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

Doodle said:
I couldn't find anything in the statutes about that either (that someone's reputation was already so badly damaged that it didn't matter). One could, I suppose, make that argument but it seems like it is trying to torture in a spirit-of-the-law type interpretation of what it means to be libeled rather than any explicit wording (Texas law is notoriously letter-of-the-law, so we'll see if it works out for them) .
Click to expand...

"Libel proof" is a term only established in common law, as far as I'm aware, rather than it being part of a statute or doctrine. It's not legally defined, because it's just a word to indicate someone is at a point where no damage could be done. It's mainly used to make it simpler than saying "This persons reputation could not suffer any harm from libel or slander because this persons reputation is already at a point where no further harm is possible in regards to the subject of the statement".

The libel proof defense shouldn't be seen as a way to say they did nothing wrong, but as a way to say that there weren't any damages. It's not surprising that something that just indicates a lack of damages isn't defined in the law. Just look at it this way; you can be in the wrong and have defamed someone, but there are no damages so there is no court case. Why would everything that would qualify as a situation where no damages have been inflicted be defined? It's kinda like someone smashing someones property when the property was already thrown into the trash to be disposed of. Yes, it's vandalism, but there aren't damages, and that lack of damages would be a valid defense even if the reason for the lack of damages isn't defined as a possible defense in a statute. The simplest way of putting it is saying that the lack of damages IS the defense, and the reason that there are no damages is just the argument you make in favor of that.

There are only a few exceptional cases where it applies, like a certain serial murderer and rapist that tried to sue for defamation because people said he raped all his victims instead of some (Jackson v. Longcope)... The earliest mention of "libel proof" as a defense being successful that I could find was in Cardilo v. Doubleday, but depending on the court it is sometimes rejected outright without even looking at the facts, because it's not part of the statutes.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Coach Kreeton Of All That, Riceprice, Hotfartz :) and 2 others
Null said:
That's usually the case. At least in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, making two defenses that are contradictory does not impeach either.
Click to expand...
Which is exactly why you can sum up one of the most common defenses as: "We didn't do anything wrong. But even if we did, we didn't do any damage."
That seems to be Funimation's entire defense here as well. I don't see it working out for them, but I understand exactly what they're doing.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Riceprice, Evil Bunny, Botchy Galoop and 1 other person
Soviras said:
There are only a few exceptional cases where it applies, like a certain serial murderer and rapist that tried to sue for defamation because people said he raped all his victims instead of some (Jackson v. Longcope)... The earliest mention of "libel proof" as a defense being successful that I could find was in Cardilo v. Doubleday, but depending on the court it is sometimes rejected outright without even looking at the facts, because it's not part of the statutes.
Click to expand...
The first example I could find of a successful libel-proof plaintiff defense in Texas was a case involving a gang member doing time for murder (Xuan v. Fort Worth Star-Telegram) .
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Botchy Galoop, Army Burger and Yuusha-sama
Soviras said:
There are only a few exceptional cases where it applies, like a certain serial murderer and rapist that tried to sue for defamation because people said he raped all his victims instead of some (Jackson v. Longcope)...
Click to expand...

If you were subject to this doctrine, you would be such a pariah that you wouldn't be welcome in anything like polite society. You would be hounded from town to town by villagers with torches and pitchforks. You wouldn't, for instance, be attending conventions to this day with lines out the door and more popular than your scumbag detractors even after they damaged your reputation seriously.

Unless you are something on the level of a serial killer this doctrine doesn't apply.

They're just listing every conceivable affirmative defense to libel.

Kiomei said:
They'll likely file a TCPA 6 hours late to blueball everyone, unless somehow Ron came up with the 100 women story facts and details.
Click to expand...

They couldn't file it late today, because it isn't even due until June 21.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
  • Agree
Reactions: AStupidMonkey, Not A Bug, Riceprice and 11 others
AnOminous said:
They couldn't file it late today, because it isn't even due until June 21.
Click to expand...

