Vic Mignogna

Discussion regarding the entirety of the franchise in a general (meta) sense, including such aspects as: production, trends, merchandise, fan culture, and more.

Moderators: Kanzenshuu Staff, General Help

User avatar
Fionordequester
I Live Here
Posts: 2781
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2011 6:33 pm

Re: Vic Mignogna

Post by Fionordequester » Wed Apr 24, 2019 3:37 am

KBABZ wrote:
Wed Apr 24, 2019 2:47 am
Not clicking that ever not knowing what it is.

Honestly I think at this point, any YouTube links should be treated as "the original source" to back up other text. For example, "Rekeita said such and such in a new video", the link will be there for sourcing purposes.
Alright, let's try this again, then :D ...

"Speaking of past statements that could hurt him, Vic Mignogna has already gone on record as saying that he doesn't truly believe his actions are a problem. He says that everything he does is done out in the open, therefore, there's nothing wrong with what he does; whether it's whispering into girl's ears, or reciting perverted lines from their favorite anime (for example, "what if you drank it... from my MOUTH?"). He outright says as much..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXmmhWMn0Lc

So that could definitely hurt him in a court case, I feel; especially since it was only said 2-3 years ago.
Last edited by Fionordequester on Wed Apr 24, 2019 3:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
Kataphrut wrote:It's a bit of a Boy Who Cried Wolf situation to me...Basically, the boy shouldn't have cried wolf when the wolves just wanted to Go See Yamcha. If not, they might have gotten some help when the wolves came back to Make the Donuts.
Chuquita wrote:I liken Gokû Black to "guy can't stand his job, so instead of quitting and finding a job he likes, he instead sets fire not only to his workplace so he doesn't have to work there, but tries setting fire to every store in the franchise of that company".

User avatar
KBABZ
I Live Here
Posts: 4725
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 9:38 pm
Location: The tallest tower in West City

Re: Vic Mignogna

Post by KBABZ » Wed Apr 24, 2019 3:41 am

Fionordequester wrote:
Wed Apr 24, 2019 3:37 am
KBABZ wrote:
Wed Apr 24, 2019 2:47 am
Not clicking that ever not knowing what it is.

Honestly I think at this point, any YouTube links should be treated as "the original source" to back up other text. For example, "Rekeita said such and such in a new video", the link will be there for sourcing purposes.
Alright, let's try this again, then...

"Speaking of past statements that could hurt him, Vic Mignogna has already gone on record as saying that he doesn't truly believe his actions are a problem. He says that everything he does is done out in the open, therefore, there's nothing wrong with what he does; whether it's whispering into girl's ears, or reciting perverted lines from their favorite anime (for example, "what if you drank it... from my MOUTH?"). He outright says as much...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXmmhWMn0Lc
Thanks for the clarification. No way I would have been able to tell, and at this point, I'd rather not stumble into these sorts of things.

User avatar
Fionordequester
I Live Here
Posts: 2781
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2011 6:33 pm

Re: Vic Mignogna

Post by Fionordequester » Wed Apr 24, 2019 3:42 am

No problem!

I'd end my message there, but the character requirements compel me to type this sentence as well :P .
Kataphrut wrote:It's a bit of a Boy Who Cried Wolf situation to me...Basically, the boy shouldn't have cried wolf when the wolves just wanted to Go See Yamcha. If not, they might have gotten some help when the wolves came back to Make the Donuts.
Chuquita wrote:I liken Gokû Black to "guy can't stand his job, so instead of quitting and finding a job he likes, he instead sets fire not only to his workplace so he doesn't have to work there, but tries setting fire to every store in the franchise of that company".

User avatar
Shaddy
Advanced Regular
Posts: 1200
Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2015 7:38 pm

Re: Vic Mignogna

Post by Shaddy » Wed Apr 24, 2019 4:18 am

That's a little disturbing, but that level of broken justification and rationalization is, ironically, a benefit. The less remorseful he acts, the clearer the picture becomes of his behavior. It basically is saying "I'm well-aware, and I'm not ashamed", and as much as that frames his behavior even worse, it'd be a good asset to the people he's trying to sue.

