7 ms·
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
by 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 agoI'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 agoYou 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!
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- bradleyjg 7y agoThe case file is available for public inspection at Lorain County Clerk of Courts, 225 Court Street, First Floor, Elyria, OH 44035. HTH
- elicash 7y agoThe argument that they're public figures is available online in PDF form, so you have even LESS of an excuse to not have read it or even seemingly to have been AWARE of it.
- deogeo 7y agoReading 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.
- elicash 7y agoI 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.
- inflatableDodo 7y ago>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.
- elicash 7y ago> spreading lies about him around town Whether something is libel and unprotected would obviously depend on the lie. We seem to agree about that so I'm not sure what you're claiming I believe.
- inflatableDodo 7y agoI actually think that it depends pretty much completely on the context. There is no list of phrases that are innocent or malicious in and of themselves. Something that can seem innoccuous in most situations can be a matter of life or death in others. So no, I don't think we seem to agree. And could you answer the question rather than dancing around it?
- 7y ago