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

[diskboomer]

Vic has put himself in the dark and I think that's an edge he has on them, because when they compare who's been stirring the pot and who isn't there's a stark contrast.

MoRon/Jamie can't claim the same thing because they willingly put themselves in the position that they do.

Just food for thought.

Exactly, they’re still actively thrusting themselves into this Situation. Outside of Vic’s first few tweets asking people to be kind, spread love, and the apology months ago, he only tweets about conventions, and chicken sandwiches.

Whereas the defendants, and their lawyer are actively antagonising the community, and spreading hate. Despite trying to play victim in court, and claiming Vic thrust himself into it all on social media.

 

[MadPanda]

Exactly, they’re still actively thrusting themselves into this Situation. Outside of Vic’s first few tweets asking people to be kind, spread love, and the apology months ago, he only tweets about conventions, and chicken sandwiches.

Whereas the defendants, and their lawyer are actively antagonising the community, and spreading hate. Despite trying to play victim in court, and claiming Vic thrust himself into it all on social media.

Which is why it is really fucking annoying that Chupp will not even make them provide some sort of evidence to him doing that. I can only hope he is actually getting a bit more interested in the case like it has been suggested, but it has been pretty teeth grinding.

 

[Dumb Bitch Smoothie]

Which is why it is really fucking annoying that Chupp will not even make them provide some sort of evidence to him doing that. I can only hope he is actually getting a bit more interested in the case like it has been suggested, but it has been pretty teeth grinding.

Chupp: "I want his head, I want his balls" isn't specific enough.

Also Chupp: The social media side of this has spiraled out of control hasn't it?

 

[knux]

Exactly, they’re still actively thrusting themselves into this Situation. Outside of Vic’s first few tweets asking people to be kind, spread love, and the apology months ago, he only tweets about conventions, and chicken sandwiches.

Whereas the defendants, and their lawyer are actively antagonising the community, and spreading hate. Despite trying to play victim in court, and claiming Vic thrust himself into it all on social media.

That's what is upsetting for me. They're clearly driven by the attention and can't stop being horrible people. While Vic just wants to continue with his work, he had to engage in legal action to make them stop. Which hasn't worked as they are still going.

Legal action is stressful and expensive even in the better scenarios. So far, it hasn't really gone Vic's way. I'd like to think Chupp's delay means he is actually looking into things properly. But I'll rate myself optimistic for that and just wait and see.

 

[Iron Hamster]

They're desperate for something to cling on. Vic could have farted and they'd say he lost the case.

But Vic would rebound with a proven-to-work coffee mug excuse. It's all the rage now.

Chupp: "I want his head, I want his balls" isn't specific enough.

This is a problem if it stands alone. The whole chain of evidence up to that tweet has to be provided to show it was a response to a Vic conversation. If that isn't there, then that tweet could be about anyone which is what was argued.

 

[AnOminous]

This is a problem if it stands alone. The whole chain of evidence up to that tweet has to be provided to show it was a response to a Vic conversation. If that isn't there, then that tweet could be about anyone which is what was argued.

This is like the Washington Post claiming they didn't libel Nicholas Sandmann because the text didn't specifically identify him even though there was a giant iconic picture of him at the top of the article which was the thumbnail of the video they were using to defame him.

 

[Dumb Bitch Smoothie]

This is a problem if it stands alone. The whole chain of evidence up to that tweet has to be provided to show it was a response to a Vic conversation. If that isn't there, then that tweet could be about anyone which is what was argued.

The point that I'm making is Chupp finds the social media circus alarming but refuses to acknowledge the defendants played a part in doing so.
Absolutely context is needed, but Chupp also can't act like he's suddenly concerned about social media when he wouldn't even let Ty cite the tweet chain as a whole.

 

[Iron Hamster]

This is like the Washington Post claiming they didn't libel Nicholas Sandmann because the text didn't specifically identify him even though there was a giant iconic picture of him at the top of the article which was the thumbnail of the video they were using to defame him.

They probably could have gotten away with it if there wasn't a full in context video of the event.

The point that I'm making is Chupp finds the social media circus alarming but refuses to acknowledge the defendants played a part in doing so.
Absolutely context is needed, but Chupp also can't act like he's suddenly concerned about social media when he wouldn't even let Ty cite the tweet chain as a whole.

