8 ms·

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 participatin

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, for one, think dumb speech should be protected.

sidlls 7y ago
What does this have to do with the first amendment? It doesn't protect individuals from lawsuits by other individuals for civil issues.
- elicash 7y ago
  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 points against those they disagree with politically. Even at the cost of these freedoms.
  - sidlls 7y ago
    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.
    - elicash 7y ago
      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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan
    - ThrustVectoring 7y ago
      Any individual suing in civil court is using the apparatus of the government in order to enforce controls on speech. This is settled law - the alternative is that the government can control speech through allowing private parties to sue over speech in civil court. Take, for example, a law that would allow school shooting victims to sue people who made violent video games that the school shooter played. While this is not direct suppression of free speech rights to make violent video games, it is definitely using the apparatus of the government to suppress protected speech.
Wohlf 7y ago
You can't be sued for participating in a protest, the lawsuit against the dean was for libel and targeted harassment, particularly from a position of power.
bradleyjg 7y ago
Libel is not protected by the First Amendment. It never has been. It ought not to be.
0xdeadfa65 7y ago
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?
- elicash 7y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan 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.
chrismcb 7y ago
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.
- elicash 7y ago
  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.
  - javajosh 7y ago
    To me, the most important factor in this case is that after the protests, etc the Bakery first asked the University to simply retract it's claims that it was racist and had a history of racism. The University refused, despite having no proof of it's claims, which shows bad faith at least. Another fact that goes to bad faith are the lies they made on the stand, refusing to take responsibility for their actions. If you're reading was correct, and it was an honest mistake, then the University could have and should have corrected it's statement, and should not have lied on the stand. Another point you make here doesn't make sense: this isn't about "national debate". This is, roughly, about one agent harming another agent with a set of lies designed to harm. If this case involved a newspaper editor getting sued for libel because he called a politician a liar, then yes, you might have a point. But it isn't.
    - elicash 7y ago
      I agree with you about things that make their case weaker. I would disagree if you're claiming that the national debate about racism only applies to newspapers talking about politicians. There's a HUGELY IMPORTANT debate in the culture generally about racism that I'd argue just as important if not moreso. (That said, from a legal standpoint it's obviously true that a politician is a clearer-cut case of a public figure. That obviously matters when judging the merits. But you seemed to be suggesting that talking about this case in terms of the national debate around racism is irrelevant.)
zcid 7y ago
Multiple school officials were actively participating in the demonization of the business and using their authority to create economic sanctions on the same. I don't see how you can justify their behavior. Especially since Gibson's was an actual victim of a real crime unlike the narrative the school was trying to paint. There was also a link to another article laying out the evidence of collusion by school administrators to do economic harm to the owners of the bakery. Do you defend that behavior as well?
- elicash 7y ago
  I don't "justify" saying stupid things. I just care about freedom of speech. There's another user who made the point that the facts of this case extend to a dean accusing the business of committing a criminal act. Based on those facts, I think there's a much better argument that you could be making rather than arguing that defending the right to say something is the same as defending the underlying stupid comment.
  - UnpossibleJim 7y ago
    Freedom of speech does does carry with it freedom from the repercussions of libel and lost wages due to those erroneous statements. Now, you can argue the validity of those laws and their impact on the freedom of speech, but they aren't protected under the free speech laws. They have very real specifications and aren't cart blanche to be an asshole without repercussion. Ignorance of the law has never been a defence, and I would hope a college would have understood that.
    - elicash 7y ago
      I think you misread what I wrote because the statements aren't in conflict with one another. I'm saying there are limitations on libel as a result of the First Amendment, not that you can't have any libel laws at all.
      - UnpossibleJim 7y ago
        Of course, but when you use your position of authority (as a professor would have) as a bully pulpit, to have a call to action (like boycott), it can be argued that damages are justified. I'm actually very pro free speech, and I think the damages in this case are egregious, but there was very much a call to action from a very influential person on a group of people who had limited capabilities (though, not legally, maybe). The precedent is more similar to yelling fire in a crowded movie theater and being responsible for the outcome rather than voicing your political opinions in a town square.... Though, I will admit, when I wrote this first comment I hadn't read far enough down in this thread =)
deogeo 7y ago
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.
- elicash 7y ago
  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.
  - bradleyjg 7y ago
    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.
    - elicash 7y ago
      > 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!
rayiner 7y ago
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.html 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.
- elicash 7y ago
  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.
lliamander 7y ago
Libel has never been protected speech.

