Victor Mignogna v. Funimation Productions, LLC, et al. (2019) - Vic's lawsuit against Funimation, VAs, and others, for over a million dollars.

[TheClappening]

The only real crime in their book is being a completely normal heterosexual male.

I don't know man, the jury's still out with those pants Vic wears to cons.

Also of note, Funimation didn't officially break off contact with Freeman until the verdict was read. Which means he was arrested and indicted on child porn charges and Funimation still didn't officially terminate him.

 

[RodgerDodger]

Out of curiosity, does anybody know why Vic didn't sue Rooster Teeth aswell?

Because Rooster Teeth themselves, the business, did not perform any public defamation. Their parting ways with Nick appears to have occurred at a natural point on contract renewal or negotiation. They kept their public comments properly professional. There is some question regarding individual RT contractors making comments, but linking them to RT as principals for purposes of defamation would be an uphill battle. RT will probably not be touched until or unless discovery reveals who was talking to them. The only thing questionable with RT is they fired Vic at the same time as Funi and the cons. So who was bringing them the info that they acted upon?

A combination of 1 and 5, I think. There's no evidence that RT publicly defamed Vic, but it's possible that they were talking behind the scenes. Until it can be proven, they can't really be sued. Discovery in round 1 might turn up some evidence that could be used against RT, though.

Jamie Marchi and Monica Rial, both employees of FUNimation, played a gay op on Twitter where they said that Ron Toye was a high-level employee there at FUNimation. Lots of people reasonably believed this, and it amplified Ron's defamatory remarks because it created the impression that Ron had access to privileged information about the investigation.

The question becomes whether FUNimation is responsible for the actions of its employees, and who needed to know about this in order to say that FUNimation "knew"?

I think the "reckless disregard of whether it is true" part will come into play. Jamie Marchi's infamous "Yes, I want his head. I want his balls." tweet shows the mindset of someone who would make damaging statements with reckless disregard to their truthfulness or lack thereof. She then went on to make defamatory tweets with no evidence behind them. I think you can infer malice from her actions.

Marchi and Rial didn’t just hold Ron out publicly as a high level Funi employee, but as a principal participant of “the investigation”. Further Ron acted as such or at least implied it when he contacted Kamehacon. Agency might not be the hurdle the Twitterati think it is. Because once again, these idiots left a paper trail of all of it on twitter.

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

Something similar happened with Palutena's VA in Smash Bros, which she wanted to reprise it but Nintendo denied her. It's why in some games now by Nintendo, you see credits, but the person you obviously hear is not credited (The same can be said about Pit's VA, Antoni Del Rio, who is not credited in Smash Bros. Ultimate, nor his reprisal of a character in Fire Emblem Heroes, among other ones.)

Nintendo, as a rule, does not work with unions PERIOD. Its the reason why Cloud's English voice could not reprise his role. Unlike the voices of Pit and Viridi, his contract with Square Enix required that he be fully credited (along with his union) every time he did the role, so he couldn't just voice the character under as pseudonym or go uncredited and skirt union rules. Other companies are also trying to get away from using unionized actors. Capcom, infamously, recast nearly every voice in the Resident Evil series, even long time favorites like Alyson Court and Sally Cahill, because they didn't want to use unionized actors. hiring either non-union actors or unionized actors working under pseudonym. Texas voice actors, as a rule, are non-unionized, which is probably the main reason Funimation and Sentai is surviving so well while other centers of voice acting are struggling or already gone (i.e. anything based out of New York).

 

[AnOminous]

Marchi and Rial didn’t just hold Ron out publicly as a high level Funi employee, but as a principal participant of “the investigation”. Further Ron acted as such or at least implied it when he contacted Kamehacon. Agency might not be the hurdle the Twitterati think it is. Because once again, these idiots left a paper trail of all of it on twitter.

Incidentally, this is why you don't let someone walk around talking shit like that in your name. If you fail to disclaim it, that can be seen as ratification of the agency relationship and result in adopting the liability for those deeds and words, or being bound by them by estoppel.

I actually don't think the argument is particularly strong, but the brilliance of the tactic is it forces Funimation's and SoyeBoye's lawyer to come right out of the gate with an argument that their client is a lying sack of shit who can't be believed about anything.

Since an "accidental" agency relationship like this is largely based on public perception of the statements made that led to that belief, SoyeBoye effectively has to argue that not only is he a giant liar, but that he's so notoriously a fuckup that nobody would have believed him anyway.

