• H3H3 Lawsuit Update (March 17th)
    82 replies, posted
[video=youtube;t7K387y1Lo8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7K387y1Lo8[/video] [URL="https://www.reddit.com/r/h3h3productions/comments/5zyzy1/lawsuit_update_the_court_adjourns_the_trial_date/df2krsh/"]TLDW[/URL]
Law is the most droolingly stupid boring thing in the world and I would rather be homeless than a lawyer but listening to him talk is just wonderful fun. He just has the right voice. [editline]18th March 2017[/editline] h3h3's case is looking good and matt hoss has a joke defense but we aren't out of the mud yet Matt Hoss's loss will make me feel smugly like my avatar
It sucks how far this has been dragged out, I feel terrible for Ethan and Hila.
[QUOTE=cornbread;51977719]It sucks how far this has been dragged out, I feel terrible for Ethan and Hila.[/QUOTE] I'm glad they don't have kid(s) and/or a serious medical disorder imagine the stress of both that and a lawsuit by a sentient grapefruit they really made a good point in the video Matt Hoss claims is slamming him. If you don't have money how can you defend yourself. Now imagine if you didn't have money + kids and/or a medical condition, or the kid had a medical condition you had to pay for, or your wife, or a friend, or hell, anything. At that point, how do you not feel [B]depressed[/B]. [editline]18th March 2017[/editline] I'm pretty sure if someone like Boogie had to deal with a lawsuit, he would basically die because of his weakness to stress it was bad enough for Jim Sterling. All those back issues [I]and[/I] the lawsuit to top it off. Imagine if Jim didn't make the money he made. The dude would have been bankrupt either way or unable to pay for medical.
They should take a trip or vacation after they win the case.
I don't get how a case like this isn't shut down immediately. And the amount it's cost h3 is insane. Hopefully they can get the money back from the piece of shit that sued them.
I find it ironic how you can make inflammatory videos about someone saying how they're a rapist and they're making rapist fantasy videos with their creepy face and stupid parkour; then in the same vein play the victim when the guy who was insulted uses another "legally allowed" tear-down strategy by milking their bank account. I mean, you reap what you sow. Although, I am glad they're finally getting out of their legal trouble if what's being said is true.
[QUOTE=Toothpick;51978266]I find it ironic how you can make inflammatory videos about someone saying how they're a rapist and they're making rapist fantasy videos with their creepy face and stupid parkour; then in the same vein play the victim when the guy who was insulted uses another "legally allowed" tear-down strategy by milking their bank account. I mean, you reap what you sow. Although, I am glad they're finally getting out of their legal trouble if what's being said is true.[/QUOTE] You're saying if you call someone out on making creepy videos that obviously fulfil their strange macho fantasies you deserve to lose over $50,000 in court fees? You're equating calling someone creepy over the internet (I can't recall if Ethan calls him a rapist, I highly doubt he does) with making them lose $50k? If you do indeed reap what you sow, did you sow seeds of stupidity?
[QUOTE=tom1029;51978208]I don't get how a case like this isn't shut down immediately. And the amount it's cost h3 is insane. Hopefully they can get the money back from the piece of shit that sued them.[/QUOTE] This is "immediately". Summary judgement is the first point the court can say "you fucking stupid idiot this is obviously in X's favor". When both parties are too stubborn to settle, summary judgement is the bitchslap that puts one of them in their place. And it's possible they will get costs back since this seems like a SLAPP to me. NYS does not have a very broad anti-SLAPP though, it's limited to certain people iirc. But this does seem like an extreme amount of money for h3h3 to shoulder, you'd think that NYS would have had their shit all worked out in case law and it wouldn't have needed an army to research this stuff. But I guess you do get what you pay for, considering they likely won.
