Verdict First, Funds Second: GoFundMe’s Red Queen Policy on Rittenhouse

GoFundMe appears to have lifted its ban on fundraising for Kyle Rittenhouse . . . after he was acquitted.  Of course, those funds were most needed to put on a defense and many demanded that the site cut off access to fundraising. The site yielded to the pressure and refused to allow people who believed Rittenhouse to be innocent from donating on its site. GoFundMe has been repeatedly criticized for political bias and conservative sites have objected that the site continued to allow fundraising for Black Lives Matter protesters accused of rioting. The company appears to have embraced a Red Queen policy from Alice in Wonderland: This “sentence first — verdict afterwards.”

GOFundMe issued a statement.

“If someone is acquitted of those charges, as Rittenhouse was today, a fundraiser started subsequently for their legal defense and other expenses would not violate this policy. A fundraiser to pay lawyers, cover legal expenses or to help with ongoing living expenses for a person acquitted of those charges could remain active as long as we determine it is not in violation of any of our other terms and, for example, the purpose is clearly stated, and the correct beneficiary is added to the fundraiser.”

Previously, Twitter and Facebook also blocked those who defended Rittenhouse. For its part, GoFundMe declared in a prior statement that “GoFundMe’s Terms of Service prohibit raising money for the legal defense of an alleged violent crime. In light of the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, we want to clarify when and why we removed certain fundraisers in the past.”

The company previously blocked parents who were opposing CRT being taught in public schools. It has also barred fundraising for police officers.

The GoFundMe policy is facially absurd. A criminal defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. GoFundMe presumes guilt until proven innocent . . . for some defendants.

A criminal defense in any case (let alone a high-profile case with ramped up prosecution teams) is hugely expensive. That financial threat can prompt some to plead guilty. That is why people want to help fund such defenses to guarantee true access to a fair trial. GoFundMe did everything it could to block such efforts.

Of course, as I noted recently in a column, Rittenhouse is likely to need additional funds for the next chapter of litigation that could range from federal investigations to civil lawsuits.

It is a familiar pattern on Internet sites which were once largely neutral platforms for people to communicate and organize. Now these companies are actively engaged in shaping public opinion and creating barriers to free speech and free association. I am an unabashed Internet originalist. I have long opposed the calls for censorship under the pretense of creating “an honest Internet.”  We have have been discussing how writerseditorscommentators, and academics have embraced rising calls for censorship and speech controls, including President Joe Biden and his key advisers. The erosion of free speech has been radically accelerated by Big Tech and social media companies. The level of censorship and viewpoint regulation has raised questions of a new type of state media where companies advance an ideological agenda with political allies.

217 thoughts on “Verdict First, Funds Second: GoFundMe’s Red Queen Policy on Rittenhouse”

  1. The vileness and stupidity exhibit by such as Benjamin and Natasha are heart-breaking. It is so sad to see such ignorant people completely unaware of their shortcomings.

  2. Do a search of :

    Wisconsin parade: Suspect identified as rapper filmed in front of similar SUV that ploughed crowds

    1. I was thinking wasn’t it a shame those Dancing Grannies didn’t have a couple Honor Guard Grannies packing heat providing security.

      It would’ve been tough in that crowd not to hit a bystander.

      Hell, I guess with all these Commie Marxist nut jobs running around most everyone needs to be armed in some way as 911 seems it’s no solution.

  3. Like the monster in Lord of the Flies, white supremacy is a figment of their imagination,
    something the demons on CNN and MSNBC circle jerk about ad nauseam on OUR spectrum. What a waste.
    To them, their imaginary white supremacy is worse than the very real killing of five white children.
    They are master illusionists, and they use our spectrum to perpetuate their illusions,
    making them seem worse than reality. Their illusions are probably a factor in persuading their viewers and fellow travelers to
    commit horrible acts of violence against truly innocent people.

  4. I think I will fill up my single-wide in Winnemucca with AR’s, Glocks, and Mac-10’s to compensate for my small manhood, then I will fit right in at the next CPAC!

