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

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.
Nick just recently covered in some depth why repeating someone elses libel/slander isn't gonna protect the person doing it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kosher Salt
Except maybe when literally copying it, like through a retweet. It won't apply to everything, but silly undefined terms leave it up to interpretation. This thing explains it a bit better: https://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/2018/12/think-before-you-retweet/
Not gonna fix their defense though...

The literal reading of the law is that they aren't responsible for the actions of other users, who are information content providers, saying libellous things on the same interactive computer service. It's utterly irrelevant, because the issue is not what other users of the service have said, it's what they have said. Using the means at their disposal, they have repeated libellous claims, and made their own libellous claims, and in doing so they become information content providers, rather than being merely on the same interactive computer service as other interactive content providers.

230(c) doesn't apply to their case, because it is written within the context of a law covering the liability of an interactive computer service for the content provided by information content providers. They aren't an interactive computer service. Their liability cover extends only as far as the actions of other persons on the service.

At best they get to claim that retweets aren't their own words. Repeating what other people have said doesn't magically fall under 230(c) just because someone else said it. The defendants also said it.

The relevant definitions are under 230(f):

230(f)(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.

230(f)(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.

The law doesn't explicitely define user, but the definition of information content provider covers the same ground as a user of a service, so they can't weasel out of it by trying to redefine a user as something that it isn't.
 
their strategy is probably going to be something like this

"well I personally never explicitly said vic was a rapist or a pedophile, i only said that i heard [random twitter sperg] say it and was shocked and appalled by it! you can't hold me responsible for what [random twitter sperg] said on the platform!"

basically they'll try to shift blame away from rial/toye/marchi by putting it all on twitter speds like hanleia
Is this still part of the master plan of defaming Vic further?
 
The literal reading of the law is that they aren't responsible for the actions of other users, who are information content providers, saying libellous things on the same interactive computer service. It's utterly irrelevant, because the issue is not what other users of the service have said, it's what they have said. Using the means at their disposal, they have repeated libellous claims, and made their own libellous claims, and in doing so they become information content providers, rather than being merely on the same interactive computer service as other interactive content providers.

230(c) doesn't apply to their case, because it is written within the context of a law covering the liability of an interactive computer service for the content provided by information content providers. They aren't an interactive computer service. Their liability cover extends only as far as the actions of other persons on the service.

At best they get to claim that retweets aren't their own words. Repeating what other people have said doesn't magically fall under 230(c) just because someone else said it. The defendants also said it.

The relevant definitions are under 230(f):



The law doesn't explicitely define user, but the definition of information content provider covers the same ground as a user of a service, so they can't weasel out of it by trying to redefine a user as something that it isn't.
Sounds like the hose beast and Lord of the Soy are claiming to be agents of Twitter...
 
This photo looks insanely off. All three of these people have three separate color grades. The woman in the yellow shirt is far more yellow than the lady holding up the sign. Vic is WAY too contrast in comparison to everything else. This doesn't even look like a case of varying complexions, just different lighting altogether. Vic is hardly emanating a shadow on that wall, even though his elbow says he is relatively close to it, and there's a freaking lamp by his face. Maybe it's something about the way cameras worked back then, and I could be off, but it just looks like these three figures come from entirely different situations.

I don't know. View attachment 858535
It just doesn't make sense for the yellow shirt lady's head to be this small in comparison to Vic's, but also be further in the foreground.

View attachment 858554
This is what it looks like color-corrected, and it looks so photoshopped; it's insane. Where the fuck is all that light coming from the chick in the chair? Not to mention he looks like a giant in comparison to that chair. Not to mention the lack of shadow from the chair onto the woman in the back's shirt, but there's a shadow coming from the board she's holding onto her shirt. Also, why is Vic so dark here, especially compared to the middle lady? In the other pictures he's white as snow. Did he tan here? It doesn't make sense.

...I seriously think Michelle color-shifted the photo to compensate for how yellow the lady in the chair is. This is bullshit.
Anyone else notice the black outlines around Vic’s left arm?
 
  • Late
Reactions: Fat Tub of Lard
The literal reading of the law is that they aren't responsible for the actions of other users, who are information content providers, saying libellous things on the same interactive computer service. It's utterly irrelevant, because the issue is not what other users of the service have said, it's what they have said. Using the means at their disposal, they have repeated libellous claims, and made their own libellous claims, and in doing so they become information content providers, rather than being merely on the same interactive computer service as other interactive content providers.

