Weeb Wars / AnimeGate / #KickVic / #IStandWithVic / #vickicksback - General Discussion Thread

So this might be old hat, but I'll share it anyway.
A while back ago, I checked Behind the Voice Actors (BTVA)'s profile on Vic Mignogna.
Someone posted this tweet from J. Michael Tatum:
https://twitter.com/DylanOgden6/status/1063549463422218240

Note the date: November 16, 2018.

It should be noted that JMT is very good friends with Marchi. (They even have a podcast together.)
So he probably can't be trusted with whatever he says. Because he'll just regurgitate whatever Marchi will feed him.
 
If a retraction is ordered by the courts and the defendant refuses to issue it, there is no second lawsuit required.

Ordering a retraction is very unlikely and likely to be unconstitutional. Doing so might reduce damages to some extent, but it is very unlikely that an injunction would be issued compelling someone to issue speech they do not agree with.

An injunction prohibiting further defamation of the same sort already found defamatory is much more likely.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Le Pew
This would be a good question for Nick, but if a court has already ruled that the statements are defamatory and the defendant at that point still refuses to retract them, could the damages resulting from those statements potentially continue to pile up? I'd assume that attempting to collect them would necessarily involve a second lawsuit, so it might not be worth pursuing it unless there was a good chance of actually collecting something from them.

At the end of the stream for his last panel, he just verified that he definitely will be streaming at 11:00 PM tonight (central time).

Nick actually goes into this at his noon panel from earlier today. The opening salvo from the Plaintif's Lawyers will be a formal letter requesting a retraction of the defamation, followed by a letter to preserve all evidence and documents. If the Plaintiff or these are before they are actually sued. If the recipient fails to retract the defamation or continues the online antics, it will cause a punitive multiplier to be applied to any judgement. So if the actual damages are X, if the plea to retract is ignored and the defamation continued the Judgement will be X x3. Part of the judgement can also be injunctive. Such as an order to publicly appologize and cease any further defamation. If that gets ignored the Plaintiff contacts the Judge and away they go with Contempt.

You think maybe those without lawyers will try to self-represent as a way to save costs / so cock sure in their own "evidence"?
I want them to. It would be hilarious. They are dumb as shit if any of them do that

Figure Rial and Marchi have enough personal finances and enough fame to be able to afford a lawyer. They have money in the bank. I'm not sure on Inoue? The real ones who face complete ruination no matter what and will just pull a pillow over their head and sob are Kaylyn Saucedo and a few Twitter Warriors alongside her. Unless her parents put up for a lawyer, she's fucked. There is no way she has the wherewithal to afford a lawyer, and there is no way she is mentally equipped to act Pro Se. I still think she will simply fail to respond if sued. She will only give testimony if compelled.
 
I got my first block on Twitter :o I don't know how long I've been blocked but, HanLeia has blocked me even though I've never commented in a thread they were involved in.
Actually there's a good chance you were blocked before, look up Steve Shives and see if you were blocked by him.
 
It should be noted that JMT is very good friends with Marchi. (They even have a podcast together.)
So he probably can't be trusted with whatever he says. Because he'll just regurgitate whatever Marchi will feed him.

What I was getting at was the fact the some of these VAs were dropping hints just months before everything exploded.
 
Ordering a retraction is very unlikely and likely to be unconstitutional. Doing so might reduce damages to some extent, but it is very unlikely that an injunction would be issued compelling someone to issue speech they do not agree with.

An injunction prohibiting further defamation of the same sort already found defamatory is much more likely.

Generally I think you see things like Apologies being part of settlements. But a Trial Judge could and would certainly order the defamatory material be taken down, if it is still publicly published. And give an injunction against further disparagement.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: gREEEEEEEEEr
This is way off topic but holy cow that Chadwick guy could probably have his own thread here after choosing to spend fourteen years in jail rather than pay his ex-wife her money.

I really feel sorry for that guy if he was telling the truth that he didn't have access to the money and couldn't comply. But he was probably lying.

And give an injunction against further disparagement.

