Please tell me that's a fucking joke. Good God that's just...WOW.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Vic Mignogna Lawsuit |OT| Hold My Beard (Update: Appeal lost, Mignogna must pay attorney fees to defendants)
- Thread starter Sibersk Esto
- Start date
Please tell me that's a fucking joke. Good God that's just...WOW.
I think your are really overestimating the value of this case if you think Sony would sell Funimation off because of it.
Please don't knock on the ease of creating an account as a bad thing. Tvtropes and Animesuperhero.com(formerly ToonZone) allow easily made accounts and you'll be VERY hard pressed to find people supporting Vic there(Anime superhero actually has a long running thread dedicated to Dunking on John Krisfaluci). It's not an issue of accessibility, but simply community and no matter how it's sliced, there's just something about gaming and Anime that attracts the worst and most fanatical people the nerd fandoms have to offer(I have theories for why, but that's for later).
Sadly, it's not a joke. His mom actually calls him that.
Oh no no, I'm not saying that having a easy-to-create account system is bad, or even that having barriers completely prevents trolls from registering (I mean just look at era lol), but that thanks to the easy of create multiple accounts the job of moderation on ANN becomes much harder, specifically because the site became a place for vicstans to attack and troll in given their position on the matter (of being one of the first big sites to speak against Vic's behavior).
But I had to dispute your words from before a bit, of that site being some sort of alt-right haven. I'm not even a active participant there but I do follow the staff and they are good people that have spoken many times against the toxicity of the anime community.
Oh no I was talking about Crunchyroll not ANN. Sorry for the miscommunication . I've seen a lot of threads there that just kill any hope I have in the community. ANN actually tries to keep things civil and in order, but Crunchyroll is just...Sad. Like the vic standing there is legitimately awful.
Yes. Exactly because of that. If, somehow, the court ruled in Vic's favor (and I've seen crazier things happen, like with the Ken Penders matter) it's an exposure of potentially a lot of money in liability that I imagine Sony would not want. Do I think we're headed down that road? Probably not. Do I think it is possible? Absolutely.
Still don't think the anti-SLAPP dismissal is a slam dunk even if Vic as a public figure is established, because there is still the question of whether he committed a crime, which would be a matter of public concern, and in the eyes of the criminal justice system - which actually counts vs. public opinion - he hasn't. I would think there has to be a determination on that FIRST before you could apply SLAPP - certainly that can come with any decision applying SLAPP itself.
I have no stake in this, BTW - I'm just fascinated at it all on account of having read through a ton of filings in the Penders case and seeing how far south that went in fairly short order for Archie.
No. Vic is the plaintiff in this lawsuit not the defendant. Vic has to prove that the defense is lying about him and knowingly and maliciously are lying about him.
Criminal charges do not have ANYTHING to do with this. Vic could be a literal fucking Saint, he isn't, and still would have to prove there was legal Actual Malice. Not colloquial malice.
Edit:
AND just to make it clear. Vic saying "they are lying" does not prove anything.
C'mon. There are tons of legal cases like this every year. Gakwer/Hogan is an inestimable outlier. Giving that outcome credence is enough to make me question that you have no stakes in this.
"I'm not a vic stan, I just repeat everything they say unquestioningly because it, uh-- because it... interests, me. Even when it's clearly wrong."
What a completely normal thing for a person to state in a thread about a serial sexual harasser, homophobe, and anti-semite.
I wasn't going to outright say that.. But I had the thought.
The easiest thing for Vic to do is point to his clean criminal background as evidence of defamation. Not saying it's the right thing to do, but all of these allegations have not been adjudicated in civil or criminal court. That is a fact. It's probably the best fact Vic has going for him right now.
Yes, how dare I question the ERA hivemind - that must automatically make me a Vic stan. I believe the accusers, but I also believe in the justice system over social media groupthink. That's why I'm interested in seeing this through, no matter how it turns out.
not to mention there isn't really any connection at all between the cases aside from it involving a company and a public figure *shrugs*
Gawker/Hogan was a case where Gawker published a video against Hogan's wishes.
