Follow TV Tropes
Boy'll be lucky to even have a career after all this.
He is currently 57 and his career as a voice actor looked like it was winding down these past few years, so he's probably more interested in a big payday. I feel the absolute smallest amount of sympathy for him getting taken for a ride by Nick and Ty and the six figure legal fees he's going to have to pay. But that's more out of disgust for how unprofessional his lawyer and legal advisor have been, and it's definitely karmic that his attempt to silence his accusers has backfired.
If the appeal does go through I expect things to die off in a few months as the ISWV crowd run out of steam during the wait for the appeal to be heard, pick up again when Broly gets recast, and then fade out when the appeal gets heard and rejected.
I was more talking about his lawyer, but yeah Vic's career is finished too. Hell, even if he won the case it would have been a Pyrrhic Victory since no sane company would want anything to do with a man that sues his employers. It's Bubsy 4 life for ol' Viccy boy.
I do wonder who Broly's new VA will be though. Kinda hoping for Aaron Dismuke myself.
He was good as Kurz Weber, if none will mind me saying it.
I don't. He made his bed, he has to lay in it.
Do you guys know when the dubs start for this season?
I do know that Funi picked up the Azur Lane anime, which I dunno when that happened but I'm not against it.
RWBY recast Vic's character with Jason Liebrecht. We've only briefly heard him in the new trailer for the next season, but most people didn't notice a difference even when listening for it.
He did a great job with Champa.
x2 Recasting Qrow with a soundalike was never really an issue since a number VAs can probably replicate (or do a close approximation of) his voice. Quinton Flynn immediately comes to mind as an example since Qrow already sounds like a drunk Axel/Raiden.
Edited by Karxrida on Oct 14th 2019 at 1:23:26 AM
I dont quite understand why the case was dismissed though. Even if Vic's case doesnt work in the long run, he proved that the defendants defamed him. They haven't proven their claims to be true. All they had were claims he did something. He went on the record saying they were wrong, they went on the record saying what they said was truthful. Trying to be objective here.
Is that all the standard it takes to win a TCPA? Is the standard Vic had to pass, that he had to prove the accusations false (Some of which did actually happen as tales were directly refuted by involved third parties), not that the accusers, the defendants, had to prove their accusations true? This seems like an incredibly high bar, you can rarely prove a negative.
Why wouldn't it simply be, if Vic could prove they said defamatory things, and they can't show a reasonable source of evidence that what they say is true, that it then moves into discovery and fact finding to determine what the truth is?
I guess what I am asking would be, what would Vic have to have done to succeed in defeating the TCPA? Or what am I missing, having only seen a one sided telling of the story from Nick?
He didn't prove the defendents defamed him.
He didn't prove anything at all.
Are we going down the "what if all of these women just happened to tell the same lie, not saying, just saying" road again? I feel like we're going down that road again.
That's pretty much it, that simple.
And him having terrible lawyers didn't help him either. But even competent lawyers pointed out that he had slim chances of winning anyway.
They said pretty bad things about him, that he is a predator. This is undisputed fact. Is that not defamation when it is not true?
I mean, this again is coming to, he has to prove he didn't actually do -insert criminal act here- to prove defamation? Is this what is legally required to prove defamation?
That is what I want to know. What would Vic need to have proven to prove defmation? Or is being accused of crimes not defamation?
I can understand a lot of things. Like if you cannot prove damages, the suit is a moot point. Or if there was any more evidence other than an accusation. A single arrest that didnt go anywhere, any of these incidents being collaborated by one other person. But that isnt the case here.
Edited by StephanReiken on Oct 14th 2019 at 3:05:23 AM
Itís only defamation if they are saying those things willfully knowing they arenít true.
If they genuinly believe they are telling the truth then itís not defamation.
Which is of course is why defamation is a real crack case to prove in the first place.
Edited by slimcoder on Oct 14th 2019 at 3:05:50 AM
K, so, there's a few things to unpack here.
So despite your claim of "being objective" earlier, you already assumed they lied on him when, even if we say that there's no hard evidence that he did anything, there's no evidence that his accusers are lying. Great start already.
First of all, I could easily flip this around and say what would his accusers have to have proven in order to prove harassment? (We'll just skip over the fact that the burden of proof is on the accusers in these sorts of cases 9 times out of 10 for now.) Second, no. No it's not. Accusing someone of committing a crime in, in itself, not defamation. It would only be defamation if someone was falsely accused of a crime for the express purpose of ruining their reputation, which is what you're not-so-subtlely implying that you think went down (again, without evidence).
So I'm gonna use my experience from similar defenses of harassers and say that good faith arguments are not being made here. Move along, nothing to see.
Edited by PhysicalStamina on Oct 14th 2019 at 6:33:05 AM
No offense, but it doesn't sound like you're being objective. It sounds like you made up your mind already.
Edited by Cortez on Oct 14th 2019 at 6:14:47 AM
Yes, presumption of innocence. When it comes to crime, you do get a presumption of innocence. I presume he is innocent as a matter of fact.
But I suppose I can see now where the issue is. What he needs is some kind of proof that they were knowingly lying about it. So to prove his side of things, he needs some kind of evidence showing that and that, he does not have.
I do think that is objective. The benefit of the doubt is important, an accusation is not enough to prove a crime. He may or may not be innocent, and there is little evidence. Objectively, he has not been convicted of a crime.
This doesnt nessecarily make him 'innocent'. Subjectively, I do not believe these defendants and their accusations. I think they have been caught in lies, and their general behavior, affidavits, and all that lead to a very poor impression. But that doesnt prove they lied either.
Edited by StephanReiken on Oct 14th 2019 at 3:32:55 AM
EDIT: nvm, leaving it to the people with actual legal experience.
Edited by Discar on Oct 14th 2019 at 3:34:55 AM
You said you believe in the presumption of innocence and then go on to say the defendants are liars in the same post.
He also admitted that 95% of the things he's accused of did happen, and his defense is that his victims literally were asking for it. Something his victims obviously dispute. Dr the remaining 5% he only has his own word which does not meet the requirements for the TCPA stage.
If you actually believed in that, you would afford to the Women, who were defendants in this case.
But you aren't, so you're not being objective, you're in fact being bias.
Which is rather odd in this case, because a court of law already made an official ruling on the matter.
Edited by Cortez on Oct 14th 2019 at 6:42:11 AM
It should be noted that Vic lied in his deposition and in his affidavit yet his word is somehow more truthful than over a dozen other affidavits. The bias here is strong.
The whole story, what was it exactly, where Monica claimed a witness that directly refuted her claim. Or the hair pulling incident, without any kind of claim against him professionally or complaint to her employer. That isnt reasonable behavior. I do not believe it. There are other things here and there that just do not add up.
But like I just said, not believing it doesn't mean it's not true.
The difference between Vic, and the defendants of the case is that they have made statements easily disproven.
If I presume accusations to be true, that would be hypocritical of believing a presumption of innocence.
I haven't heard of what Vic lied about in his affidavit. What did he lie about?
Edited by StephanReiken on Oct 14th 2019 at 3:49:43 AM
Community Showcase More
How well does it match the trope?