Forum - View topic

NEWS: Vic Mignogna Sues Funimation, Jamie Marchi, Monica Rial, Ronald Toye

uh, no. It's defamation per se. the people being sued have to prove they're telling the truth. that's why vic's attorney specifically requested ron toye literally name the 100+ women he claims vic "assaulted."

people claiming this is going to get kicked immediately are delusional. the judge they got is a republican and it's taking place in texas. you really think he's going to entertain a bunch of frivolous "#metoo" garbage about jellybeans when the brett kavanaugh stuff is still fresh in everyone's minds?

Defamation per se just means that Vic doesn't have to prove exact monetary damage and/or damage to his reputation.

Name one instance someone’s been sexually harassed and thought “I should pull out my camera and record this just in case I have to take this to court”.

It does say a lot about their values and the legitimacy of this whole charade that they went out of their way to find a Republican judge in a Republican state in a "conservative" county to ensure their victory; it's almost like they're using this whole thing just as political propaganda and a personal vendetta agains #MeToo and women in general

Honestly, Funimation/Sony should have reacted immediately and asked that the VAs involved not use their public platforms to bash a co-worker.

Alestal wrote:

Honestly, Funimation/Sony should have reacted immediately and asked that the VAs involved not use their public platforms to bash a co-worker.

Mmm, I get where you're coming from, but telling victims of harassment not to speak publicly about their harassment isn't great optics either.

Company control over employees' (and contractors') social media presence is a very tricky topic.

True, you don't need as much evidence to fire someone who uninvite them from conventions, it's just a pretty sh*tty thing to do imo.

And I'm not sure if you know what "compare" means. Because I only said that always listening and believing was a slippery slope which has led to miscarriages of justice and lynching in the past. I never compared anything directly. It's easy to latch onto a small thing someone said and misconstrue it in order to discredit their entire post.

Yes, but we have avenues for victims to go through to obtain justice. They made some bold claims and will have to back them up.

Also, I have signed social media use policies many many times over the course of my career as a condition of my employment. Employment-at-will gives companies exclusive control over their policies and bear in mind that Texas is also a non-union state.

But honestly, that's all beside the point; what I'm saying is that the optics of a company seeming to engage in actively silencing harassment victims would be terrible.

(Lightly edited for clarity.)

But honestly, that's all beside the point; what I'm saying is that the optics of a company seeming to engage in actively silencing harassment victims would be terrible.

ZephyrVayu wrote:

True, you don't need as much evidence to fire someone who uninvite them from conventions, it's just a pretty sh*tty thing to do imo.

Is it? Because not being invited to a thing is pretty tame. Also convention organizers can invite and not invite whomever they want. They don't "owe" Mignongna an invite.

ZephyrVayu wrote:

And I'm not sure if you know what "compare" means. Because I only said that always listening and believing was a slippery slope which has led to miscarriages of justice and lynching in the past. I never compared anything directly. It's easy to latch onto a small thing someone said and misconstrue it in order to discredit their entire post.

You literally compared them. Even indirectly it's incredibly disingenuous to compare things like lynching to not being given acting roles and not being invited to a convention. Are you from the US? Because if you are you should know that lynching has a particularly racist history and unless Vic Mignogna was being hunted down by an unruly mob and physically attacked, then the comparison is extremely tacky and dishonest.

Also the slippery slope is a fallacy for a reason.

Any accusor needs to provide evidence to backup their claims. This is how it is with every crime, we cannot make an exception just for sexual harrassment/assault. Obviously someone that comes forward saying they've been abused should not be dismissed or disbelieved, but it's illogical to expect everyone to take their word as gospel just because they're describing a henous act. That's how lynch mobs are formed and innocenct men end up in prison.

I want you to tell me where in there I compared being unvited to a convention to lynching. In a quote where I'm talking about false accusations in general, not even mentioning the Vic controversy. You've used a very common tactic, latching onto something minor I said (in this case my reference to historic lynchings) as a derailment tactic.

"Look at this guy! He's comparing what's happening to Vic to black people who were lynched!"

Grow up. Seriously.

No. That's not how it works. Vic filed suit, and Vic has to prove they were lying. And with the conspiracy claim, he not only only has to prove they deliberately lied - but that they cooperated with others in a concerted, deliberate, and knowing effort.

Conspiracy is hard to prove in the best of cases, and the standards of proof are high in civil cases.

To make myself abundantly clear: In America, the burden of proof lies with the accuser (Vic), not with the accused (Funimation, et al).

-

Even in Texas, the judges still have to stay (more-or-less) within the law lest they be reversed on appeal.

-

0.o

"Defamation" literally means "damage to reputation". Suing someone for "defamation" literally means "the person filing suit has to prove that damage was done".

I mean, you already derailed it by even talking about this. Saying that believing things at face value is how we got lynchings. When the thing we are believing is multiple women accusing someone of sexual misconduct. That's dishonest.

It's co-opting the oppression of someone else in order to make your point more legitimate.

ronelm2000 wrote:

Monica would have to prove that his dad joke is more than an isolated incident. As far as I know, replying to a fan with a shiptease merely that, a quip for a fan. The legal definition of sexual harassment doesn't include a onetime joke, afaik, unless it's that severe. Look, if Monics Rial has the proof, then I'm sure we'll see the proper response. Until then I will wait and ask questions. Ron Toye's claims tho are quite extreme (very likely his tweets were hyperbolic) so that will be quite a lead to follow.

That was literally one example. There are likely many more. If there weren't, they wouldn't have been an investigation or reason to fire him.
But regardless of all of that, it's still harassment. Per your own link, it's just not prohibited by the law if its a single occurrence or not severe. Nowhere does it say that him saying he ate her wouldn't be harassment. Just that if it only happened the one time or wasn't severe, it's not illegal.
Just because it's not punishable by the law on its own doesn't mean its not still harassment.

(Removed overquoting. --Crisha)