Mobile released a commercial in which actor Ryan Reynolds reads a version of the story. That May, British director Rhys Frake-Waterfield released stills from his film Winnie-the-Pooh: Blood and Honey, a horror flick in which Pooh and his sidekick Piglet revert to a feral state and mow down coeds after their human companion Christopher Robin leaves for college.
Just as with Mickey, Frake-Waterfield could only use Milne's characters as they were depicted in the original book: Pooh was first drawn in his iconic red shirt in 1932, meaning that version of Pooh is still under copyright protection. Characters introduced in later works, like the buoyant Tigger who debuted in 1928's The House at Pooh Corner, also remained protected. (The House at Pooh Corner also falls into the public domain today, and Tigger is expected to be featured in Winnie-the-Pooh: Blood and Honey 2, premiering next month.)
What does all of this mean for Mickey Mouse? What does it matter if one particular version of a cartoon character enters the public domain?
Regardless of the artistic merit of a horror movie about Winnie-the-Pooh—and critics apparently found very little—the public domain is a boon for creative expression, allowing people to use established characters and works in new and inventive ways. Ironically, Steamboat Willie benefited significantly from the public domain. The cartoon made extensive use of the song "Turkey in the Straw," a familiar tune with uncomfortable racist origins that dates back to the pre-Civil War era.
And "the Mickey character itself is based on such public domain fodder," Jenkins writes. "His personality and antics drew from silent film stars such as Charlie Chaplin and Douglas Fairbanks," as Walt Disney and animator Ub Iwerks acknowledged at the time. Even the cartoon's title was a reference to the Buster Keaton film Steamboat Bill, Jr., released six months before Steamboat Willie. Since movie titles and personality traits are generally not copyrightable, all of this was fair game when Disney crafted Mickey Mouse.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Copyright laws were a big part of Walt’s extensive use of public domain “classical” music in his movies.
And the chosen stories
I get paid more than $120 to $130 every hour for working on the web. I found out about this activity 3 months prior and subsequent to joining this I have earned (Qa) effectively $15k from this without having internet working abilities Copy underneath site to..
Check It—>>> http://Www.Smartcareer1.com
In Fantasia, sure. Most of the music in his movies were original compositions, though, not classical.
Even though only one very specific version of the character is free to use, it still represents a positive step for creative expression.
Excessively long copyrights finally expiring is not a “positive step for creative expression”.
Actively reversing the insane copyright terms we are saddled with now would be.
Don’t you think there’d be a 5th amendment problem doing that to existing works?
No.
.
Ain’t gonna happen, though. Some congressman starts doing that, he’ll get a phone call from Archers Daniels Midland along the lines of:
“Look, Bob, you know we don’t care in the slightest about copyright terms, and if everything were equal you could cut them to 28 years with our blessing. But copyright clauses were included in every trade treaty adopted in the last thirty years, from the big multilateral ones like the WTO to that little bilateral agreement with Oman. So we’d be in violation of all of them until they’re renegotiated, and that’ll cost our operations in your district, and thus the farmers and voters in your district, tens of millions of dollars. You want to grandstand about it a bit, be our guest; take all the shots at those holier-than-thou software and movie assholes in California you like. But if it looks like an actual bill to cut copyright terms is going to actually get anywhere, well, you’re going to have a well-funded primary challenger.”
What in the Holy Fuck are you talking about? Either this needed a really big (e.g.) in there to demonstrate how deeply entrenched and interwoven copyright terms are or you’re a fucking retard who thinks Archer Daniels would collapse if not for their vast trademarks holdings (that no one knows about or recognizes).
How is it ‘creative’ to use someone else’s IP?
Oddly Disney is a master of buying the IPs of others and running them into the ground.
That creative expression I can get behind!
Well, there’s “creative” in the “imaginative” sense, which it may or may not be, but there’s also “creative” in the “We’re going to need to see a license that says you can use this product in this market.” “destructive” sense.
Depends what you do with it. Almost every bit of art uses something someone has done before.
Putting a red shirt on a public domain character doesn’t prevent anyone else from putting a red shirt on the same character. It’s too simple to be copyrighted.
Note: this is not legal advice.
So, Minnie in a red shirt, fisting Mickey…
No, darnit. Sexually explicit content might well be mistaken for actual Disney work.
Maybe if it was a black transsexual fisting a gay non-binary birthing person in the ass…and being paid union scale to do so.
Are they vaxxed and boosted though?
And in the Senate?
Ok, now it’s definitely Disney.
The Reason article about this would be that DeSantis endeavors to not allow this cartoon to be shown in Florida public school kindergartens.