Also "well I act creepy in public, therefore it's not creepy and they're all liars about this thing I'm admitting to" is a great take. Remember that next time you get arrested for something!
Mage of Blood yeets pizza wrote:Satanism is just Atheism wearing a funny hat
bjm knhhjnbguv cxkjmn bl,v wrote:Go yiff yourself

User avatar
miguelnuva1
I Live Here
Posts: 2094
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 9:23 pm

Re: Vic Mignogna

Post by miguelnuva1 » Wed Apr 24, 2019 7:48 am

KBABZ wrote:
Wed Apr 24, 2019 12:38 am
Shaddy wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 4:54 pm
Well the thing is, I would bet that EVERYONE HERE believes in innocent until proven guilty to most degrees. We just also believe that he has, in fact, been proven guilty. There is no proper origin point for the photos, the victims, their testimony, and that of his coworkers and con staff otherwise. That stuff all totally does count against him outside court when it comes to him being fired (which, lest we forget, was ALL KICKVIC WAS EVER ABOUT, THAT'S WHY NOBODY PRESSED CHARGES AGAINST HIM), and most of it would count in a proper court anyway.
I'm in this boat. Early on it felt like it could have honestly gone either way, but very quickly the evidence started piling up that made Vic's innocence go from unlikely to flat-out completely implausible to me, primarily the sheer number of accusations, their range from random con attendees to his own colleagues, and that this was an open secret in the voice actor community.

To use a more high-profile example, I felt for decades that the accusations against Michael Jackson could be either way, until Finding Neverland came out. My opinions can be fluid and are able to change if I feel it's warranted, they aren't "locked in" like I had to go through this at birth:
Another difference is that all of MJ's accusers how holes in the argument. I've seen people post the finding never land people in lies. Vic hasn't show any evidence of his victims lying.

Kinokima
Advanced Regular
Posts: 1392
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2017 2:02 pm

Re: Vic Mignogna

Post by Kinokima » Wed Apr 24, 2019 5:53 pm

Taking out link from post
Last edited by Kinokima on Wed Apr 24, 2019 6:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
VegettoEX
Kanzenshuu Co-Owner & Administrator
Posts: 16629
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2004 3:10 pm
Location: New Jersey
Contact:

Re: Vic Mignogna

Post by VegettoEX » Wed Apr 24, 2019 6:32 pm

Literally every word of what you've linked is total gibberish to me.

Please please please, can we stop with the drive-by "lolz check this out" link posts? Additionally, not every rando that you come across online is worth linking to. Again, stop giving attention to people who don't deserve attention.
:: [| Mike "VegettoEX" LaBrie |] ::
:: [| Kanzenshuu - Co-Founder/Administrator, Podcast Host, News Manager (note: our "job" titles are arbitrary and meaningless) |] ::
:: [| Website: January 1998 |] :: [| Podcast: November 2005 |] :: [| Fusion: April 2012 |] :: [| Wiki: 20XX |] ::

Kinokima
Advanced Regular
Posts: 1392
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2017 2:02 pm

Re: Vic Mignogna

Post by Kinokima » Wed Apr 24, 2019 6:49 pm

VegettoEX wrote:
Wed Apr 24, 2019 6:32 pm
Literally every word of what you've linked is total gibberish to me.

Please please please, can we stop with the drive-by "lolz check this out" link posts? Additionally, not every rando that you come across online is worth linking to. Again, stop giving attention to people who don't deserve attention.

He is not some random person on Twitter. He is one of the most vocal ISWV Anti SJW and has made tons of videos on YouTube about this issue. While Marzgurl is not one of the voice actors involved. I think her involvement is well known in this whole thing.

And I wasn’t trying to give him attention. The reason I saw it was because the person being targeted retweeted the link. In fact I reported him for targeted harassment to twitter. We will see if they do anything.

And respectfully I don’t find harrassment funny at all. So I don’t see where you are getting lolz check out this link. But I removed it regardless.