230(c) doesn't apply to their case, because it is written within the context of a law covering the liability of an interactive computer service for the content provided by information content providers. They aren't an interactive computer service. Their liability cover extends only as far as the actions of other persons on the service.

At best they get to claim that retweets aren't their own words. Repeating what other people have said doesn't magically fall under 230(c) just because someone else said it. The defendants also said it.

The relevant definitions are under 230(f):



The law doesn't explicitely define user, but the definition of information content provider covers the same ground as a user of a service, so they can't weasel out of it by trying to redefine a user as something that it isn't.
The silly part is that some judges already ruled in ways that, when looking at retweets and their nature, would allow 230(c) to apply. Others provided opinions potentially opposite to that. I don't think it should apply, but I can't say it won't apply. It's actually never been judged in favor of retweets specifically not being protected by 230(c), but the most similar situations were covered by 230(c) even when the user was more actively participating than simply retweeting it (because he used the internet, he was a user under 230(c), even when he spread an article written by a third party that wasn't even public before then). I don't think there has been any case with this subject in Texas though, it's quite an uncommon situation... If a judge follows the example of Barret v Rosenthal or Batzel v Smith, then retweets would be protected.
 
The silly part is that some judges already ruled in ways that, when looking at retweets and their nature, would allow 230(c) to apply. Others provided opinions potentially opposite to that. I don't think it should apply, but I can't say it won't apply. It's actually never been judged in favor of retweets specifically not being protected by 230(c), but the most similar situations were covered by 230(c) even when the user was more actively participating than simply retweeting it (because he used the internet, he was a user under 230(c), even when he spread an article written by a third party that wasn't even public before then). I don't think there has been any case with this subject in Texas though, it's quite an uncommon situation... If a judge follows the example of Barret v Rosenthal or Batzel v Smith, then retweets would be protected.
But didn't Monica and Ron already make several of their own original claims, thus kinda invalidating this defense, including supposed firsthand accounts?
 
But didn't Monica and Ron already make several of their own original claims, thus kinda invalidating this defense, including supposed firsthand accounts?
Yea, at most the retweets can't be held against them, which is a very minimal thing in the grand scheme of things.
 
They had an uncut more accurate of the original series but they cancelled it for some reason
If I recall it was due to poor sales. When they started posting uncut Japanese episodes on their YouTube account, they also had a problem with Shunsuke Kozama, Yugi’s Japanese voice actor, filing a lawsuit over the use of his voice.
 

This confirms TI with Liberty City Con. At the very least that makes Jennifer Lynn a direct target of lawsuit if Vic wants to invite her to the party (maybe in a round 2 alongside her fellow conthots) and if Funimation can be attached to this, their TCPA dead in the water. Didn't Ty ask for an extension specifically for Funimation's TCPA response? If so, I'd suspect they're waiting on some info from LCC, like with Kamehacon.

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

I have some suspicions about who J might be, but I'm not convinced 'J' is the right letter for her name. I'm pretty sure that account is really from the girl in the photo, though, because I cannot find her anywhere in that time frame. That leads to the conclusion that it came from a private collection.
 
I'm confused... is this guy PURPOSEFULLY trying to lose the case for monica or something?

Every bullshit filing and affirmative defense has to be responded to by BHBH. They produce competent responses with case law citations. This eats up time and gofundme money.

They’re trying to continually make Ty respond to complete fucking nonsense to drain the GFM and are gambling that they won’t get sanctioned for it.
 
This confirms TI with Liberty City Con. At the very least that makes Jennifer Lynn a direct target of lawsuit if Vic wants to invite her to the party (maybe in a round 2 alongside her fellow conthots) and if Funimation can be attached to this, their TCPA dead in the water. Didn't Ty ask for an extension specifically for Funimation's TCPA response? If so, I'd suspect they're waiting on some info from LCC, like with Kamehacon.

I wouldn't be surprised if she gets added in eventually, but maybe not necessarily in the next batch with Igor and Iago. Keep in mind that so far everyone who's been sued lives in Texas, defamed a person living in Texas, and interfered with said person's contract with a business in Texas.

People like manjaw, Marzgurl, and several other potential targets for legal action are out of state (though a lot of them are in California) and potentially interfered with contracts in a third state. That necessitates federal court and it's understandable why BHBH would want to keep the other defendants in Texas and not give them any chance at escaping.
 
Lemoine is trying to get retweets removed from being considered as potentially defamatory, and it's a filing with hardly any impact even if it somehow succeeds. This makes Nick upset with him.
what? but how? he made those tweets, even if he says he doesnt remember them. im stunned.
 
Back