Did he have the whole chain though? I got the impression he didn't.

 

[AnOminous]

The point that I'm making is Chupp finds the social media circus alarming but refuses to acknowledge the defendants played a part in doing so.

They literally started it, and in the event the plaintiff has to come back for trial, the only path to victory before a jury is getting them to understand the chain of proximate causation the defendants committed.

The defendants started out, whipped up a social media frenzy with their vastly defamatory accusations of sexual and criminal offenses, and then their Twitter mob descended on the plaintiff, and on his employers, and demanded they unperson him immediately, which happened, despite the lack of any actual evidence for any of these claims.

 

[DragoonSierra]

The defendants started out, whipped up a social media frenzy with their vastly defamatory accusations of sexual and criminal offenses, and then their Twitter mob descended on the plaintiff, and on his employers, and demanded they unperson him immediately, which happened, despite the lack of any actual evidence for any of these claims.

Yeah but social media didnt commit TI and you cant even argue they did. I dont even think the defendants told people to commit TI

 

[AnOminous]

Yeah but social media didnt commit TI and you cant even argue they did. I dont even think the defendants told people to commit TI

I'm not saying they did, I'm saying they were part of the chain of causation that led to damages from defamation.

 

[Elric of Melnibone]

Yeah but social media didnt commit TI and you cant even argue they did. I dont even think the defendants told people to commit TI

If I tweeted out several times that DragoonSierra kidnapped, murdered, butchered, cooked, and then ate babies, and then my lets say million followers began retweeting that and agreeing with me and then I went to your boss and said hey this person eats babies, all these people are talking about it, and criminal charges are definatly coming, does it matter that each of those million retweets diddnt do the TI? The twitter mob is the murder weapon, a tool, the person who used the tool is the one guilty of the crime. We charge murderers not guns (unless you are a democrat).

 

[DragoonSierra]

I went to your boss and said hey this person eats babies, all these people are talking about it, and criminal charges are definatly coming, does it matter that each of those million retweets diddnt do the TI? The twitter mob is the murder weapon, a tool, the person who used the tool is the one guilty of the crime. We charge murderers not guns (unless you are a democrat).

@AnOminous didnt include that point in his scenario even though MoRon has clearly committed TI. I was just responding to the series of events as @AnOminous laid out in that specific post.

The thing is if social media followers committed TI then absent of MoRon telling them to do so they cant go after MoRon for what someone else does. Also thats quite literally the thing they accuse Vic of doing with the "hate machine" bullshit.

 

[AnOminous]

The thing is if social media followers committed TI then absent of MoRon telling them to do so they cant go after MoRon for what someone else does. Also thats quite literally the thing they accuse Vic of doing with the "hate machine" bullshit.

Yes, they can, and routinely do in defamation claims, because the damages in a defamation case revolve around how you are viewed by the public after it and what people do in response to that reputation, if it includes not hiring you, firing you, repeating the defamatory claims about you, etc.

Those are damages proximately caused by defaming someone and, when the defamation is intentional, are the intended consequences and the unlawful harm.

 

[I can't imagine]

@AnOminous didnt include that point in his scenario even though MoRon has clearly committed TI. I was just responding to the series of events as @AnOminous laid out in that specific post.

The thing is if social media followers committed TI then absent of MoRon telling them to do so they cant go after MoRon for what someone else does. Also thats quite literally the thing they accuse Vic of doing with the "hate machine" bullshit.

I think there's probably some miscommunication here, but I think I get what you're saying.

Here's the main thing to understand: there is tortious interference (TI), and there is defamation. TI frequently involves defamation, but does not require it; it can be caused by threats, blackmail, etc. Defamation, likewise, can occur without TI being involved; in other words, you can cause damage by your defamation without the damage having to have been TI.

If MoRon's defamatory statements induced a hate mob to descend upon the con organizers, leading to the con cancelling their contract with Vic, but they never mentioned the con, the facility, or the con organizer, then they most likely didn't commit TI. However, that doesn't mean they can't be held responsible for the damages caused by that hate mob. They're still the proximate cause of the hate mob, and the damages caused as a result are, to some degree, their responsibility.

