Live data from Hacker News

Oberlin College case shows how universities are losing their way

thehill.com

91–100 of 198 posts

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

#91
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for this. I hadn't dug deeply into this previously. Reading this, I'm struck by how fragile our first amendment is that you can be sued for participating in a protest. It sounds like the only things that the university did "wrong" was end a contract and also one of their deans took active part in protesting. Much of the glee seems to stem from the fact that the speech being expressed in the protest was dumb. I…

This was libel... There was an intentional effort by the college to smear the bakery as racist and hurt their business. What does this have to do with the First Amendment?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan

Libel absolutely has First Amendment limits. I think you can debate whether the facts of the case meet those limits, but to claim there's no Constitutional issues at stake is a pretty extreme argument to make.

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

#92

The tl;dr seems to be an underage black person tried to buy wine, apparently stole wine, then there was a fight with the owner's son. There was a demonstration that was probably based on an unclear understanding of the events. So people over-reacted to events, yes they were stupid to do. But you shouldn't use this as an excuse to clutch one's pearls and conclude colleges have lost their way. This looks like a cya act…

Did you miss the part about college officials committing purgery?

In what institution would she be able to keep her job?

So yes - some protest and confusion in the days after are understandable. But the actions of the college go way beyond that.

She should have been fired long ago the college should have apologized to the community alumni and the bakery and then it would all have ended.

This is a good example of colleges getting completely out of hand.

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

#93
post #82
post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does this have to do with the first amendment? It doesn't protect individuals from lawsuits by other individuals for civil issues.

There are limits to libel laws as a result of the First Amendment. I understand your confusion/question, but that's why I bring it up -- there's a lot of disagreement over how to interpret these speech protections and lots of people weigh the issues involved differently. From OP's description at least, it's a bad ruling for people who care deeply about freedom of expression. Sadly, most people only care about scoring…

There's no confusion here. The amendment is a restriction on government, not individuals suing. Aside from that, not everyone who cares deeply about freedom of expression would agree that this ruling is bad in that context.

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

#94
post #90
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for this. I hadn't dug deeply into this previously. Reading this, I'm struck by how fragile our first amendment is that you can be sued for participating in a protest. It sounds like the only things that the university did "wrong" was end a contract and also one of their deans took active part in protesting. Much of the glee seems to stem from the fact that the speech being expressed in the protest was dumb. I…

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.

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

#95
post #3

Does anyone know what framework an appellate court will use to review/revise the damages? The article says $22 million is the state max, but are there other factors that will reduce the amount further?

Here's the statute: http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2315.21

I find it hard to parse, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of room to remove the cap. Maybe if they conclude that the acts of the school amounted to felony libel?

> (6) Division (D)(2) of this section does not apply to a tort action where the alleged injury, death, or loss to person or property resulted from the defendant acting with one or more of the culpable mental states of purposely and knowingly as described in section 2901.22 of the Revised Code and when the defendant has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to a criminal offense that is a felony, that had as an element of the offense one or more of the culpable mental states of purposely and knowingly as described in that section, and that is the basis of the tort action.

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

#96
post #76
post #14

A bit more factual context: 1. The student "protests" erupted the day after the 2016 election results came in, with a corresponding politically inflammatory element at work in the background. 2. The underlying incident involved an underaged black student who attempted to buy a bottle of wine, was refused, and was then found to have 2 other bottles under his coat as he walked out. When the owner's son chased him out,…

Thanks for this. I hadn't dug deeply into this previously. Reading this, I'm struck by how fragile our first amendment is that you can be sued for participating in a protest. It sounds like the only things that the university did "wrong" was end a contract and also one of their deans took active part in protesting. Much of the glee seems to stem from the fact that the speech being expressed in the protest was dumb. I…

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 outer limits to freedom of expression, no different than ones for fraud, false advertising, and other malicious conduct that incidentally involves speech.

Two points @grellas mentioned are key.

First, this case involves falsehoods. Factually untrue assertions are generally outside the scope of protected speech: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/lying.h.... (Otherwise, the first amendment would swallow claims for fraud, false advertising, etc). This case, moreover, doesn’t fit the scenarios where false statements can be protected expression, such as hyperbole or satire.

Second, the speech was against a private party. The first amendment restrictions on defamation claims are less stringent when it comes to private parties than to the government, politicians, or public figures. In particular, where defamatory speech turns out to be false, it might still be protected by the first amendment if it was directed to a public figure and the false statements were not made recklessly or knowingly. But if a private party is involved, that additional layer of protection doesn’t exist. (The theory being that there is a greater interest on making statements about public figures, where sometimes you might get the facts wrong, than with private figures.)

I’m a first amendment extremist, but a defamation claim here doesn’t strike me as problematic any more than a prosecution for fraud. There is no legitimate expressive value in spreading demonstrable falsehoods about a private party. Nor is there a slippery slope. The key elements of private party versus public figure, and demonstrably false versus possibly true statements are bright line limits that have long served us well.

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

#97
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for this. I hadn't dug deeply into this previously. Reading this, I'm struck by how fragile our first amendment is that you can be sued for participating in a protest. It sounds like the only things that the university did "wrong" was end a contract and also one of their deans took active part in protesting. Much of the glee seems to stem from the fact that the speech being expressed in the protest was dumb. I…

It seems to me that the real issue is the college itself claimed that the bakery was racist. It was more about libel and slander then an actual protest. Throw in the fact that the college encouraged students to not go to the establishment... This isn't a first amendment issue.

If libel laws now allow you to successfully sue for tens of millions of dollars because you falsely accuse somebody of being a racist, that's a sad day for freedom of speech. The impact would be truly chilling on national debate.

As I stated elsewhere, there are absolutely limits to libel laws based on Constitutional issues as decided in NYT v Sullivan. I wish people were arguing that based on the facts of this case, not to worry. Instead what I'm hearing from comments like yours is that calling somebody racist and urging a boycott based on it should be enough, just because the underlying accusation is wrongheaded.

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

#98
post #93
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are limits to libel laws as a result of the First Amendment. I understand your confusion/question, but that's why I bring it up -- there's a lot of disagreement over how to interpret these speech protections and lots of people weigh the issues involved differently. From OP's description at least, it's a bad ruling for people who care deeply about freedom of expression. Sadly, most people only care about scoring…

There's no confusion here. The amendment is a restriction on government, not individuals suing. Aside from that, not everyone who cares deeply about freedom of expression would agree that this ruling is bad in that context.

This is incorrect. The restrictions on government INCUDE its ability to create libel laws:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan

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

#99
From an article linked in the first one, the students, with the encouragement of the faculty, handed out flyers saying the bakery “is a RACIST establishment with a LONG ACCOUNT of RACIAL PROFILING and DISCRIMINATION.”" (caps in original quote.)

What horrific people! They're defending the right of underage African American students to shoplift wine?

This is why we cannot have tuition debt forgiveness.

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

#100
post #96
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for this. I hadn't dug deeply into this previously. Reading this, I'm struck by how fragile our first amendment is that you can be sued for participating in a protest. It sounds like the only things that the university did "wrong" was end a contract and also one of their deans took active part in protesting. Much of the glee seems to stem from the fact that the speech being expressed in the protest was dumb. I…

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.

Post reply on HN