Notably Disantis isn’t mentioned which leads me to conclude that Trump is at fault here somehow.
Do they take off their white gloves while fisting?
I’m not a lawyer, but I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night.
I suppose people who push for shorter time limits on intellectual property ownership also support time limits for real property ownership, for the same reasons.
Intellectual property is not even remotely similar to real property ownership. But by all means continue to make yourself look foolish by trying to explain how they’re just the same …
Exactly, you have to create IP from nothingness, as opposed to showing up and claiming the space above and below imaginary lines that were the home of the less civilized for eons before you
If Walt was still in charge, I’d be fine with supporting a renewal of the copyright. Since the company is now run by a bunch of wokey shitheads, they can get fucked.
Wasn’t Walt the literal Hitler of his day?
I think Hitler was literally the Hitler of Walt’s day.
Wait, Hitler was a real person? I always thought he was some cartoon version of Trump.
😉
No, that was a slur made up by that commie shithead Herbert Sorrell.
This is one of the dumbest things I’ve read here, and that’s in a comments section that includes Sqrlsy.
“people who push for shorter time limits on intellectual property ownership also support time limits for real property ownership, for the same reasons.”
An idea you had, should be treated the same way as the earth you tilled and the house you built? I’m not getting the connection.
Research and development takes time, energy, and money. Just like building something.
I suspect most of these other mouth breathers have never created something that took time and effort, you know, work. And thus felt like they owned the value of the thing they created, just like they owned the clay pot and pointy stick they made the day before.
As an architect, the idea that no one should be inspired by my building design or try to replicate it is fucking asinine. That’s literally been the practice since the first mud huts were built.
Hell, I’ve seen fan-made Star Wars vids that blow the Kathleen Kennedy shit out of the fucking water. It’s honestly pathetic that amateurs are making interesting shit for free while the Disney Woke Brigade gets paid millions to churn out the sewage they make.
I watched a fan fic video called “If episode VII was actually good”. It was basically just narration and some AI generated stills. It made both Rey AND Ben better characters.
Thats not what IP covers. Likewise they can’t see the structural supports for your building and such. So they can’t rip off your building from seeing it. What you’d be asked to do is give up all your blue prints and material lists and labor contacts, etc.
Lack of IP protections does not oblige you to give up your technical information or trade secrets.
Real property has to pay property taxes; based on your local rates you can work out how many years it takes before the government has essentially taken the entire property.
There is no such thing as “intellectual property”. Copy”rights” are privileges extended by government force.
Aka, a legal fiction.
Which is not to say that I oppose it, but we should not lose sight of what it is.
Fuck off and die, obviouslyfullofshit.
So tell me, if you write a book, or a computer program, you do not expect to own the value of the thing you produced? And others are free to duplicate (and sell) it?
If I write a book, the paper and the ink are my property. The exclusive “right” to reproduce the book is a privilege extended by government force.
There has always been a robust creative expression outlet for copyrighted material – usually obscene or at least sarcastic – illegally on the web. Not only have internet platforms and web search engines made posting memes using copyrighted characters such as Mickey Mouse without permission popular and widespread; they have also made it difficult and not worth the effort for the copyright owners to assert their “rights.” Occasionally there have been a very few high-profile lawsuits or even criminal charges, but usually the effort does very little to discourage others in the pursuit of free speech and “clicks.”
I’ve waited half a century to find out if Betty Rubble is shaved, full bush or landing strip. Looks like I may never know.
The cartoon or Rosie O’Donnell?
Betty doesn’t munch down on clams, and weighs under 23 stone
Forget Betty, can we get this for Jessica rabbit?
There are reportedly a few frames of her nether regions in the movie.
Many a tape of Who Framed Roger Rabbit came back to the video rental place a bit damaged due to people pausing, rewinding, and going frame by frame at that part.
Not surprising. These are the same people who designed the “penis towers” on the Little Mermaid box and gave the reverend at the wedding scene a hard-on.
In a few years, when Musk purchases Disney due its bankruptcy from a woke agenda, perhaps Elon will place all of the original Disney characters into the public domain. Until then, Disney will shovel out reboots such as PokeAnAnus (a tale about a trans native man that breeds the rears of white settlers) and The Little Spermaid (the story of a homosexual au pair of color that during the day reads books to his assigned family’s kids while dressed in drag and during the evening, drains the balls of the white father when the others are sleeping).
What about a live action remake of Cinderfella, staring Sam Britton?
Considering the turn that Disney has taken it wouldn’t surprise me if they transition Mickey to Milly and squeeze another 95 years out of it.