sidlls 7y ago

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

elicash 7y ago
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 points against those they disagree with politically. Even at the cost of these freedoms.
- sidlls 7y ago
  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.
  - elicash 7y ago
    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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan
  - ThrustVectoring 7y ago
    Any individual suing in civil court is using the apparatus of the government in order to enforce controls on speech. This is settled law - the alternative is that the government can control speech through allowing private parties to sue over speech in civil court. Take, for example, a law that would allow school shooting victims to sue people who made violent video games that the school shooter played. While this is not direct suppression of free speech rights to make violent video games, it is definitely using the apparatus of the government to suppress protected speech.

Wohlf 7y ago

You can't be sued for participating in a protest, the lawsuit against the dean was for libel and targeted harassment, particularly from a position of power.

bradleyjg 7y ago

Libel is not protected by the First Amendment. It never has been. It ought not to be.

0xdeadfa65 7y ago

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?

elicash 7y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan 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.

chrismcb 7y ago

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.

elicash 7y ago
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.
- javajosh 7y ago
  To me, the most important factor in this case is that after the protests, etc the Bakery first asked the University to simply retract it's claims that it was racist and had a history of racism. The University refused, despite having no proof of it's claims, which shows bad faith at least. Another fact that goes to bad faith are the lies they made on the stand, refusing to take responsibility for their actions. If you're reading was correct, and it was an honest mistake, then the University could have and should have corrected it's statement, and should not have lied on the stand. Another point you make here doesn't make sense: this isn't about "national debate". This is, roughly, about one agent harming another agent with a set of lies designed to harm. If this case involved a newspaper editor getting sued for libel because he called a politician a liar, then yes, you might have a point. But it isn't.
  - elicash 7y ago
    I agree with you about things that make their case weaker. I would disagree if you're claiming that the national debate about racism only applies to newspapers talking about politicians. There's a HUGELY IMPORTANT debate in the culture generally about racism that I'd argue just as important if not moreso. (That said, from a legal standpoint it's obviously true that a politician is a clearer-cut case of a public figure. That obviously matters when judging the merits. But you seemed to be suggesting that talking about this case in terms of the national debate around racism is irrelevant.)

zcid 7y ago

Multiple school officials were actively participating in the demonization of the business and using their authority to create economic sanctions on the same. I don't see how you can justify their behavior. Especially since Gibson's was an actual victim of a real crime unlike the narrative the school was trying to paint. There was also a link to another article laying out the evidence of collusion by school administrators to do economic harm to the owners of the bakery. Do you defend that behavior as well?

elicash 7y ago
I don't "justify" saying stupid things. I just care about freedom of speech. There's another user who made the point that the facts of this case extend to a dean accusing the business of committing a criminal act. Based on those facts, I think there's a much better argument that you could be making rather than arguing that defending the right to say something is the same as defending the underlying stupid comment.
- UnpossibleJim 7y ago
  Freedom of speech does does carry with it freedom from the repercussions of libel and lost wages due to those erroneous statements. Now, you can argue the validity of those laws and their impact on the freedom of speech, but they aren't protected under the free speech laws. They have very real specifications and aren't cart blanche to be an asshole without repercussion. Ignorance of the law has never been a defence, and I would hope a college would have understood that.
  - elicash 7y ago
    I think you misread what I wrote because the statements aren't in conflict with one another. I'm saying there are limitations on libel as a result of the First Amendment, not that you can't have any libel laws at all.
    - UnpossibleJim 7y ago
      Of course, but when you use your position of authority (as a professor would have) as a bully pulpit, to have a call to action (like boycott), it can be argued that damages are justified. I'm actually very pro free speech, and I think the damages in this case are egregious, but there was very much a call to action from a very influential person on a group of people who had limited capabilities (though, not legally, maybe). The precedent is more similar to yelling fire in a crowded movie theater and being responsible for the outcome rather than voicing your political opinions in a town square.... Though, I will admit, when I wrote this first comment I hadn't read far enough down in this thread =)

deogeo 7y ago

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.

elicash 7y ago
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.
- bradleyjg 7y ago
  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.
  - elicash 7y ago
    > 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!

rayiner 7y ago

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.html 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.

elicash 7y ago
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.

lliamander 7y ago

Libel has never been protected speech.