TCPA Hearing 9/6/19 - Marchi ran from the Law, TI crumbles, conspiracy still on the table, and collective autism from all sides.

[lawtwitterthrowaway]

You're literally saying he doesn't fit the definition of a public figure. Nor does some random K-pop person nobody ever heard of.

Either you're a general purpose public figure or a limited purpose public figure because you have voluntarily injected yourself into a controversy, and the definition of a general purpose public figure is exceedingly narrow.

"Those classed as public figures stand in a similar position. Hypothetically, it may be possible for someone to become a public figure through no purposeful action of his own, but the instances of truly involuntary public figures must be exceedingly rare. For the most part, those who attain this status have assumed roles of especial prominence in the affairs of society. Some occupy positions of such persuasive power and influence that they are deemed public figures for all purposes. More commonly, those classed as public figures have thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved. In either event, they invite attention and comment." Gertz v. Robert Welch.

This is not a description of any person who has ever been heard of by another person.

And if not, what controversy has he publicly injected himself into?

My research on the subject suggests that "This category also includes individuals who have distinguished themselves in a particular field, making them "public figures" regarding only those specific activities. These limited-purpose public figures are not the Kobe Bryants, who are regarded as all-purpose public figures, but rather the journeymen basketball players of the league. "

Now granted, that also involves "For limited-purpose public figures, the actual malice standard extends only as far as defamatory statements involve matters related to the topics about which they are considered public figures. To return to our basketball example, the actual malice standard would extend to statements involving the player's basketball career; however, it would not extend to the details of his marriage."

Interestingly, in Hutchinson, the Supreme Court noted that access to media with which to rebut accusations is an indication of whether a plaintiff might be a LPPF, saying that said access is indicative of notoriety enough to be classified as a public figure. Of course in this day and age of Social Media, that's an interesting question, but it's not like this whole forum and series of topics was generated from his lack of the ability to get his voice out...

But when it comes to Vic, accusations of his conduct towards fans and at cons (which I would argue are definitely part of his professional career) fall into a murky, arguable area, as well as the interesting legal fact that those accusations themselves might have made him an involuntary limited purpose public figure.

That all said, I'm not a lawyer on the case, so since I'm not getting paid to do the research on all this...it's all rather scattershot and I'm making heavy use of the Google Law Library, lol.

 

[Padoru]

Here's another one:
Mignogna is an odd looking name, right? Casey couldn't even pronounce it right.

Here's another weird looking name: Schwarzenegger. I bet that one doesn't get mispronounced.

One of them belongs to a general purpose public figure (and ignoring the fact Arnie used to be a government official).

considering most non-german speaking people pronounce Schwarzenegger as Schworzenegger instead your second point isn't entirely accurate

 

[AnOminous]

But when it comes to Vic, accusations of his conduct towards fans and at cons (which I would argue are definitely part of his professional career) fall into a murky, arguable area, as well as the interesting legal fact that those accusations themselves might have made him an involuntary limited purpose public figure.

The relevant period of time for public figure status is not after the tort, but at the time of the tort. You can't libel someone and then magically turn them retroactively into a public figure by just continuing to smear them relentlessly.

 

[Zero Day Defense]

The relevant period of time for public figure status is not after the tort, but at the time of the tort. You can't libel someone and then magically turn them retroactively into a public figure by just continuing to smear them relentlessly.

not with that attitude

 

[Allanon]

Did he? Or did he just say he was flat out a public figure? In any event his reasoning was thin at best. I also seriously doubt that contention. Voice actors aren't known by the vast majority even of people who are actually fans of the medium. Applying this kind of standard to a group of people who are only known to an inner circle of core fans would make anyone who has even limited professional success, such that a smattering of industry people know who they are, a public figure.

I'm pretty sure defamation law doesn't countenance that only a completely obscure failure known to nobody enjoys any protection from defamation.

I'm pretty sure the purpose of GPPF and LPPF is that, aside from government officials, the idea is 'public figures' (like Tom Cruise) get so much gossip circling around them so often that a random person saying something negative not only has a lesser chance of doing damage, but probably just heard it from someone else, like a tabloid. That's why the standard is that the person needs to have to know it's a lie and then say something that causes damage. LPPF would also be along similar lines, except that the controversy essentially is caused by the LPPF in the first place - ie; people calling Nick a grifter and a terrible lawyer comes from Nick injecting himself in the controversy, getting people's attention, and essentially drawing that kind of negative attention and reactions. He also is less likely to be damaged by it.

That is basically the reasoning behind the public figure doctrine as far as I can understand it. If you consider it by that guideline, you can see that Vic is obviously not a GPPF, as he isn't known by everyone with constant gossip and tabloids circulating a billion different rumors about him every day, and nothing Vic did caused people to focus on him and start up controversies about him.

 

[John Andrews Stan]

Vic fans like me are justified in being disappointed with how his legal team did him in that hearing.

