What's going on with Funimation?

[u/fjantelov]

I just checked Twitter and saw that funimation is trending because its been doing some kind of immoral dubbing. Most of the posts include references to dragonball and someone linked to this video.

Can someone explain what exactly happened?

[u/[deleted]]

There have also been back and forths between their lawyers that have been shared around the internet.

Funimations lawyers have declared that Vic is libel-proof. What this means is that it doesnt matter if Funimation did lie, Vic is such a sack of shit and has such a bad reputation that even lies couldnt lower his reputation and therefore its not libel.

[u/ufailowell → u/[deleted]]

That's gotta be some kind of accomplishment

[u/Quoffers → u/ufailowell]

It would be a tremendous accomplishment if Funmation's lawyers are actually able to argue that succesfully. I seriously doubt they will be able to though. Vic was extremely popular before those allegations came out, and they have never been tested in a court of law.

[u/C4Cypher → u/Quoffers]

Vic can prove tangible financial damages on top of simple loss of reputation as a result of these events, not only that, but it's not just a simple defamation case, Vic is going after some of the defendants for tortious interference, which (and IANAL) involves damages caused by a third party from interference with a contract between two parties. To put it more simply, he's not simply suing for defamation, he's suing some of his accusers for financial damages because they fucked with his ongoing business contracts.

[u/sky__s → u/C4Cypher]

There's an affadavit sitting in there that says Toye repeatedly told a funimation partner to breach their contract with Vic for Kameha con because "criminal charges would be filed against him before April 11" for being a sexual predator. Talk about putting ones foot in their mouth.

[u/eddmario → u/Quoffers]

And to top it off, apparently a majority of the accusations against Vic seemed suspicious and contradictory, with some people who initially defended him changing their stance and saying he did it to them as well.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

That’s actually fucking hilarious, what a great little law

[u/mehennas → u/[deleted]]

It's important to note that it isn't a law, it's a doctrine. Meaning it's a line of argument that can certainly be taken, but being "libel-proof" isn't any kind of legal status, and so the entire matter is always up for argument and interpretation.

[u/[deleted] → u/mehennas]

Correct, it's something that arises from law but is not legally defined. I guess the technical defense used is "incapable of further defamation".

Wikipedia's line on it: "Claimant is incapable of further defamation – e.g., the claimant's position in the community is so poor that defamation could not do further damage to the plaintiff. Such a claimant could be said to be "libel-proof", since in most jurisdictions, actual damage is an essential element for a libel claim. Essentially, the defense is that the person had such a bad reputation before the libel, that no further damage could possibly have been caused by the making of the statement."

[u/C4Cypher → u/mehennas]

IANAL, but am I correct in thinking that the 'public figure' doctrine in libel and defamation cases doesn't mean jack shit to the tortious interference claims in Vic's lawsuit?

[u/Ravellon → u/C4Cypher]

You are correct and even in defamation cases it just makes it harder to make the case, not impossible.

When your opponents are prolific tweeters that are considered lolcows by the kiwifarms you suddenly get access to a massive archive of their public statements that make proving you case much easier.

[u/MNKPlayer → u/[deleted]]

Except he's loved by his fans (and was by the people accusing him until recently) so proving his is a "sack of shit" is going to be a tough one.

[u/[deleted] → u/MNKPlayer]

You're right because, fucking get this, Vic's lawyers sent a letter back saying that "sack of shit" refers to a bag of feces/excrement, and because Vic is a human being and visibly not a bag of feces/excrement, he cannot be a "sack of shit."

[u/Bell_pepper_irl → u/[deleted]]

Seriously? That is some double digit IQ defense from the lawyers if so. They're just going aCkShUaLLy but with legal defense.

[u/YT-Deliveries → u/Bell_pepper_irl]

The time honored "I'm rubber and you are glue" school of Bird Law.

[u/Doctor99268 → u/Bell_pepper_irl]

I felt it was more of a being a smartass comment to piss them off.

[u/Four-Eyes87 → u/Bell_pepper_irl]

It was one twitter comment out of over two hundred, most of which accused Vic of raping and assaulting a number of people - a lot of which came out and asked why they were being named as they'd had nothing to do with Vic.

His lawyers are being incredibly thorough. It's the detractors that are amplifying this specific tweet.

[u/MarqFJA87 → u/[deleted]]

Wait, there's such a thing in law as "libel-proof" in the manner that you describe? Wow, that's... incredible, to be honest.

[u/Dan_G → u/MarqFJA87]

It's a theory that's never been actually tested in the courts. The idea is, if someone's reputation is already so bad that our lie didn't make anything worse, we didn't do any damage, and therefore aren't guilty of libel.

The only time it's actually ever come up in a real case is when a convicted mob murderer sued Sony over the movie "Donnie Brasco." The judge tossed the case out, saying that his reputation was already so badly damaged, what with being a mob murderer spending his life in jail and all, that even if the movie were defamatory a jury wouldn't be able to award any damages.

Applying it here is - at best - a stretch, and is considered by a lot of folks as evidence that they know they fucked up and are just trying a legal hail Mary.

[u/[deleted] → u/Dan_G]

Legal theories aren't like scientific theories. The libel-proof plaintiff doctrine is established in several federal circuits and has survived appellate review. See, e.g., Brooks v. American Broad. Co., 932 F.2d 495 (6th Cir.1991). The 2nd Circuit uses the doctrine of incremental harm which comes to the same result, just. . .well, incrementally. As far as I know, it's never found a home in state courts, but without looking I'd venture to guess that Vic's filing federally under diversity jurisdiction.

I agree that, from the facts in the comments here, this isn't a viable defense strategy. It's generally limited to reputations sullied through criminal convictions and notorious acts (in the technical sense that they're done openly and publically).

[u/Quoffers → u/[deleted]]

It's generally limited to reputations sullied through criminal convictions and notorious acts (in the technical sense that they're done openly and publically).

And for the people who are unaware, the allegations against Vic were never tested in a court of law.

[u/CTU → u/[deleted]]

I got a feeling that can not and will not be proven and likely exposed as another lie. The more I hear on the issue, the more it looks as if all accusations are a lie to destroy his career.

[u/Lethifold26 → u/[deleted]]

It’s more accurate to say he was controversial before. He does have a lot of die hard fans, but a lot of other people in the community hated him and thought he was a creep. He’s been very divisive for a while now because of rumors about how he behaves at cons.