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

I agree completely that they are calling the shots. Wasn't there something on Nick's stream last night or the other day about Lemonparty being less of a TCPA guy than was previously known?

I also have to wonder that since these are some of the most manipulative fucks on the planet, if they didn't intentionally hire spergs to pull some shit like I mentioned above. I mean they DO think twitter tactics translate to real life. Granted, that sounds absurd but just LOOK at all the absurd crap they have done so far. It wouldn't be out of character at all.
Any sort of "incompetant council" defense will probably fail the sniff test, I doubt J.Sean, Casey or Andrea would be cool with these fuck nuggets trying to imply they're bad at their jobs after the dogshit they've been made to file at the behest of their clients. If this TCPA fails can they do a runner on their clients? They've not been paid shit and with TCPA off the table they've got 0 chance of recovering any sort of fees from the plaintiff. No pay no play.
 
It sounds more like they’re claiming Ron and Monica are not the creators of the PULL rumors and other stories. Essentially he might be saying they are not publishers and not liable for the content?

Either way it’s idiotic. I’m sure there’s gotta be case law saying that repeating rumors, even over the internet, can still constitute defamation.

Regardless of which exceptional approach Lemoine is going for, everyone over at KickVic industries should take a long hard look at this defense; this is a far cry from “we have the truth and we want it all public”. It’s the deathblow to any remaining notion that they’re holding on to concrete evidence that Vic is even half as bad as they claim. They are completely spent, and if they weren’t horrible people, it’d honestly be a little sad.
 
Last edited:
Oh lord. If they are trying to use this as a defense, I am going to laugh my ass off, but who knows what they're gonna do, I could be wrong.

Even a commoner can read and understand this.
(c) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

(2) Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—

(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or

(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).1


Source: 47 U.S.C. §230.

47 U.S.C.
United States Code, 2011 Edition
Title 47 - TELEGRAPHS, TELEPHONES, AND RADIOTELEGRAPHS
CHAPTER 5 - WIRE OR RADIO COMMUNICATION
SUBCHAPTER II - COMMON CARRIERS
Part I - Common Carrier Regulation
Sec. 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material
From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov

§230. Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material
(a) Findings
The Congress finds the following:

(1) The rapidly developing array of Internet and other interactive computer services available to individual Americans represent an extraordinary advance in the availability of educational and informational resources to our citizens.

(2) These services offer users a great degree of control over the information that they receive, as well as the potential for even greater control in the future as technology develops.

(3) The Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.

(4) The Internet and other interactive computer services have flourished, to the benefit of all Americans, with a minimum of government regulation.

(5) Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive media for a variety of political, educational, cultural, and entertainment services.

(b) Policy
It is the policy of the United States—

(1) to promote the continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer services and other interactive media;

(2) to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation;

(3) to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and other interactive computer services;

(4) to remove disincentives for the development and utilization of blocking and filtering technologies that empower parents to restrict their children's access to objectionable or inappropriate online material; and

(5) to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal laws to deter and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and harassment by means of computer.

(c) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

(2) Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—

(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or

(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).1

(d) Obligations of interactive computer service
A provider of interactive computer service shall, at the time of entering an agreement with a customer for the provision of interactive computer service and in a manner deemed appropriate by the provider, notify such customer that parental control protections (such as computer hardware, software, or filtering services) are commercially available that may assist the customer in limiting access to material that is harmful to minors. Such notice shall identify, or provide the customer with access to information identifying, current providers of such protections.

(e) Effect on other laws
(1) No effect on criminal law

Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair the enforcement of section 223 or 231 of this title, chapter 71 (relating to obscenity) or 110 (relating to sexual exploitation of children) of title 18, or any other Federal criminal statute.

(2) No effect on intellectual property law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property.

(3) State law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any State from enforcing any State law that is consistent with this section. No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.

(4) No effect on communications privacy law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the application of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 or any of the amendments made by such Act, or any similar State law.

(f) Definitions
As used in this section:

(1) Internet
The term “Internet” means the international computer network of both Federal and non-Federal interoperable packet switched data networks.

