Or where they were not going. And now we know.
CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
Or where they were not going. And now we know.
I have friends who formed an LLC to purchase personal watercraft.Two jetskis, if I remember correctly. The address of that LLC is their home address.
Were the purchase of those jetskis and the creation of the company coinciding with an activity that they are suddenly embroiled in a very public lawsuit about?
That's what I don't get about these kinds of discussions. Yes, people form corporations all the time. People buy property all the time. So what? That's not what the questions were that were being raised. The questions here was what was this company? And the reason why it's being asked is because it's creation coincided with a massive campaign that was working to convince Star Trek fans to part with money.
I'd prefer that people give this all the due diligence that it requires. Which is none. I posted something about his college volleyball coaching career that I ended up regretting, because it really had nothing to do with what was going on. I think we've taken this to a place that should probably be off limits. YMMV.
Do we? Only in discovery will CBS/Paramount learn the true disposition of those dollars. Otherwise, all we have is an unaudited report from Alec Peters.
We know that nothing has been made, although pictures do indicate that some sets were built, and that some space was rented (for a lot of money). And sure, there is a level of "donor beware" ... but where is the line drawn?
Why was so much money needed? Why is it that Marc Scott Zicree only needed about $250,000 to make his show, starting from scratch, but this fan production needed four times that? Maybe they are just really bad at planning, I don't know. But they were interesting questions nonetheless.
@Michael Hinman Take a deep breath. I realize you are a reporter and therefore are interested in tracking down every detail to make a complete and well documented story.
But that wasn't the purpose of the FB group, and unfortunately your zeal was misplaced.
But that wasn't the purpose of the FB group, and unfortunately your zeal was misplaced.
That's why I said "to me."
I don't know. I thought the fact he was a volleyball coach was kind of cool. And was really kind of impressive.
But when people get shoved into a public spotlight, why would it be wrong to be curious to who they are? In fact, I think it's good to get a full picture of someone, because it could change perceptions (sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worst). It's just a part of natural curiosity.
I also find it interesting where some people set up their boundaries on information. I did an government investigative piece once that involved email conversations. I actually got a few people who wrote me emails asking why I pried into someone's private conversations. Except they weren't private — they were emails on a public server, and by law, they are public record, with some minor exceptions.
And I didn't have to be a reporter to request those emails. My dad could've walked in off the street and made a request for them. Because they are public record.
Why is forming a company with the word "investment" on it, in a different state, during the same time period you're raising more than $1 million, be "off limits"?
Here's how I expected Alec to respond: "That was a company we formed to protect an investment property. I didn't even realize we hadn't finished the process of quitclaiming it, but we're going to do that now. And that's all that was."
Maybe not those exact words, but at least along those lines (probably with a few insults in there just for entertainment value). I've been in the business long enough to know when I'm seeing smoke. And hey, that smoke doesn't always lead to a fire, and that's perfectly OK. I have had many stories in my life where I chased smoke, only to find a campfire. And then I move on to something else.
But here? Still smoke. And still no source for that smoke.
I wasn't working on a story. I was asking questions. I asked a couple, and provided context for those questions. Why is that hard for you to understand?
And I'm sorry, did you run the Facebook group? How are you able to speak for its "purpose"? Was its purpose more to simply bitch about Axanar, and make YouTube videos and memes? Or was it an area to discuss different aspects of the case, and different aspects of what Axanar was doing?
I don't know who you were on the Facebook page, but I remember being in several conversations on that page that discussed exactly that.
If the info you researched was for an article of Blog you intended to write/release, why first post in on a Facebook group to begin with? If it was just personal research (for whatever reason); was it really necessary to post the actual address publically, etc? Yes, the info is out there (Hell, printed and online phone books still exist to this day with personal names and addresses all made public for anyone to see); but IMO it's irresponsible (not illegal) to just put it out there without a VERY good reason (you being a party to the CBS lawsuit would qualify, but I don't think you are); and hell, even a Blog or researched article on the situation for public consumption would be valid. But a Facebook group just because? Please. Doxxing and publically posting without a real good reason is just irresponsible, and I don't think serves anyone in the long run. YMMV.
Jeez. You're being pedantic. Of course it doesn't say it. Of course there's no law against it. But, because you can, should you?
You were working as a reporter. I'm assuming no one is paying you to go around digging up information about this. Is this really on the same level as government corruption? Is this something that really needed to be exposed? When you were working as a reporter, you worked with an editor, who would be an outside person who would decide what needed to be published and didn't. Did you ask someone before you posted, should I post this? Is this really relevant to the lawsuit?
I think you are being overly zealous. Tremendously overly zealous. Yes, that information was in the public record, but, now it's really all out there for someone to see. Did you pause before you hit post and ask yourself, do I really need to post this? Should I perhaps get a comment before I post this?
Do you think the Society of Professional Journalists would support what you did?
It's not just about kids. it's also about privacy. What we have that is private is becoming less and less so. And you dragged someone into it that has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CASE.
Take some responsibility for your actions.
If there is a best place for any investigation of where is the money going, I would think it would be in association with any group of donors who might bring a lawsuit about the fundraising. Raising the questions in more general fora about the CBS lawsuit probably dilutes the questions and info and exposes it to being characterized as spuriously out of context (and piled on with calling it doxing), which seems to have happened.
I don't want to suggest that the person is in the wrong, because end of the day I was unaware of what actually went down, how people reacted to it, or what it all meant. Certainly if it was just basic public record perusing, there's nothing wrong with that. If others took it too far, that's not on the OP.
A
Amaris
Guest
@Squiggy, you did the right thing, and as much fun as the CBS page was, it wasn't worth the trouble you would have faced because of it. Honestly, I should have told Michael to delete the post last night, just as a precaution, but I figured that as long as it stayed on the side of just asking without speculating nefarious deeds it would have been okay.
If others used the information to do something wrong or illegal, yes, that isn't on the OP.
But, the OP wasn't working as a journalist--as in, getting paid to follow a story. He was a poster, digging around on his own, for his own motives. He wasn't just perusing. He was posting it.
Bingo. Ultimately what's worse: prying into public records or childishly bashing someone with memes, videos and remarks about their girlfriend? Shouldn't the discussion really be civil discourse of what the issues are?
Suddenly agreeing with Mr. Hinman and taking back my earlier comment...
So? If I saw something on TV that everyone had access to, am I not allowed to talk about it, just because nobody else tuned in to watch? Are you worried about spoilers?
Haha! Probably so! =P
To get the information I provided, I have to ask? Who did I have to ask?
Or do you mean "ask" by the fact that I queried a public database, like you would query Google for something?
Anyone could pull up the same information I did. In fact, I will even provide you with search terms to shorten the timespan of finding it if you like.
- Status