Forum - View topicNEWS: Judge Rules Vic Mignogna Must Pay US$238,042 to Defendants in Lawsuit
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
NeverConvex
 Subscriber Posts: 2482 |
|
|||
Oh, oops -- has been a while since I'd bothered with one of these threads, and I forgot there's an embargo on links to that guy's Youtube channel (well, actually, I didn't know that was one of the channels in question, as it was just what I happened upon in Youtube-searching for relevant video evidence -- but, had I remembered the embargo and looked around on the channel a bit, would have probably quickly realized it was verboten). Mm, my goal in posting it was to show Mignogna's audio immediately before/after the "hair pulling" motion, to try to see how he described it in context, and get a sense of just how literally the hand motion should be read. Maybe I'll chop out that part of the video and re-post it without the offending channel involved somehow, if that would be OK? That is basically what MarzGurl did in her gif, but I had wanted to grab the audio as well, and the few seconds prior to the action, too. |
||||
|
||||
DerekL1963
 Subscriber Posts: 1119 Location: Puget Sound |
|
|||
He admitted to (depending on your slant) either pulling or fondling a girls hair - and both are objectionable. There's no context that will change the facts. No interpretation that will render them unobjectionable. |
||||
|
||||
|
NeverConvex
Subscriber Posts: 2482 |
|
|||
|
It is pretty common for people to have friendships within which "fondling" one another's hair after a new haircut or some such is normal. I am not particularly keen on arguing about that, though; I was just wondering whether the impression originally given -- that he claimed he had forcefully grabbed her hair, even just on viewing his own description of his actions -- was the same whether you look at the video in-context or in this thread. On viewing the video deposition, I do not think it is clear that he meant to claim that, and that's why, on viewing it, I wanted to expand MarzGurl's GIF a bit.
What he claims he did is obviously not necessarily the same thing as what he actually did, and I am of course not saying that. I was just wondering, as I suggested when I first started in on this, whether his video deposition suggested that he was out of touch with what is considered normal, acceptable, or even tolerable in terms of physical contact. |
||||
|
||||
Lynx Raven Raide
 Posts: 412 Location: Central Coast, AU |
|
|||
Part of me wonders if Funi/Sony might help out. They would have contingencies for these kinds of things, and if Rial/Troye's lawyer was deliberately overcharging cause of expecting a payment, they might be able to talk things through at a lower number. It may not happen though, but thought it may be a gesture on Funi's part since they were all dragged through this, but also depends on Beard not filing another appeal. |
||||
|
||||
Commander Cluck
 Posts: 123 |
|
|||
Funimation doesn't even pay their actors royalties, so I don't think they're in the hobby of being generous. Besides, wasn't one of the big things of their defense was how the VAs were contract workers and not actual employees? If he was deliberately overcharging, then he should probably be sued for malpractice. But what most likely happened is he fell for the troll bait. He got upset at all the people making fun of him and all the memes and jokes at his expense, so he let his personal vendetta against Nick Rekieta get to him which is why he tried to depose/subpoena Nick when Nick had zero to do with this case, which translated to lots of extra billing hours that didn't need to exist. Either way, don't see why Vic should have to pay for that. Only what's relevant to the actual case. The judge seems to have agreed. |
||||
|
||||
|
Mirvana
Posts: 55 |
|
|||
|
Almost no studio pays VAs royalties (and the ones that do, the checks are often in the "Cents" range). That's not an issue limited to one production company. That said, I also don't feel Funimation has any obligation to help them pay it either, even if it would be a nice move to help the other defendants. Given the attention/support the defendants have received, I'm fairly certain if they made their own GFM it would easily eclipse BFL's little scam.
I do find it a bit hilarious that you think "charging too much" is malpractice, but have repeatedly defended Beard's incompetence in past forums, though. |
||||
|
||||
|
ATastySub
Past ANN Contributor
 Posts: 681 |
|
|||
|
Especially since the GoFundMe is relevant to the case, as the idea of crowdfunding a SLAPP lawsuit is a pretty horrible thing to do. Furthermore it seems the main disconnect Chupp had was why Marchi’s lawyer cost was so much less than the others and since he found all of Vic’s shit frivolous he didn’t understand how much more preparation and time the others had spent on it, as Marchi’s was the easiest to be tossed. For once Vic’s complete incompetence worked in his favor.
|
||||
|
||||
|
DerekL1963
Subscriber Posts: 1119 Location: Puget Sound |
|
|||
o.0 You're wondering if he was out of touch with those things? *facepalm* What exactly do you think so many women are complaining about then? Sheesh. We're long past the point where it's possible to "wonder".
Nope. What happened is the lawyers for the defendants with more (or more complex) allegations laid against them had to spend more time and work refuting those allegations. |
||||
|
||||
|
NeverConvex
Subscriber Posts: 2482 |
|
|||
I've said this before, though I suppose not quite as clearly in this particular iteration of this thread: I'm not defending his actions, or claiming to think he's innocent. I agree that the range of women independently accusing him leaves very little doubt that he's a danger to others. I think the community's removal of him from conventions is a very reasonable response, and a good thing. Some of the complaints against him even seem to warrant criminal investigation, and I think it's unfortunate that they were raised so late that any sort of non-civil prosecution seems unlikely. That said, what I was trying to dig into above was [A] whether the "hair-pulling meme GIF" is as straightforwardly incriminating as was suggested earlier, and [B] if that were the case, whether even his own description of his actions showed a lack of understanding of what is tolerable physical interaction. Neither of these are necessary consequences of his having sexually harassed/assaulted multiple people; there are plenty of other possible explanations for why he did so. It wasn't nearly interesting enough a line of discussion to want to continue pushing uphill like this, though, and I think I've clarified more than enough, so I'll just leave off there. |
||||
|
||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group