Corbin Fisher’s Lawsuit Against Illegal Downloaders Might Expose Closeted Gay Teens?

corbinfishthumbA website called “Unicorn Booty” is hyperventilating over an e-mail that Corbin Fisher’s lawyer sent to someone claiming  to be a concerned parent of a gay teen. It’s up to you if you want to  take a website called “Unicorn Booty” seriously.

Here’s the e-mail from attorney Marc Randazza that they’re upset about. It’s in response to the suggestion that Corbin Fisher/Liberty Media’s lawsuits against illegal file sharers could “out” gay teens:

Perhaps you should check your facts. Liberty Media produces straight content too. So any thieving little shit who gets caught can very easily lie to his parents that he was looking at straight porn.

There’s a lot more over there on Unicorn Booty, including the accusation that Randazza isn’t being sympathetic to the fact that if just one gay teen is beaten or commits suicide after being “outed,” that’s one teen too many. The implication, that Corbin Fisher should leave all illegal downloaders alone because they might be closeted gay teens, is of course ludicrous. And the excuse, that closeted gay teens have no other avenue but to steal in order to explore their sexuality in private, is equally ridiculous. There’s plenty of free gay porn on the tube sites for closeted gay teens to “explore.” Also, if you’re savvy enough to figure out how to illegally download files, you’re also smart enough to know that you might get caught, and that your parents might find out about it. In short, being a closeted gay teen doesn’t give you the right to steal. Sorry.

Queerty has also weighed in, rightly pointing out that if a case goes to court, a teen’s claim that he was stealing straight porn (as Randazza has suggested they could do) wouldn’t fly as the file name and content would inevitably come out, thus revealing that it was in fact gay porn:

In serving any person with a copyright lawsuit, a plaintiff must explicitly state in court documents — all of which would almost certainly be available to the public — what content the defendant allegedly infringed on. In this case it would have to include the file name and BitTorrent hash/name. Otherwise, no judge would ever permit a suit to move forward.

Queerty’s misleading headline though, “Corbin Fisher Doesn’t Care About The ‘Thieving Little Shits’ Who Might Commit Suicide If Outed” (Corbin Fisher never said they didn’t care about people who commit suicide) makes a giant leap that says more about Queerty than it does about Corbin Fisher. Sensationalizing the death of a gay teen is something they’ve done before. You think they wouldn’t enjoy doing it again if one of the gay teens named in the Corbin Fisher lawsuit (if there even are any) kills himself?

This morning, I spoke with attorney Marc Randazza about the negative press they’ve been getting.

The Sword: Do you regret using that language (“thieving little shit”)?
Marc Randazza: Yes, I regret using that language. I am protective of my client, and occasionally I let that get the better of me. We’re all human, and sometimes even a lawyer who is supposed to be above that kind of fray will let loose with a little emotion. Of course, this “concerned parent” was a plant — not a real concerned parent. Irrelevant to your question, but worth mentioning.  We already knew that when we got the email.  Of course, that should have made me act *more* cautiously, but I’ll never claim to be anything but plain-spoken.

The Sword: What about the fact that teens will not be able to lie and say that they stole straight porn when in fact the court documents will show that they stole gay porn?
Marc Randazza: I think that the “little white lie” promise is misunderstood. Yes, once we go to court, we won’t be able to fudge what movies are involved in any court documents. However, before that (for example in the amnesty program), I’m willing to remain silent if someone wants to fib in order to remain in the closet. This is part of the reason for the amnesty program — by this point, if you’ve stolen CF material, you either know about the amnesty program, or you must be sensory deprived. We have had an ever-increasing number of people asking for the amnesty, and at least two or three roll in each day. These are the people that I’ve offered to support if they want to fudge the facts to remain in the closet. I never offered,  nor even so much as suggested, that I would submit perjured testimony to the court. However, I will be delighted to be ambiguous where it is compassionate to be so. Furthermore, if anyone wants to participate in these cases anonymously, I don’t have a problem with them doing that. There are procedures available to do that, and we would not resist them.

