Forum - View topic
NEWS: Vic Mignogna Sues Funimation, Jamie Marchi, Monica Rial, Ronald Toye


Goto page Previous    Next

Note: this is the discussion thread for this article

Anime News Network Forum Index -> Site-related -> Talkback
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Shar Aznabull



Joined: 12 Jan 2015
Posts: 236
PostPosted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 8:03 am Reply with quote
Somehow I get the feeling he won't be playing Broly again.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Takkun4343



Joined: 19 Jul 2007
Posts: 1747
Location: Englewood, Ohio
PostPosted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 8:05 am Reply with quote
Texas: bans Vic from dubbing the first chance they get and brag about it on Twitter
L.A.: allows Vic to finish dubbing for JoJo with only Kira's VA complaining about it

Really though, this whole thing is like the best kind of trainwreck: terrible for everyone involved, but exciting to witness.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message My Anime My Manga
Richmyster84



Joined: 19 Feb 2017
Posts: 203
PostPosted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 8:05 am Reply with quote
Key wrote:
ronelm2000 wrote:
Now as for Vic. He has filed suit. That's an advantage for him; why would you file lawsuit you know you would lose after all?

There have been a number of incredibly dumb lawsuits in the news over the years. Just because a lawsuit is filed doesn't automatically mean that it was filed on solid grounds.

Also, one salient point bears repeating here: how hard defamation cases are to prove. Burden's now on Vic to prove the whole conspiracy business, and I can't see that being easy to pull off. I'm inclined to agree with those who have said that Vic's side (though may not necessarily Vic himself) is aiming for a "payoff the nuisance" ending.


Proving defamation used to be hard before everyone started posting it on the internet for everyone to see.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MarzGurl



Joined: 22 Jul 2006
Posts: 142
Location: San Antonio, Texas
PostPosted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 8:07 am Reply with quote
Richmyster84 wrote:
Mad_Scientist wrote:
Also, when discussing the lawsuit, please be aware that not every thing you hear on youtube and twitter or whatever is necessarily true, so let's try to avoid going down wild speculation holes.


might want to add ANN after having to remove the photo of an "accuser" after the person in the photo came forward and proved it was her and that the claims in the article were false along with using her photo without permission. Pretty shady "journalism" to not verify the accounts from the actual people in the photos before publishing.


That photo wasn't an example of an accuser. It was an example of repeated behavior. And when the person said that they weren't happy with it getting used, it got removed. Which was the correct thing to do.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger
ryukage



Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 33
PostPosted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 8:13 am Reply with quote
Taichi_EX wrote:
I'm honestly glad he is taking action against what has happened to him. He has handled this situation professionally while those against him humiliated themselves on social media and gave Funimation a very unprofessional look.


If only he had handled himself like a professional for the last 20 years, he wouldn't be in this mess.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Richmyster84



Joined: 19 Feb 2017
Posts: 203
PostPosted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 8:14 am Reply with quote
MarzGurl wrote:
Richmyster84 wrote:
Mad_Scientist wrote:
Also, when discussing the lawsuit, please be aware that not every thing you hear on youtube and twitter or whatever is necessarily true, so let's try to avoid going down wild speculation holes.


might want to add ANN after having to remove the photo of an "accuser" after the person in the photo came forward and proved it was her and that the claims in the article were false along with using her photo without permission. Pretty shady "journalism" to not verify the accounts from the actual people in the photos before publishing.


That photo wasn't an example of an accuser. It was an example of repeated behavior. And when the person said that they weren't happy with it getting used, it got removed. Which was the correct thing to do.


You realize that explanation isn't any better, right? Adding an out of context commentary to a photo and passing it off as "journalism". That basically takes ANN's entire article into question if that's the logic they used for their hit piece.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MarzGurl



Joined: 22 Jul 2006
Posts: 142
Location: San Antonio, Texas
PostPosted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 8:16 am Reply with quote
Richmyster84 wrote:
You realize that explanation isn't any better, right? Adding an out of context commentary to a photo and passing it off as "journalism". That basically takes ANN's entire article into question if that's the logic they used for their hit piece.


Which, again, they removed when addressed with it, which was the right thing to do.

(Removed overquoting. --Crisha)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger
Mad_Scientist
Subscriber
Moderator


Joined: 08 Apr 2008
Posts: 3013
PostPosted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 8:17 am Reply with quote
MarzGurl wrote:
Richmyster84 wrote:
Mad_Scientist wrote:
Also, when discussing the lawsuit, please be aware that not every thing you hear on youtube and twitter or whatever is necessarily true, so let's try to avoid going down wild speculation holes.


might want to add ANN after having to remove the photo of an "accuser" after the person in the photo came forward and proved it was her and that the claims in the article were false along with using her photo without permission. Pretty shady "journalism" to not verify the accounts from the actual people in the photos before publishing.


That photo wasn't an example of an accuser. It was an example of repeated behavior. And when the person said that they weren't happy with it getting used, it got removed. Which was the correct thing to do.


