That was my understanding as well. What's your opinion here? Given your username you're clearly more knowledgeable than I and I haven't done much research here.
The Oberlin case? It's hard to offer a strong opinion without knowing all the facts, but I'm concerned about this resulting in liability. It's one of those cases that is right on the free speech line.
Should they not be liable? The school's employees encouraged protests that caused the business to close. They were obviously acting as representatives of the university, used university resources to do it, and the university never (as far as I know) distanced itself from them or prohibited use of it's time/funds. The university cancelled business with the bakery as well. This is just what I saw from a quick google search. It sounds like the participating employees and university should be liable to compensate the owners for the value and expected revenue over the next decades. This seems similar to how I can sue UPS if a UPS driver hits me as he's acting as a representative of UPS. Once the dean began announcing things to students and involving university resources it became liable I would think, otherwise it should have removed that employee immediately.
There are no First Amendment implications to a UPS driver hitting you accidentally. The government punishing people for protesting because the protest may have been based on faulty information doesn't trouble you at all? And to my knowledge, the business hasn't closed. Maybe I'm more concerned about this than y'all are because I'm aware of how racist whites in Jim Crow states tried to use civil liability like this to target Black activists during the Civil Rights Movement. I recommend looking into New York Times v. Sullivan and NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co.
This is really just a question as to the meaning of “frivolous.” To me, what might otherwise be considered frivolous, i.e., not having any merit, is no longer frivolous when there are jurors and judges who will find for the plaintiff and award material amounts of money for damages. So, even if the case against Oberlin might be viewed by some as a frivolous lawsuit, it isn’t when it costs the defendant $36 million.
The first amendment exists to protect us from government, not to allow me to say whatever I want. Are individual protestors being arrested and punished for speaking out against the government or is a private business being punished for slanderous statements against another business that caused permanent closure? Is the government levying fines or is a civil court composed of the local citizenry imposing a judgement? Oberlin college is a private college that injured a private business. Your linked case is nothing like this one. There is no racism. No civil rights violation, no activists, Oberlin Ohio is not a Jim crow state. Nobody is targeting black civil rights activists. Using your comparison you should be concerned the January 6th rioters are having their freedom of speech trampled because it happened to Black activists in the 1960s. Both are wrong. Both should be punished. Neither is protected by the first amendment. Here's a tidbit on the first amendment for you - It applies to federal, state, and local government actors. This is a broad category that includes not only lawmakers and elected officials, but also public schools and universities, courts, and police officers. It does not include private citizens, businesses, and organizations. The First Amendment, Censorship, and Private Companies: What Does “Free Speech” Really Mean? - Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh.
For the purposes of the First Amendment, there is no genuine distinction between the government levying fines and the government issuing a civil judgment. The "private business" is being punished in part for one of its leaders taking part in a protest. Yet again, the bakery is NOT closed. The Oberlin protest and the lawsuit were over allegations of racial discrimination. I'm not sure how you missed that. In NYT v. Sullivan, an Alabama politician sued for libel based on falsities in an ad the NYT ran about Alabama's treatment of MLK and other civil rights activists. The Alabama politician was seeking to punish the NYT for its support of MLK and the Civil Rights Movement. The Alabama court awarded him $500,000 in damages. The other Alabama courts affirmed. You don't see how that's comparable? I'll quote NYT v. Sullivan (the SCOTUS opinion): "'Thus, we consider this case against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.' The present advertisement, as an expression of grievance and protest on one of the major public issues of our time, would seem clearly to qualify for the constitutional protection. The question is whether it forfeits that protection by the falsity of some of its factual statements and by its alleged defamation of respondent. . . . [E]rroneous statement is inevitable in free debate, and [] it must be protected if the freedoms of expression are to have the 'breathing space' that they 'need to survive[.]'" Yes, the bakery is not a public official. But it's also difficult to accept that people or businesses should be liable for tens of millions of dollars in damages if they rely on allegations of racial discrimination, engage in a protest of a business, and help distribute pamphlets. If you can't see how that endangers free speech, you should take another look at NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware and Doe v. McKesson.
Allegations with no proof. If I were to say you sexually assaulted me and picketed your home, place of work, social media, etc..., you'd be fine with being fired, having your family harassed, and whatever else despite me offering no proof and being wrong? Or would you want me to be held liable for resulting damages? Punished? Sorry boss but in a civilized society you wait for proof before leaping to conclusions. Otherwise you risk harming innocent people and being held liable. If a respected college engages in protesting and disseminating information I expect them to perform due diligence. They have a lot of power and influence as a university, not just in the community but nationwide. If they choose to participate in unfounded slander rather than waiting for the full story to come out that's on them. You know what would have been very constructive of them - pushing local law enforcement to investigate and then using their influence to either get the story out or shut down the false narrative in this case. That's what a respected and responsible institution of higher learning does. I'd be embarrassed to be associated with them at this point. The first amendment doesn't apply here. Our constitution is a restriction of government power. If you don't agree then that also means I have the right to carry a firearm anywhere I want as well as walk around screaming obscenities at children. Clearly that's not acceptable behavior although it would be free speech and bearing arms. It's been decided that art is speech. Should I be able to freely leave a turd on your lawn whenever I want claiming it's art? I'll cede being wrong about the bakery being closed, I only performed minutes of research.