Funimation is a case where they decided to terminate the contract with an independent contractor in an At Will state.
All Funimation has said is they conducted an investigation and decided to no longer work with Vic. They haven't even said if they found anything wrong with his actions just that they don't want to work with him at all.
Unless Funimation had a contract that said they had to do so many things with Vic or pay him a termination fee which they aren't paying now Vic has absolutely no case against Funimation especially as Monica and the others are not employees of Funimation they are also independent contractors.
I don't think you really know what you're talking about here.
First, let's look at the actual law being applied. This is what Funimation is bringing: Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code §27.005.
What this means in short is that:
- If this lawsuit is related to Funimation's exercise of free speech/association; and
- Vic can't meet a prima facie case for EACH part of the suit
then the case is dismissed and Vic has to pay Funi's legal fees.
Since the suit is against Funimation's statements and their decision not to work with Vic in the future, the first point is met pretty clearly. Since I don't think they can even point to a defamatory statement Funimation has made, that meets the second. None of this stuff about whether he actually did any crimes is relevant for deciding this suit; it's about whether they brought a good case. This is an absolute slam dunk for them.
Even by the dumb logic of this case, the claims against Funimation had no chance at success. The ONLY public statements Funimation made related to Vic are the following:
"Everyone, we wanted to give you an update on the Vic Mignogna situation. Following an investigation, Funimation recast Vic Mignogna in Morose Mononokean Season 2. Funimation will not be engaging Mignogna in future productions."
"Part of our core mission is to celebrate the diversity of the anime community and to share our love for this genre and to support its positive impact on all. We do not [condone] any kind of harassment or threatening behavior being directed at anyone."
There is no country on earth where these are defamatory. They don't accuse him of anything.
Daaaaamn, you sure showed us!!!! The bravest one of all...
Btw, everything you say before a "but" doesn't matter.
That's not how defamation works. Lack of criminal charges is irrelevant.
Can we knock off this whole eating our own thing? I had quite enough of it when people labeled me a Vic stan over something stupid.
The fact that he refers to the "ERA Hivemind" and "Social Media Groupthink" tells me that he doesn't exactly consider himself to be "One of our own".
*eyeroll*
I'm still not convinced SLAPP is a lock. There's also the question as to whether Vic's lawsuit itself is harassment. Given how he was fired over accusations and suffered harm, regardless of who made those accusations or how, that seems to be a pretty high bar. It would be one thing if zero consequences came out of the accusations, but it's clearly not the case.
I don't think you're taking it the way it was meant. Posters on Era in general have this really aggravating tendency to take extreme binary positions and go full blast attack mode on people that don't just parrot the popular opinion. It's absolutely toxic behavior and leaves no room whatsoever for any sort of discourse. More people need to realize not all arguments they don't agree with are in bad faith.
No. That is not how it works. Vic has to prove that the defendents knowing lied with legal Actual Malice.
Right now in court HE is the accuser. HE has to prove what he is accusing them of.
I'm allowed to call some one a wife beating rapist without andy proof and have it not being defamatory. Defemation has really high standards to prove.
There are tons of people who get acquitted of charges brought against them in civil and criminal court, but they don't get to bring defamation cases against anyone who says that they think they actually committed the crime. That's not the standard at all.
The required standard for defamation has been stated pretty clearly, including by many lawyers who do cases like these for a living, and Vic's lack of convictions is entirely irrelevant in light of the decades of rumors and published articles with accounts of incidents of inappropriate touching, sexual harassment, and worse. He can't win unless he shows that the people he sued made the claims they did KNOWING they were false, and that's all but impossible.
Ken Penders winning a copyright suit doesn't mean that the law doesn't have clear standards.
Yes I am.
When people refer to the "ERA HIvemind" they're usually referring to the people who actually think sexual harassment is bad, or that bigotry is wrong. That is--- UNIVERSIALLY-- the context I see this shit in. When it's paired with people making bold and provably false claims in order to defend a sexual predator, when that person routinely ignores people pointing out how false something is in order to dig their heels in-- when those facts are brought to the table, and all that person has to respond with are the words "ERA Hivemind" and "Groupthink"-- I absolutely am taking it in the way it was meant.