[QUOTE=D'Yasper;51978293]You're saying if you call someone out on making creepy videos that obviously fulfil their strange macho fantasies you deserve to lose over $50,000 in court fees? You're equating calling someone creepy over the internet (I can't recall if Ethan calls him a rapist, I highly doubt he does) with making them lose $50k? If you do indeed reap what you sow, did you sow seeds of stupidity?[/QUOTE] You don't deserve it, but it's not entirely out of the question. You fuck with him, he fucks with you. If you're not a fan of h3h3 it's not hard to see how toxic they are towards people. Career ruining in some cases. They met a guy who could return the heat. Not saying I want them to face this shit and their lives ruined, but they kind of rub me the wrong way with the "Worst time of our lives" videos, saying how they didn't do anything, even zooming in on the girl crying (lol) to garner sympathy. Also, do you know what defamation is? You do realize that Youtube is a business right? Businesses have competition; always. Every youtube channel that is in it for the revenue is competing with the others. If one of you make inflammatory videos about someone on youtube; you're potentially harming their livelihood (how they make money, how they get food, water all that stuff), and causing their business to crash. H3h3 some times does this in forgivable ways (like the gamer gunk guy video), but sometimes he doesn't. I watched the matt hoss video and it constantly alluded to how he was like some weird predator who shoves carrots up peoples asses and has mayonnaise at the ready. That shit is character destroying. They may say "nah, but we're just joking" AFTER the fact they put the video out, without even consulting the guy before uploading it. I can totally see someone out of the hundreds of videos they posted doing something (that's also legal) to fuck with them. This is a business; and lawsuits like this one are common place. Just because you joke about fupas and beanies doesn't mean you're exempt from the extremely real consequences that come with running a business. Especially a business built upon other peoples content. Hell, if they weren't hardcore playing the victim I would totally be behind them; but they shouldn't put out videos of them crying on camera and then zoom in on it to make me feel some type of way. Like I said, you reap what you sow.
[QUOTE=Toothpick;51978552]You don't deserve it, but it's not entirely out of the question. You fuck with him, he fucks with you. If you're not a fan of h3h3 it's not hard to see how toxic they are towards people. Career ruining in some cases. They met a guy who could return the heat. Not saying I want them to face this shit and their lives ruined, but they kind of rub me the wrong way with the "Worst time of our lives" videos, saying how they didn't do anything, even zooming in on the girl crying (lol) to garner sympathy. Also, do you know what defamation is? You do realize that Youtube is a business right? Businesses have competition; always. Every youtube channel that is in it for the revenue is competing with the others. If one of you make inflammatory videos about someone on youtube; you're potentially harming their livelihood (how they make money, how they get food, water all that stuff), and causing their business to crash. H3h3 some times does this in forgivable ways (like the gamer gunk guy video), but sometimes he doesn't. I watched the matt hoss video and it constantly alluded to how he was like some weird predator who shoves carrots up peoples asses and has mayonnaise at the ready. That shit is character destroying. They may say "nah, but we're just joking" AFTER the fact they put the video out, without even consulting the guy before uploading it. I can totally see someone out of the hundreds of videos they posted doing something (that's also legal) to fuck with them. This is a business; and lawsuits like this one are common place. Just because you joke about fupas and beanies doesn't mean you're exempt from the extremely real consequences that come with running a business. Especially a business built upon other peoples content. Hell, if they weren't hardcore playing the victim I would totally be behind them; but they shouldn't put out videos of them crying on camera and then zoom in on it to make me feel some type of way. Like I said, you reap what you sow.[/QUOTE] There is nothing "returning the heat" about abusing the judicial system by filing a baseless lawsuit to scare someone who has broken no laws into not making goofs about your shitty videos. I think you are the one who needs to brush up on your defamation law. h3h3 didn't defame the guy whatsoever; that is blatantly obvious. He's trying to do a shakedown on them because he knows they can afford it. The judge saw right through this and that's why the case is going to be thrown out. Are you saying the judge is wrong, or are you just saying that it's OK to abuse the judicial system to waste peoples' time and money in some sort of shakedown?