The Sword: Do you or the team at Corbin Fisher have any worries that all of this press about lawsuits will have a negative effect on membership sales?
Marc Randazza: We are not particularly concerned about the “negative press,” since no actual journalists with any credibility have taken the hysterical position that Queerty and Unicorn Booty have taken. In fact, if you look at the comments to each, it seems that the commenters have more reasonable writing skills and better journalist skills (and ethics) than the authors of the hit pieces. Calls for a boycott is not going to resonate well with our paying members. One, our paying members are, for the most part, angry with the thieves. Lets face it, if you were honest and paid for your meal, wouldn’t you be mad if you saw 20 people dine and dash? Two, the negative opinions are largely contained to a tiny handful of people who have some pretty bizarre opinions and an unglued hatred. I don’t see anyone rational taking this negativity to heart.

***

I also received an e-mail from Corbin Fisher COO Brian Dunlap, in which he rejects the notion that his company’s lawsuit could lead to violence or suicide. It’s a long e-mail! But read the whole thing below. And do note, I’ve been critical of Corbin Fisher on a variety of issues (here and here), but that they are now being accused of “not caring” about closeted gay teens and, in essence, responsible for their eventual deaths? Ridiculous. The incessant tactic of scapegoating anyone and anything that may or may not have any relation to something horrible happening to a young gay person is not only irresponsible, it makes gay people look like pussies. Stop doing it.

Dunlap’s e-mail, which is largely in response to the question of, “What if out of all the people named in your lawsuit, one outed teen kills himself or is beaten by his parents. Even though it’s just one, isn’t one instance of violence too much?”:

“But isn’t even one instance of violence too much?”- In regards to that…most certainly a single instance would be too much. But at what point do you draw the line? We’re convinced the odds are far greater no such instance or anything approaching it would occur, whereas some of these bloggers (based upon nothing but pure speculation and the desire to generate controversy) are convinced it is inevitable. I’m not aware of a single teenager having been outed through 10 years of Titan suits, years worth of Lucas Ent. suits, or years worth of our own suits. So my problem with what some of these bloggers are suggesting is they really have no foundation for their statements. Sure, we can assume it’s all teenagers downloading from the torrents, but we can also assume the *least* likely person to want to illicitly download gay porn while on the home internet connection is a closeted teenager. We can also assume the CC-carrying adults we purposefully market to and among whom we have, for years, pursued brand awareness are the ones most likely to purposefully seek our content out on the torrents (which require specific searches, vs. randomly happening across them). I’d say those are fair assumptions.

Going beyond assumptions, I reiterate no single teenager popping up in any of these past suits (by us or other companies), and challenge the notion that it’s just kids sans credit cards stealing. Marc [Randazza] has yet to be contacted by a single teen re: the amnesty. While, certainly, one has every right to assume no teen could afford it anyways and thus not bother contacting, you’d think at least one would contact us to ask for some leniency, explain their situation, and simply promise not to do it again? We even had one guy contact us to pay the amnesty amount – and cover for his friends! So he had thousands of dollars readily available to do that, but no CC or means to purchase content legally – doubt it? Each and every single individual who has taken us up on our amnesty offer is living proof that it’s not just people without CCs, or who are underage, or who otherwise can’t afford it stealing content online. They were all simply people who made a choice not to pay for it – a choice they certianly now regret. So (and sure it’s a loaded statistic), I can confidently say 100% of the admitted torrent pirates who have accepted our amnesty offer are adults, with financial means. That’s far better a sampling than Queerty or UnicornBooty could propose.

