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

[NotaLolyer]

He's with the Randazza group, which means his cases would largely be First Amendment cases - so specialisation within specialisation but not necessarily relevant to this particular action.

The stance that Twitter law is taking is not surprising. The Popehat circle and the Randazza circle are both vehemently free speech. If anything, it's a little bit weird that in this particular instance we are not.

In this instance, the right to free speech comes up against the right to petition the government for redress (that is, to resolve your dispute with someone you allege caused your reputation damage through lies). It's necessarily a place where the government must balance opposing interests in different rights.

I mean, I guess the government could simply stop accepting defamation claims. But that'd pretty quickly lead to these disputes getting settled through much less pleasant means. People used to duel each other to resolve defamation claims. Can't see the government intentionally bringing that back.

Again these faggots (non kiwi) saw judge Chupp mention he’s iffy about dealing with suppressing free speech and are on a bandwagon of making this about free speech because of their egos in interpreting it... see California and the way it combats the 2nd amendment and makes shitty gun laws.

We have lower courts for a reason, the very nature of the way the US works is built on this system. Fuck these clown didler popehat suckers.

First it was a clear first amendment violation, then it was a clear public figure, now we’re back to first amendment, they can’t decide which answer is more wrong.

 

[Far Queue]

The stance that Twitter law is taking is not surprising. The Popehat circle and the Randazza circle are both vehemently free speech. If anything, it's a little bit weird that in this particular instance we are not.

I think most people here are perfectly fine with free speech, but realize that people must also be responsible for it.

Would the law twitter people be in favor of allowing companies to advertise just any old product as a cure for cancer or in possession of features that it clearly does not posses? I suspect that most would realize that no, there might be an interest in holding parties responsible for their speech in such a case.

Would law twitter be okay with allowing people to call the police and report that there's a hostage situation in their homes with a crazed trigger happy gunman threatening to kill everyone? Once again, I suspect not. Does that mean that they're not actually in favor of free speech?

This instance is just another example along the same line of thinking.

 

[instythot]

I think most people here are perfectly fine with free speech, but realize that people must also be responsible for it.

I read the stance around here on it as less responsible but more lolbertarian: Do whatever the fuck you want just don't actively go out of your way to prevent someone else from doing whatever the fuck they want

I'm starting to think that it might get kicked for a far more basic reason. Monica and Ron are two separate independent defendants. Thier involvement and roles with regard to the Plaintiff's causes of action are different. With this unified motion how does the Judge parse the two? How does he find for one and not the other? I had been wondering how Ty and company could respond to that odd single filing. But thinking on it some more how does the Judge do so? And why would he be bothered trying to work it out the hard way? The defendants and council presume a joint status where none exists. That should be the opening element of BHBH's response. That the Defendants Entire Motion is Improper and illegitimate as filed. "Oh and BTW they are now well past deadline so tough titties!"

You're just making a case for Ronnie to get what he wants and have Monnie acknowledge that they've been in a civil union for years. At which point he may just stop caring about the ongoing legal action

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

I mean, I guess the government could simply stop accepting defamation claims. But that'd pretty quickly lead to these disputes getting settled through much less pleasant means. People used to duel each other to resolve defamation claims. Can't see the government intentionally bringing that back.

No, but the government totally should bring back dueling since it would put an end to the SLAPP problem AND the problem of having to pay lawyers six-figure sums to defend yourself against defamation. Let's be honest, most people (especially dumb thots and Soye Boyes) don't want to get shot at so they'd walk back on their defamation pretty quickly.

 

[RodgerDodger]

You're just making a case for Ronnie to get what he wants and have Monnie acknowledge that they've been in a civil union for years. At which point he may just stop caring about the ongoing legal action

They were both asked point blank at deposition if they were married and both said Hell No! Just engaged!

 

[BoxofMonkeys]

They were both asked point blank at deposition if they were married and both said Hell No! Just engaged!

Doesn't matter. You can't retroactively claim spousal privilege.

 

[Tour of Italy]

Why does it always seem these driveby lawyers come from New York or the North-east area?

Because the defendants’ motions are written in a way to appeal specifically to certain biases.

 

[instythot]

They were both asked point blank at deposition if they were married and both said Hell No! Just engaged!

We all know that Ronnie's an orbiter who somehow got close to the ham planet. He's gonna say what Monnie tells him, but everyone can tell what he really wants.

Doesn't matter. You can't retroactively claim spousal privilege.

That is accurate, but I think you are underestimating:

1) how dumb they are
2) the games they're willing to play to keep from admitting they lose

 

[HG 400]

The stance that Twitter law is taking is not surprising. The Popehat circle and the Randazza circle are both vehemently free speech. If anything, it's a little bit weird that in this particular instance we are not.

Freedom of petition for redress is part of free speech. Freedom to lie about some dude trying to rape you so he gets fired isn't.

 

[Capsaicin Addict]

Marc needs to tard-wrangle his minions better, I think.

Also, why is he demanding Nick give money back? Nick just set up the GFM. AFAIK he has no input, influence, or access to the funds.

 

[AnOminous]

The stance that Twitter law is taking is not surprising. The Popehat circle and the Randazza circle are both vehemently free speech. If anything, it's a little bit weird that in this particular instance we are not.

Freedom of speech is, in many ways, analogous to the right to own a gun. The right to own a gun doesn't mean the right to go around murdering people. The right to free speech does not include the right to destroy a man's life with coordinated lies in a despicable smear campaign.

 

[Cakeisjustok]

Marc needs to tard-wrangle his minions better, I think.