[QUOTE=Snowmew;51978579]There is nothing "returning the heat" about abusing the judicial system by filing a baseless lawsuit to scare someone who has broken no laws into not making goofs about your shitty videos. I think you are the one who needs to brush up on your defamation law. h3h3 didn't defame the guy whatsoever; that is blatantly obvious. He's trying to do a shakedown on them because he knows they can afford it. The judge saw right through this and that's why the case is going to be thrown out. Are you saying the judge is wrong, or are you just saying that it's OK to abuse the judicial system to waste peoples' time and money in some sort of shakedown?[/QUOTE] What's illegal about what Matt hoss is doing? What's wrong with it?
I didn't know Matt Hoss posted on Facepunch.
[QUOTE=Toothpick;51978584]What's illegal about what Matt hoss is doing? What's wrong with it?[/QUOTE] Filing frivolous lawsuits is, in fact, illegal. What Matt is doing is the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation"]definition of SLAPP[/URL]. Matt's lawyers could be sanctioned, and Matt could be ordered to pay all costs. But like I said, I think NYS's anti-SLAPP is not very strong, so it's not guaranteed. But h3h3's videos on how much their lawyers are costing them suggests to me that they're hinting an anti-SLAPP strategy. Matt has no case and h3h3 is obviously aching to just settle and cut their losses, but there's that SLAPP possibility at the end that would cover all of their costs and they'd be home free. Flagrant abuse of the judicial system in any respect is morally wrong, if not illegal. You also did not answer my question. But I think I already know your answer.
[QUOTE=Snowmew;51978600]Filing frivolous lawsuits is, in fact, illegal. What Matt is doing is the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation"]definition of SLAPP[/URL]. Matt's lawyers could be sanctioned, and Matt could be ordered to pay all costs. But like I said, I think NYS's anti-SLAPP is not very strong, so it's not guaranteed. But h3h3's videos on how much their lawyers are costing them suggests to me that they're hinting an anti-SLAPP strategy. Matt has no case. Flagrant abuse of the judicial system in any respect is morally wrong, if not illegal.[/QUOTE] I didn't know that. Although it's illegal in the sense you will only pay the court fees. I feel like a dummy for arguing that then. I guess he really is being a bold guy. Still, quit with the crying on camera and playing the victim.
[QUOTE=Toothpick;51978621]I didn't know that. Although it's illegal in the sense you will only pay the court fees. I feel like a dummy for arguing that then. I guess he really is being a bold guy. Still, quit with the crying on camera and playing the victim.[/QUOTE] That's the whole point of an anti-SLAPP argument though; that they are the victim. And no, anti-SLAPP is one of the very few instances where [I]cost-shifting[/I] often kicks in. Court fees can be shifted by judges rather arbitrarily; costs cannot. There is considerable precedent that a comedian's statements don't tread into defamation when you consider what they do for a living - it is obvious that h3h3 is just making jokes and it's clear when they are being serious. Suggesting that Matt engages in carrot anal play is obviously a joke considering what h3h3 does. [URL="http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/04/23/0635437.pdf"]Gardner v. Martino[/URL] was one of the higher-profile instances of this (can't expect a talk show host's comments to be serious, so it's not defamatory) and actually does trigger an anti-SLAPP in which the defendants won attorney's fees. [QUOTE=Toothpick;51978640]I know they ARE a victim, but they're acting in a way that makes it seem like they did nothing to provoke this guy. He may be a dick for going this far, but in my opinion that just shows they messed with the wrong guy. Rules of the jungle, man. They should focus less on just tearing other people down and focus on their own unique content, if they don't want reactions like this. There ARE bad people out there. They found one.[/QUOTE] "Rules of the jungle," fuck me...
I know they ARE a victim, but they're acting in a way that makes it seem like they did nothing to provoke this guy. He may be a dick for going this far, but in my opinion that just shows they messed with the wrong guy. Rules of the jungle, man. They should focus less on just tearing other people down and focus on their own unique content, if they don't want reactions like this. There ARE bad people out there. They found one.