User avatar
Shaddy
Advanced Regular
Posts: 1200
Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2015 7:38 pm

Re: Vic Mignogna

Post by Shaddy » Wed Apr 24, 2019 8:10 pm

Well but simply put you're posting something about someone no more-related to the Vic shenanigans than us harassing someone else who is also no more-related to those same shenanigans than us. Ultimately it's internet drama that's more divorced from what this topic is about than it is related to it, and thus isn't really in-line with the goals of most people backing the victims. Obviously harassment is bad, but this isn't a thread about internet harassment, it's about the ongoing issues with Vic Mignogna.

We've had some weird-ass tangential interludes here (that I have personally participated in in some cases), so it's not like I blame you, but it is honestly a bit off-topic.
Mage of Blood yeets pizza wrote:Satanism is just Atheism wearing a funny hat
bjm knhhjnbguv cxkjmn bl,v wrote:Go yiff yourself

User avatar
The Patrolman
Beyond-the-Beyond Newbie
Posts: 332
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 5:46 pm

Re: Vic Mignogna

Post by The Patrolman » Wed Apr 24, 2019 9:22 pm

Fionordequester wrote:
Wed Apr 24, 2019 3:37 am
KBABZ wrote:
Wed Apr 24, 2019 2:47 am
Not clicking that ever not knowing what it is.

Honestly I think at this point, any YouTube links should be treated as "the original source" to back up other text. For example, "Rekeita said such and such in a new video", the link will be there for sourcing purposes.
Alright, let's try this again, then :D ...

"Speaking of past statements that could hurt him, Vic Mignogna has already gone on record as saying that he doesn't truly believe his actions are a problem. He says that everything he does is done out in the open, therefore, there's nothing wrong with what he does; whether it's whispering into girl's ears, or reciting perverted lines from their favorite anime (for example, "what if you drank it... from my MOUTH?"). He outright says as much..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXmmhWMn0Lc

So that could definitely hurt him in a court case, I feel; especially since it was only said 2-3 years ago.
You know the person in the video came out and said to stop using her video to slander Vic

EDIT: The line isn't perverted as it said by a high schooler to high school girls
The Last Jedi is a terrible movie

User avatar
SaiyamanMS
OMG CRAZY REG
Posts: 953
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 6:08 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Vic Mignogna

Post by SaiyamanMS » Wed Apr 24, 2019 9:35 pm

The Patrolman wrote:
Wed Apr 24, 2019 9:22 pm
EDIT: The line isn't perverted as it said by a high schooler to high school girls
Because there’s no possible way a teenager could be perverted, right? If a school boy said that to a school girl in real life, it’d still be creepy as fuck. (And Vic himself isn’t a teen, so whispering such lines into a school girl’s ear is just kinda gross.)

User avatar
Fionordequester
I Live Here
Posts: 2781
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2011 6:33 pm

Re: Vic Mignogna

Post by Fionordequester » Wed Apr 24, 2019 9:40 pm

The Patrolman wrote:
Wed Apr 24, 2019 9:22 pm
You know the person in the video came out and said to stop using her video to slander Vic
And I'm NOT using her video to slander him. "Slander" is intentionally making a false statement in order to damage someone's reputation.

This video isn't false. It would be if I edited it in any way... But it's NOT edited, and it shows that whatever Vic may have said in his public apologies, he's not sorry at all. He thinks we're the ones with a problem, not him. It fits in well with what Monica Rial said once...
Monica Rial wrote:I confronted [his creepy behavior with fans] on two different occasions over a decade ago. I got crocodile tears and he was back at it within weeks."
Kataphrut wrote:It's a bit of a Boy Who Cried Wolf situation to me...Basically, the boy shouldn't have cried wolf when the wolves just wanted to Go See Yamcha. If not, they might have gotten some help when the wolves came back to Make the Donuts.
Chuquita wrote:I liken Gokû Black to "guy can't stand his job, so instead of quitting and finding a job he likes, he instead sets fire not only to his workplace so he doesn't have to work there, but tries setting fire to every store in the franchise of that company".

