In response I remembered a few comments from the Judge, who ruled against VidAngel, that might offer some context into how civil disputes actually work (and perhaps a little less judging🤞).
“And, again, I could be wrong and the Ninth Circuit could be wrong. I have no ego about that, but, if we’re going to play by the rules, you have a ruling, you appeal it, and a decision is made.”
“They [VidAngel] think that the Family Movie Act generally allows them to do that. And they may be right. The Supreme Court may take up this issue and they may decide it.”
“Obviously, the verdict didn’t come out the way you [VidAngel] would have liked, but at least it’s been my observation that you all are fighters, that you all are fighters and are reflective, thoughtful, and you will persevere through this.”
“And you will take this matter, whether it’s appealing this trial or appealing to the Supreme Court or appealing to your legislature, I have no doubt that you have perseverance and intellect that will get you far in your respective careers. So I wish you all the best.”
If the judge who made the ruling himself isn’t 100% about his own ruling, I am pretty sure we can ignore all the self-righteous comments accusing others of being criminals or thieves.
He might be right in the end. We might be right in the end. In a case of first impression, we won’t know until we finish moving through the court system. This is a civil disagreement NOT a criminal case.