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

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.

Plus there's Scott Barretto's testimony from Funimation's TCPA, where he says that his job duties include monitoring social media related to Funimation. As a bonus, he's retweeted some of Monica's twitter bullshit, too.
 
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
Some names we know are up there: Sarah Wiedenheft, Daman Mills, and Amanda (Win?) Lee.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TexOffender
Plus there's Scott Barretto's testimony from Funimation's TCPA, where he says that his job duties include monitoring social media related to Funimation. As a bonus, he's retweeted some of Monica's twitter bullshit, too.
I would also point out that Sabat, being a vice p is strongly believed to exert a lot of behind the scenes control over VAs and while WE have yet to see the evidence, it is very likely IMO, that BHBH has that locked down. Thus Ty's comments about having the needed info on Chrissy. So put it together and whadda you got? Bibbity, Bobbity SCREWED.
 
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.



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.
If they wanted to go with the defense that they're not liable for republishing 3rd party statements, they should have went with the wire service defense, because section 230 does not offer them the protection theyre claiming.
And, even if they did use the wire service defense, that would then contradict Monica's claim of publishing first hand account statements regarding Vic. This entire amendment doesn't seem to have been thought through very well, at all.
 
Shes done side voices for every anime under the sun. Never done anything that is remotely nearing a main char though.
Though I will say her debut role in Freedom Planet (Video game, was a jumping point for a good number of VAs involved) is close to my heart. The quality in general was really meh to bad, but since everyone there was raw and there were moments of good interspersed, I could forgive it. Still waiting for the second game!

I will say I remember her supporting the whole "listening to people's stories" thing at the beginning and supporting a few KV tweets, plus I THINK she's friends with teedotally, but since she's barely spoken about it (as in, I think after the initial barrage she's said nada at all) I hope to God I'm wrong on the latter part.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TAB
Probably one of the more talented female VAs. She was recelty Kale in DS super. She's been mostly neutral on the issue but she is a funi VA.
Worded that badly. I know her as a VA, was just unfamiliar with her stance on the weeb wars.

Shes done side voices for every anime under the sun. Never done anything that is remotely nearing a main char though.
She's done some main characters, but mostly for smaller anime. Off the top of my head, she did leads in Animegataris, Hanebado, and Konohana Kitan.

and I guess Tae Yamada from Zombieland Saga, but that was mostly groaning, and I don't think that even counts as a main character.
 
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.

This filing is absolutely fucktarded. 230 does NOT protect users, except in very specific instances (such as someone doing something criminal or civilly liable in a response of mine). It protects the business or entity itself. If Monica and Soyboy owned Twitter, they themselves PERSONALLY can still be sued for defamation. Just like if they owned Twitter and they distributed child porn, they would be charged, not the entity itself.

230 offers these faggots no protection. It only offers Twitter protection. That's why Vic isn't suing Twitter because Twitter is a platform (for now) and not a publisher.

I don't even know where to begin with this. It's such a misleading interpretation of 230 you would have to be fucking incompetent to make it. I have a feeling that their justification was that since Vic wasn't suing everyone, that they somehow weren't responsible for repeating defamation (even though they made their own defaming statements from the get-go) because....Twitter can't be sued? I don't know. Do they own like 10 shares of Twitter or something and claiming to be Twitter shareholders to be immune from liability? Even then, you're not protected under 230. If Jack defames people on Twitter or commits illegal activities on it, he can't just magically claim 230.

It just means you can't sue Twitter as an entity or blame Twitter as an entity for a user's behavior. Even though Jack is CEO, Twitter is a publicly held company, therefore the shareholders are NOT liable for Jack's actions. Even though he is a CEO. So it doesn't matter if you have ten shares or ten million, you can't just hide behind 230. They can still sue you directly. They just can't punish the platform itself.

I mean, the reading of this is so terrible as to border on malpractice. Claiming 230 is so actively pathetic as it is nowhere near intended to protect users. Unless this came from these fucking mongoloids directly (which is possible), this is so idiotic it borders on baffling. I know they have nothing, but sometimes nothing is better than something. This is such a waste of time and resources of everyone involved I don't see how this doesn't just piss this judge off.
 
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.




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?

Scarlett on team SSSN was suggested gay in a manga. I think. Yes, suggested in Manga V1. (https://rwby.fandom.com/wiki/Scarlet_David)

Coco from Team CVFY in "After the Fall" novel. So there is the six.

Crap. Now I lost my train of thought.

The other guy was talking about them leveraging their IP's into business deals.

Right now Rooster Teeth brand isn't radioactive because their labor issues are standard in the industry. Everywhere is having that problem. With the Vic situation, it still looks like they did "the right thing."

What happens when that calculus changes though?

If in two years they still have labor problems, then they aren't trying very hard to fix them.

The Vic situation is more pressing because that's in court. If the narrative regarding Funimations investigation changes (whether by Funimation or Monica giving up) then the optics change. Doubts would be raised about Rooster Teeths investigation.

Then if they get sued all hell breaks loose on them.

Edit: forgot words.
 
Last edited:
They're trying to claim that because BHBH is moving to strike their tweets and comments, that they're immune under section 230 because they failed to authenticate most of their own evidence :story:

This was Lemoine's plan the whole time, what a fucking dent head.
That’s a big shame then that Casey authenticated them all.
 

Gay-ops are a foot again. Archive is giving me problems, I apologize.
 
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: TAB and TexOffender

Gay-ops are a foot again. Archive is giving me problems, I apologize.

I can't archive it, either.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: TexOffender
As mentioned by others, you can get a rough geographic location.

HOWEVER if you have a court case or police are involved, they can request or subpoena the ISP to get that individuals actual name, you'll need the IP and the time that the IP was doing bad things. Depending on what they are looking for then they can go 'fishing' if the individual isn't using a vpn or tor or something, they can get dns requests, sites accessed, etc but it will have to be in the request/subpoena. Many ISPs just roll over to the 'law' and will give up a bunch of information.

If the user has 'clue' it's doubtful you'll get much.

It's also possible the captured IP is simply a proxy not in known VPN/privacy networks.

A lot of this 'depends'

IANAL
My Friend and I thank you all. (Fwiw, this is Weeb Wars related, sadly)
 
Back