 

[AStupidMonkey]

The next defense I could see is that Vic is assuredly a limited purpose public figure in this context. Thus, Vic has to show that Funimation acted with legal malice, which in this context essentially means Funimation knew their statements were false when made or it acted with reckless disregard for the truth.

Involuntary public figure might be more apt. Dunno the nuances of Texas law, but limited public figure would seem to require something extra from Vic. Who hasn't been promoting the controversy at all. At best, he issued a very defensive public statement or two.

 

[AnOminous]

Involuntary public figure might be more apt. Dunno the nuances of Texas law, but limited public figure would seem to require something extra from Vic. Who hasn't been promoting the controversy at all. At best, he issued a very defensive public statement or two.

The actual application of involuntary public figure doctrine is pretty rare. It generally requires something on the level of massive news coverage making the person essentially a household name.

As the Supreme Court said about the doctrine:

"Those classed as public figures stand in a similar position. Hypothetically, it may be possible for someone to become a public figure through no purposeful action of his own, but the instances of truly involuntary public figures must be exceedingly rare. For the most part, those who attain this status have assumed roles of especial prominence in the affairs of society. Some occupy positions of such persuasive power and influence that they are deemed public figures for all purposes. More commonly, those classed as public figures have thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved. In either event, they invite attention and comment.

Even if the foregoing generalities do not obtain in every instance, the communications media are entitled to act on the assumption that public officials and public figures have voluntarily exposed themselves to increased risk of injury from defamatory falsehood concerning them. No such assumption is justified with respect to a private individual. He has not accepted public office or assumed an "influential role in ordering society." Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. at 164 (Warren, C.J., concurring in result). He has relinquished no part of his interest in the protection of his own good name, and consequently he has a more compelling call on the courts for redress of injury inflicted by defamatory falsehood. Thus, private individuals are not only more vulnerable to injury than public officials and public figures; they are also more deserving of recovery.

For these reasons, we conclude that the States should retain substantial latitude in their efforts to enforce a legal remedy for defamatory falsehood injurious to the reputation of a private individual." Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 345-56 (1974).

I believe Vic can meet the standard of actual malice if he is found to be a public figure of some sort, but I don't think he's going to have to.

 

[Tipsy Tea Cup]

Because Rooster Teeth themselves, the business, did not perform any public defamation. Their parting ways with Nick appears to have occurred at a natural point on contract renewal or negotiation. They kept their public comments properly professional. There is some question regarding individual RT contractors making comments, but linking them to RT as principals for purposes of defamation would be an uphill battle. RT will probably not be touched until or unless discovery reveals who was talking to them. The only thing questionable with RT is they fired Vic at the same time as Funi and the cons. So who was bringing them the info that they acted upon?

Of course, the usual suspects.

 

[some_crazy]

Because Rooster Teeth themselves, the business, did not perform any public defamation. Their parting ways with Nick appears to have occurred at a natural point on contract renewal or negotiation. They kept their public comments properly professional. There is some question regarding individual RT contractors making comments, but linking them to RT as principals for purposes of defamation would be an uphill battle. RT will probably not be touched until or unless discovery reveals who was talking to them. The only thing questionable with RT is they fired Vic at the same time as Funi and the cons. So who was bringing them the info that they acted upon?

The one public thing that I thought could bring RT into it was Miles Luna's tweets. Miles is the head of writing for anime at RT (as well as a voice actor and other things) - and in that role may be involved in casting decisions or the like (though I obviously don't know).

He backed up Monica's statements on twitter and told people to believe her:

Miles Luna on Twitter: "We’re all here for you if you need us 💙… "

archived 9 Mar 2019 20:40:30 UTC

archive.fo

Miles Luna on Twitter: "You had it right when you said “You two know …

archived 26 Feb 2019 07:42:52 UTC

archive.fo

 

[Stoneheart]

I believe Vic can meet the standard of actual malice if he is found to be a public figure of some sort, but I don't think he's going to have to.

He is a 20 year member of the industrie and was a headliner at many cons, its pretty hard to argue he isnt a public figure of some sort.
Ty would be realy stupid if he argues that vic isnt a public figure. they only have to show the crowds he gets at cons and Tys defense is toast.

 

[some_crazy]

He is a 20 year member of the industrie and was a headliner at many cons, its pretty hard to argue he isnt a public figure of some sort.
Ty would be realy stupid if he argues that vic isnt a public figure. they only have to show the crowds he gets at cons and Tys defense is toast.