It's discovery that people are predicting a TCPA will be filed to put that to a halt. Something sketchy is going to happen today, but it's anyone's guess what Casey is going to pull. Stay tuned as people will be talking about it everywhere once we figure it all out.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Riceprice, Tipsy Tea Cup, Helium and 4 others
Null said:
I'm not an English teacher or anything, but I'm reading this and immediately I notice a weird ass typo inserting a random comma. Did they not proof read their response?

View attachment 794177
Click to expand...
I find three errors in that one sentence alone. That comma shouldn't be there, but they do need a comma before their dependent clause ("as authorized by ... Civil Procedure"), and they neglected to put a full stop at the end of the sentence.
Null said:
That's usually the case. At least in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, making two defenses that are contradictory does not impeach either.
Click to expand...
The only time that you could run into problems making two contradictory defenses is if you're relying on both of them simultaneously for different parts of the case, so they come into conflict later. If only one of the defenses needs to work, you're fine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Not A Bug, Francis York Morgan, indianshedevil and 3 others
Commander said:
It's discovery that people are predicting a TCPA will be filed to put that to a halt. Something sketchy is going to happen today, but it's anyone's guess what Casey is going to pull. Stay tuned as people will be talking about it everywhere once we figure it all out.
Click to expand...

My personal expectation is that we won't see those answers for discovery until someone hunts Casey down and demands them. I think it's slightly possible that we get a request for more time, but given how eager to release this information Ron has been - judging by his actions, rather than his words - I expect Ty is going to have to go to the judge and get him involved in making Casey produce the documents.
 
Sakana said:
Libel-proof? You mean to tell us that Vic's reputation was already SO BAD that he couldn't be defamed in any way that would further hurt his reputation and business prospects? This one has me doing exceptional mental gymnastics.
Click to expand...


The only person that I have seen actually declared as libel proof is Brett Kimberlin, the Speedway Bomber. You have to be convicted of something to be libel proof most of the time.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: AStupidMonkey, DeadFry and Botchy Galoop
Kiomei said:
It's the same as in Marchi's response as well, but at least it was worded differently. Almost made me wonder if they asked for a copy of their homework and changed a few things around.
Click to expand...
Is there any reason they can't respond, try a few motions, and still settle if things aren't going their way? I'd imagine that's an option.
 
I don't think the libel-proof defense is going to work, but I understand why it's there. IIRC, it could be why Nick was talking about that case where somebody was called something the pedo for a very long time but still won the lawsuit. Can't remember what his exact name was atm, I believe it was on the Friday stream because Cuck Lightyear mentioned it
 
BHWuser said:
Is there any reason they can't respond, try a few motions, and still settle if things aren't going their way? I'd imagine that's an option.
Click to expand...

I think this response likely just keeps all the doors open to them. It hit all the major defenses without overtly doubling down (unlike MoRonica who are going all in with monopoly money) which would cause Ty to go full exterminatus on them. I have no idea how likely it is to happen, perhaps they attempt some type of motion to dismiss or whatever, but it's probably still on the table so long as they act like professionals. Also given that their answer overtly denies that Monica, Marchi, or Ron are their agents, it's possible Funimation is going to want to get out ASAP as soon as the optics are good enough.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Botchy Galoop
The Wisdom of Bassets said:
Everyone is in Texas. Whats to dispute juristictionally?
Click to expand...
Because Funimation isn't a Texas based company. So they could, at least, try to claim that their base of opperations and the one defamatory thing they may have done all originated outside of that jurisdiction and didn't reach into it. I'm not saying that's a good argument either. Just I could see it being attempted.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Questioning_Huggers
Ron LOOOOOOVES Greg "douchebag" Doucette

794537
 

Attachments

  • 1560199610563.png
    1560199610563.png
    79.2 KB · Views: 158
  • Like
  • DRINK!
Reactions: AStupidMonkey, Interesting Hypothesis, Yuusha-sama and 2 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back