User avatar
Shaddy
Advanced Regular
Posts: 1200
Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2015 7:38 pm

Re: Vic Mignogna

Post by Shaddy » Wed Apr 24, 2019 11:39 pm

Guess what? Just because a fan tells you to do it or says it's okay afterwards? Doesn't mean you should, or that it is, especially if they're underage. Fame, even mild like Vic's, brings responsibility to respect the boundaries of others and recognize what your influence, however small it may be, can do. I mean, if a 14 year-old fan asked sexual favors of him, it's not like he'd be any more justified in doing so just because they told him to. Consent is not limited to just sexual intercourse, and children still can't give it. Because they're 14 and he's 57. It's clear by now that his behavior is not a product of simply "not knowing better" but not caring.
Mage of Blood yeets pizza wrote:Satanism is just Atheism wearing a funny hat
bjm knhhjnbguv cxkjmn bl,v wrote:Go yiff yourself

Kinokima
Advanced Regular
Posts: 1392
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2017 2:02 pm

Re: Vic Mignogna

Post by Kinokima » Thu Apr 25, 2019 7:54 am

Shaddy wrote:
Wed Apr 24, 2019 8:10 pm
Well but simply put you're posting something about someone no more-related to the Vic shenanigans than us harassing someone else who is also no more-related to those same shenanigans than us. Ultimately it's internet drama that's more divorced from what this topic is about than it is related to it, and thus isn't really in-line with the goals of most people backing the victims. Obviously harassment is bad, but this isn't a thread about internet harassment, it's about the ongoing issues with Vic Mignogna.

We've had some weird-ass tangential interludes here (that I have personally participated in in some cases), so it's not like I blame you, but it is honestly a bit off-topic.

That may very well be the case but it’s more I wanted to point out the YouTubers that people are using to form their opinions on these cases are not very nice people. And they were harassing someone who is involved in this whole thing or at least to them this person is very involved (she is named in the lawsuit)


Perhaps I shouldn’t have posted it and it was a bad decision. But I wasn’t doing it for the lulz. I do however appreciate your opinion and the way you worded it.

User avatar
Fionordequester
I Live Here
Posts: 2781
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2011 6:33 pm

Re: Vic Mignogna

Post by Fionordequester » Thu Apr 25, 2019 3:20 pm

Kinokima wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 7:54 am
Perhaps I shouldn’t have posted it and it was a bad decision. But I wasn’t doing it for the lulz. I do however appreciate your opinion and the way you worded it.
Yeah, I wouldn't worry. I at least think I understand your reasoning; it's just that if we allowed that use of links like that amongst the majority of us who are in support of the victims, it might come across as hypocrisy (since we've been so sternly lecturing those on ISWV about just dropping random links to irrelevant nonsense like Rekieta's streams).

If Shaddy sounded a little strict, that's probably the only reason why :) !
Kataphrut wrote:It's a bit of a Boy Who Cried Wolf situation to me...Basically, the boy shouldn't have cried wolf when the wolves just wanted to Go See Yamcha. If not, they might have gotten some help when the wolves came back to Make the Donuts.
Chuquita wrote:I liken Gokû Black to "guy can't stand his job, so instead of quitting and finding a job he likes, he instead sets fire not only to his workplace so he doesn't have to work there, but tries setting fire to every store in the franchise of that company".

User avatar
Shaddy
Advanced Regular
Posts: 1200
Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2015 7:38 pm

Re: Vic Mignogna

Post by Shaddy » Thu Apr 25, 2019 3:23 pm

Oh no, I wasn't intending to blame anyone, I tend to just type like a massive asshole, sorry.
Mage of Blood yeets pizza wrote:Satanism is just Atheism wearing a funny hat
bjm knhhjnbguv cxkjmn bl,v wrote:Go yiff yourself

Kinokima
Advanced Regular
Posts: 1392
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2017 2:02 pm

Re: Vic Mignogna

Post by Kinokima » Thu Apr 25, 2019 5:07 pm

Shaddy wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 3:23 pm
Oh no, I wasn't intending to blame anyone, I tend to just type like a massive asshole, sorry.
No you were perfectly fine. I wasn’t upset or anything. :)

WhowhoYouwho
Newbie
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 10:46 pm

Re: Vic Mignogna

Post by WhowhoYouwho » Thu Apr 25, 2019 10:10 pm

Welp, I did it. It took quite a few days, but I did it. I have completed my gathering of data to explain the sources that I used in the last post. It’s 64 pages long and even has a small bonus source thrown I found while looking up information for another. I’ve become more enlightened, mystified, and especially tired, but it’s done.