Now if you don't think that's extremely toxic, and poisonous to any "discourse" you might be wanting to entertain, hey, whatever floats your boat. I'm sure there are other forums out there that allow this behaviour to go by unquestioned.
Do you see anything in what I quoted containing the word "harassment"? You're making up standards for winning or losing that aren't in the laws or standards being applied.
You seem to have a pretty different take than other lawyers I've seen. In what state do you practice?
your understanding of "matter of public concern" is absolutely wrong
it's a legal term of art based on first amendment law, not your made up definition contingent on whether or not someone is criminally liable. here is some text from a relatively recent SCOTUS case addressing the topic.
Speech deals with matters of public concern when it can "be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community," Connick, supra, at 146, or when it "is a subject of legitimate news interest; that is, a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public," San Diego, supra, at 83–84. See Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U. S. 469, 492–494 (1975); Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U. S. 374, 387– 388 (1967).
Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2010).
anime isn't front page CNN news, but a serial sexual harasser in a media industry that has been abusing his position for over a decade is definitely a legitimate news interest
Let's ignore the ridiculous "hive mind" bit. And also the fact you're saying this when we literally are already arguing for "the justice system over social media groupthink", given the mobs of defenders are spouting nonsense on Twitter while we're following what actual lawyers are saying. Even with that out of the way...
None of what you're talking about has any relevance to why this would be dismissed, is the thing? It means absolutely nothing that has no criminal convictions. He would have to prove that the defendants knowingly said the things they said despite them being false. "Well, I've never been arrested for a crime" does not prove that. Meanwhile, there have been countless stories over the years - from people who have absolutely no connection to the defendants - that leave him with a very very bad reputation overall. Which would make it hard to say that the defendants ruined his good reputation or had reason to doubt any stories they were told, even if he never went to court due to them.
Maybe take a step back and read more about this case before you decide to die on this hill. Cause you really don't seem to understand what's happening here.
I'm not a lawyer (I know, surprise). And if you tell me to GTFO because of that, I'm not going to do that.
Where am I defending Vic or sexual harassment?
I think sexual harassment is wrong. I also like to see this type of behavior proven before I cast judgment--which is ultimately what this case will do in my eyes.
America in general has a massive boner for free speech, to the point that you can burn a cross on a black family's lawn and call it free speech. It's why America has no hate speech laws - they literally cannot be passed because just about anything short of a direct personal threat is explicitly legal. I believe Texas is one of the states that goes in even harder on it, too.
I'm not a fan of that at all, but that being the case was also a factor in why I thought even before Vic sued that there was no way he could win a defamation case.
I'm not a fan of that at all, but that being the case was also a factor in why I thought even before Vic sued that there was no way he could win a defamation case.
if you think over a dozen plus people with allegations going back decades isn't enough proof.....you are obtuse at best, and defending sexual harassment at worst
"I"m not defending Vic or sexual harassment. I just trot out the line that everyone who is defending Vic and sexual harassment uses. I'm neutral. N-E-U-T-R-A-L. Please believe me. bothsides™ "
Judging from this statement it does not seem like you understand this case at all. Like even a little bit.
TSSZNews also brought up the Ken Penders lawsuits, which burned the Sonic fandom quite badly when the lawsuits swung in Penders' favor and forced Archie to drop entire plotlines and characters that he had created for the comic series. He's likely basing his responses on gut feeling brought about by seeing that happen and his own analysis of the proceedings, but I don't think there were enough similarities in the Penders lawsuits to be of apt comparison to Vic's daily public shaming. Someone with more time and full legal understanding can dig through and provide better perspective on that, though!
Sorry fam, you're just a part of the ERA Hivemind. Any opinion based on the facts of law is just social media groupthink. I'm sure we're also all paid for by George Soros.
