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

  • Feels
  • Like
Reactions: Kosher Salt, 3 Cucks None The Richer, ItalianMobStripper and 8 others
What’s up with this guy?

CFADFFF6-D459-4C88-8D1F-EA1314301E04.jpeg
 
Jaimas said:
@AnOminous correct me if I'm wrong, but was this argument literally "MoRon are safe because we are publishers?"
Click to expand...

It's unintelligible. Ron Toye wasn't cutting and pasting shit other people wrote and in fact admitted he'd never even read anything anyone wrote about Vic other than PULL posts. He said everything in his own words and adopted them as his own factual claims. Nobody else generated Monica's claims, either. She claims they're from her own personal memory.

I honestly don't know what statements they're claiming aren't theirs that they're just redistributing.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Kosher Salt, Evil Bunny, Garth and 11 others
3dguy said:
Did Anyone pick up on this ? herohei edited the thumbnail.... don't know the context.
View attachment 866278

Edit : Had posted in the wrong thread
Click to expand...

That'd be pretty fucking embarrassing if the girl that's front and center in the TCPA claim is the person commenting there. If she can verify that it's her, that would be the last nut-kick needed to launch Lemoine's career as a voice actor.

1564475502606.png
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Like
  • Disagree
Reactions: 3 Cucks None The Richer, Evil Bunny, Tipsy Tea Cup and 3 others
Nontransferable said:
This confirms it then. Liberty City Con added Vic to their guest list not that long ago. They told people they couldn't uninvite him when they complained then they took him off the guest list and went radio silent.
Click to expand...
Did they say they would if they could?
Nontransferable said:
View attachment 866301


BTW, the girl on the cover of the TCPA document isn't an unknown. She is listed as "J" in the ANN article and they talked to her.

View attachment 866312
Click to expand...
Anybody know if this chick has come forward? Last time ANN used a picture like that, a girl told them to pound sand.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Evil Bunny and OmnipotentStupidity
CrippleThreat said:
Don't fret. It's the typical guy that tries to acts smart whenever Nick exists on Twitter (tweeting in general, not really about law).
Click to expand...
It's a weird situation actually... He might not be wrong. The term "user" hasn't been defined, and it hasn't been established what the scope should be (unless I missed something in the last few months). There's case law for both a literal interpretation, which would protect any retweet, as well as a restricted interpretation which holds them liable for retweeting. It's going to be up to Judge Chupp to decide for this case. I'm sure he will interpret it to the advantage of the defendants, after all it's not like they have been making his life hard or anything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Harvey Danger
Soviras said:
It's a weird situation actually... He might not be wrong. The term "user" hasn't been defined, and it hasn't been established what the scope should be (unless I missed something in the last few months). There's case law for both a literal interpretation, which would protect any retweet, as well as a restricted interpretation which holds them liable for retweeting. It's going to be up to Judge Chupp to decide for this case. I'm sure he will interpret it to the advantage of the defendants, after all it's not like they have been making his life hard or anything.
Click to expand...
there's not much that this affirmative defense would actually do though. 90% of the defamation aren't because of retweets but because of proper tweets and statements they made.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kosher Salt and Harvey Danger
MCG_Raven said:
there's not much that this affirmative defense would actually do though. 90% of the defamation aren't because of retweets but because of proper tweets and statements they made.
Click to expand...
True, it's not a lifesaver even if the judge goes in their favor somehow, but it could lessen their accountability at least a little. I just wish the courts would establish these kind of things when they are discovered instead of waiting until it's impossible to avoid. The lack of a definition and scope has been known to be an issue since at least 2003, but because it hardly ever comes up unless there's a weird case like this, it's been ignored.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Evil Bunny, ConSluttant and Harvey Danger
Son of Sparda 84 said:
View attachment 865827
Click to expand...

He's going to be at the Liberty City Anime Con, right? This isn't the Vic version of one of that Monica Card Shop thing, right?

Clint Westwood said:
What’s up with this guy?

View attachment 866117
Click to expand...

So basically yeah, they're trying to say that since Ron heard it from someone else, he can't be punished for repeating it. No "provider or user" suggests that 230c1 does apply to Twitter users, and the "or speaker" suggests it would apply to defamation.

Aka, they're claiming Section 230(c)(1) makes it impossible to punish anyone who uses the internet for any speech crime -- Defamation, Slander, Libel -- as long as they claim to have heard the things they are saying from someone else. (Would Information Content Provider be other publishers, or individual users, or "fucking anyone"?)

Dear god what a Hail Mary.

By this logic, literally any speech, no matter what, is legal. Want to send Trump a Death Threat? Say you heard online someplace that he's gonna die screaming. Want to lie about someone? "You heard it somewhere." Want to defame people? Retweet in a circle, deleting the original tweet. In each case, 230c1 says you're not the speaker, ergo, you can't be punished for it.

Edit: Amusingly, this also makes Doxing explicitly legal. We're users of a platform that are repeating information from another source. Which specifically means that it's not our speech.

Random thought: If this holds up, doesn't that mean that you can't copyright just about anything? Youtube cover bands aren't performing "speech" because they're doing it based on something else, ergo since it's not speech it can't be copyrighted, and they can get fucked if some shitty fly by night company downloads and sells their work as MP3s.

Hell, you could take this to apply to say, Editing Wikipedia, or using Microsoft Office 365 to write that great American novel you've been working on. You used an interactive computer service (a website) with information from another information content provider (the dictionary).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: FlikNThaBean, Kosher Salt, Evil Bunny and 12 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back