I'm not a lawyer so maybe I'm wrong but I think I'm right in saying that:

1. Ty can argue that Vic is NOT a public figure and if that argument is defeated he can swap to arguing for actual malice - he loses nothing by arguing that Vic isn't a public figure other than the time to make the argument.
2. I'm given to understand that the legal definition of "public figure" is a far higher bar than "this guy has ~100,000 fans", or he's "well known in a small niche industry"

 

[Chronic Perturbator]

-Joined last month;
-Hasn't bothered with a profile pic;
-Every post is on Minogna;
-Acts like an exceptional Sargon-tier liberalist.

Seriously, there has been an influx of these no profile pic faggots over the last 2 months who get too exceptional about Minogna or Sargon. Lurk moar you faggots.

There are several people who give me real strong hello fellow kiwis vibe. I’m pretty sure I’m not alone when it comes to at least one of them, too.
This faggot spewing paragraphs like he’s in the halls of debate, the blockbot peddler from the main thread and that one autist making useless, no-grammar posts in the main Weeb Wars thread which mostly go unnoticed and uncared for. These three are either really the best and brightest of #KickVic trying to infiltrate or are so painfully stupid, in their genuine posting they seem like they’re malicious and are badly trying to fit in.

 

[Stoneheart]

1. I'm given to understand that the legal definition of "public figure" is a far higher bar than "this guy has ~100,000 fans", or he's "well known in a small niche industry"

he is an long time A-lister of a not to small industry. you would have to argue that no VA is a Public figure if you want to make that argument.

 

[Gehenna]

Correct me if I am wrong, Poli Sci major here not Law, but wouldn't Vic winning this much easier case make it so that harder to aim for cases like RT are... well, easier? Since his winning, this would successfully confirm there was defamation and it was damaging, wouldn't he then just have to prove that others were connected to it?

At least as I understand it, it is much harder to prove a willful disregard for the truth than it is to prove actual malice. So, at least as I see it, would it not mean him winning this allows him to push the former since he is, effectively, 'exonerated' by winning the first round of cases?

Connected to this, but somewhat tangential, what kind of things could be found in Discovery that helps any potential future cases?

 

[mindlessobserver]

As there seems to be some confusion, a "public figure" is an individual who works for the Government on behalf of the public, and the defamation in question arose in response to that government officials position in the government. I.e, "Mayor Bellweather is a lying sack of shit and probably gay too."

Mayor bellweather cant just go turn around and sue the guy who said that as the first amendment allows us to bitch about the government. Even if he actually and provably never told a lie and was 100% provably no homo, he still cant sue for defamation.

Confusion comes because the Supreme Court established a concept of "limited public figure" and also the possibility that someone could be so famous they are also a public figure.

To become a limited public figure you have to deliberately insert yourself into an ongoing controversy of public concern. So right out the Gate this does not apply to Vic. Monica and Soye cant public defame him and then say he's a public figure because their defamation was so successful everyone learned about it.

To be an actual public figure and not be in government would mean being so well known your presence has NATIONAL levels of public recognition and political influence. Angelina Jolie is a public figure because everyone knows who she is and will recognize her walking down the street. She also uses her position to interject in many debates of public concern. Vic is not a public figure because he is not well known outside a very select group of people and did not interject himself into debates of public concern.

 

[Slimy Time]

There are several people who give me real strong hello fellow kiwis vibe. I’m pretty sure I’m not alone when it comes to at least one of them, too.
This faggot spewing paragraphs like he’s in the halls of debate, the blockbot peddler from the main thread and that one autist making useless, no-grammar posts in the main Weeb Wars thread which mostly go unnoticed and uncared for. These three are either really the best and brightest of #KickVic trying to infiltrate or are so painfully stupid, in their genuine posting they seem like they’re malicious and are badly trying to fit in.

At the very least they should put a profile picture. Didn't know I was back in school learning the alphabet on some of these threads.

 

[Kosher Salt]

He is a 20 year member of the industrie and was a headliner at many cons, its pretty hard to argue he isnt a public figure of some sort.
Ty would be realy stupid if he argues that vic isnt a public figure. they only have to show the crowds he gets at cons and Tys defense is toast.