In order for Vic to win, he has to prove that the others are performing actual malice, which in turn would require proving that they knowingly were lying to harm him.
aka... in a world where Vic wins, he proved that, so technically if he wins it would be by proving he wasn't sexually harassing people?
given what we have seen that's likely impossible to do, but still technically if he won he would have proven that?
This lawsuit is a defamation suit brought by Vic against various other parties, and its corresponding TCPA (Texas's anti-SLAPP laws) response. It's not a criminal suit charging Vic with sexual harassment, or a civil suit requesting damages as a result.
looks like that's a copyright case?
why is he drawing inferences from a copyright case when this one is defamation lmfao..
My assumption is that it's more to do with what should have been an open-and-shut case in favor of Archie end in the worst case scenario than any direct connections to the style of lawsuit. But, again, I feel like it's more gut feeling than anything else. That could just be the hivemind that was installed in us slowly kicking in though, I haven't had my tea today.
User Banned (Permanent): Excusing Sexual Harassment, Antagonizing Other Users; Engaging in Malicious Trolling.
I appreciate you citing actual case law in my response, which is better than a lot of folks here, so thank you!
There are two things I think the judge needs to consider based on the standard you cite - one: The accusations themselves, obviously. But is it not also worth considering that those accusations were never adjudicated? None of them were. I have to believe both need to be considered, because I would think both of these things contribute to the concern of the community or general news interest. Coming forward with accusations of sexual assault is a serious matter, and that absolutely is of concern to the public. But outing folks as sexual predators doesn't change the fact that their records remain clean unless a governmental body finds a way to pursue charges with that information in hand, and that has not happened here for any number of reasons. Should that not also be considered by the public? That's the wrinkle in why I'm not convinced this is a slam dunk--I'm saying BOTH the accusations and his clean record are of value and concern.
This particular case seems innocent enough to me. An equivalence - false as it may be - was drawn to another case and that's the experience the poster is speaking from. It seems perfectly natural to me that someone without a legal background can make that comparison, especially when that former case was something near and dear to them - the dude literally has a Sonic avatar.
What's toxic is immediately shutting that down and projecting things onto them they never actually said. People did that to me in this very thread and the temptation to crack a joke about it is pretty strong, because otherwise I would just go totally red from anger from labels I didn't earn being placed on me. Why not start with just correcting the misunderstanding instead of going straight to 11 on the hate?
because there isn't a defamation case in existence which would show a path to victory for Vic?
A lot of people bring up cases are people who just have knee jerk reactions to them without reading them.
Oh it's a company vs a person it must apply.
Just like a lot of people don't know that the hot coffee case was actually 100% legitimate. (where the woman spilled her coffee and burned her legs)
dude something doesn't need to be adjudicated for it to be newsworthy
that flies in the face of how news has operated in all of history
see: r kelly
whether something has been fully litigated, or even begun litigation/criminal proceedings, has zero relevance on whether it's a matter of public concern
Anyone whining about "groupthink" like that might as well be arguing in bad faith, even if it's not defending Vic. It's the same as "just playing devil's advocate", "only caring about logic", etc.
Like... what discourse are we supposed to be leaving room for here? I do think it was hasty to jump to calling them out as defending Vic, but what they're saying is still nonsense, and given the situation it's not surprising that people made assumptions about where the nonsense is coming from.
In situations like these, it is really on the person dropping this stuff to make it clear where they're coming from. If they had presented it as "I'm concerned about it possibly not being dismissed because I think _" that would probably have been received better. If they had clarified things without immediately complaining about the "hivemind" and "social media groupthink", it would have been received better. There should be some room for clarification of miswording before someone is lashed out at, but you do have to do the work to not come across as needlessly contrarian at best.
The poster is routinely making false arguments that are repeatedly pointed out to be false and yet he just chalks that up to hivemind and groupthink instead of replying with an actual argument, and when he tries responding with actual arguments he's just restating the already proven false thing over and over again as if that somehow makes it true.
How you can see this as arguing in good faith is beyond me.
I might be unclear, but I was under the impression that he was opening the case amongst a limited party (Rial and a few others).
That wouldn't clear him for all the cases, would it?