Yeah. This is extremely bad journalism.

This place is the only outlet claiming there’s a fire, though. I was convinced he did something when it was first suggested, but I’m starting to doubt.

Kirkman has said, on the record, that he HASN’T done anything of the sort to her. Get over your dumbass hateboner.

Well she went on the record saying he never did anything to her and she was never implying that he did, so there’s that.

She already said that it wasn’t him, multiple times. There’s no smoke OR fire, it’s Gawkmodo lying or at best misrepresenting the truth.

She went on the record. Sais he wasn’t the guy. Not sure what else you want.

Oh get fucked with that. There’s only “smoke” because Gawker (and let’s not kid ourselves, this proves that Gawker’s yellow tabloid journalism just lives on here) has a boner for the rumor that he did something wrong. Nobody will even take credit for the rumor.

And just LOOK at them all lining up to accuse him.

thought Jen Kirkman already said she never got harassed by him:

Probably not. She just went on the record last month. The headline: “Jen Kirkman Clarifies That Louis C.K. Didn’t Harass Her”

You don’t know the difference between “accused” and “rumors”, then? I mean, the piece you link to even uses the word “rumors” right in the title, and somehow you got to “accused”.

Jen Kirkman has already “gone on the record” to the Village Voice a couple weeks ago, and she specifically said that nothing happened between them, period.

The reason people are asking that is because everyone else that was mentioned is — if not actually convicted — has at least has been ACCUSED by someone of an actual specific act. They are all objectively terrible people.

While I agree with that phenomenon generally, how much of the “fire” originates from these very blogs? And JK has recently suggested he was never the subject of her comments. That’s precisely why the blowback here.

I don’t see why. She specifically went on the record for him.

That link itself states it’s all conjecture and innuendo. First, Kirkman has since said that it flat out wasn’t Louis CK... so that “almost certainly” is factually false. Second, Notaro herself has stated he has to deal with the rumors based upon Gawker’s two items and Kirman’s supposed confirmation. Neither Gawker…

The most you will get is that he hit on her while he was married and then asked her to feature for him on the road. That is all it ever was. People attributing anything else to her have been misunderstanding what she said forever. Spurred on by the former Gawker sites. Which were the source of the *other* allegation…

WEEEEEEAK!

That’s the problem, he hasn’t be accused of sexual harassment. The linkage has always been Jen Kirkman, who just recently categorically denied Louis CK harassed her. Neither Tig Notaro nor Roseanne Barr have directly accused him of anything, just stated “well known” rumors. If he’s done something, then come out and…

Has there been any responses to the Jezebel (or was it Splinternews) call for people to come forward about Louis CK? If not, there’s no proof. Why does the site keep condemning by association then? What’s your editorial justification?