Kinokima wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2019 7:26 pm
Yes and he has to prove what is said about him was false and intended to harm. That is how it works.
Ok, I've periodically been looking at the thread now and again, so let me clear up this confusion that's come up now and again of how defamation cases work (as Nick as said multiple times in his streams).
Vic is not the one who has to PROVE something, at least at the start. He is the
PLANTIFF and for this first round of the case the
DEFENDANTS are "FUNIMATION PRODUCTIONS, LLC, JAMIE MARCHI, MONICA RIAL, AND RONALD TOYE" as per the document filed yesterday (4/18/19) [SaiyaSith linked Nick's stream on that in their post (
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzP7TdTZHq8) with the discussion of the document itself going from about 2:08:00 - 3:34:00). The
DEFENDANTS are the ones who have to show that their statements about Vic are true, not Vic having to show that the statements about him are false. This is because in a defamation case the first thing the
PLANTIFF (in this case Vic) has to do is, under oath, swear that the statements about them are false and have damaged them in some significant manner. After this is done, it is then assumed that the
PLANTIFF is telling the truth and this makes it the burden of the
DEFENDANTS to prove that their statements about the
PLANTIFF are in fact truth, with the
PLANTIFF able to give counter information to that.
However, Texas is interesting in how it looks at truth in terms of the law. What I mean by this is, even if what you said about the
PLANTIFF IS TRUE, you can still actually lose the case. This is because Texas places just as much importance on whether those statements are actually malicious (that is, they are reasonably shown to have been done in a concentrated effort to harm the individual) in nature and if a reasonable,unrelated individual would take those statements and form a negative view of the
PLANTIFF. This can be a bit confusing, but here's an article that discusses it in a manner that makes sense (
https://www.boyarmiller.com/news-and-pu ... ion-claim/). To summarize it, everything you say can be TRUE, but if the overall "gist" of what you say does in fact paint a negative picture of the
PLANTIFF and the
PLANTIFF's side can show that it was done with actual malice, then the
DEFENDANTS still lose because those statements were in fact defamatory.
Now, I'm not a lawyer, I'm just someone whose been following this and trying to expand my knowledge of the legal processes at work at the same time. Thus, I admit I could be wrong about how I presenting. Still, I believe that at least most of what I said is fairly accurate, and wanted to try and dispel some confusion over all this (as the U.S. legal system is a hell that no one whose lucky will ever have to deal with for more than very minor, quick things). In any case, I hope I helped some understand what's going on better, and am hoping for a conclusive ending for all of this now that this veil of "the lawsuit is not happening" has been lifted from discussion of this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2DUj0FQHf0 (short segment from Nick's stream with Shane Holmberg explaining Texas Defamation)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqleksSTwfI (Nick giving the definition of defamation on his stream from about 1:32:56 - 2:12:00 [also talks about the potential argument that Vic is a public figure])
https://www.texaspress.com/law-a-the-me ... efenses-01 (An article that discusses the various Texas defenses in terms of Libel cases)