Such an injunction would have to be narrowly drafted and only concern matter already found to be defamatory not to be an unlawful prior restraint. You couldn't just have a general injunction saying you're never allowed to talk about the guy in any way ever again.

I still think she will simply fail to respond if sued. She will only give testimony if compelled.

If there is a lawsuit, if this doesn't just go away somehow, she'd be a necessary defendant and would have to be named and called, because her actions were so central to the campaign that led to all this even happening. All the other defendants are going to say they aren't liable and that if anyone is liable, she is.

That could help or harm her because if they go with the argument that nothing anyone said was actionable, they wouldn't want what she said to lose, so might tend to support her defense to some degree.

If they go the other way and that this is all her fault and their guy isn't liable that could be bad for her.

Such as an order to publicly appologize and cease any further defamation.

You're not going to see an order to "apologize." (Unless someone settles for that.) Compelled speech isn't constitutional. If you can see a case where a court ordered someone to apologize and that was upheld, I'd be interested. The only cases I've seen were it being overturned.
 
Last edited:
It should be noted that JMT is very good friends with Marchi. (They even have a podcast together.)
So he probably can't be trusted with whatever he says. Because he'll just regurgitate whatever Marchi will feed him.
It also seems like a bit of a reach to assume this is about Vic. He wasn't on the outskirts of their circle, he was right in the middle of it. I'd guess this is about someone else, it's not like there's a shortage of scumbags hanging around anime industry.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Munchingonfish
Code:
normal political spectrum:

[left]----------[moderate ]----------[right]

"woke" political spectrum:

[woke]----------[alt-right]----------[alt-right]

This is a bit off topic, but an alt-righter by the name of Frame Games actually pointed out this is an intentional strategy. I believe he's been purged or went into DFE for various reasons, and I don't agree with most of what he said back in the day, but this did make some sense.

See, there's many levels of identity politics. There's Identitarian -- "I am proud to be Black." There's Nationalist. "I believe Ireland's laws and culture should serve the Irish." And there's Supremacist. "I believe the German people are better than all others."

There's a spectrum, in other words. And it goes something like this in the West's current climate, thanks to Woke racists on one side and the 1488 clique on the other:

Code:
black supremacist - black nationalist - black identitarian - liberal - centerist - conservative - white identitarian - white nationalist - white supremacist

The thing is, in a standard situation the centerists would be in the center, and the nutbars would be on the fringes of each. So you'd have something like:

Code:
black supremacist - black nationalist - [black identitarian - liberal - *centerist* - conservative - white identitarian] - white nationalist - white supremacist

With liberal / centerist / conservative being generally acceptable viewpoints in the overton window, and black / white identitarians being fringe views.

But, what the radical left does is intentionally pretend that there's no difference between the "I am proud to be Irish" types and the "White people are better than everyone else" types. Since white supremacists will, barring some major shift in the cultural zeitgeist, always be outside the overton window, this causes an interesting shift:

Code:
black supremacist - [black nationalist - black identitarian - *liberal* - centerist - conservative] - white supremacist

Everything shifts to the left, because white supremacist is an anchor point. Liberal becomes the default position, Centerist becomes "right wing," and Conservative becomes a fringe righty stance, and nutbars like Gazi Kodzo and the more extreme BLM types become merely fringe letists instead of, well, being literally Black Hitler.

This is why you see the dangerhairs sometimes literally try to use being conservative as a slur -- because to them, with this intentionally engineered overton window, being right leaning is now a fringe righty stance. The only acceptable "right leaning" position is merely being neutral on liberal causes, not actively against them.

The alpha SJWs set the marching orders, and understand what all this means. They know what they're doing by intentionally messing with the overton window like this. But the average idiot? The Ron Soyes and the Chaircucks of the world? They just know that playing along gets them asspats and tendies. So they keep pushing and pushing, and the whole thing starts to break down.

Because as I've mentioned before, there's only so many times you can see them literally call Bernie Sanders "alt-right" before even the most oblivious normie rolls their eyes and stops believing them.

Edit: For those who prefer a political compass:

690126
 
Last edited:
Ordering a retraction is very unlikely and likely to be unconstitutional.

