Because the story should be inescapable, and the absence of the story here would be a mark against the forum:
https://www.buzzfeed.com...py-underage-sexual-abuse 

Well, I'm mixed over this situation.

Sadly, though, this most likely means he won't do any more commentaries on classic cartoons; out of the few ones I bothered to watch on the two volumes of the Looney Tunes Golden Collection I have, his commentary for The Great Piggy Bank Robbery was very enthusiastic. It was interesting to hear how much he loves that particular short and how much it influenced him.

Not a lot of people are really shocked, to say the least (unless you didn't know who John K™ really was). If you own the Adult Party Cartoon DVD, the uncomfortableness in most of the intros is deafening. It's also, apparently, been a open secret for decades (some of John's cohorts, such as Eddie Fitzgerald, may have known about it).



https://comments.deviant...m/1/211495142/2025701229 

http://michaelbarrier.co...chivesApril18.html#johnk 

Sorry for this (some what) long post, but I posted my feelings in other places (i.e Cartoon Brew) and wanted everyone here on the deets ..

When this news broke out, the first thing that came to mind was “Finally, this douche is getting called out.”

I’ve known that John sexually harassed women for a long time. (Ever see the introduction to “Naked Beach Frenzy” on the Adult Party Cartoon DVD? If you do choose to go looking for it, be warned that it’s EXTREMELY uncomfortable to watch. Misogynistic, objectifying dude.) Hell, I even knew of that Howard Stern interview where John BRAGS about one of his “sexy” characters being underage, AND I knew that he had an underage girlfriend. However, until recently, I didn’t know that he owned child porn, for instance.

John’s enmassed a cult-like fanbase, so I don’t blame Katie, Robyn, or anyone else for not speaking out sooner. I hope they get the love and support they deserve, and that their abuser languishes in prison.

---

It turns out, according to Byrd's Twitter, that there is over 17 other women whom John targeted since 1992:

https://twitter.com/Topo...tml%23983448327093178368 

I heard hints about him having skeletons in his closet like that from someone a few months ago, but we were under the impression that he was too "under the radar" to be caught. "Under the radar" or not, I somehow knew he'd be busted eventually. Does John K. still have a blog? I like to know what he says about this.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Filmation have shows with attractive looking girls (with some help from Mattel)?

Well, I'm mixed over this situation.

Sadly, though, this most likely means he won't do any more commentaries on classic cartoons; out of the few ones I bothered to watch on the two volumes of the Looney Tunes Golden Collection I have, his commentary for The Great Piggy Bank Robbery was very enthusiastic. It was interesting to hear how much he loves that particular short and how much it influenced him.

Since when was there new commentary for Looney Tunes anyway? I don't think that going to happen for a while. I don't think Warner Archive even does that.

Does John K. still have a blog? I like to know what he says about this.

His blog is still up, but he hasn't updated since 2016. His internet presence has been limited mostly to Facebook and the occasional Kickstarter ..

https://twitter.com/Topo...tatus/982431074293899264 

Yikes! He's really peeved off. NSFW indeed.

Well, I'm mixed over this situation.

Sadly, though, this most likely means he won't do any more commentaries on classic cartoons; out of the few ones I bothered to watch on the two volumes of the Looney Tunes Golden Collection I have, his commentary for The Great Piggy Bank Robbery was very enthusiastic. It was interesting to hear how much he loves that particular short and how much it influenced him.

Since when was there new commentary for Looney Tunes anyway? I don't think that going to happen for a while. I don't think Warner Archive even does that.

They last did commentary on a Looney Tunes home video in 2014 (Platinum Collection, volume three). If they did get back to doing them (and they possibly won't - the commentaries from Porky Pig 101 were all repeats from earlier collections), he probably wouldn't be involved with them.

What a shame, Johnny K.!

If I was already working in the animation industry, I would never EVER mention my privacy I do at home since it's very inappropriate. No matter if they tell me what I do normally at home, I refuse to tell anyone about my privacy, so ZIP!!! (I zipped my mouth closed).

John's back on Instagram again, and he pretending this whole thing never happened, since someone (probably him) is deleting negative comments. Sounds like Déjà vu all over again:

https://twitter.com/Topo...tml%23987583525502234624 

https://www.instagram.com/johnkstudios/?hl=en 

http://rnsss.blogspot.co.../cirrhosis-of-heart.html 

http://rnsss.blogspot.co.../cirrhosis-of-heart.html 

No offence, but how is this more important than finishing your neglected 1935 blog?

If neglect is the metric, the Storm has been neglected for longer.

Welps, his Instagram is finally gone. He's officially dropped of the face of the earth (for now....).

Unfortunately, it's not; he just changed the username. "johnk_human" is the new username.

---

As replies do not seem possible to the announcement "REGARDING CERTAIN ANIMATORS/DIRECTORS BEING EXPOSED AS SEXUAL PREDATORS - Forum.", I would like to note that I find the approach to be troubling. The announcement could be taken to prohibit questioning the veracity of any allegations (which should never be off topic, otherwise simply making an accusation would be proof that something is inherently true), or as prohibiting debating the acceptability of certain actions (which may in some situations be a significantly grey area). (This differs from, say, prohibiting threats or uncivil discourse; the prohibition prohibits an unpopular opinion, which is the most important type of opinion to protect.)

If someone is not allowed to speak, they are forced to disengage from the conversation, and their mind isn't going to be changed. People should be allowed to make their case and defend their positions. The approach that dissent was not allowed is part of what lets offenders keep their actions dark; the prohibitions on dissent should be removed for the benefit of all, but it needs to apply to everyone for that to work, not just people on one side of an issue.

http://rnsss.blogspot.com/  . Keep it civil, and make no threats or intimations of harm.

As replies do not seem possible to the announcement "REGARDING CERTAIN ANIMATORS/DIRECTORS BEING EXPOSED AS SEXUAL PREDATORS - Forum.", I would like to note that I find the approach to be troubling. The announcement could be taken to prohibit questioning the veracity of any allegations (which should never be off topic, otherwise simply making an accusation would be proof that something is inherently true), or as prohibiting debating the acceptability of certain actions (which may in some situations be a significantly grey area). (This differs from, say, prohibiting threats or uncivil discourse; the prohibition prohibits an unpopular opinion, which is the most important type of opinion to protect.)

If someone is not allowed to speak, they are forced to disengage from the conversation, and their mind isn't going to be changed. People should be allowed to make their case and defend their positions. The approach that dissent was not allowed is part of what lets offenders keep their actions dark; the prohibitions on dissent should be removed for the benefit of all, but it needs to apply to everyone for that to work, not just people on one side of an issue.

http://rnsss.blogspot.com/  . Keep it civil, and make no threats or intimations of harm.

Hello, and thanks for the feedback on the post. I am sorry the post was taken in such a way. Admittedly, I am not the best at phrasing things.

The purpose of the announcement was only to prohibit defending things like sexual and physical abuse committed by celebrities in cases that we know are true. It was not intended to punish those questioning allegations of sexual abuse/what have you.

or as prohibiting debating the acceptability of certain actions (which may in some situations be a significantly grey area).

Can you please elaborate what you mean by "certain actions"? I find this phrasing to be troubling and open to troublesome interpretations.

If you wish to allow defense of John K. on your blog, you are perfectly within your legal right to do so, and I cannot stop you. Once again, I apologize if my post was taken out of context or if I accidentally offended you.

---