So, in regards to “But isn’t one instance of violence too much”, at what point do you draw the line? Should we all cease production entirely on account of the prospect someone might illegally download our content and get caught by their parents (even absent any lawsuits, but just because mom and dad spot something fishy in the download folder)? Should you shut down TheSword.com because a closeted teen might forget to clear their browser history? Should gay blogs and gay news organizations not have reported on the suicides of the bullied gay teens over recent months because there was the prospect that even one kid might have been inspired to commit a copy-cat act? Should gay authors cease publishing stories about how to come out of the closet, because just one person who follows their advice might have it all go wrong for them? Should gay bars and clubs no longer ID, because just one underage kid busted for drinking might face an unpleasant reaction from their parents? If “just one” underage teenager were to get in trouble in the future because they read the UnicornBooty and Queerty posts and interpreted them as condoning, justifying and even encouraging illicit piracy for which they get caught, should that be an excuse for us to demand those blogs censor themselves?

Another problem I have with the “But isn’t one instance of violence too much?” question is that it immediately assigns us the blame for it, if it were to happen – and I feel any blame in such a circumstance is up for grabs among many candidates. Why are we the only ones constrained by such a prospect, or expected to be constrained?  It seems none of those condemning us through comments on the blogs in question, while freely admitting their own willingness to pirate content, seem the least bit interested in considering their own role in things and their own being deserving of blame. Why is it the company legally producing the materially; complying with all laws re: its distribution to adults; employing age-verification technologies and policies; marketing to and promoting itself to an adult audience; strictly prohibiting access to minors; seeking its lawful rights and the enforcement of the law against those who break it, the only party people are willing to assign guilt to here? Heck… not just willing, but gleefully eager to assign guilt to! Why is no one condemning the porn pirates distributing, for their role in things? Or the teenagers themselves – after all, at some point every individual is responsible for their own actions and the consequences that arise. I do not feel that gay porn companies should all be, in a sense, handicapped by some manufactured controversy or unproven hypothesis. Obviously, straight companies don’t deal with this.  Nor do movie companies or record labels. So is it just gay adult companies that should never be allowed to protect their intellectual property through legal channels? Shall we all just suck it up and deal with it, because enforcing our intellectual property rights allows for far too many unpleasant hypothetical outcomes and sensationalist theories? I suppose, if you were to assume a vulnerable gay teenager could be exposed through any of this, that’s one thing. But I challenge that very assumption, based upon a mountain of evidence that is way beyond anything these bloggers have offered.

I’d challenge you to read through the posts by UnicornBooty, Queerty et al and find a single instance in which the authors of those pieces introduced anything more than their own assumptions. The Queerty ones are particularly interesting. Note the title of their first piece: “Will Corbin Fisher’s Gay Porn Piracy Crackdown Inevitably Out Gay Teens?” Fair enough to ask the question. We’ve compiled ample evidence to suggest it will not (and I acknowledge that there are no absolute certainties in any situation, really, but I’d say those proposing that idea have as much of an obligation to back up their assumptions as we do. Instead, they seem to have been granted the luxury of throwing out no more than speculation and that’s that). Note Queerty’s second title in the piece that followed that first one…”Hey Gay Teen Porn Pirates: Got $1900? You Can Avoid Being Outed.” I’m sorry…but at what point did they establish there were assuredly gay teens involved? It’s awfully convenient they can pose a question, and then answer it definitively without having offered up any proof or evidence in the interim. I’m convinced they just saw how much attention the first piece got and so chose to amp up the rhetoric and score even more attention the second time around with a more damning title.

16 thoughts on “Corbin Fisher’s Lawsuit Against Illegal Downloaders Might Expose Closeted Gay Teens?”

  1. Hello I am so thrilled I found your webpage, I really found you by mistake, while I was searching on Digg for something else, Nonetheless
    I am here now and would just like to say thanks a lot
    for a marvelous post and a all round interesting blog (I
    also love the theme/design), I don’t have time to go through
    it all at the minute but I have bookmarked it and also added in your RSS feeds, so when I have time I will be back to read much more, Please do keep up the fantastic jo.

  2. If anyone takes this company and this lawyer as anything less than evil… they are idiots. Many companies that are reputable will usually send out “warning subpoenas” which are sent through the ISP essentially warning the users to stop. Corbin Fisher could have done this, given the sensitive material and the affect it can have on people and lives. This will make them a quick buck, nothing more.

