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

  • There is a bug with the post editor. Images pasted from other websites from your clipboard will automatically use the [img] tag instead of uploading a copy as an attachment. Please manually save the image, upload it to the site, and then insert it as a thumbnail instead if you experience this.

Binary Code

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jul 12, 2019
Were we at the jury stage this would be relevant. As it is, I believe Sandmann's case is more relevant, as it got SLAPP'd and had to be appealed.
I hate Hannity, but his interview with Sandmann was interesting because he talks about how much stupid and pretty heinous language that people use against you including calling you a Nazi White Supremist is completely covered 1st amendment speech (We also learned that with Meyer v Waid lolsuit). Barnes has talked about that that stuff isn't actionable, but you can 100% go after people that say you are making a White Supremist Hand Gesture for making the OK sign. That is actionable and he has sued succesfuly on that. I think for that Cassandra Fairbanks chick that made the OK sign with another guy at the WH podium in 2017.
 

Allanon

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Mar 21, 2019
I hate Hannity, but his interview with Sandmann was interesting because he talks about how much stupid and pretty heinous language that people use against you including calling you a Nazi White Supremist is completely covered 1st amendment speech (We also learned that with Meyer v Waid lolsuit). Barnes has talked about that that stuff isn't actionable, but you can 100% go after people that say you are making a White Supremist Hand Gesture for making the OK sign. That is actionable and he has sued succesfuly on that. I think for that Cassandra Fairbanks chick that made the OK sign with another guy at the WH podium in 2017.
Well, yeah, because there's a difference between calling someone a Nazi as an insult, which is akin to calling someone an asshole, and saying that a person actively wants to murder Jews and has done things to try to further that goal, which is claiming they've done something that they haven't. But that's been discussed plenty in both Vic's lawsuit and the Meyer v Waid one.
 

Laundui_or_douchette?

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jul 19, 2019
I know we are all annoyed by the length of time that this is taking, but I am going to compare it to sports replays.

When it is sent to the third umpire for a second look, typically, if it is an immediate decision it was pretty cut and dry and they agree with the on field ref.

However, the longer they look at it, the more they are finding problems with the original decision and are triple checking to make sure the decision was incorrect.

So I will hold out hope that the COA are really going to town on Chupp.
 

DragoonSierra

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Nov 10, 2015
Were we at the jury stage this would be relevant. As it is, I believe Sandmann's case is more relevant, as it got SLAPP'd and had to be appealed.
i know this is off topic how did Sandmanns other suits turn out after CNN settled?

I hate Hannity, but his interview with Sandmann was interesting because he talks about how much stupid and pretty heinous language that people use against you including calling you a Nazi White Supremist is completely covered 1st amendment speech (We also learned that with Meyer v Waid lolsuit). Barnes has talked about that that stuff isn't actionable, but you can 100% go after people that say you are making a White Supremist Hand Gesture for making the OK sign. That is actionable and he has sued succesfuly on that. I think for that Cassandra Fairbanks chick that made the OK sign with another guy at the WH podium in 2017.
Oh does that mean Rittenhouse can sue over the media saying he was doing that at the Proudboy party or whatever was going on there?

Well, yeah, because there's a difference between calling someone a Nazi as an insult, which is akin to calling someone an asshole, and saying that a person actively wants to murder Jews and has done things to try to further that goal, which is claiming they've done something that they haven't. But that's been discussed plenty in both Vic's lawsuit and the Meyer v Waid one.
Isnt "White Supremist" a bit more specific and not an insult? Isnt it akin to calling someone a pedo?
 

Allanon

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Mar 21, 2019
I know we are all annoyed by the length of time that this is taking, but I am going to compare it to sports replays.

When it is sent to the third umpire for a second look, typically, if it is an immediate decision it was pretty cut and dry and they agree with the on field ref.

However, the longer they look at it, the more they are finding problems with the original decision and are triple checking to make sure the decision was incorrect.

So I will hold out hope that the COA are really going to town on Chupp.
I very much doubt they've spent all this time mulling over the case. At some point they will have started, and it will doubtlessly take quite some time to go over it due to how much work they have to put in because of the thousands of page of spam and the 0 pages of Chupp helping them summarize it, but for the most part they probably saw 'TCPA appeal, bit part voice actor defamation, 2000+ pages' and were like 'let's just get all these other smaller and more interesting/urgent/important cases done first'. If they really do have some deadline that they passed recently, that's likely when they actually started looking at the case.
i know this is off topic how did Sandmanns other suits turn out after CNN settled?


Oh does that mean Rittenhouse can sue over the media saying he was doing that at the Proudboy party or whatever was going on there?


Isnt "White Supremist" a bit more specific and not an insult? Isnt it akin to calling someone a pedo?
I think I heard all the suits settled.

I think the concern with associating him with Proud Boys and the White Supremacist comment is that neither are per se defamation, so he could in theory do it, but he'll need to prove damage instead of it just being assumed. But I dunno. Seems like you'd get better answers in a topic about Kyle than a topic about Vic, since they're in completely different states and the circumstances of the potential defamation are totally different.
 

Terrifik

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Nov 12, 2019
1637687441254.png

 

AnOminous

See you in the funny papers.
Retired Staff
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Dec 28, 2014
so i guess the 8th & 5th can disagree one judge ruling will not transfer to another.
The other circuit (it would be three judges and maybe the entire circuit eventually) could disagree, otherwise it wouldn't be a conflicting precedent. Or they could reason the exact same way and come to the same conclusion, but they're not obligated to. So you could cite to it, but it wouldn't be binding.

And a lot of SCOTUS opinions are resolving conflicts between circuits, but that doesn't mean they actually care about the majority of conflicts.