[QUOTE=Toothpick;51978552]Also, do you know what defamation is? You do realize that Youtube is a business right? Businesses have competition; always. Every youtube channel that is in it for the revenue is competing with the others. If one of you make inflammatory videos about someone on youtube; you're potentially harming their livelihood (how they make money, how they get food, water all that stuff), and causing their business to crash. H3h3 some times does this in forgivable ways (like the gamer gunk guy video), but sometimes he doesn't. I watched the matt hoss video and it constantly alluded to how he was like some weird predator who shoves carrots up peoples asses and has mayonnaise at the ready. That shit is character destroying. They may say "nah, but we're just joking" AFTER the fact they put the video out, without even consulting the guy before uploading it. I can totally see someone out of the hundreds of videos they posted doing something (that's also legal) to fuck with them. This is a business; and lawsuits like this one are common place. Just because you joke about fupas and beanies doesn't mean you're exempt from the extremely real consequences that come with running a business. Especially a business built upon other peoples content..[/QUOTE] You do realize that you're basically saying that any kind of criticism of any kind of creative work is defamation then, right? [editline]18th March 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Toothpick;51978640]I know they ARE a victim, but they're acting in a way that makes it seem like they did nothing to provoke this guy. He may be a dick for going this far, but in my opinion that just shows they messed with the wrong guy. Rules of the jungle, man. They should focus less on just tearing other people down and focus on their own unique content, if they don't want reactions like this. There ARE bad people out there. They found one.[/QUOTE] They did nothing to provoke the guy. Making a video about how his videos are bad is in no way a provocation of a fucking lawsuit.
[QUOTE=LuaChobo;51978645]but they didnt do anything to provoke legal action thats the point its like saying if they were shot over shitposting on yt "yea the guy broke the law but they provoked it"[/QUOTE] I don't see it that way. If you fuck with someone in any way, and they kill you right there on the spot because of that, you wouldn't be thinking "but wait I didn't do anything that deserves death as an appropriate punishment", you WILL be thinking "oh shit, I shouldn't have fucked with [b]that[/b] guy". the whole video was about how matt was a predator who shoves carrots up peoples asses while doing parkour, if someone see that with any potential future influence on matt hoss, they're now tainted by his mayonnaise carrot diddling and could potentially cancel on whatever plans there would have been. you are messing with his livelihood, you seriously don't seem to get that.
[QUOTE=Toothpick;51978663]I don't see it that way. If you fuck with someone in any way, and they kill you right there on the spot because of that, you wouldn't be thinking "but wait I didn't do anything that deserves death as an appropriate punishment", you WILL be thinking "oh shit, I shouldn't have fucked with [b]that[/b] guy".[/QUOTE] No, you'll be thinking "oh shit this guy is fucking insane". Doing something to someone that then makes them go insane and do something really horrible to you does not make it in any way your fault.
[QUOTE=Toothpick;51978663]I don't see it that way. If you fuck with someone in any way, and they kill you right there on the spot because of that, you wouldn't be thinking "but wait I didn't do anything that deserves death as an appropriate punishment", you WILL be thinking "oh shit, I shouldn't have fucked with [b]that[/b] guy". the whole video was about how matt was a predator who shoves carrots up peoples asses while doing parkour, if someone see that with any potential future influence on matt hoss, they're now tainted by his mayonnaise carrot diddling and could potentially cancel on whatever plans there would have been. you are messing with his livelihood, you seriously don't seem to get that.[/QUOTE] How are you this out of touch that it's somehow the victim's fault that they got killed? Killing someone because they "fucked with you" is by no means justifiable. It's Matt's responsibility to present any evidence whatsoever that he lost anything due to h3h3's video. Obviously he has failed to do so. h3h3 wasn't "messing with his livelihood" outside your imagination.
[QUOTE=simkas;51978668]No, you'll be thinking "oh shit this guy is fucking insane". Doing something to someone that then makes them go insane and do something really horrible to you does not make it in any way your fault.[/QUOTE] Yeah, you'll be thinking about how insane the guy you provoked was, while you're dead. How about instead of provoking the insane guy, you just not provoke anyone? [editline]18th March 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Snowmew;51978676]How are you this out of touch that it's somehow the victim's fault that they got killed? Killing someone because they "fucked with you" is by no means justifiable.[/QUOTE] It's NOT justifiable, but he still did it; and you're dead. Sucks doesn't it? How about you just don't provoke people "for the luls"?
