It seems like that decision was incorrect and will probably be turned over on appeal. I'm pretty sure an individual has the Constitutional freedom to express the opinion that a business is discriminatory or that its owners are racists. It seems like everyone of all political stripes is against free speech unless it's their own.

The statements were defamatory and libelous in nature so this will stand.

I read a different article on that case. It sounded like the facts of the case did not support that the store was racist. Also, the university and students did specific things to discourage people from going to the store. So they had spread lies that impacted the business negatively.

As a huge free speech advocate, it is a pretty tall mountain to climb where plaintiffs should prevail in these cases. But from everything I read, the defendants’ behavior seemed to warrant damages.

I would expect the puni award to be reduced.

You can’t stand outside a food store and wrongly claim they are selling dog meat.

I'm not sure an opinion can be libelous. Can Tall Midget now be successfully sued for his criticism of Hecky's or Rub?

Just passing through.

you should stay and make yourself at home

I'm not championing Oberlin or the students. I think a lot of their actions were despicable. But like you said, there's high bar for libel. I think it's a more than reasonable position to say that at least most of what they expressed regarding the store was opinion. And the school certainly has the right to cease doing business with the store.

Anyway, is this what it took to get you back here, Dennis?

How about Famous Alumni going on talk shows futhuring the lie ?

The author of the quoted piece is literally a former president of FIRE, which is a free speech organization so I'd defer to his opinion.

This is the org he was president of https://www.thefire.org

I believe Milt Rosenberg was on their board for some time as well

I'm not championing Oberlin or the students. I think a lot of their actions were despicable. But like you said, there's high bar for libel. I think it's a more than reasonable position to say that at least most of what they expressed regarding the store was opinion. And the school certainly has the right to cease doing business with the store.

Anyway, is this what it took to get you back here, Dennis?

and that tweet is getting "ratioed"

David A French is an attorney who specializes in Constitutional law, particularly 1st Amendment cases. He isn't just some blogger who went to J School and wrote a random piece like 99% of the shit we read online.

Oberlin administrators participated in the publishing and distribution of false accusations of criminal activity by the bakery. That's not legally kosher under any standard of libel/defamation, whether one is public figure or private, family run business.

The issue you have with someone randomly libeling you on a message board by calling you a criminal/std connoisseur is proving damages. sure, you can go to court and file a lawsuit. But then you'd have to prove economic damages. Economic damages provide a baseline for calculating non-economic damages (pain and suffering/emotional distress/loss of reputation), usually some multiple of economic damages. So if your economic damages are zero or de minimis...Some states allow non-economic damages for emotional distress/loss of reputation even absent actual economic damages, but usually for a narrowly demarcated set of claims (criminal/disease carrier type claims).

The bakery lost a lot of business, had to laid off ee's etc as Oberlin's campaign against them proceeded. Demonstrating actual lost business + projecting those damages into the future the jury came up with the $11 million figure. In addition to the public campaign against the bakery, discovery in the Oberlin case revealed text messages btw Oberlin administrators saying such things as "fuck them [the bakery], unleash the hounds!" which together with the public actions of Oberlin administrators provided proof of malice to allow a punitive award by the jury.

Oberlin's claim of poverty rings a bit hollow, considering they make a big deal about their almost billion dollar endowment:



Maybe they can get Oberlin alum Lena Dunham to help cover the judgment.

Oberlin administrators participated in the publishing and distribution of false accusations of criminal activity by the bakery.

I don't really see how they did that. "Racism" isn't a criminal activity. And who even knows what it means? I guess you could take the position that the owner didn't "assault" anyone under the strict legal definition like the guy in the Twitter thread I linked suggests.

This makes me consider shutting down this site. Am I going to be held responsible for the "publishing and distribution" of the idiotic thoughts and possible slander of one of you goofs? (I do understand the position that Oberlin took an active role. I just don't think it's as cut and dried as a lot of you believe. Obviously the jury wanted to punish people they thought deserved it. I don't think the actual law was a big concern. And for the record, I don't feel bad for Oberlin.)

But the more I think about it, the more I hope this decision gets overturned or at least narrowed in some manner.

I don't really see how they did that. "Racism" isn't a criminal activity. And who even knows what it means? I guess you could take the position that the owner didn't "assault" anyone under the strict legal definition like the guy in the Twitter thread I linked suggests.

QCP was the president of FIYAH!!!, which is a group on Twitter comprised of middle aged white men stalking ebony queens timelines leaving tweets telling them how hot they are .

It seems like that decision was incorrect and will probably be turned over on appeal. I'm pretty sure an individual has the Constitutional freedom to express the opinion that a business is discriminatory or that its owners are racists. It seems like everyone of all political stripes is against free speech unless it's their own.

Their actions(Oberlin) resulted in a loss of earning for a company by their libelous accusations.

I've read the whole thread. There are several attorneys who agree with that guy's take.

What were those actions? "Allowing" their students to protest a business? I think if you really think about it, you don't want to be subject to the kind of punishment Oberlin received for what they did.