If I had a nickle for every time this point had to be reiterated...

Also side note this leads to another point I should make: let's not get side-tracked into a "Vic should ALSO sue so and so" discussion. If Vic sues additional people or companies, it will be reported on, and can be discussed then.

EDIT: Also, the discussion regarding ANN's initial use of that one photo is off topic. Vic isn't (at least yet) suing ANN, it has nothing to do with the allegations the people he IS suing made, and didn't involve Funimation. We don't need to continue discussing this point for the 100th time. Let's drop it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message My Anime My Manga
ronelm2000



Joined: 31 Jul 2011
Posts: 56
PostPosted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 8:23 am Reply with quote
MarzGurl wrote:
There were two totally separate investigations. One in 2017, and one in 2019. You heard a singular story from 2017 that was absolutely not the sole reason why Funimation separated from Vic. You have not heard about the other stories from the rest of both investigations because you are only hearing what tiny little itty bitty bit was leaked through a YouTube channel rather than through official means. That information is not owed to you, and the public is not at all in the slightest owed the information to allow them to ascertain. That is completely up to the court. If and when it gets that far, and if Funimation allows for that information to become public, THEN the public will be able to scrutinize all they want.

As a reminder, I'm currently basing all my info right now on the publicly released lawsuit claim paper. That aside, I'm might depart from that. I'm also here to remind everyone that I have all of the pages of these archived. While I will stay as civil as I can, I don't really trust the mods to keep the forums pristine right now. I apologize in advance.

I do know that there were two investigations, according to info on both sides of the party, but according to the timeline in the account they only presented three incidents. If there were a different set of accounts in the 2019 investigation, why wasn't Vic presented those by the Sony HR executive? That would imply that the 2019 investigation was extremely one-sided and do not reflect the public's common perception of an investigation.

The second option is Vic lied about the details with Sony HR executive. That would be a oneway ticket to perjury particularly because he stated this info in the lawsuit. It's possible but highly unlikely due to all the sunken costs, but if it is, it should be easy to defend.and put Vic in jail.

(Removed overquoting. --Crisha)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MagusGuardian



Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Posts: 598
PostPosted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 8:23 am Reply with quote
my personal opinion on this whole shit storm is this, if he's innocent he's innocent if he's guilty he's guilty when either one or the other is proven Then and ONLY then should shit hit the fan. It's honestly disgusting how we as a society have gotten to the point where public opinion is the only truth that should be believed instead of actual proof or facts. One last note I do not know what is more amusing seeing that people are trying to rationalize their opinion of Vic being a scum ball or the fact that people are still trying their damnedest to make it sound like Vic doesn't have a legal case and that he should just be burned at the stake
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MarzGurl



Joined: 22 Jul 2006
Posts: 142
Location: San Antonio, Texas
PostPosted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 8:26 am Reply with quote
@ronelm2000

I think that we as the public do not have all of the information. Nor are we owed it. If it comes out in court, it comes out in court.

(Removed overquoting. --Crisha)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger
whiskeyii



Joined: 29 May 2013
Posts: 2455
PostPosted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 8:30 am Reply with quote
Key wrote:
I'm inclined to agree with those who have said that Vic's side (though may not necessarily Vic himself) is aiming for a "payoff the nuisance" ending.


The cynic in me just knows that any kind of settlement will be paraded around as proof of Vic's innocence, despite that not being how settlements work. Rolling Eyes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ashen Phoenix



Joined: 21 Jun 2006
Posts: 3031
PostPosted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 8:39 am Reply with quote
I'll say it right now, this is the act of an entitled, pathetic little creep who is angered that his abuse of power and assumptions over physical interaction with anyone is finally being challenged. And it's hurting his bank account.

I hope something does come to life, definitively, in court proceedings--that Vic is guilty and his fanatical cultists can then shut up.

No one would endure what Rial, Marchi, and the others have for such a moronic reason as "ruining someone's career." Death threats, constant social media attacks, effects to their work, relationships. None of it is "worth" the supposed payoff of tarnishing Poor Vic's name in the eyes of fans and the industries.


Last edited by Ashen Phoenix on Fri Apr 19, 2019 8:41 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message My Anime My Manga
ronelm2000



Joined: 31 Jul 2011
Posts: 56
PostPosted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 8:40 am Reply with quote
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.[/url]

(Removed overquoting. --Crisha)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Anthony.P



Joined: 16 Mar 2007
Posts: 52
PostPosted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 8:42 am Reply with quote
What an absolute farce. That it cites the debunked "Monica and co. pressured cons into dis-inviting Vic" conspiracy is just...

And people wonder why women don't come forward. It bears repeating the moment you scream "where's the evidence?/innocent before proven guilty!/why did no one file a report?" is an instant admission of not knowing the first thing about sexual assault, let alone law.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Anime News Network Forum Index -> Site-related -> Talkback All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous    Next
Page 4 of 32

 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group