Diseased #Comicsgate - The Culture Wars Hit The Funny Books!

[soy_king]

Rekieta's initial overview was enlightening (he didn't relay much I didn't already know), but so far what I find most damaging for Waid was one of his updates where he explained Texas has explicitly refused to adopt the 2d Restatements of Contracts, specifically the proviso of truth as a defense to tortiously interfering speech. That implies Texas is (unsurprisingly) a state with a healthy respect for the sanctity of contracts and is liable to take a dim view of any interference, no matter how "morally justified" they might claim it is.

Does 2d Restatements really say that you can interfere in someone else's contract because you wish to "tell one of the parties the truth?" Has any jurisdiction actually thought of this or was this something the authors just pulled it out of their asses?

 

[Mola Ram]

Does 2d Restatements really say that you can interfere in someone else's contract because you wish to "tell one of the parties the truth?" Has any jurisdiction actually thought of this or was this something the authors just pulled it out of their asses?

You got me, I haven't looked at the Torts Restatements or contract law since I was a 1L. Not my field. But I do suspect the situations in which truth is a defense to TI is a lot more nuanced than the Twitter legal brigade understands.

 

[AnOminous]

Does 2d Restatements really say that you can interfere in someone else's contract because you wish to "tell one of the parties the truth?" Has any jurisdiction actually thought of this or was this something the authors just pulled it out of their asses?

Generally, saying something that is true is considered to be protected under the First Amendment.

 

[soy_king]

You got me, I haven't looked at the Torts Restatements or contract law since I was a 1L. Not my field. But I do suspect the situations in which truth is a defense to TI is a lot more nuanced than the Twitter legal brigade understands.

Generally, saying something that is true is considered to be protected under the First Amendment.

So because I apparently have nothing better to do i looked it up. 2d Restatements sec 772 states the only time advice can be considered proper interference in a contract is if it's truthful information or was honest advice that the contracted party requested. It's clearly hard for Waid to assert the latter, and from my brief overview the restatement only cites CA and WI for truthful information as proper interference.

 

[Mola Ram]

So because I apparently have nothing better to do i looked it up. 2d Restatements sec 772 states the only time advice can be considered proper interference in a contract is if it's truthful information or was honest advice that the contracted party requested. It's clearly hard for Waid to assert the latter, and from my brief overview the restatement only cites CA and WI for truthful information as proper interference.

What constitutes "truthful information" is probably something that's been determined through court decisions rather than statute. It'd be interesting to see if truthful opinions meet that definition or if it has to actually be an objective fact. The former seems way too slippery to permit it. Say you tell someone, "Oh, that guy's a white supremacist, didn't you know?" might well be your honest opinion, but it's kind of hard to verify if they don't actually belong to white supremacist groups or have espoused clear white supremacist beliefs. That's a lot different from telling someone, "Hey, the guy you hired was convicted of a hate crime against a black family a few years ago." Assuming it's true, it could be easily verified and you might be able to breach the contract on the grounds having a convicted felon who was convicted of a racial hate crime would be awful for your business.

 

[Least Concern]

So because I apparently have nothing better to do i looked it up. 2d Restatements sec 772 states the only time advice can be considered proper interference in a contract is if it's truthful information or was honest advice that the contracted party requested. It's clearly hard for Waid to assert the latter, and from my brief overview the restatement only cites CA and WI for truthful information as proper interference.

So in other words, assuming that Zack really was literally Hitler, then there's two scenarios: one, AP consults Waid for information on Meyer, and Waid informs them that Meyer is literally Hitler; or two, Waid contacts AP on his own accord to inform them that he is literally Hitler. In the states that follow this 2d Restatements thing, both of these cases are not TI, but in other states, the latter case can be considered TI as far as Meyer is concerned. Am I understanding this correctly?

If true, and given that Meyer is demonstrably not literally Hitler, that seems like two nails in the "truth defense" coffin.

 

[soy_king]

So in other words, assuming that Zack really was literally Hitler, then there's two scenarios: one, AP consults Waid for information on Meyer, and Waid informs them that Meyer is literally Hitler; or two, Waid contacts AP on his own accord to inform them that he is literally Hitler. In the states that follow this 2d Restatements thing, both of these cases are not TI, but in other states, the latter case can be considered TI as far as Meyer is concerned. Am I understanding this correctly?

