Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Oberlin College case shows how universities are losing their way

thehill.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 198 posts

Re: Oberlin College case shows how universities are losing their way

#101

Post by bradleyjg »

elicash wrote: post #94
deogeo wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a line between dumb speech and libel. The faculty members were informed of the facts of the case, yet continued their counterfactual accusations of the bakery, and used the college to put severe economic pressure on the bakery. If that doesn't qualify as libel, what does ? That it was done as part of a protest is orthogonal.

I'm going based on OPs description, which nobody on either side of the debate seems to object to. A different list of facts could convince me of something different, certainly. What were the libelous comments by the college, specifically? I looked at the link provided and didn't see any actual comments from the flyer or dean of student's speech.

You cited NYT v Sullivan in several places in this thread. What facts lead to you weigh to come to the conclusion that the Gibsons are public figures?

Maybe you have some intellectual humility and give deference to the judge and jury that heard all the facts rather than declaring them to be wrong based on a summary of a summary.

Re: Oberlin College case shows how universities are losing their way

#102

Post by deogeo »

elicash wrote: post #94
deogeo wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a line between dumb speech and libel. The faculty members were informed of the facts of the case, yet continued their counterfactual accusations of the bakery, and used the college to put severe economic pressure on the bakery. If that doesn't qualify as libel, what does ? That it was done as part of a protest is orthogonal.

I'm going based on OPs description, which nobody on either side of the debate seems to object to. A different list of facts could convince me of something different, certainly. What were the libelous comments by the college, specifically? I looked at the link provided and didn't see any actual comments from the flyer or dean of student's speech.

Reading the article, several of the college faculty claimed the bakery's actions were racist, for which they had no evidence, and plenty of evidence against.

"Students, professors and administrators held protests, charging that the bakery was racist and had profiled the three students."

Literal comments or the flyer would be better, I agree, but it doesn't look like anyone is objecting to this description of the content of the protests.

Re: Oberlin College case shows how universities are losing their way

#103

Post by rayiner »

elicash wrote: post #100
rayiner wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Defamation has long been deemed to be speech not protected by the first amendment. Because of the risk to freedom of expression, such claims have been limited in numerous ways, and are exceedingly difficult to win. But where a plaintiff does manage to overcome those hurdles, it is not an indicator of the fragility of the first amendment for the defamation claim to actually succeed. It’s simply applying well defined o…

Thank you for being the first person to agree with my fundamental point that there are actual implications to the first amendment when it comes to libel laws. I'd love to hear any of the actual false statements ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OR ITS STAFF. I relied on the so far uncontested statement of facts offered by OP. If those facts are wrong I'd be thrilled to revisit my position.

A university dean admitted to passing out a flyer that falsely stated that the Oberlin student had been assaulted: https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/05/gibsons-bakery-v-oberl.... A police officer testified that the Oberlin students had assaulted the bakery employee, not the other way around. The flyer also stated that the bakery had a long history of racial profiling. But at trial the dean admitted that she didn’t know whether that was true. Numerous witnesses testified it was false.

A high ranking university employee handed out a flyer containing damaging assertions of fact, with the intent that people believe and act upon those assertions, and at trial offered nothing to suggest she had even a good faith belief that those assertions were true. That’s not an exercise of free expression.

Re: Oberlin College case shows how universities are losing their way

#104

Post by thatoneuser »

zuminator wrote: post #83
thatoneuser wrote: post #53

It sounds like you're taking a very one sided perspective in evaluating this. The story is pretty clear - a black kid stole product, the owner tried to protect his product, the kid cried racism, the college called racism, the college encouraged and orchestrated protests, the college financially intervened by removing contracts with the business, etc. Since when is someone not entitled to protecting their property? He…

I don't know how you're quoting me at saying "well what if this really was racist?" My question was why did the students and faculty think it was racist to the point of going forward with a disastrous trial? About your last paragraph, I feel like you're just illustrating my larger point. Is it really en vogue to "hate on whites" or is the media and internet pushing that narrative because divisiveness brings page view…

You must be misunderstanding something here. This isn't "people on Twitter jawboning" - this is about an institution playing vigilante by deliberately and wrongly accusing a store owner of racism when all he did was try to protect his property. This is real life people losing their jobs and money because they dare to try and stop someone from stealing from them. Not even just the store owner but his employees. Quoting from yourself, this is about "keeping them in subservience" and making sure they "stay in their place".

If you really don't see that and want to continue with the racist apologia then by all means, it's a free country.

Re: Oberlin College case shows how universities are losing their way

#105

Post by elicash »

bradleyjg wrote: post #101
elicash wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm going based on OPs description, which nobody on either side of the debate seems to object to. A different list of facts could convince me of something different, certainly. What were the libelous comments by the college, specifically? I looked at the link provided and didn't see any actual comments from the flyer or dean of student's speech.

You cited NYT v Sullivan in several places in this thread. What facts lead to you weigh to come to the conclusion that the Gibsons are public figures? Maybe you have some intellectual humility and give deference to the judge and jury that heard all the facts rather than declaring them to be wrong based on a summary of a summary.