Since I know the center-right fuckwit jobbers at Patterico read these comment sections, here’s some choice takes from these idiots, who can’t stop themselves from acting like spastics about Trump, and why everything they support should be rejected:
I wonder how many people here believe they will vote for Trump if he’s the GOP candidate versus Biden or Newsom?
I won’t. I’d pretty much bet that Paul, nk, lurker, Appalled, Jim Miller, Dustin, Nate and our host will never vote for Trump.
Most of these people would have been considered partisan Republicans in 2015. Trump BROKE that. Sure, he attracted a lot of flibbertigibbets to his cause, but he repelled a goodly portion (probably a majority) of those who voted for Romney in 2012.
George W Bush and his father voted for Hillary, as did Condi Rice. To say that actual Republicans would fall in line is absurd. The people who call themselves Republicans now are either people with out backbone or people without character. Or both.
Kevin M (ed969f) — 12/31/2023 @ 4:40 pm
Trump has talked about setting up concentration camps for suspected illegals and using the armed forces to do it. He has declared that members of the military are traitors and should be executed. I have no reason to believe he cares about free speech for those who disagree with him, and has used the national guard to remove protesters who got in the way of his photo-op.
The man is fukking crazy. A mere assh0le like Biden is much less of an issue.
Kevin M (ed969f) — 12/31/2023 @ 9:59 pm
Here’s a New Year’s salutation from the mentally unhinged freakshow who leads my party and has 62.5% support for the nomination. For me, I’ll just Happy New Year to all, even you losers, cranks and haters.
Paul Montagu (d52d7d) — 1/1/2024 @ 9:27 am
Center-right malbushim still ass-mad that they can’t get their controlled opposition candidate into the GOP voter base’s good graces.
Feel free to sign up for a comment section that doesn’t arbitrarily censor speech, and where you don’t have daddy Patrick protecting your stupidity, boys.
What are Republicans who don’t like where Trump has taken the party supposed to do?
What do you mean? Trump took over the party specifically because those Republicans promised to govern like Republicans, and then continually sold out or never even pushed back against Democrat/left-wing opposition. And when he did take over, their entitlement emerged full-force–instead of exercising a bit of self-reflection as to why Trump took over the party, and understanding that the voters wanted someone who would actually stand up to the left in the most vigorous way possible, they continue believing they can take the party back to 2005 if they just get Trump out of the way. It’s notable that what ultimately caused this break was the center-right’s support of mass immigration, and their contempt for GOP voters who wanted actual enforcement of immigration laws. Being largely college-educated, they absolutely love to look down their nose at lower-income and rural GOP voters as being worthless and lazy, for not wanting to compete with Third World imported labor for jobs and housing.
Hilariously, these same types worship Reagan, even though their same center-right faction was terrified of Reagan in the 1970s, and supported either Ford, Bush, or Anderson.
These are the same people who, like the Dispatch crowd to whom they belong, love to pontificate about “ideas,” but their ideas are little more than glittering generalities, such as “comprehensive immigration reform,” or are completely stupid, like staying in Afghanistan indefinitely. It’s why they’re desperately clinging to Nikki Haley as their Great Centrist Hope who will take the GOP back to begging the left for whatever it’s willing to give.
What do you mean?
I mean Trump’s GOP is all about him. It’s hard to remember what Republicans stood for before he came along.
Oh, I’d say it’s pretty clear that Trump’s GOP is far more about social conservatism than it has been since the 1980s. Trump might be the locus around which this all swirls, but what really bothers the fiscal conservatives is that GOP voters are far more invested in resisting social leftism now, and the spazzing over Trump is simply a proxy for that.
It’s why they repeatedly try to minimize the concerns of social conservatism as “dumb culture war issues,” (parroting the same statement as the left here, which is hardly a coincidence) while trying to get the GOP back to the neocon era of tax cuts, forever wars, and not giving a rip about anything else except in the most tedious platitudes.
Oh, I’d say it’s pretty clear that Trump’s GOP is far more about social conservatism than it has been since the 1980s.
Another way to phrase that is lacking support for personal liberty. Depends on the point of view.
but what really bothers the fiscal conservatives is that GOP voters are far more invested in resisting social leftism
That doesn’t make any sense. I know that free traders aren’t fans of trade wars, no matter what the excuse is.
I don’t like any of the politicians out there right now. Nobody has caught my attention in a positive way. Only varying degrees of negativeness.
Another way to phrase that is lacking support for personal liberty. Depends on the point of view.
“Personal liberty” tends to get conflated with solipsistic hedonism, especially in Current Year politics. Doesn’t mean that all of society should indulge whatever leftist pretense is being pushed at the time, especially since these are mostly just leverage to support their communist revolution. The center-right enabling that to happen is a big reason GOP voters decided to kick them to the curb.
