In the years following the 2013 debut of Adult Swim’s cartoon phenomenon “Rick and Morty,” its star and co-creator Justin Roiland became a titan of the animation and video game industry and a rock star of youth counterculture. His artistic style and caricatures became ubiquitous in cannabis culture, and his career expanded into producing other animated series, creating NFTs and leading a virtual reality gaming studio. In 2017, a “Rick and Morty” collaboration with McDonald’s led to such a viral frenzy that police had to be called to at least two locations.
But as he partied with Los Angeles’ superstars and traveled the country for conventions, he also found he could use his fame to strike up conversations and develop relationships with young fans, including some who were underage. This is according to interviews with 11 women and nonbinary people who shared thousands of messages with Roiland from 2013 to 2022 — with nine of the people saying he turned the exchanges sexual. Of those nine people, three said they were 16 when they started talking to Roiland. To corroborate their stories, the 11 women and nonbinary people also shared pictures, videos, social media posts, emails, and plane ticket and Uber receipts with NBC News.
Warning: Lengthy and graphic details
…yes? He’s waiting till they’re 18. Besides the fact that, as someone referenced above, in many states the age of consent is 16, so, if he was really scummy, he wouldn’t have even waited at all.
Again, I find it very hard to believe that adults can sext teenagers legally. I’d like some evidence for that claim.
They make lists of illegal acts in the law books, they don’t generally list the legal ones. I’m curious if this is a crime as well, so please share with the rest of us if you find the answer to this question.
You’re curious if this was a crime, but above you’re saying it isn’t a big deal because he waited until they were 18 to act. Which is it?
Literally nobody said that. Nobody is trying to defend this guy. Suggesting that Roiland was “operating within the law” is a claim of the facts of the case, not a defense of the morality of his actions.
Where did I say that? Please cite the text.
You appear to be projecting a lot of positions onto my comments that I do not hold. All I’ve said is that he does not seem to have broken the law based on the article and my own legal knowledge, I never said anything about what was or was not, “a big deal.” Having sex with 18-year-olds is not an example of pedophilia, legally speaking.
Your response to me calling him a pedo, not a legal claim mind you, was:
That sure sounds like you’re saying it isn’t a big deal to me.
Does it? I suggest you work on your reading comprehension then, because I neither wrote nor implied any such thing. I made a legal claim in the text you quoted, not a moral one.
A legal claim in response to a moral claim, which, again, sounds pretty dismissive.
If you construe anything short of picking up a pitchfork and loudly virtue signaling alongside you as disagreement, you’re going to mistakenly presume a lot.
Don’t bother, they have a weird way about sexuality and age of consent, puritan nutjob heritage.