  5. A reminder to readers. Don’t feed the troll.

    “Do trolls just want to have fun? Assessing the role of humor-related traits in online trolling behavior”

    Online trolling also correlated with an elevated use of aggressive and self-defeating humor styles, as well as with heightened expressions of the joy in laughing at others (i.e. katagelasticism) and the joy of being laughed at (i.e., gelotophilia)……

    Four major findings emerged: (1) firstly, we corroborated the one-factor structure of S-GAIT and replicated earlier findings which revealed the Dark Tetrad traits as being indicative of perpetrating higher online trolling behaviors; (2) “darker” humor- related dispositions such as katagelasticism and aggressive humor and, to a lesser extent, gelotophilia and self-defeating humor, yielded moderate-to-strong positive associations with online trolling; (3) hierarchical regression analysis showed that, among these humor-related dimensions, only katagelasticism showed a substantial contribution to the prediction of online trolling over and above gender and the Dark Tetrad traits; (4) moderation analysis also revealed that psychopathy was related to perpetration of trolling behaviors among those respondents high in katagelasticism, but not among those with low scores on katagelasticism.

    Further analysis revealed that the tendency to joy in laughing at others moderated the effects of psychopathy on engagement in online trolling, such that those respondents high in psychopathy were more prone to perpetrate online trolling behaviors only if they showed higher levels of katagelasticism. Overall, by showing that humor-related traits (particularly, katagelasticism) are connected with individuals’ engagement in trolling behavior, this investigation confirms that this type of derogatory online behavior is infused with humor.

    Navarro-Carrillo, G., Torres-Marín, J., & Carretero-Dios, H. (2021). Do trolls just want to have fun? Assessing the role of humor-related traits in online trolling behavior. Comput. Hum. Behav., 114, 106551

    https://mobt3ath.com/uplode/books/book-99319.pdf

    TL; DR: Psychopathy is related to trolling behaviors

      1. Hi Anonymous the Stupid. It’s always nice hearing from you though you look better with your green icon. Happy trolling.