    They could have handled this much, MUCH better than they did.

  3. Afterelton is now joining the ranks of gay oriented websites that are saying don’t give your $$$ to Liberty media. Corbin’s real name and the name of his partner is now popping up in a number of online forums as well. I guess if he plans on outing people then he should be expected to be outed as well.

  4. The cake has already been baked for Corbin Fisher.

    Marketing 101 will teach you that a company’s most valuable asset is their brand name. Google “Corbin Fisher” and “teens” and the first results are all about suicide and outing. Do the same for Randy Blue or Sean Cody and this is not the case.

    Randazza claims that no respected outlet has questioned their tactics. As noted above, that is patently false. Just today, a writer for AfterElton.com (owned by Logo) covered this story and ended his comments with “Maybe it’s time for the gay community to cancel their accounts with Liberty Media?”. In the days and weeks ahead, more outlets are sure to pickup this story.

    A thread was just started today at GayTeenForum.org titled “Corbin Fisher Doesn’t Care About The Thieving Little Shits”. The same teens who, according to Corbin Fisher, have no interest in his material.

  5. The Best Defense...

    I think it’s a legit concern thought that CF’s lawsuits and “amnesty program” are tactics that attack and expose wide portion of its fans to harm. These fans can include gay teens and others who would steal content for reasons like privacy or availability.

    Stealing is wrong. I don’t see the major point of UB’s or queerty’s articles as defending the actions of thieves. There is a strong point here that CF is essentially attacking individual customers. Though it’s within their rights, it can hurt those customers in the end far beyond punishment for just the theft of property.

    Perhaps CF management and legal would do better following tried and true methods like “The best defense is a great offense.” Working to improve its security by keeping content out of the hands of minors and thieves is a far more profitable and customer friendly policy than individual law suits. I’m sure they do a good job but I bet at the end of the day they skimp on security so they can take a little more home. They don’t talk about any of their participation in collective campaigns to cut down on internet piracy, just their individual lawsuits and program to buy out of those lawsuits. I haven’t seen CF emails respond to the idea their defenses might be lacking at all or reaching out to its customers to focus on improving how its content is treated. Randazza should stick to “thieving little shits” it describes his and CF’s attitude towards its customers as they engage in these practices.

    I would agree with the assessment that the “amnesty program” is just clever spin for extortion. What the thieves are doing is wrong. Offering a price to not get them in trouble for their actions isn’t all that better. In fact, it goes more to the point that CF is preying on notions that even legally owning porn of any kind (particularly gay) is shameful and private. “Pay us so we won’t serve you with papers at work for stealing porn.” I’m sure if the individual lawsuits were even effective at cutting piracy or, more important to CF, profitable they wouldn’t even offer the program. They should give up the shame and focus on putting the security of its house in order and save the legal actions for the worst offenders of internet piracty. Wildly shooting in the dark hoping to not hit the wrong person is certainly not the way to go.

  6. I like how this writer makes fun of the name “Unicorn Booty” while the name of his site is “The Sword” referring to a penis and has images of penises all over his site. Oh yeah Sword, you look MUCH more reputable.

  7. My problem with the whole outing teens issue is that you could not care less to protect teens who might end up paying a much bigger price for the same offence as the adults. They end up paying even if YOU DON’T WIN YOUR CASE IN COURT. What pains me the most is that CF is one of the few producers of good quality bi content. But your behavior just takes one big dump over it all.

    You can say that Queerty is hysterical and dismiss that too. You can say that everybody who tries to attract attention to an issue that you have not addressed is a hater. I am not saying Queerty took the right stance. I am saying that the issue is VALID and that it merits more from CF than a stance based on lies and bullshit.

    Still, I am going to do this, for no other reason that you may get to read this and at least try to put in practice the very solution you came up with. Solution that sadly, you just choose not to apply.

    So, lets invite logic back into the room for a while, shall we?