Vic is known within a fairly small fandom, but the harm to his reputation is not limited to the anime industry. He's accused of sexual assault, which is a matter of public concern to a far broader audience. Many people had never heard of Vic Mignogna and won't know anything about him except for defamatory statements that they've read or heard about him.

The first thing that many people, not just in the anime fandom but in society in general, will learn about Vic is that he's allegedly a sexual assaulter who sexually harasses female co-workers and underage fans. There's just no coming back from that sort of damage to one's reputation. At best, it can be definitively stomped out. and the ones guilty of painting that false narrative can be disproven, discredited, and forced to retract their statements and apologize. Even then, there will still be people who maintain their belief that Vic is a predator and nothing anyone could say will change their minds.

he is an long time A-lister of a not to small industry. you would have to argue that no VA is a Public figure if you want to make that argument.

That's not inaccurate. I can't think of any VAs who would be recognizable enough to be considered a public figure. At best they could probably be considered limited public figures - if someone inserts themselves into a matter of public controversy in order to influence its outcome, they can become a limited public figure. The VAs making claims about Vic are probably limited public figures for this purpose. Nick Rekieta is probably also a limited public figure.

Vic is not a limited public figure, because he's tried to stay out of the controversy as much as possible. Even if the defamatory statements have brought attention to him that could mean he's now an involuntary public figure, he wasn't one when they were actually made - it happened as a result of the defamation. His status as an involuntary public figure now shouldn't affect his ability to seek a remedy to the damages that they caused prior to him becoming an involuntary public figure.

Someone now, for example, who blindly repeats the claims that they've heard about Vic being a predator, could credibly claim that they had heard these claims from sources they deemed reliable. They would probably not be guilty of defamation, because there was no actual malice; they were simply saying something on an incorrect belief that it was true and had become more or less general knowledge. However, this does not apply to the first people who accused Vic; it was not "general knowledge" that he was a predator until they made it such. If their claims were false, they should be held responsible.

 

[Wake me up]

Seriously, there has been an influx of these no profile pic faggots over the last 2 months

Call me an elitist or whatever but if you can't be bothered to set up a profile picture like everyone else on the site, I can't be bothered to read whatever shit you decided to type up.

 

[RodgerDodger]

Correct me if I am wrong, Poli Sci major here not Law, but wouldn't Vic winning this much easier case make it so that harder to aim for cases like RT are... well, easier? Since his winning, this would successfully confirm there was defamation and it was damaging, wouldn't he then just have to prove that others were connected to it?

At least as I understand it, it is much harder to prove a willful disregard for the truth than it is to prove actual malice. So, at least as I see it, would it not mean him winning this allows him to push the former since he is, effectively, 'exonerated' by winning the first round of cases?

Connected to this, but somewhat tangential, what kind of things could be found in Discovery that helps any potential future cases?

Well for example in Discovery BHBH has asked for all communications regarding Vic from Funi and the 3 twits. If they find any direct communications between any of them and Principals of Rooster Teeth regarding Vic that opens up and expands things.

 

[AnOminous]

At least as I understand it, it is much harder to prove a willful disregard for the truth than it is to prove actual malice.

Reckless disregard for the truth is one of two ways you prove actual malice. The other is actual knowledge that you're lying.

Well for example in Discovery BHBH has asked for all communications regarding Vic from Funi and the 3 twits. If they find any direct communications between any of them and Principals of Rooster Teeth regarding Vic that opens up and expands things.

And if they don't turn it over but BHBH later discovers it through other avenues, which we are practically outright expecting, they're in deep shit.

I anticipate it will happen because there isn't any stupid fucking thing these dumb bastards haven't done so far.

Confusion comes because the Supreme Court established a concept of "limited public figure" and also the possibility that someone could be so famous they are also a public figure.

"Public figure" generally means so public that you would not be able to walk down the street without being recognized. So President Trump, Tom Cruise, people like that. The mayor of a city, and even he might not be for all purposes.

Just being known, probably not even by face, in a niche fandom is probably not enough.

 

[Solo Wing Pixy]

Well for example in Discovery BHBH has asked for all communications regarding Vic from Funi and the 3 twits. If they find any direct communications between any of them and Principals of Rooster Teeth regarding Vic that opens up and expands things.

This is the only way I see Rooster Teeth getting caught in this and I hope it happens but man... even then as I see it there's still the chance that RT won't get caught on anything actionable, and then there's the issue of money. Hopefully the um... earnings? (would that be the right term?) from the Funi lawsuit could fund future lawsuits including one against RT.