  6. This is what Democrats are today

    Wisconsin Circuit Court Search results

    https://wcca.wicourts.gov/caseSearchResults.html

    Showing 1 to 25 of 26 entries

    Case number Filing date County name Case status Name Date of birth Caption

    2021CF004596 11-05-2021 Milwaukee Open Brooks, Darrell Edward, Jr 02-21-1982 State of Wisconsin vs. Darrell Edward Brooks Jr
    2021CF004596 11-05-2021 Milwaukee Open Brooks, Darrell Eugene State of Wisconsin vs. Darrell Edward Brooks Jr
    2021CV003436 06-10-2021 Milwaukee Open Brooks, Darrell Edward, Jr. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. S.I. et al vs. Darrell Edward Brooks Jr.
    2009PA001142PJ 08-06-2020 Milwaukee Closed Brooks, Darrell Evan 06-1985 In Re the Paternity of E. D. B.
    2020CF002550 07-28-2020 Milwaukee Open Brooks, Darrell Eugene 02-21-1982 State of Wisconsin vs. Darrell Edward Brooks Jr
    2020CF002550 07-28-2020 Milwaukee Open Brooks, Darrell Edward, Jr 02-21-1982 State of Wisconsin vs. Darrell Edward Brooks Jr
    2020CV001589 02-25-2020 Milwaukee Closed Brooks, Darrell Darrell Brooks vs. Berrada Properties Management, Inc. et al
    2012PR000360 03-07-2012 Milwaukee Closed Brooks, Darrell E 04-1924 In the Estate of Darrell E Brooks
    2011CM006550 12-13-2011 Milwaukee Closed Brooks, Darrell Edward, Jr 02-21-1982 State of Wisconsin vs. Darrell Edward Brooks Jr
    2011CM006550 12-13-2011 Milwaukee Closed Brooks, Darrell Eugene State of Wisconsin vs. Darrell Edward Brooks Jr
    2011CF005316 11-01-2011 Milwaukee Closed Brooks, Darrell Edward, Jr 02-21-1982 State of Wisconsin vs. Darrell Edward Brooks Jr
    2011CF005316 11-01-2011 Milwaukee Closed Brooks, Darrell Eugene State of Wisconsin vs. Darrell Edward Brooks Jr
    2011CM001812 03-25-2011 Milwaukee Closed Brooks, Darrell Eugene State of Wisconsin vs. Darrell Edward Brooks
    2011CM001812 03-25-2011 Milwaukee Closed Brooks, Darrell Edward 02-21-1982 State of Wisconsin vs. Darrell Edward Brooks
    2010CF000087 02-24-2010 Wood Closed Brooks, Darrell E 02-21-1982 State of Wisconsin vs. Darrell E Brooks
    2005FO000087 03-21-2005 Langlade Closed Brooks, Darrell E 02-1982 Antigo, City of vs. Darrell E Brooks
    2005TR000834 02-21-2005 Manitowoc Closed Brooks, Darrell E. 02-1982 County of Manitowoc vs. Darrell E. Brooks
    2005CM000151 02-21-2005 Manitowoc Closed BROOKS, Darrell E. 02-21-1982 State of Wisconsin vs. Darrell E. BROOKS
    2005TR001189 02-09-2005 Sheboygan Closed Brooks, Darrell E 02-1982 Wisconsin, State of vs. Darrell E Brooks
    2003PA000336PJ 03-30-2004 Waukesha Closed Brooks, Darrell Edward, Jr 02-1982 In Re the Paternity of X.J.B.
    2003PA000336PJ 03-30-2004 Waukesha Closed Brooks, Darrell E., Jr 02-1982 In Re the Paternity of X.J.B.
    2003CM000259 01-09-2003 Milwaukee Closed Brooks, Darrell E 02-21-1982 State of Wisconsin vs. Darrell E Brooks
    2002CF000936 02-16-2002 Milwaukee Closed Brooks, Darrell E 02-21-1982 State of Wisconsin vs. Darrell E Brooks
    1999CF004470 09-05-1999 Milwaukee Closed Brooks, Darrell E 02-21-1982 State of Wisconsin vs. Darrell E Brooks
    1995PR000083 01-11-1995 Milwaukee Closed BROOKS, DARRELL E In the Estate of RUDOLPH SHI

    1. It takes a special kind of f’ed up brain to blame the victim of a fat, zit-faced vigilante trying to prove his manhood by shooting people protesting the killing of another human being. An f’ed up brain perfectly describes the disciples Trump fed a daily dose of alt-right media lies.

            1. BM:
              “Naw Natacha knows wrong from right and doesn’t put up with a bunch of know nothing nonsense from a mob of right wing Trumper proles.

              She’s a right on soul sistah.”
              ***************************
              With nary a fact to back her. So yeah, she’s a zealot with a sandwich board screaming the end is near — and she has a fan club obviously.

      1. Takes an even more f’ed up tiny brain to actually believe that you have no right to defend your business from being burned down by a collection of adolescent socialists/communists who believe that they actually have the right to do that whenever they’re angry. Also, you have to be a genuine mental midget to believe that you cannot defend yourself from someone trying to beat you to death with a skateboard, or who has a gun pointed right at you. And of course, as you beyond arrogant and ignorant leftists know, had Rittenhouse been a member of your beloved antifa or blm, and the attackers were Trump supporters under the exact same circumstances, the same hypocritical, delusional leftists running their traps here would have labelled them heroes. Nobody takes you losers seriously.

        1. KR doesn’t live in Kenosha.

          He lives in Illinois.

          He wasn’t defending his business. He was a prole child thinking he was a vigilante.

          Probably grew up playing violent video games and couldn’t believe he got the chance to actually thwack some dudes for real.

          And get away with it.

          Yahoo!

          He had zero business being there, and zero business carrying a weapon like that.

          But forget it Jake, it’s Wisconsin.

          If anyone walked down a California street with a weapon like that, he’d have SWAT and helicopters on his ass faster than you can say “White supremacy.”

          This country just getting dumber and dumber.

    2. Does anyone know how much time, if any, Brooks actually served in prison following the adjudication of the many criminal charges against him since 1999?

Leave a Reply