Not at all. If the statements are defamatory, retractions and apologies could very well be part of the court order; for instance the court may order ANN to retract its articles on Vic and put up a statement issuing an apology to Vic and the reason for the retraction. Here is a case with a similar bent for reference: http://static7.businessinsider.com/...-defamation-lawsuit-prompts-retraction-2014-8

Edit: Note, in this case, the defendant seems to have retracted the statement to avoid the majority of legal proceedings prior to a final court decision.
 
Not at all. If the statements are defamatory, retractions and apologies could very well be part of the court order; for instance the court may order ANN to retract its articles on Vic and put up a statement issuing an apology to Vic and the reason for the retraction. Here is a case with a similar bent for reference: http://static7.businessinsider.com/...-defamation-lawsuit-prompts-retraction-2014-8

No court ordered that retraction. They issued it trying to worm their way out of a lawsuit.
 
Figure Rial and Marchi have enough personal finances and enough fame to be able to afford a lawyer. They have money in the bank. I'm not sure on Inoue? The real ones who face complete ruination no matter what and will just pull a pillow over their head and sob are Kaylyn Saucedo and a few Twitter Warriors alongside her. Unless her parents put up for a lawyer, she's fucked. There is no way she has the wherewithal to afford a lawyer, and there is no way she is mentally equipped to act Pro Se. I still think she will simply fail to respond if sued. She will only give testimony if compelled.

Rial and Marchi might have money, but they don’t have it to the extent of someone like Vic at this point. They might also not have enough to fully go through with this case. Never mind the fact that they’ve been blabbering on Twitter about this all throughout February and early March, so that pegs them down.
 
Ordering a retraction is very unlikely and likely to be unconstitutional. Doing so might reduce damages to some extent, but it is very unlikely that an injunction would be issued compelling someone to issue speech they do not agree with.

An injunction prohibiting further defamation of the same sort already found defamatory is much more likely.
So you can tell everyone some one is a rapist, be taken to court for defamation and lose and still not have to tell everyone said person is not a rapist, thus having everyone still believe that person is a rapist?

Nice legal system you've got there.
 
Since this could get into serious geekery (the Supreme Court has not addressed the issue), I might want to direct it back into the actual case we're talking about which is in Texas.

Texas does have a statute about retraction in defamation cases, which can both mitigate damages suffered by a potential plaintiff and give a defendant a way out:

Sec. 73.055. REQUEST FOR CORRECTION, CLARIFICATION, OR RETRACTION. (a) A person may maintain an action for defamation only if:

(1) the person has made a timely and sufficient request for a correction, clarification, or retraction from the defendant; or

(2) the defendant has made a correction, clarification, or retraction.

(b) A request for a correction, clarification, or retraction is timely if made during the period of limitation for commencement of an action for defamation.

(c) If not later than the 90th day after receiving knowledge of the publication, the person does not request a correction, clarification, or retraction, the person may not recover exemplary damages.

(d) A request for a correction, clarification, or retraction is sufficient if it:

(1) is served on the publisher;

(2) is made in writing, reasonably identifies the person making the request, and is signed by the individual claiming to have been defamed or by the person's authorized attorney or agent;

(3) states with particularity the statement alleged to be false and defamatory and, to the extent known, the time and place of publication;

(4) alleges the defamatory meaning of the statement; and

(5) specifies the circumstances causing a defamatory meaning of the statement if it arises from something other than the express language of the publication.

(e) A period of limitation for commencement of an action under this section is tolled during the period allowed by Sections 73.056 and 73.057.


Added by Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., R.S., Ch. 950 (H.B. 1759), Sec. 2, eff. June 14, 2013.

For all we know, Vic has already requested such a retraction via counsel. Anyone who has received such a request would be wise to consult their own counsel for what they should do in response.

There's more on the general procedure and how to respond to such a thing here:
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/CP/htm/CP.73.htm (general statutory basis for libel cause of action in Texas)

This shouldn't be confused with a final permanent injunction ordering a retraction, though.


So you can tell everyone some one is a rapist, be taken to court for defamation and lose and still not have to tell everyone said person is not a rapist, thus having everyone still believe that person is a rapist?

Nice legal system you've got there.