[QUOTE=Toothpick;51978677]It's NOT justifiable, but he still did it; and you're dead. Sucks doesn't it? How about you just don't provoke people "for the luls"?[/QUOTE] Or maybe you should stop victim blaming and trying to justify insane people that are willing to do something illegal to get back at someone?
[QUOTE=Toothpick;51978677]Yeah, you'll be thinking about how insane the guy you provoked was, while you're dead. How about instead of provoking the insane guy, you just not provoke anyone? [editline]18th March 2017[/editline] It's NOT justifiable, but he still did it; and you're dead. Sucks doesn't it? How about you just don't provoke people "for the luls"?[/QUOTE] Rape is NOT justifiable, but he still did it; and you're raped. Sucks doesn't it? How about you just don't wear that short skirt "because it's cute"?
[QUOTE=Toothpick;51978677]It's NOT justifiable, but he still did it; and you're dead. Sucks doesn't it? How about you just don't provoke people "for the luls"?[/QUOTE] If I saw someone doing parkour and picking up hot babes I probably wouldn't mess with them "for the luls" either you're right.
[QUOTE=Toothpick;51978677]Yeah, you'll be thinking about how insane the guy you provoked was, while you're dead. How about instead of provoking the insane guy, you just not provoke anyone? [editline]18th March 2017[/editline] It's NOT justifiable, but he still did it; and you're dead. Sucks doesn't it? How about you just don't provoke people "for the luls"?[/QUOTE] How about we just live in happy land where noone criticizes noone ever. This metaphor is completely unrealistic you can't compare killing someone to criticizing someone's creepy videos (in which, gave matt MORE VIEWS) There was absolutely no way to tell that matt was going to sue them.
[QUOTE=Toothpick;51978640]I know they ARE a victim, but they're acting in a way that makes it seem like they did nothing to provoke this guy. He may be a dick for going this far, but in my opinion that just shows they messed with the wrong guy. Rules of the jungle, man. They should focus less on just tearing other people down and focus on their own unique content, if they don't want reactions like this. There ARE bad people out there. They found one.[/QUOTE] 'You reap what you sow', 'Rules of the jungle' How many more stupid phrases are you going to throw out that have no application to this case? H3 aren't acting as if they did nothing wrong - they admit they made fun of him but their video and their opinions are perfectly legal under Fair Use law. If Matt Hoss puts up weird videos for the world to see then people should be able to critique them without being subject to a lawsuit costing thousands of dollars. Matt Hoss is not being a dick - he is purposefully and illegally attempting to intimidate H3 and causing them to have to pay huge legal fees because his ego can't handle being called out. As for this 'rules of the jungle' shit, in this case that implies you believe that people with more wealth/power should de facto have more power in the courts over those less well off. That's literally why the law exists, to ensure FAIR judgement is passed regardless of a person's rank or wealth. Stop throwing out lines like that as if you've won the argument. The lawyer in the video posted above has already stated that Matt Hoss is the one grasping at straws here.
[QUOTE=simkas;51978692]Or maybe you should stop victim blaming and trying to justify insane people that are willing to do something illegal to get back at someone?[/QUOTE] In my opinion his content sometimes exits fair use and enters defamatory. It's okay if you disagree with that. Sometimes he just rails on people because he doesn't like them.
[QUOTE=Snowmew;51978694]Rape is NOT justifiable, but he still did it; and you're raped. Sucks doesn't it? How about you just don't wear that short skirt "because it's cute"?[/QUOTE] That's like walking through a bad neighborhood in your brand new Nikes.
[QUOTE=Toothpick;51978705]In my opinion his content sometimes exits fair use and enters defamatory. It's okay if you disagree with that. Sometimes he just rails on people because he doesn't like them.[/QUOTE] The white flag of a losing argument - "it's okay if you disagree with me." Wow, thanks, you must be the Mother Teresa of bad legal theories. It's a good thing that you think it's okay if people disagree with you, since apparently the American legal system - among most others - disagrees with you.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.