Marzgunt: Queen of Hashtags (and fabricated outrage)

[mad bum]

>Totally a lawyer guis.

[A12]

The #KickVic people are mentally ill retards.

"Vic should have made a truce with the people that ruined his livelihood."

"Vic shouldn't have sought out legal counsel to defend himself."

Like, wtf? How fucking nigger dumb can you people get?

#KickVic movement deserves no truce

[Guest]

Ron the Cuck said he called Vic and Vic wouldn't return his calls. Imagine if he left voicemails how hilarious they must be.

[A12]

Rekieta Law will be having a livestream tonight. Looks like Shane Holmberg managed to get a lot of comic conventions to not let Vic Mignogna appear at their conventions and confessing he was the one behind it on Twitter, rumors are Shane Holmberg knows Marzgurl as well

[Dingus Bajingus]

>Totally a lawyer guis.

Well, obviously it wouldn't be slander, since slander is spoken, while libel is written.

As far as libel goes, though, that actually brings up an interesting point. Genuine question here: Do so-called weasel words like "allegedly" and "sources claim" and all of that actually provide an impenetrable defense against defamation charges? I'm completely open to being wrong, but I vaguely recall there being something about sources still being liable for reporting on libelous claims, even if they hedge them, if the reporting is "uncritical" enough, if there's enough of a nudge-nudge-ALLEGEDLY-wink-wink bent to it. Would be an interesting question for someone with actual expertise on the topic.

[Old Black Man]

Man, I was actually easing up, but fuck these people. Not easing up on what they did, just accepting that they’d get theirs. I love how cocky they’re all getting against despite that olive branch shit.

[Keith Chegwin]

As far as libel goes, though, that actually brings up an interesting point. Genuine question here: Do so-called weasel words like "allegedly" and "sources claim" and all of that actually provide an impenetrable defense against defamation charges?

Fuck no. This idiot doesn't know what he's talking about. In the States the absolute truth is the only complete defence against slander. Now, if you try to couch your statements with 'I think' or 'So I've heard', you could argue that's opinion and opinion can be a defence against slander. But only if your opinion is taken as opinion and not fact, which not the case here. The news sites presented all these claims as fact and moreover his employers seemed to take them as fact, therefore they can't really hide behind 'it's just my opinion'

The #KickVic people are mentally ill retards.

"Vic should have made a truce with the people that ruined his livelihood."

"Vic shouldn't have sought out legal counsel to defend himself."

Like, wtf? How fucking nigger dumb can you people get?

They're scared is what it is. They know that if they get sued, they're fucked

[Kugelfisch]

>Totally a lawyer guis.

Well, obviously it wouldn't be slander, since slander is spoken, while libel is written.

[Dingus Bajingus]

As far as libel goes, though, that actually brings up an interesting point. Genuine question here: Do so-called weasel words like "allegedly" and "sources claim" and all of that actually provide an impenetrable defense against defamation charges?

Fuck no. This idiot doesn't know what he's talking about. In the States the absolute truth is the only complete defence against slander. Now, if you try to couch your statements with 'I think' or 'So I've heard', you could argue that's opinion and opinion can be a defence against slander. But only if your opinion is taken as opinion and not fact, which not the case here. The news sites presented all these claims as fact and moreover his employers seemed to take them as fact, therefore they can't really hide behind 'it's just my opinion'

Well, that's what I mean. Obviously they all thought it was all true, but they did include the token "allegedly"s and such, so I'm wondering just how much leeway there is for journalistic outlets to do that sort of thing. The response will obviously be "Well, we didn't say it was all confirmed true, look, we said 'allegedly' right heeeeere!" Would that actually hold up if the rest of the piece goes full force with a "yeah, ALLEGEDLY but its super true you guys" tenor, only reporting on one side of the story and such?

[Keith Chegwin]

I'm about as much of a lawyer as this idiot but, as far as I'm aware, publishing claims like they've published about Vic without even verifying whether they're true or not counts as negligence and they are liable. This is what happens when you get a bunch of fucktard bloggers pretending to be real journalists