No but you could be financially ruined for the rest of your life and enjoined from ever saying it again and thrown in jail if you do.

So why would you care whether a liar whose word is worthless is ordered to retract something anyway?
 
No but you could be financially ruined for the rest of your life and enjoined from ever saying it again and thrown in jail if you do.

So why would you care whether a liar whose word is worthless is ordered to retract something anyway?
Because unless people follow the case or outcome they're going to go on believing you're a rapist? I don't think any amount of money is worth equal to not spending your life as a social pariah/outcast.
 
No court ordered that retraction. They issued it trying to worm their way out of a lawsuit.

Here is another more infamous case were the retraction was part of an actual legal settlement: https://money.cnn.com/2018/10/01/media/washington-times-aaron-rich/

Note in both cases I noted, a retraction was indeed one of the things requested by the plaintiffs, both in the actual lawsuit and prior to it. And said retractions were part of the ultimate conclusion of both situation. This would suggest that a retraction is indeed something that can be requested during the course of lawsuit. Of course it would only be logical for that to be the case. Why sue someone over an article calling you a rapist if said article calling you such is left up, untouched, in the aftermath? It would defeat the purpose of the lawsuit. As you said, the supreme court has never ruled on this (the one case to reach the supreme court where a retraction was requested, New York Times v. Sullivan, saw the court not even rule on whether or not a retraction was possible). However, there is no first amendment issue here anyway; the first amendment doesn't cover slander or libel, or defamation.
 
Here is another more infamous case were the retraction was part of an actual legal settlement: https://money.cnn.com/2018/10/01/media/washington-times-aaron-rich/

Note in both cases I noted, a retraction was indeed one of the things requested by the plaintiffs, both in the actual lawsuit and prior to it. And said retractions were part of the ultimate conclusion of both situation. This would suggest that a retraction is indeed something that can be requested during the course of lawsuit.

The operative word being "settlement." It can be requested. The defendant can agree with that request. It is unlikely that it can be ordered against an unwilling defendant, even one who has lost and, more importantly, that it would be upheld on appeal if it were.
 
So you can tell everyone some one is a rapist, be taken to court for defamation and lose and still not have to tell everyone said person is not a rapist, thus having everyone still believe that person is a rapist?

Technically, yes.

Although the silver lining is you would reset the defamation if you went back to spouting your bullshit lies after losing. You've have to be an exceptionally retarded person to keep repeating the same defamation after losing a defamation case.

For all we know, Vic has already requested such a retraction via counsel. Anyone who has received such a request would be wise to consult their own counsel for what they should do in response.

Nick stated that some people might have already gotten a harsh dose of reality already, and those that don't would likely get theirs on Monday.

Because unless people follow the case or outcome they're going to go on believing you're a rapist? I don't think any amount of money is worth equal to not spending your life as a social pariah/outcast.

Believe me, with the way that this is going, it's going to be known if Vic wins his case, or there is a settlement involving a retraction.

There will probably always be a pall over Vic. That much is true. But he has a good shot of giving his career a shot in the arm if this plays out well.

Note in both cases I noted, a retraction was indeed one of the things requested by the plaintiffs, both in the actual lawsuit and prior to it. And said retractions were part of the ultimate conclusion of both situation.

You can have a retraction as part of a settlement agreement approved by the court, but you haven't found a case where the court can ORDER a retraction.
 
Last edited:
For all we know, Vic has already requested such a retraction via counsel. Anyone who has received such a request would be wise to consult their own counsel for what they should do in response.

The implication from Nick was that the "rumor mill" might have hinted that those particular letters were postmarked yesterday.

Rial and Marchi might have money, but they don’t have it to the extent of someone like Vic at this point. They might also not have enough to fully go through with this case. Never mind the fact that they’ve been blabbering on Twitter about this all throughout February and early March, so that pegs them down.

I could be wrong, but I could swear someone at some point estimated at least one of their net worth at several million USD? So in the same general ballpark as Vic. Certainly either likely have the $30-$50,000 needed to stage an individual defense or reach a settlement. It is a Judgement that will ruin them. Not the lawyer costs.
 
Back