Google Drive link to document: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XMqtaU ... sp=sharing

(I don’t cite in these comments based off my readings, as the information that I use is cited in the document, so check there for those and for clarification on terms discussed):

Note: In these comments, I am assuming that Vic is considered a “private plaintiff” and that the matter the case is bringing forth is also “private”. There are different standards for people that are considered “public figures” or “public officials”, who must show “actual malice” where a “private plaintiff” need only show negligence. If Vic is shown to be a “limited-purpose public figure” his standards change. If the matter brought forth is found to be “of public concern” (I find this very unlikely however) then his standards also change even if he is still found to be a “private person”.

1. I got a lot of things wrong in my section of how a defamation case starts, so here’s a redo. The whole part about Vic needing to first take an oath is correct, and I will add that one will be found guilty of perjury if they lied to the court to just harm another and/or make money off the case. Now comes the corrections. Vic, as the plaintiff, DOES have the burden of proof to provide reasonable evidence that the statements the defendants made were false and must also show that the defendants were negligent per the requirements of a private plaintiff in a case of private matters. His standard for doing this would be a preponderance of the evidence, which means that the fact finder would have to find his claim to have above a 50% chance of being true. Now, what Vic specifically must do depends on which of the various motions and defenses the defendants use that are available to them. However, I just wanted to state that you do need evidence to get these cases off the ground and that the burden of proof stays with Vic unless certain paths are taken by the defendants

2. I feel like I really messed up explaining the section on truth not shielding a defendant entirely from defamation, so here’s a redo of that. After reading the sources more thoroughly, it becomes clear that a statement DOES need to be false for a plaintiff to win in a defamation case. What I got confused by was how there are various methods for concluding that a statement is false.

In the case of Texas, they use the “substantial truth doctrine” which looks at the publication’s overall “gist”, where if the “gist” overall correctly conveys the truth but has some errors in its details it is precluded from liability. However, this also means that a publication can be made up of facts but be made in such a way as to still be defamatory by omitting key facts or by juxtaposing them in “suggestive ways”.

The whole part on actual malice being a factor in that was my dumb mistake. Actual malice is something one must prove if they are a certain type of plaintiff (public official, public figure, or a private figure bringing a case involving a matter of public concern) or when a defendant uses a qualified privilege defense. It is defined as making a statement “…with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not”. This must be proved by clear and convincing evidence, which “…is that measure or degree of proof that will produce in the mind of the jury a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established”. The standard of clear and convincing evidence is FAR HIGHER than preponderance of the evidence.

3. Given how the defendants in this case, to my knowledge, are still professing the truth of their statements, they will likely go for a truth defense. If this is their defense (it’s not the only one but the most likely in this case) they have the burden of proof to show that their statements are true. If they can do so, they are able to dismiss the case with Vic having little to no recourse. However, this defense type is essentially an all or nothing gambit, if they fail there is little recourse for them to win.

Another possibility is that they try to obtain a summary judgement. Now, they can perform this motion later in the case, and most times it IS after disposition, but regardless of when it is done the process is the same. The party who brings forth this motion, whether it be the plaintiff or the defendant, will have to show to a trial judge that the case should be closed because “there are no facts which can reasonably be disputed” or that “anyone looking at the facts and applying law would rule in favor of the moving party”.

The former would have them arguing that the case has no material facts to work from, thus making the case itself essentially pointless. The latter would have them arguing that the facts as they are clearly show that their perspective is correct, and that taking the case to trial or continuing one in progress would be pointless.

The danger with summary judgement is that they tend to fail and the party that brought forth the motion not only increases the value of the case for the other party (called a “summary judgement premium”) but they also make the other party’s case stronger, as a trial judge would have to have seen legitimacy in the evidence the other side brought for the motion to fail.