    Marc Randazza

    1. “protective of my client, and occasionally I let that get the better of me” -> he is a lawyer and he WROTE an e-mail. This was not an ambush, it was not a phone interview. It was a letter. All the lawyers I know read several times through any piece of written stuff / evidence that they send out. I believe he did not caught that expression either because it was deliberately used OR because he really feels that way and thinks is nothing wrong with it. UPS!!!

    2. I think that the “little white lie” promise is misunderstood -> how was that misunderstood? You stated that: “any thieving little shit who gets caught can very easily lie to his parents that he was looking at straight porn”. Let me check if there was a mention of “until we get to court” anywhere *looks around – NOPE, no such thing….so basically, dear Marc, you were lying! Why should we believe anything else you’ve said?

    3. “if anyone wants to participate in these cases anonymously” -> by that time, you have already outed the teen to his parents. In some cases that is enough. I have a friend who was beaten to death by his dad when he came out. I have lots other friends that have been kicked out and lived on the streets at ages of 16 and 17 for the same reason. And yet CF considers any concern in this matter to be “laughable”, hmmmm!!!!

    4. “no actual journalists with any credibility have taken the hysterical position that Queerty and Unicorn Booty have taken”. -> yet another lie. This has been picked up by several other online publications and blogs. Sure, they did not phrase it in a hysterical manner, but they gave it a thought. To see them take off the people with credibility by mr. Marc who we’ve already established he is a lier…. Also, there is a good solid thread on JUB, and those are the opinions of the users. It really is an issue, even if you believe it to be laughable. Are you that dumb that you don’t look if a guy you don’t like tells you there’s a train about to hit you?

    5. “largely contained to a tiny handful of people who have some pretty bizarre opinions and an unglued hatred” -> take a little stroll over into the JUB forum. BTW, how come you never posted anything there to state your position? Is it because you might have been called out on your shit? Or is it because, as we all know, JUB is the place where CF haters gather around and burn the company logo?

    Brian Dunlap – rejects the notion that his company’s lawsuit could lead to violence or suicide. BASED ON WHAT????? Oh, yeah, the mountain of evidence…let’s count

    1. “I’m not aware of a single teenager having been outed through 10 years of Titan suits, years worth of Lucas Ent. suits, or years worth of our own suits”
    2. re-write of no 1
    3. re-write of no 1
    4….wait, that’s it??? That’s the mountain of evidence? Pretty small mountain, if you ask me…and seems to be a mountain of shit! I am not normally into scat, but…..let’s shift through it for a while

    That’s basically like saying that if no car has hit me so far while I was walking in the middle of the street that will never happen. Or I’ve never been to Japan, therefore Japan does not exist! Here’s a question or 2 for you: has anybody checked or followed up? Is there a way to determine that a teen abuse is linked to such a lawsuit? What about those that don’t end in death? Are they less important?

    * “Sure, we can assume it’s all teenagers downloading from the torrents, but we can also assume the *least* likely person to want to illicitly download gay porn while on the home internet connection is a closeted teenager” -> yes, because as we all know, all teens have jobs and have access to other internet connections. Also, they are not in touch with the latest camouflage techniques because, you know, teens are usually just idiots. They instantly become smart when they receive their first credit card.

    *bottom line is, you are ASSUMING without the smallest shred of evidence! which is exactly what you are accusing Queerty of doing! Double UPS

    * “you’d think at least one would contact us to ask for some leniency, explain their situation, and simply promise not to do it again” – was that option made public? If you are a teen and you don’t have 1000 bucks, why contact you at all? “Maybe I am not in the list?” “What guarantees do I have that you will not take revenge on me by calling my parents”
    Did anybody in CF go out and say: hey, come to me, say that you are are a teen that downloaded content and that the harsh / ip is assigned to your family and I will remove it from the lawsuit. NO, you did not.. And funny thing is this would have made sense, but we cannot expect CF to make sense, now, can we!