> public figures

The college argued they were (limited purpose) public figures. The judge disagreed, clearly. I was making a point that to argue there are no First Amendment implications to libel laws is so far from established interpretations of the Constitution that it should give people who care about free expression pause.

> based on a summary of a summary

Are you disputing the summary? If so, which parts? I don't agree that judges and juries are always right and we should not form our own opinions, if that's what you're implying.

Do you think simply calling somebody racist, even when wrong, should be protected by the first amendment? My bet is that you do. And so this comes down to the set of facts. If you have contrary sets of facts, let's hear them!

Re: Oberlin College case shows how universities are losing their way

#106

Post by elicash »

deogeo wrote: post #102
elicash wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm going based on OPs description, which nobody on either side of the debate seems to object to. A different list of facts could convince me of something different, certainly. What were the libelous comments by the college, specifically? I looked at the link provided and didn't see any actual comments from the flyer or dean of student's speech.

Reading the article, several of the college faculty claimed the bakery's actions were racist, for which they had no evidence, and plenty of evidence against. "Students, professors and administrators held protests, charging that the bakery was racist and had profiled the three students." Literal comments or the flyer would be better, I agree, but it doesn't look like anyone is objecting to this description of the cont…

I don't think simply calling somebody "racist" should EVER be libel. Even when inaccurate. But hey, that's me and I'm a free speech supporter.

Re: Oberlin College case shows how universities are losing their way

#107

Post by [deleted] »

elicash wrote: post #105
bradleyjg wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You cited NYT v Sullivan in several places in this thread. What facts lead to you weigh to come to the conclusion that the Gibsons are public figures? Maybe you have some intellectual humility and give deference to the judge and jury that heard all the facts rather than declaring them to be wrong based on a summary of a summary.

> public figures The college argued they were (limited purpose) public figures. The judge disagreed, clearly. I was making a point that to argue there are no First Amendment implications to libel laws is so far from established interpretations of the Constitution that it should give people who care about free expression pause. > based on a summary of a summary Are you disputing the summary? If so, which parts? I don'…

[deleted]

Re: Oberlin College case shows how universities are losing their way

#108

Post by elicash »

rayiner wrote: post #103
elicash wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for being the first person to agree with my fundamental point that there are actual implications to the first amendment when it comes to libel laws. I'd love to hear any of the actual false statements ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OR ITS STAFF. I relied on the so far uncontested statement of facts offered by OP. If those facts are wrong I'd be thrilled to revisit my position.

A university dean admitted to passing out a flyer that falsely stated that the Oberlin student had been assaulted: https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/05/gibsons-bakery-v-oberl... . A police officer testified that the Oberlin students had assaulted the bakery employee, not the other way around. The flyer also stated that the bakery had a long history of racial profiling. But at trial the dean admitted that she didn’t…

The assault (a crime!) claim on the flier is REALLY bad for the college. It makes me feel much better about the ruling, as much as I still disagree it's with a LOT less force now.

(False accusations of racism or racial profiling, on the other hand, should absolutely be protected.)

Edit: One thing I'd add. Even though our positions on this individual case are in opposition, we actually agree about the First Amendment issues far more than you do with people who are criticizing me for thinking the Constitution has any implications on libel law.

Re: Oberlin College case shows how universities are losing their way

#109

Post by inflatableDodo »

elicash wrote: post #106
deogeo wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reading the article, several of the college faculty claimed the bakery's actions were racist, for which they had no evidence, and plenty of evidence against. "Students, professors and administrators held protests, charging that the bakery was racist and had profiled the three students." Literal comments or the flyer would be better, I agree, but it doesn't look like anyone is objecting to this description of the cont…

I don't think simply calling somebody "racist" should EVER be libel. Even when inaccurate. But hey, that's me and I'm a free speech supporter.

>I don't think simply calling somebody "racist" should EVER be libel. Even when inaccurate.

So, what is your definition for libel? As it doesn't appear to be the same one in common usage. I am massively in favour of free speech, but I suspect even Voltaire would want some method of restitution to be available should people be spreading lies about him around town.

Re: Oberlin College case shows how universities are losing their way

#110

Post by adt2bt »

elicash wrote: post #100
rayiner wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Defamation has long been deemed to be speech not protected by the first amendment. Because of the risk to freedom of expression, such claims have been limited in numerous ways, and are exceedingly difficult to win. But where a plaintiff does manage to overcome those hurdles, it is not an indicator of the fragility of the first amendment for the defamation claim to actually succeed. It’s simply applying well defined o…

Thank you for being the first person to agree with my fundamental point that there are actual implications to the first amendment when it comes to libel laws. I'd love to hear any of the actual false statements ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OR ITS STAFF. I relied on the so far uncontested statement of facts offered by OP. If those facts are wrong I'd be thrilled to revisit my position.

I love how this was quite literally just litigated yet you're here assuming the entire legal process for this case was a sham.
Post reply on HN