Here's the other thing: Vic and his counsel aren't claiming that Monica and Ron personally engaged in TI for 100% of the cancellations involved. They're claiming that they engaged in TI for at least some of them, up to and including all of them. As stated in the last paragraph, though, they don't need to have been engaged in TI for any given con, since it still would be considered damages under the tort of defamation. As such, even if they only engaged in TI for KamehaCon (unlikely, but theoretically possible), the financial damages of the defamation on Vic can still include the effect caused by every other con that cancelled.

 

[AnOminous]

Here's the other thing: Vic and his counsel aren't claiming that Monica and Ron personally engaged in TI for 100% of the cancellations involved. They're claiming that they engaged in TI for at least some of them, up to and including all of them. As stated in the last paragraph, though, they don't need to have been engaged in TI for any given con, since it still would be considered damages under the tort of defamation. As such, even if they only engaged in TI for KamehaCon (unlikely, but theoretically possible), the financial damages of the defamation on Vic can still include the effect caused by every other con that cancelled.

There's also two kinds of TI in the case, tortious interference with an existing contract, in the case of (at least) Kamehacon) and with prospective business relations. The first has to be (and is) very specific, and requires an existing contract that the defendant(s) knew about and intentionally interfered with. Toye explicitly acknowledged he knew the contract existed and similarly explicitly demanded that it be breached, threatening dire consequences if Kamehacon didn't.

Prospective business relationships don't need to be specific. They can be any sort of known or unknown opportunities. As an example of how nonspecific this can be, the owner of a rental property in Texas has been able to sue successfully over tortious interference with prospective business relationships with a holdover tenant on the mere probability that had that tenant left on time, the property would have been rented. This has to be more than mere speculation, but a preponderance test merely requires showing it is more likely than not that due to the actions of the defendant(s), the relations would have occurred.

(I doubt that example would work anywhere other than in Texas which takes an inordinately expansive view of the tort.)

 

[TheClappening]

There's also two kinds of TI in the case, tortious interference with an existing contract, in the case of (at least) Kamehacon) and with prospective business relations. The first has to be (and is) very specific, and requires an existing contract that the defendant(s) knew about and intentionally interfered with. Toye explicitly acknowledged he knew the contract existed and similarly explicitly demanded that it be breached, threatening dire consequences if Kamehacon didn't.

Prospective business relationships don't need to be specific. They can be any sort of known or unknown opportunities. As an example of how nonspecific this can be, the owner of a rental property in Texas has been able to sue successfully over tortious interference with prospective business relationships with a holdover tenant on the mere probability that had that tenant left on time, the property would have been rented. This has to be more than mere speculation, but a preponderance test merely requires showing it is more likely than not that due to the actions of the defendant(s), the relations would have occurred.

(I doubt that example would work anywhere other than in Texas which takes an inordinately expansive view of the tort.)

Even here, though there's evidence of TI-PBR, assuming the Slatosch declaration is allowed. He explicitly said MoRon urged him not to engage with Vic in the future on account of the alleged criminal charges.

Although I don't know if that counts, and if Vic would require some evidence of someone not inviting him actively.

 

[AnOminous]

Although I don't know if that counts, and if Vic would require some evidence of someone not inviting him actively.

He'd need more than a sudden reduction of business and a mere suspicion that it was the fault of the defendants, but a reasonable jury could conclude that when the defendant(s) were, by their own admission, actively contacting conventions and urging them either to cancel his appearances or not to hire him, they did indeed have something to do with it. They'd only need to conclude it was more likely than not, i.e. 50.000000001% likely. If a reasonable jury could reach such a conclusion it is improper to dismiss (and violates the Seventh Amendment right to trial by jury another issue which is always implicated by SLAPP).

A separate issue is whether damage to his reputation from defamation caused the decline in business, an issue separate from but somewhat overlapping TI-PBR. While it's necessary to find an underlying tort to find TI-PBR, it is not necessary to find TI-PBR to find that damages from defamation include loss of business relationships.

 

[Son of Sparda 84]

So is Chupp really going to get Vic's case for not remembering he was in court 20 something years ago? As a guy who looks at some of this as people saying mean things to each on the internet, I would be shocked if he doesn't deduct some of these fees

 

[Sheryl Nome]

So is Chupp really going to get Vic's case for not remembering he was in court 20 something years ago? As a guy who looks at some of this as people saying mean things to each on the internet, I would be shocked if he doesn't deduct some of these fees

No. It irrelevant.