That doesn’t make any sense. I know that free traders aren’t fans of trade wars, no matter what the excuse is.
Fiscal conservatives think all conservatives should place social conservatism as a side concern to tax cuts and forever wars. If social conservatism happens to take place as a happy side effect, that’s fine, but if not, it’s immaterial to whether those particular policies are in force. But that’s not where the bulk of the GOP voters actually place themselves, and the center-right got marginalized specifically because of that.
Note that these same types will wax rapturously about federalism, but get their tits in a wringer and whine endlessly when red states enact socially conservative laws and policies as being “divisive,” while shrugging their shoulders when blue states enact leftist laws and policies.
What they really support is social consensus and political amiability, regardless of what it takes to achieve that. You can bet in about 5 years, they’ll be claiming “librulz are da reel transphobes,” and that they were always fine with kids getting injected with hormones and having their genitals whacked.
“Personal liberty” tends to get conflated with solipsistic hedonism, especially in Current Year politics.
I don’t follow. Hedonism does fall into personal liberty. I prefer they keep it to themselves. If they don’t then that means they’re assholes, not that their hedonism is bad.
they were always fine with kids getting injected with hormones and having their genitals whacked.
How common is that? For real. It’s easy to argue against extremes.
Whether it’s “common” or not is irrelevant. The point is that it’s happening, and in about five years these types will be claiming that they were always okay with it.
Hedonism does fall into personal liberty. I prefer they keep it to themselves. If they don’t then that means they’re assholes, not that their hedonism is bad.
The hedonism is what makes them assholes. And because they don’t actually keep it to themselves, and demand that everyone participate in their delusion, that means they’re going to get resistance by people who don’t think society should indulge it.
San Francisco is the epicenter of western hedonism, and now they can’t even keep their drug-addled bums from crapping up the streets.
Whether it’s “common” or not is irrelevant. The point is that it’s happening
It’s totally relevant because it’s rare. As in uncommon. Yes it’s controversial.
It’s totally relevant because it’s rare. As in uncommon. Yes it’s controversial.
The point is that it shouldn’t be accepted in the first place.
“That isn’t happening, and it’s horrible that you’re trying to outlaw it!”—tranny activists.
It’s easier to pass a dumb law than it is to get rid of one. I’d rather err on the side of liberty. Doesn’t mean I like it.
Referring to people who want both tax cuts and forever wars as “fiscally conservative” is kinda baking my noodle. I don’t know what the fuck to call those people, but they’re certainly not “conservative” in any fashion that makes the slightest bit of semantic sense.
Yeah, it’s a misnomer, and like a lot of what they claim, not even close to reality, which is why the left was able to use them as a punching bag for so long, as they never were able to live up to it (save for that very brief period in the mid-late 90s, and even then it was because Clinton was smart enough to realize he wouldn’t ever get a progressive agenda through the Republican-controlled Congress).
But that’s certainly how they see themselves, and they’re chronically allergic to becoming embroiled in any kind of fight over cultural issues, specifically because they still think we have some kind of common American cultural consensus, and any fights over those threatens to break that. What they refuse to acknowledge is that consensus was blown up by the left long ago, specifically because they punted on those issues in the face of the left’s post-Reagan/post-Cold War cultural revolution, persist in arguing that GOP voters should continue to do so, and get really agitated by the fact that those voters won’t go along with it anymore.
The best part is how sarc invokes Reagan then discusses free trade ignorant to the fact that Reagan also implemented tariffs.
Trump is the only president who offered zero tariffs if other countries also did. They didn’t accept. Sarc doesn’t understand free trade requires two partners, not just one.
I didn’t invoke Reagan, and claiming free trade requires two partners is like saying it ain’t spousal abuse if only one person does the hitting.
The hitting though, is your government hitting you for buying stuff from somewhere else. If they hit their people for buying stuff from where you live, and your government doesn’t hit you when you buy stuff from them, well that’s not fair. So when their government keeps hitting them, you complain to your government that you’re not getting hit enough. So you’re government obliges.
By hit I mean tax. Which amounts to the same thing if you don’t pay it.
Bookmark that
If the person getting hit hadn’t engaged in kultur war hurr durr, then maybe they wouldn’t get hit. Just agree to disagree and accept the reality of the situation.