(2) Interactive computer service
The term “interactive computer service” means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.

(3) Information content provider
The term “information content provider” means any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.

(4) Access software provider
The term “access software provider” means a provider of software (including client or server software), or enabling tools that do any one or more of the following:

(A) filter, screen, allow, or disallow content;

(B) pick, choose, analyze, or digest content; or

(C) transmit, receive, display, forward, cache, search, subset, organize, reorganize, or translate content.

(June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title II, §230, as added Pub. L. 104–104, title V, §509, Feb. 8, 1996, 110 Stat. 137; amended Pub. L. 105–277, div. C, title XIV, §1404(a), Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–739.)

References in Text
The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, referred to in subsec. (e)(4), is Pub. L. 99–508, Oct. 21, 1986, 100 Stat. 1848, as amended. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title of 1986 Amendment note set out under section 2510 of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure, and Tables.

Codification
Section 509 of Pub. L. 104–104, which directed amendment of title II of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) by adding section 230 at end, was executed by adding the section at end of part I of title II of the Act to reflect the probable intent of Congress and amendments by sections 101(a), (b), and 151(a) of Pub. L. 104–104 designating §§201 to 229 as part I and adding parts II (§251 et seq.) and III (§271 et seq.) to title II of the Act.

Amendments
1998
—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 105–277, §1404(a)(3), added subsec. (d). Former subsec. (d) redesignated (e).

Subsec. (d)(1). Pub. L. 105–277, §1404(a)(1), inserted “or 231” after “section 223”.

Subsecs. (e), (f). Pub. L. 105–277, §1404(a)(2), redesignated subsecs. (d) and (e) as (e) and (f), respectively.

Effective Date of 1998 Amendment
Amendment by Pub. L. 105–277 effective 30 days after Oct. 21, 1998, see section 1406 of Pub. L. 105–277, set out as a note under section 223 of this title.
 
Last edited:
If Rooster Teeth fades into the background as strictly an animation studio, then alienating fans won't be a problem. The question is what role will they play in the future?

They will play no role, they are committing highly active suicide.
I highly doubt RT will exist a year from today, and will be shocked if they survive two years.

I mean, who has POSSIBLY thought that the time when you are under fire for treating your staff badly and being involved in a fake #metoo scandal is the time to pump up prices-including to people who were promised would NEVER have price increases as part of their deal. (arguably, they can demand a refund for their entire subscription over it) not to mention the Gen:lock flop. (Its good, its even rather popular, but it cannot possibly match the costs with the cast they brought and the animation level, even considering they underpay the animators)

They are having a mess after a mess, losing subs left and right and generally falling apart going woker and broker every year.
RT is dying, and has needs some MAJOR surgery if it wants any chance to recover.
Assuming the cooperates want it to recover and not intentionally killing it in order to scavenge it.


This is a ticking time bomb since RWBY had at least 6 conventionally attractive lesbians compared to one gay side character.

There is a gay dude? who?
And 6 lesbians? you got Illia, jaune's sister (and her wife), and not-actually-stated-outright-thoguh-obviously-pushed blake and yang. who's the sixth?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Solo Wing Pixy
Lmao section 230 isn't going to protect them, it only protects the platforms. Is lemon party that exceptional to truly think his massive misinterpretation of this rule will be a valid defense?
That was a rhetorical question, because of course he is.

Technically, it does protect users, but not in this way. Like, for example, if I were to post illegal content on KF, according to 230, as an unrelated user you can't be sued for it just because you also used KF. On the other hand, if you reposted it, then you're very likely still on the hook.

In this case, they might be trying to get out of having the "testimonials" from PULL be submitted to the court by using this. I don't think it'll work, but it makes more sense than it being anything from Twitter. Then again, given the court filings thus far, maybe it is.
 
On a different tack... The wheels on the bus go round and round :story:

ghkgjghfh.PNG
 
On a different tack... The wheels on the bus go round and round :story:

View attachment 865025
Funimation are trying to run away as fast as possible while Marchi and MoRon keeping poking holes in Funimation's filings with their own filings and testimony, even if they make it out of this in one piece I get the feeling their gigs with Funimation will magically start drying up.
 