    *” Obviously, straight companies don’t deal with this…So is it just gay adult companies that should never be allowed to protect their intellectual property” – WOW, one of the most homophobic gay porn companies (weird, right) goes for the gay sympathy card! Really boys??? And while we are on the subject: there are 3 other CF and former CF models that use CF pictures on their escorting profiles. How come you went after the ONLY openly gay one????

    * “Should we all cease production entirely on account of the prospect someone might illegally download our content and get caught by their parents ” – so…you don’t see any difference between a teen outing himself and you outing them. Let me put it in life or death terms: I have a gun. One night, my house gets robbed. If I shoot the robber in my house, I am protecting my property. If I find out who the robber is and I go to his house and kill him, that is murder! It’s the difference between active and passive!

    * “based upon a mountain of evidence that is way beyond anything these bloggers have offered.” – let’s count again: 1……that is! also based on an assumption!

  8. Boycotting a company is a legitimate way for an individual to withhold their money from it and express their dislike of the company. Stealing from the company (and stealing in a manner that also involves the illegal distribution of the company’s intellectual property to others) is not.

    “Save the kids!” is the same sensationalist garbage right-wing nuts use to justify every single piece of anti-gay legislation, policy and belief out there. It’s the oldest trick in the book, and such a tired cliche when not supported by any evidence. It’s a loaded argument – play the “Save the kids!” card so as to paint anyone who disagrees with you as anti-kid, insensitive and heartless. “Save the kids! Ban gay marriage!” “Save the kids! Don’t repeal DODT!” “Save the kids! Ban gay-straight alliances at schools!” “Save the kids! Ban gays from scouts!” Let’s create some perceived threat to kids, then accuse someone we don’t like of perpetrating that threat. *yawn*

  9. I don’t find my comment what I wrote, so, again in a short version:

    Bad press & communication can hurts for a company. Yes, stealing is not good, but I think threat is wrong too.

    If CF really wants to stop piracy they don’t sue 40,000 people wordwide. Just some thieves who steal directly from them. It’s easier, and cheaper.

    40,000 is not a big number nowadays. Does anybody know when did they start to collect the IPs? They can collect thousands of IPs around a 1-2 month(s)… so, if I’m right they start about December-January…

  10. To compare the audience of Titan and Lucas to Corbin Fisher is ridiculous. Corbin Fisher features young clean-cut guys and advertise their site as Amateur College Men. Of course, they are appealing to a younger demographic.

    This Randazza guy make most other lawyers look upstanding by comparison. I encourage everyone to seek out their “amnesty”/extortion contract to see how unethical he is. It gives CF the right into perpetuity to seek you out for further shakedowns. This guy has made so many outrageous comments, yet you only focus on Queerty and Unicorn Booty.

    How about asking him about the so-called therapist he consulted and this therapist’s name and reputation? How about asking him about the comment that he and CF will be be doing kids a favor when he outs them. I’m sure when they have no place to live that will be cold comfort.

    Kids do stupid things, no doubt. Stealing booze from their parent’s liquor cabinet or taking the mom and dad’s car w/o permission. They don’t think about getting caught. That’s why they are kids. This will out some kids and CF will suffer the collateral damage.

  11. Extortion? “Adam”, please go back to your filthy home on the 2 hysterical non-journalistic blogs you hail from, where you have perpetuated the same crap in at least a half dozen bullshit posts on EACH blog under various anonymous IDs. I hope for your sake that CF’s legal team will not run across your IP address amongst the thousands they have accumulated. I suspect yours will eventually surface though, hence your frantic “concern” in this matter. And if they have, I bet they will deal with you in an entirely respectful and fair manner, despite your antagonistic posts that imply Corbin Fisher is acting irrationally and unmorally in protecting their intellectual property.

    It is a huge insult to the mission of the gay rights organizations that CF supports for you to discount any honest contribution made to those organizations to further the cause of gay rights as some extortion attempt on CF’s part. It is well on record on AVN and XBiz that Corbin Fisher made substantial charitable contributions well over a year before any announcement of their antipiracy campaign or their amnesty periods, and completely unrelated to its enforcement of its rights under US law to protect its property. Get your facts correct.