Just my 5 cents (inflation dontcha know), the GOP of 20 years ago stood for forever war, GWOT, and bending over to take it in the poop shooter whenever a Democrat yelled at them (so basically controlled opposition). Fuck, you saw that play out in glorious absurdity when Trump got elected and the spineless fucks wouldn’t even eliminate Obamacare without something to “replace it”. They spent 6 fucking years campaigning against it and they wouldn’t even remove a blatantly unconstitutional law.
The current GOP is embroiled in culture war fighting because the Left has gone full bore on it in multiple fronts and issues.
Like I’ve pointed out before, it didn’t become a culture war, until the right started actually pushing back against the left’s cultural revolution.
It’s why they’re desperately clinging to Nikki Haley as their Great Centrist Hope who will take the GOP back to begging the left for whatever it’s willing to give.
Giant Douche vs Turd Sandwich.
A giant douche at least, even if a bit offensive, serves a purpose to cleanse an area. A turd sandwich on the other hand just gets you sick. That’s Trump versus Haley.
The unsaid implication is that the Giant Douche is old and used up, like the politician it represents.
Engaging that lying pile of lefty shit gives the asshole too much credit; Mute the SOB and leave him muted. Fuck ’em with droolin’ Joe’s limp dick.
Putting it in those terms gives them too much credit.
Reluctantly vote for Kamala Harris.
So would “Willie and the underage sex dungeon” be brand confusion or brand damage?
Scott Adams had a nice take on Public Domain Mickey!
Stephen Jay Gould on Mickey Mouse’s changing appearance to a more juvenile form: https://faculty.uca.edu/benw/biol4415/papers/Mickey.pdf
It’s good to see that the first use of public domain Mickey Mouse is, like Winnie the Pooh, a horror film.
Far better than Mickey falling into the public domain and being forced to perform porn.
https://youtu.be/Az3aGlNM64k?si=BZS8Gcl-A78R8hLm
Mickey’s Mouse Trap trailer.
Copyright should be for the life of the creator and that’s it.
That seems like the most reasonable compromise. Though the question of what happens to corporate owned IP is still a little complicated.
Corporate ownership should generally be less beneficial than individual.
Sure, I don’t think I disagree with that. But a lot of IP is created in a work for hire situation. Not sure how exactly to deal with that. Patents are easier because they already have shorter terms. But who is the creator of a movie, say? On whose death should that copyright expire? Do they have to pick some individual to be the copyright holder? And if they get hit by a bus the next day is the studio out of luck and anyone can distribute the movie now?
The best so far are the memes.
Shop for all your Pooja samagri needs at Spiritual Solutions. We offer a wide range of pooja items including Chandan Tika, Metal Shiner, Chandan Kesar, Kapoor, Chameli Oil, Sindoor, Kumkum (Roli), Hawan Samagri, Loban and Puja Kits, and more. Our Pooja Products line offers a wide range of items to enhance your daily prayers.
?
Happy New Year full of blessings to you!
LOL, oh, so the truce you wanted is off now, is it, KAR?
You talk a lot of shit, but always deflected when I gave you the location where you could find me. So are you saying you want the chance to actually follow through on your shit-talking now?
Perverts just can’t help but project their fetishes on people they hate, example 1.
Trannie or Drag Queen?
And KAR–if you’re going to get in this mindset again, don’t hide behind a sockpuppet name like you’re some new commenter. Go back to your Kill All Rednecks moniker. I’ve been using this handle for years now, and hardly need to astroturf my comments.
You’ve got a stalker too?
Now do what people say about SBP2.
KAR seems to stalk everyone, being as he’s just an asshole.
Nah, he’s hardly a stalker. He tried these provocations several months ago, ultimately gained a moment of lucidity and realized I’d actually have no problem putting him in the ground if he actually wanted to throw down, and said he’d stop acting like a spazz.
Looks like he’s off the wagon, now.
Either. KAR goes both ways.
Pluggo gets the CP stuff due to the fact he actually did post it here, caused his old moniker to be banned (Sarah Palin’s Buttplug – no “2”), and caused the entire thread to be cleansed of comments. There’s no projection of fetishes there; just disgust, pure and simple.
People share that Pluggo posted a link to child pornography and remind the commentariat that his behavior is pedophilic.
I vaguely remember that. Long time ago. Something to do with the FBI.
I think he was arguing that most child porn comes from the FBI, and I thought the link had something to do with that. Even in full context it was stupid.
Sarc is so desperate for allies he stands up for pedophiles. Gross.
That particular pedophile is a strong Soros supporter posting Media Matters narratives. Strange that anyone claiming an ounce of libertarian would white knight for such a pedo.
You guys spend a lot of energy defending a narrative that you claim does not exist.
Pluggo posted a link to cp material here and Pluggo simps for Soros.