I really hate how all this went down, but you don't really get to argue for editorial freedom when you've proven yourself incapable of wielding such freedom responsibly and ethically.

So that's at least two confirmed instances of Craggs screwing the pooch.

His online friends aren't legally responsible for his actions. His custodial guardians (parents) are. They’re also responsible for paying any restitution resulting from his illegal actions, and Smedley is absolutely entitled to restitution in this situation.

He was in their custody when this happened. They’re legally responsible for any restitution resulting from his actions.

It's not petty to seek restitution you deserve. It's justice.

Irrelevant. Parents are legally responsible for the actions of children under their custody. They're responsible for paying any restitution in any civil cases resulting from his acts.

There’s no law against being an asshole, so I’m safe. Just like there’s no law against being a moron, so you’re safe too.

Yes, it is. Just because you're a moron doesn't mean the rest of the world judges things by your shitty standard. If you did the things you said you did when you were 17, then you should probably be in jail.

Seriously? Nothing your parents every taught you suggested that making bomb threats or illegally bringing down the network of a major corporation is wrong? Are you fucking kidding me?

No, it's not. The law holds parents responsible for their kids' actions because any reasonable person understands that a parent is responsible for their kids' actions. If your kid is calling in bomb threats and causing major network outages for companies and costing them millions of dollars, then yes, you have a moral…

Legally they are responsible for the actions of children under their custody. This is not a difficult concept either from a legal or a moral standpoint.

All parents of criminal that are still under their custody, yes. And in civil court (which is what Smedley's talking about when he talks about "going after" him) parents are 100% responsible for the actions of children in their custody.

By raising a sociopathic asshole that was legally in their custody at the time that he committed several crimes, including calling in a terrorist threat that resulted in a major airline disruption.

Fuck that. 17 is old enough to know better, and old enough to catch an ass-whooping. This guy's a piece of shit, and deserves all the hate he gets and more.

No, this is a civil matter, not a criminal one. It's a job for lawyers and courts, not law enforcement.

Right. The game character is a reference to Kill Bill, which itself is a reference to the fictional depictions of Hanzo in previous Kung Fu movies, as well as a tribute to Sonny Chiba.

Kill Bill’s use of Hanzo is itself a reference to his appearance in several other Kung Fu movies. But yes, the reference in The Witcher is likely to the version of the character seen in Kill Bill, who, like the character in The Witcher, is a master swordsmith who runs a dumpling shop.

lol...yeah, I forgot about that.

This is where I like to point out that “Pearl Jam” is a euphemism for semen.

A master swordsmith named Hattori, and you don’ think that’s a reference to Hattori Hanzo?