This lawsuit was not frivolous. A small family business frequented by students for over 100 years was maliciously bullied by the administrators and students to destroy their reputation and business. I have been to Oberlin many times and always buy an ice cream cone from Gibson's store. It was a place reminiscent of Wilbert's to all you UF law grads. Gibson's son caught a black student shoplifting and tried to take a picture with his phone. The student slapped the phone and ran. Young Mr GIbson he was in his early 20's chased him and caught him. The student and 2 female friends ended up beating Gibson up and were arrested for shoplifting. Oberlin dean of students ochestrated a student protest to put Gibson' out of business unless Gibson agreed to request the charges be dropped. Gibson would not. The university launched a campaign to portray the Gibsons as racist. The students pled guilty. There are emails to prove this action by college officials. Gibson s sued. The evidence of the plan to destroy them and paint them as racist was overwhelming. Oberlin has a Billion dollar endowment and is refusing to pay a valid judgment. As a liberal democrat who loves Oberlin I am appalled and disgusted by the arrogance of the college.
Your analogy again falls flat. An actual comparison would be if you alleged I sexually assaulted you and then a bunch of activists organized a protest at my house where they accused me of sexually assaulting you. Yes, free speech should protect those activists. Did you think Nick Sandmann should have been able to recover millions from the major media companies? Sorry, boss, we have a right to free speech. The government doesn't get to punish you for not waiting for additional evidence before you protest. Do cops who shoot Black people now get to sue protesters for calling them murderers if it later comes out the homicide was justified? This all sounds fine and dandy until you remember that a college doesn't act as one. This is a case of a dean and students acting. I don't much care if you're embarrassed to associate with them. You have every right to make that choice. What I do care about is free speech. The idea that people aren't allowed to protest until all the facts come out and the case is proven or refuted is antithetical to free expression in our society. If you think the First Amendment doesn't apply here, you clearly didn't read either case I gave you.
That's not what the court decision says. According to the court decision, the students organized the protest, and the dean took part in it. I also didn't see corroboration in the court's recitation of the case to support some of the other allegations you made.
Wrong. The college organized the protests and activists. The college itself can't protest as it isn't a person, so it's organization of and collaboration with protestors is the same as me protesting something I alleged. Your arguing that a company isn't liable for actions of it's employees as organized and directed by company leadership. This makes no sense otherwise companies would be virtually immune to lawsuits.
The dean using that position of leadership to influence students with an official signature in the emails is acting in her capacity as college leadership unless the college actively takes actions against it.
Yet again, you don't have your facts straight. This is a direct quote of the court opinion: Several college administrators testified that rumors about this incident at the bakery quickly reached members of the student body. Because many Oberlin students apparently believed that the three students had been racially profiled by young Allyn, they announced that they planned to hold a protest outside the bakery beginning at 11:00 a.m. the following day. Although the record does not disclose details about who prepared the flyer, a one-page flyer was prepared to be distributed during the protests. The flyer urged a boycott of the bakery, asserting that it was a “RACIST establishment with a LONG ACCOUNT OF RACIAL PROFILING and DISCRIMINATION.” (Emphasis in original.) The flyer also gave an account of the “heinous event involving the owners of this establishment” and stated that “Allyn Gibson” had racially profiled the male student, improperly chased him out of the store, and assaulted him. Raimondo learned about the planned protest shortly before it began. Early that morning, she met with other administrative and faculty members of the college and several of them attended the protests. The parties would ultimately dispute what role, if any, Raimondo and other college staff played in the distribution of the flyer at the protests. It was not disputed, however, that Raimondo, as the Dean of Students, attended the protests. Her testimony and the written policy of the college stated that Raimondo had the responsibility to appear at off-campus student protests to attempt to maintain peace. ---------------------------------------------------- The students organized the protest. College faculty took part in it and allowed the students to use college facilities in creating protest materials. The college did not organize and direct the protest.
Is that poster a Republican? I couldn't recall. Either ways, there are some assertions being made in this thread that don't match the facts laid out by the court opinion. I should note, however, that the court opinion later clarified that there was a good amount of evidence supporting that Raimondo distributed at least one flier, which is why I haven't argued otherwise.
Educate yourself: Honestly with Bari Weiss: Oberlin Accused the Gibsons of Racism. Now It Owes Them $36 Million. on Apple Podcasts
Listen to the podcast and you'll see that it's actually her sister, Suzy Weiss reporting. She interviews many people involved with this situation. Or you can keep your head in the sand and not have all the information to make an informed decision. What Oberlin has done to these people is unconscionable. For those wailing about politics, I doubt anyone involved in this situation are Republicans.
