4 ms·

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.

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.

deogeo 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. He's not the first - the reason I didn't bring it up in my reply was that I agree with it. Libel (and true threats, and incitement to imminent lawless action) absolutely are limits on the first amendment and free speech. They're limits I, even as a free speech advocate/extremist, happen to agree with, but they are limits.
- elicash 7y ago
  It's funny. We're disagreeing so strongly here but we fundamentally are so much in closer position here than the people downvoting me and most of the folks disagreeing with me because I even brought up the First Amendment to begin with.
rayiner 7y ago
A university dean admitted to passing out a flyer that falsely stated that the Oberlin student had been assaulted: https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/05/gibsons-bakery-v-oberlin-college-trial-day-2-i-dont-know-may-come-back-to-haunt-the-defense https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/05/gibsons-bakery-v-oberl.... A police officer testified that the Oberlin students had assaulted the bakery employee, not the other way around. The flyer also stated that the bakery had a long history of racial profiling. But at trial the dean admitted that she didn’t know whether that was true. Numerous witnesses testified it was false. A high ranking university employee handed out a flyer containing damaging assertions of fact, with the intent that people believe and act upon those assertions, and at trial offered nothing to suggest she had even a good faith belief that those assertions were true. That’s not an exercise of free expression.
- elicash 7y ago
  The assault (a crime!) claim on the flier is REALLY bad for the college. It makes me feel much better about the ruling, as much as I still disagree it's with a LOT less force now. (False accusations of racism or racial profiling, on the other hand, should absolutely be protected.) Edit: One thing I'd add. Even though our positions on this individual case are in opposition, we actually agree about the First Amendment issues far more than you do with people who are criticizing me for thinking the Constitution has any implications on libel law.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    What about false accusations of pedophilia? Why is one kind of falsehood protected and another not? I think what you’re really concerned about is when people, in good faith, level an accusation of racism or racial profiling that turns out to be debatable or wrong. They shouldn’t be prosecuted. But that’s not what happened here. It’s not a high hurdle to show that an accusation of racism or racial profiling is not at least colorably true. Had the university done so, it likely would have gotten off the hook. They could have, for example, pointed to a suspicious pattern of calling the police. The university didn’t even try to do that. I think the law is correct here. It’s one thing to protect expression made in good faith that turns out to be wrong. That’s important to avoid chilling effects. It’s another thing entirely to protect expression where there is not even a good faith basis to believe that the allegations are true.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - elicash 7y ago
      I deleted my first reply because I think you're being disingenuous with this comparison. I think a better comparison is if I call someone a liar when speaking broadly about the person. Even if they have a documented history of telling the truth and I don't have a single lie, I think that's protected. > It’s one thing to protect expression made in good faith that turns out to be wrong. That’s important to avoid chilling effects. I agree with this strongly. Edit: Also, I think, given you're a lawyer, you'd agree with me that a client of yours is on much safer ground when the thing they're accusing somebody of is about their general character rather than a crime. (Not that you'd have given your approval on the flyer with just that one claim struck out.)
adt2bt 7y ago
I love how this was quite literally just litigated yet you're here assuming the entire legal process for this case was a sham.
- elicash 7y ago
  1. Legal process isn't necessarily over 2. I did not call it any of it a sham, let alone "the entire legal process." No need to make things up. 3. People should be encouraged to think for themselves!

deogeo 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. He's not the first - the reason I didn't bring it up in my reply was that I agree with it. Libel (and true threats, and incitement to imminent lawless action) absolutely are limits on the first amendment and free speech. They're limits I, even as a free speech advocate/extremist, happen to agree with, but they are limits.

elicash 7y ago
It's funny. We're disagreeing so strongly here but we fundamentally are so much in closer position here than the people downvoting me and most of the folks disagreeing with me because I even brought up the First Amendment to begin with.

rayiner 7y ago

A university dean admitted to passing out a flyer that falsely stated that the Oberlin student had been assaulted: https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/05/gibsons-bakery-v-oberlin-college-trial-day-2-i-dont-know-may-come-back-to-haunt-the-defense https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/05/gibsons-bakery-v-oberl.... A police officer testified that the Oberlin students had assaulted the bakery employee, not the other way around. The flyer also stated that the bakery had a long history of racial profiling. But at trial the dean admitted that she didn’t know whether that was true. Numerous witnesses testified it was false. A high ranking university employee handed out a flyer containing damaging assertions of fact, with the intent that people believe and act upon those assertions, and at trial offered nothing to suggest she had even a good faith belief that those assertions were true. That’s not an exercise of free expression.

elicash 7y ago
The assault (a crime!) claim on the flier is REALLY bad for the college. It makes me feel much better about the ruling, as much as I still disagree it's with a LOT less force now. (False accusations of racism or racial profiling, on the other hand, should absolutely be protected.) Edit: One thing I'd add. Even though our positions on this individual case are in opposition, we actually agree about the First Amendment issues far more than you do with people who are criticizing me for thinking the Constitution has any implications on libel law.
- rayiner 7y ago
  What about false accusations of pedophilia? Why is one kind of falsehood protected and another not? I think what you’re really concerned about is when people, in good faith, level an accusation of racism or racial profiling that turns out to be debatable or wrong. They shouldn’t be prosecuted. But that’s not what happened here. It’s not a high hurdle to show that an accusation of racism or racial profiling is not at least colorably true. Had the university done so, it likely would have gotten off the hook. They could have, for example, pointed to a suspicious pattern of calling the police. The university didn’t even try to do that. I think the law is correct here. It’s one thing to protect expression made in good faith that turns out to be wrong. That’s important to avoid chilling effects. It’s another thing entirely to protect expression where there is not even a good faith basis to believe that the allegations are true.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - elicash 7y ago
    I deleted my first reply because I think you're being disingenuous with this comparison. I think a better comparison is if I call someone a liar when speaking broadly about the person. Even if they have a documented history of telling the truth and I don't have a single lie, I think that's protected. > It’s one thing to protect expression made in good faith that turns out to be wrong. That’s important to avoid chilling effects. I agree with this strongly. Edit: Also, I think, given you're a lawyer, you'd agree with me that a client of yours is on much safer ground when the thing they're accusing somebody of is about their general character rather than a crime. (Not that you'd have given your approval on the flyer with just that one claim struck out.)

adt2bt 7y ago

I love how this was quite literally just litigated yet you're here assuming the entire legal process for this case was a sham.

elicash 7y ago
1. Legal process isn't necessarily over 2. I did not call it any of it a sham, let alone "the entire legal process." No need to make things up. 3. People should be encouraged to think for themselves!