Funimation are trying to run away as fast as possible while Marchi and MoRon keeping poking holes in Funimation's filings with their own filings and testimony, even if they make it out of this in one piece I get the feeling their gigs with Funimation will magically start drying up.
Look at what I highlighted though. They're basically saying fuck them, we're not liable for their shit. The fact that they're using their own evidence against them is hilarious.
 
Look at what I highlighted though. They're basically saying fuck them, we're not liable for their shit. The fact that they're using their own evidence against them is hilarious.
They keep claiming they're not liable for them, then Monica turns around and asks for permission to post about the vic situation in an email and their own former employees claim they had power over booking them for conventions....seems like they very much have some measure of control over what their contractors can say or do to me.
 
They keep claiming they're not liable for them, then Monica turns around and asks for permission to post about the vic situation in an email and their own former employees claim they had power over booking them for conventions....seems like they very much have some measure of control over what their contractors can say or do to me.
Classic conflict of interest. Funimation wants nothing to do with these clowns, but evidence points to the contrary.

Right now it's just seeing who can yell loudest, with MoRon wanting Funimation to pay for their judgment and Funimation trying to GTFO from their cancer.
 
They keep claiming they're not liable for them, then Monica turns around and asks for permission to post about the vic situation in an email and their own former employees claim they had power over booking them for conventions....seems like they very much have some measure of control over what their contractors can say or do to me.

The more damning thing for Funi might be in Vic’s testimony, where he indicated that Funi had ordered him not to contact ?Monica, as they fired him. As he pointed out “they just fired me so what power or authority did they hold?” But the point is by giving those instructions, Funi very clearly presumed that they did have such power and control over the VA’s.
 
Classic conflict of interest. Funimation wants nothing to do with these clowns, but evidence points to the contrary.

Right now it's just seeing who can yell loudest, with MoRon wanting Funimation to pay for their judgment and Funimation trying to GTFO from their cancer.
Funimation should've thought of that when they let the lunatics run the asylum, now their wokeness will be tested vs not wanting to loses millions of dollars.
 

The fuck is this? Goddamn that's an exceptional reading of section 230. Plus it's provided late after the TCPA deadline has passed. Gah. This is like 15 minutes of work for J-dolf that will cost the plaintiff a good chunk of lawyer time to deal with on short notice.

The short of it is that if you manually take an action to publish some material, you are legally liable for publishing it. If you provide or use a service that allows someone else to take the action of posting stuff, then you're not liable under CDA section 230. This protects Twitter from being held liable for defamatory tweets, and insists that you sue the twats instead. It also protects you from being somehow held responsible for replies to your tweets. It doesn't provide blanket protection against liability for repeating other people's defamation.

Goddamn do I want some sanctions for these shenanigans, and I hope BHBH argues that this filing is sanctionable.
 
The more damning thing for Funi might be in Vic’s testimony, where he indicated that Funi had ordered him not to contact ?Monica, as they fired him. As he pointed out “they just fired me so what power or authority did they hold?” But the point is by giving those instructions, Funi very clearly presumed that they did have such power and control over the VA’s.
From what I can see, Funi is in deep shit. On one hand they say "Not employees/not responsible" but have multiple instances of direct control over their 'contractors.' Then there's the point in that of Monica's "What do I say?" and the Sony/Funi manager telling her to call whenever/on a weekend or however that went...which speaks directly to conspiracy and blows, at least, their TCPA.
 
even if they make it out of this in one piece I get the feeling their gigs with Funimation will magically start drying up.
Quoting this again, but check this out. ~50 female names, from seasoned VAs to up-and-comings to some literal newcomers. And there's a mix of Texas and LA names.

Guess which names are conspicuously absent from both the VA credits and the staff credits? (granted, this is Discotek doing the dubbing, not Funimation, but still).

6dc8sk7wu2d31.jpg
 
Back