Also, why is he demanding Nick give money back? Nick just set up the GFM. AFAIK he has no input, influence, or access to the funds.

Because just like the defense attorneys he doesn't know how it works and won't do basic research on how it works. Rather just spit out bullshit and act like it's correct.

 

[Jub-Jub]

Also, why is he demanding Nick give money back? Nick just set up the GFM. AFAIK he has no input, influence, or access to the funds.

Because he is re.tarded.

I'm not convinced any of law twitter has read any of the filings or looked at any of the facts, all they do is take the word of each other in a massive handjob circlejerk. My evidence is the exceptionalism that they constantly come out with. IANAL, but claiming that MoRonica's filings are good VS any of BHBH filings is ludicrous. Take the TCPA for example, there is 18+ pages of irrelevant garbage before they even attempt a legal argument and even then it doesn't attack the relevant elements in the petition. It's got multiple exhibits labeled the same number/letter as well as numerous errors in referencing to those exhibits and nothing produced has been authenticated in any way.

Yet law twitter says it's the most brilliant document ever conceived and Ty's recent striking motion is frivolous and ridiculous despite being an easily understood document with well referenced/cited information and applying the Texas rules of civil procedure. I'm sure Ty won't get everything he is asking for, but the legal filings are starting to look like the school bully jock beating up the sped.

 

[Cakeisjustok]

Yet law twitter says it's the most brilliant document ever conceived and Ty's recent striking motion is frivolous and ridiculous despite being an easily understood document with well referenced/cited information and applying the Texas rules of civil procedure. I'm sure Ty won't get everything he is asking for, but the legal filings are starting to look like the school bully jock beating up the sped.

The idea that people are attacking Ty's well sourced and cited document while saying that Lemone national enquirer document is valid is just the most obvious proof that they are dishonest. Why wouldn't you try and get the evidence struck, even as a non lawyer anyone can piece that together.

Not that any of us didn't know already that they were dishonest lying pieces of shit but it makes it obvious.

 

[Imperial Agent]

Do we know which lawyers to expect to be present from Ty’s side?

 

[Loose Handle]

So, recently TUG showed DMs with hanleia where hanleia said something interesting about "jumping the gun" on the Vic accusations. On Nick's stream I see Kara Edwards mention contacting Funi in 2019 prior to the firing. Her email dates to February 8, where she says several people directed her to submit. I wonder who those people are, and if one of them was holding the gun hanleia was supposed to listen for.

 

[Notspecialdude]

I'm starting to think that it might get kicked for a far more basic reason. Monica and Ron are two separate independent defendants. Thier involvement and roles with regard to the Plaintiff's causes of action are different. With this unified motion how does the Judge parse the two? How does he find for one and not the other? I had been wondering how Ty and company could respond to that odd single filing. But thinking on it some more how does the Judge do so? And why would he be bothered trying to work it out the hard way? The defendants and council presume a joint status where none exists. That should be the opening element of BHBH's response. That the Defendants Entire Motion is Improper and illegitimate as filed. "Oh and BTW they are now well past deadline so tough titties!"

I'd wager this would be the ruling for that TCPA. It quickly removes everything without having to contest the contents of the TCPA and I'm certain the judge wants to spare as many of his brain cells as possible.

 

[Far Queue]

Freedom of speech is, in many ways, analogous to the right to own a gun. The right to own a gun doesn't mean the right to go around murdering people. The right to free speech does not include the right to destroy a man's life with coordinated lies in a despicable smear campaign.

I think the other thing that people often miss is that the first amendment applies to the government. It simply means that they cannot censor you or arrest you for your speech along with the other rights described in the amendment.

However it doesn't grant you a podium, require anyone else to yield you theirs, or even extend to private individuals or organizations. You're free to yell all you want about god being a lie in the public square, but do so in a church and you can be asked to leave. If you don't, you'll be arrested for trespassing, but not blasphemy or the content of your speech.

About the only examples I can think of offhand where speech becomes a criminal matter (defamation is a civil offense) are highly specific examples of incitement to violence (to the point where it appears a person is giving clear orders and becomes an accessory to any crime committed) or filing a false police report, which is only a misdemeanor in most jurisdictions and often difficult to prove because the state needs to prove that you knowingly and intentionally made false statements and merely weren't misremembering a situation.

I suppose child pornography and revenge porn laws fall into that category as well. Strong free speech advocates should probably argue that both of those should be okay (but you can get into other interesting arguments along copyright or unlawful use of name or likeness to skirt around the issue) but most people hate pedophiles so much that it doesn't bother them if they're being a little hypocritical in that case.

 

[Gehenna]

The idea that people are attacking Ty's well sourced and cited document while saying that Lemone national enquirer document is valid is just the most obvious proof that they are dishonest. Why wouldn't you try and get the evidence struck, even as a non lawyer anyone can piece that together.

Not that any of us didn't know already that they were dishonest lying pieces of shit but it makes it obvious.

That is a straight up insult to the National Enquirer! A magazine with an editorial board, published standards, and which has done legit journalistic work. The shit put into that TCPA is well below what the national enquirer would publish, if the NE had as low as standards as Lemone, they'd have been sued into oblivion decades ago. .

 

[Cakeisjustok]

That is a straight up insult to the National Enquirer! A magazine with an editorial board, published standards, and which has done legit journalistic work. The shit put into that TCPA is well below what the national enquirer would publish, if the NE had as low as standards as Lemone, they'd have been sued into oblivion decades ago. .

I meant that it looks like their covers, which are click baity. But yes, the contents of the NE has more facts then what the defendants put forward.