If true, and given that Meyer is demonstrably not literally Hitler, that seems like two nails in the "truth defense" coffin.

Pretty much. I'd have to read the cases the restatement cites when discussing truthful information and more jurisdictions may have adopted this standard since the restatement was published in 1979, but sufficed to say Texas isn't one of them, and since a diversity action in TX looks at TX law, the truthful information or honest advice defense wouldn't apply.

 

[Mola Ram]

Pretty much. I'd have to read the cases the restatement cites when discussing truthful information and more jurisdictions may have adopted this standard since the restatement was published in 1979, but sufficed to say Texas isn't one of them, and since a diversity action in TX looks at TX law, the truthful information or honest advice defense wouldn't apply.

Man, can you just imagine if Waid only decided not to settle because his loudmouth attorney advised him they'd be fine since it'd be under California law? I'd bet the tantrum baby ends up suing his own lawyer for malpractice. What a glorious shitshow.

 

[damian]

Guys please discuss any lawsuit business in the RCM V Waid thread.

 

[Mola Ram]

Guys please discuss any lawsuit business in the RCM V Waid thread.

Sorry, keep forgetting which thread I'm in when discussing Waid.

 

[damian]

Sorry, keep forgetting which thread I'm in when discussing Waid.

Here's how I'm trying to keep myself organized:

• Waid’s Thread: Anything Mark Waid (stories, GFM, sperging)
• RCM v Waid thread: Anything mentioning or related to the case. Zaid sperging, Not GFM related unless Zaid.
• Comicsgate thread: donations from individuals of interest. Spergery with the GFM, like Fake GFMs

 

[Mola Ram]

RCM v Waid thread: Anything mentioning or related to the case. Zaid sperging, Not GFM related unless Zaid.

I didn't even know we had this as a separate thread. Thanks!

 

[soy_king]

Guys please discuss any lawsuit business in the RCM V Waid thread.

Sorry. Any way to move my comments over there?

 

[damian]

Sorry. Any way to move my comments over there?

You dont have to literally move them there, just continue the conversation in the other threads. (PS a mod can move them)

 

[Pozzingmyfilthyneghole]

See, it's hard to really find an equivalent. I get the sense that most of the respect for him is a facade, but it's unquestionable he does have influence, and he does abuse it to hurt people. I think it's due to the comics industry is so much smaller and even incestuous than the film industry.

I am not promoting violence of any kind, but I am surprised that nobody has bashed Mark Waid's face with a tire iron (in minecraft.)
Seriously, he's a pale, ginger, and spastic lil fag who just gets away with acting like a spoiled brat.

 

[Least Concern]

I am not promoting violence of any kind, but I am surprised that nobody has bashed Mark Waid's face with a tire iron (in minecraft.)
Seriously, he's a pale, ginger, and spastic lil fag who just gets away with acting like a spoiled brat.

Ugh, the worst thing you can do to someone with a victim complex is to validate them by legitimately and unambiguously victimizing them. Let the lawsuit decision and his increased notoriety, both of which will be results of his own doing, be the proper penalty.

 

[Pozzingmyfilthyneghole]

Ugh, the worst thing you can do to someone with a victim complex is to validate them by legitimately and unambiguously victimizing them. Let the lawsuit decision and his increased notoriety, both of which will be results of his own doing, be the proper penalty.

Followed by the tire iron treatment (in Minecraft.)

 

[AnOminous]

Ugh, the worst thing you can do to someone with a victim complex is to validate them by legitimately and unambiguously victimizing them.

I'd be fine with him feeling validated so long as he was dripping blood and crying at the same time.

 

[Francis York Morgan]

Here's how I'm trying to keep myself organized:

• Waid’s Thread: Anything Mark Waid (stories, GFM, sperging)
• RCM v Waid thread: Anything mentioning or related to the case. Zaid sperging, Not GFM related unless Zaid.
• Comicsgate thread: donations from individuals of interest. Spergery with the GFM, like Fake GFMs

So many different ways to talk about what a colossal faggot Mark Waid is.

 

[damian]

How to make a shit character even shittier:
http://jimzub.tumblr.com/post/179518088800/is-riri-williams-non-binary https://archive.fo/voce3

Just like that time he was asked how he felt about others on his creative team telling customers not to buy their books, he dodges the question like a champ. That was a pretty defensive way of saying "No".