Funimation Cuts Ties With Vic Mignogna After Sexual Harassment Allegations

Seeing as the previous chat thread on this was locked, I’ll post this here instead.

www.animenewsnetwork.com

Vic Mignogna's Civil Case Against Funimation, Voice Actress Monica Rial, Ron Toye Dismissed

Court has dismissed all 17 of Mignogna's claims // Judge John P. Chupp dismissed all of voice actor Vic Mignogna's case against voice actress Monica Rial,...
www.animenewsnetwork.com www.animenewsnetwork.com

Case dismissed. Vic’s legal team failed in every respect. All that’s left is for costs to be paid, a punitive fine to be levied, and maybe the delusion of an appeal.
 
But he lost in the law. He literally burnt his career I feel he could have came back in 5 years if he didn’t do this now he burnt all his bridges.
 
thedoctor2016 said:
But he lost in the law. He literally burnt his career I feel he could have came back in 5 years if he didn’t do this now he burnt all his bridges.
Click to expand...
He did ask his accusers to stop but they didn't so he felt he had no choice but to take legal action and it pretty much destroyed his career so he likely felt he had nothing else to Lose and it's a shame that people don't think he didn't have the right to defend himself since people are already gloating about the fact he lost the court case and he now has to pay all the court costs plus a fine and I think he can not sue again for the same thing.
 
I can't help but wonder in situations like this if we wouldn't be better off with a whole different way of thinking about people than is currently the norm. It seems if you believe someone has done bad things, you're also expected to believe you (and others) are not allowed to like them. Therefore in order to justify continuing to like someone who's been accused of bad things (again mainly to others, but possibly also to yourself) becoming unwilling to even entertain the possibility that they could have done something wrong becomes the only option. Which leads to an awful lot of people far removed from the situation who actually have no idea whether these people have done anything wrong or not deciding that they know absolutely, for definite, that they're innocent or guilty.

Perhaps it's worth considering who someone is to you personally, rather than who they are to other people. Someone can do or be accused of bad things and you can continue to like them regardless of whether they actually did them or not, and personally, I think that's probably okay. I'd guess from looking at society in general that a lot of people don't think that's okay, which is why not many people are willing to take that position. I dunno, maybe I've watched too much Louis Theroux and it's humanised a lot of people for me who society expects me to hate.
 
thedoctor2016 said:
He literally burnt his career
Click to expand...
Mate, if he literally burnt his career there'd be actual fire - literally. That's what literally means, but maybe I'm just getting old because incorrect use of that word really rubs me up the wrong way and seems to be only really used by cherubs these days.

ayase said:
Perhaps it's worth considering who someone is to you personally, rather than who they are to other people.
Click to expand...
I'm probably just a bad person but if I tend not to like the victim anyway I tend to side with the one who did them over. It sort of depends how much I've secretly wanted to smack their face in myself but yeah, Adam baaaaaad 😕
 
In my opinion, this isn't about right and wrong, or even guilty or innocent. It's about smart and stupid.

1) It was a civil case, not a criminal case. Vic sued Funimation for unfair dismissal, and Funimation and the other three for defamation, or whatever it was in their tweets that he considered was damaging.

2) The case might have hinged on whether Vic as a public figure was fair game for the Tweets that were posted by Funimation and the others.

3) But Vic's lawyers weren't exactly competent. The submitted a deposition where Vic admits to acting in a way as described in one of the Tweets that he was bringing a case against. The defamation charge is gone at that point. All of it is gone at that point. This isn't conjecture. The deposition is online, on Youtube, you can see and hear for yourself. You might interpret it one way or another, but the judge doesn't have that option.

It's like Donald Trump and the whole Ukraine affair. The case for impeachment is that he sought foreign interference in a US election. To 'defend' himself he produces a partial transcript of the phone call with the Ukrainian leader. The transcript shows him seeking foreign interference in a US election. It's game over at that point.
 
Back
Top