Fact is that if autists like us were able to easily get our hands on information about Chump and insights into how he works, Vic’s legal team should have had all that too. Hell, they’re locals in the same professional class. You’d have to work hard NOT to know about Chump going in.

Running scenarios is basic for any occupation where persuading a critical, skeptical professional is literally your job. Even sales reps have to nail this kind of thing. It’s not unreasonable to expect Vic’s legal team to have done so. How the fuck do you go into a court hearing taking it for granted that the bar is going to be so low you need not have detailed evidence to hand?

Autism fucking speaks: “BUT PRIMA FACIE!!!!” That’s not an excuse to go in without all pertinent evidence in easy reach. This is unpreparedness on the level of a Judge Judy plaintiff. Saying so isn’t sperging. It’s borne out by an undisputed account of Ty’s interactions with Chump.

 

[Sheryl Nome]

more FUD

You joined Thursday.

 

[tuscangarder]

Law twitter was probably right all along.

 

[AnOminous]

That is basically the reasoning behind the public figure doctrine as far as I can understand it. If you consider it by that guideline, you can see that Vic is obviously not a GPPF, as he isn't known by everyone with constant gossip and tabloids circulating a billion different rumors about him every day, and nothing Vic did caused people to focus on him and start up controversies about him.

There's also a related doctrine which is more applicable known as comment on a matter of public interest, another general exception to defamation law that requires actual malice. It's a trifle confusing as an identically named standard is used to determine whether the TCPA even applies at all to a case.

In general, accusing someone of being a public safety hazard to the point the public needs to be warned of them is defended on these grounds, but taken to an extreme, it is an exception that eats the rule, as simply by claiming someone is, for instance, a sex predator, one can claim to be nearly immune to defamation law. In fact, the more defamatory the claim, the graver the allegation of misconduct, the more they can claim it's in the public interest to expose such a monster.

There is no public interest served by false accusations of incredibly criminal deviancy against an innocent person, though.

 

[John Andrews Stan]

You joined Thursday.

Congratulations, you can work a calendar.

 

[Sheryl Nome]

Congratulations, you can work a calendar.

Dates can tell you things, like when a bunch of fags showed up spreading the exact same FUD in every post.

 

[tuscangarder]

Dates can tell you things, like when a bunch of fags showed up spreading the exact same FUD in every post.

The threads better off not being a hugbox where the posters do nothing but parrot Rekieta.

 

[Sheryl Nome]

The threads better off not being a hugbox where the posters do nothing but parrot Rekieta.

I agree, and it would be much appreciated if people could post something new instead of the exact same boring FUD

 

[Zero Day Defense]

The threads better off not being a hugbox where the posters do nothing but parrot Rekieta.

So FUD is better just because it's contrarian.

Okay.

 

[John Andrews Stan]

The threads better off not being a hugbox where the posters do nothing but parrot Rekieta.

Too late. It’s VERY SUSPICIOUS that any Vic fans refrained from commenting daily for eight months, confident stuff was going well, until shit hit the fan and shown otherwise. Who knows what I’m hiding!!!!

 

[tuscangarder]

So FUD is better just because it's contrarian.

Okay.

I don't know how you came to that conclusion. I said it is better to have both than it is to have just one. Neither is better.

I agree, and it would be much appreciated if people could post something new instead of the exact same boring FUD

Were you bored during the months you spent reading nothing but hugbox posts? Anytime I've entered this subforum, I always see your weeb avatar, so I'm gonna assume the answer is no. If you get emotional at FUD posts, remember that this lawsuit (more than likely) has no effect on you and you are becoming emotional over a lolsuit.

 

[Zero Day Defense]

Too late. It’s VERY SUSPICIOUS that any Vic fans refrained from commenting daily for eight months, confident stuff was going well, until shit hit the fan and shown otherwise. Who knows what I’m hiding!!!!

You're not hiding anything, including your being stuck in Friday where the first and only immediate source for the hearing was a KV, or your expectation that Ty be a telepathic magician that only handles this lawsuit for its duration.

 

[John Andrews Stan]

You're not hiding anything, including your being stuck in Friday where the first and only immediate source for the hearing was a KV, or your expectation that Ty be a telepathic magician that only handles this lawsuit for its duration.

*YOUR

 

[Sheryl Nome]

I don't know how you came to that conclusion. I said it is better to have both than it is to have just one. Neither is better.



Were you bored during the months you spent reading nothing but hugbox posts? Anytime I've entered this subforum, I always see your weeb avatar, so I'm gonna assume the answer is no. If you get emotional at FUD posts, remember that this lawsuit (more than likely) has no effect on you and you are becoming emotional over a lolsuit.

Yes. I was bored by hugbox posts.

I am also bored by obvious FUD.

 

[John Andrews Stan]

Yes. I was bored by hugbox posts.

I am also bored by obvious FUD.

You’re very hard to please.