    “Robert” — save the bareback argument for the proper venue. This isn’t it. You are pissed because there is a girl in the bareback scenes you crave, and that pisses you off, understandbly (it kinda rubs me the wrong way too). It is a fucked up world we live in that its okay for straight porn companies to shoot without condoms, yet the moment gay porn companies do, it is a collective gasp in horror…even though companies like Bel Ami (with gorgeous twin brothers no less!) and ChaosMen filming scenes every single week without equivalent complaint from you.

  12. Another indicator of how willing Queerty is to go out of its way to manufacture this “controversy” is this piece:

    http://www.queerty.com/dont-retweet-this-blog-post-or-youll-teach-a-kid-to-kill-himself-20110114/

    In that very piece, from a month and a half ago, Queerty talks about “suicide contagion” – the phenomenon in which a teen might be encouraged to commit suicide themselves after reading articles and blog posts about their peers doing it. Queerty finishes that piece with the statement, “…we need to make sure that we aren’t putting our stamp of approval on these actions, nor recommending suicide as a reasonable out.” That statement was preceded by their acknowledgment of the possibility that, “…when readers merely share blog posts, whether reblogging a Tumblr post or tweeting out a link to a Queerty post about a young person taking his own life, you’re contributing to the problem.”

    So, is Queerty really the one who can ask, “Even if it’s just one, is one instance of violence too much?”. They seem to be saying that to Corbin Fisher – that the possibility of “just one” is too much, and so CF must not sue anyone Yet, even when Queerty was aware of the phenomenon of “suicide contagion”, they went on to post several subsequent pieces about gay teen suicides. Included in those subsequent posts were the ones in which they prematurely jumped to conclusions by attributing a teen’s death to suicide (as you pointed out above, Zach), and the follow-up piece to that, in which they chastise the “gay media” and bloggers for jumping to conclusions and making martyrs out of gay teens (as they’d done just days before)

    Why doesn’t, “One… just one!” discourage Queerty from post after post on suicide? Why did it not discourage them from essentially putting their stamp of approval on suicide by blaming CF for any future suicide that might come about, thus relieving the suicide victim of all responsibility and even continuously reminding them it’s understandable they consider it as an option if they were to get sued? Did the, “Any chance of just one!” argument discourage them from their posts on suicide, including their jumping to premature conclusions about a teen’s death based on gossip and Facebook posts?

    It’s very easy to apply the, “Just one” standard to others, while disregarding it oneself.

  13. I’m sorry, but I’m afraid Corbin Fisher has no credibility with me since they started doing bareback gay porn as long as there is a naked chick in the room, while insisting that the same models without the female wear condoms (unless they are in the southern hemisphere, of course). If I had known that women had the magical power of preventing HIV infection just by watching I’m sure I could have rotated any number of them through my room and saved myself a great deal of anxiety!

    Whatever one’s position on copyright issues and the nature of digitized ‘products’, CF’s policies are so glaringly bizarre they verge on the psychotic. If I wanted to listen to the opinions of the deranged I would go speak NOM etc., ….. or just ride public transportation.

    Bottom line: even though some of me dearest friends have been whores, I would never want to be lectured on my moral decisions by them or their pimps.

  14. How come nobody is mentioning the role Equality Florida and Equality California are playing in this extortion case. They have received money from these assholes, money from extortion (I’ll be more than happy to provide a copy of the ¨Amnesty¨ letter these assholes are sending and forcing people to sing). I have contacted EF & EC and they lie and deny or don’t reply. If they don’t renounce and denounce any association with Corbin Fisher, I WILL contact NOM, Focus on the Family, AFA, etc, and inform them of the role those two organizations are playing in this sorry business.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The maximum upload file size: 50 MB. You can upload: image. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop file here

Scroll to Top