4. Many statements made against Vic by the defendants fall under defamation per se. This is due to “statements imputing the plaintiff committed a crime” and “statements imputing the plaintiff has engaged in sexual misconduct” being two of the four types of statements Texas denotes as such. It’s also possible they could include “statements imputing injury to the plaintiff’s office, business, profession, or calling”, but I don’t THINK this would be the case due to this understanding of it:

“disparagement of a general character, equally discreditable to all persons, is not enough to make it defamatory per se unless the particular quality disparaged is of such character that it is peculiarly valuable in the plaintiff's business or profession.”

To my knowledge, nothing has been said about Vic that relates to his profession DIRECTLY, such as claiming he uses autotune or gets another to perform for him as examples. I think maybe some statements about him being “difficult” have come up, but I assume those would fall under general character.
Some of them may also fall under Defamation per quod, or a statement that is defamatory due to circumstances. However, these are not automatically assumed to be defamatory like per se claims as they are, by their nature, based on circumstance to be defamatory.

Now, what the plaintiff still must prove even with statements considered defamation per se vary by state. In the case of Texas this is somewhat confusing in a case involving a “private person” involving only “private concerns”, as they state that “It is uncertain whether a private party plaintiff is required to establish negligence when the case involves a matter of exclusively private concern”. However, it then states that “…the Texas Supreme Court said that the First Amendment requires ‘a showing of fault in a defamation per se claim between private parties over a matter of private concern.’ Hancock, 400 S.W.3d at 65 n.7.”. Given this strange contradiction, I’m going to assume that that private persons still need to prove negligence given other sources referring to Texas and other sources saying that U.S. courts must do so.
---------
Ultimately, a case comes down to whose lawyers can argue better. You can have all the facts in the world, but if the other lawyer can convince the judge and/or jury that their facts are correct, or at least more relevant, then they are usually going to win the case. However, even though this the ultimate reality of the legal sphere, this doesn’t mean facts should be misused or ignored. I hope that the document I put together is at least fairly accurate, helps us all be a little less ignorant (I mean that in terms of knowledge not as a character flaw) on the subject, and allows us to better understand both the conclusion of this case and the process that caused the conclusion that occurs.

P.S. I highly recommend you read Comparative Defamation Law: England and the United States if you’re only going to look through one of the sources yourself. It really shows that despite how inane and maddening a lot of U.S. law is, we have immensely powerful laws to protect our freedom of speech that shouldn’t be taken for granted.

User avatar
Fionordequester
I Live Here
Posts: 2781
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2011 6:33 pm

Re: Vic Mignogna

Post by Fionordequester » Thu Apr 25, 2019 11:58 pm

Huh... How interesting... And slightly reassuring. I can't imagine what Monica Rial herself, or any of the actual alleged victims, would've said that would fit defamation under those criteria. Most of the worst stuff that's been said by KickVic has been said by irrelevant randos that don't actually have any connection to the allegations.

But then again, we haven't really seen Ty Beard in action. If he's persuasive enough, I could easily see him taking advantage of the jury's biases, prejudices, & naivety; just like Nick Rekieta's been doing since the start. Here's to hoping that Sony & FUNimation's lawyers are just as skilled as he is, eh?
Kataphrut wrote:It's a bit of a Boy Who Cried Wolf situation to me...Basically, the boy shouldn't have cried wolf when the wolves just wanted to Go See Yamcha. If not, they might have gotten some help when the wolves came back to Make the Donuts.
Chuquita wrote:I liken Gokû Black to "guy can't stand his job, so instead of quitting and finding a job he likes, he instead sets fire not only to his workplace so he doesn't have to work there, but tries setting fire to every store in the franchise of that company".

User avatar
Mr.Saturn99
Beyond Newbie
Posts: 191
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 1:06 am
Contact:

Re: Vic Mignogna

Post by Mr.Saturn99 » Fri Apr 26, 2019 9:06 am

Nick Rekieta's been banned from Twitter.

Hallelujah.

Locked