3 ms·

I accept there are legally recognized limits to free speech, but Oberlin is not doing any speaking, their students are. From an institutional perspective, if y

I accept there are legally recognized limits to free speech, but Oberlin is not doing any speaking, their students are. From an institutional perspective, if you don't believe in policing your adult student's speech, or actions, are you legally liable. With this ruling you are perversely, in a manner antithetical to free discourse, and freedom of association, to police people and their politics. Imagine if South African businesses sued Universities for their boycott of Apartheid era South African goods. Or if the Claiborne Hardware Stores succeeded in suing the NAACP for damages as a result of their boycott in 1960s Mississippi. The aforementioned are widely considered virtuous; they were on the "right side of history" but remember the First Amendment also protects those lacking scruples and virtues too.

Manuel_D 5y ago
>I accept there are legally recognized limits to free speech, but Oberlin is not doing any speaking, their students are. This is factually incorrect, as per the above comment as well as other coverage of these events. Oberlin administrators, acting in an official capacity for the university, also made libelous statements towards the bakery. That's what they're being sued for, not the speech of their students.
- alsaaro 5y ago
  Is Oberlin's position libel? In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court determined malice is required for libel in 1st Amendment cases involving public concern. Oberlin believed their students and adopted a position inconsistent with the facts (as established by a court), backing the wrong horse isn't malicious as much as a miscalculation. Free speech means you have the right to be wrong. Gibson's won an award of 30+ million, a punishment disproportionate to their damages, an outsized judgement which purpose is to chill political speech.
  - Manuel_D 5y ago
    Among other things, the Dean of the university handed out flyers reading "This is a RACIST establishment with a LONG ACCOUNT of RACIAL PROFILING and DISCRIMINATION". University officials encouraged people to boycott the bakery on account of this false allegation of racism. In reality, the bakery had no history of racial profiling and discrimination. These false accusations were made in retaliation for refusing to let underage Oberlin students obtain alcohol from the bakery. Making false accusations against someone, and encouraging people to boycott their business on account of that false accusation is definitely malicious. The purpose of the law is to disincentivize, or "chill" illegal activities like this. This isn't chilling support for any particular candidate or policy, this is chilling people from making false accusations of racism and encouraging people to boycott businesses on account of those false accusations.
  - AlanYx 5y ago
    Malice isn't required if the party being defamed is a private figure. See para. 62 of the judgment: "Because the Gibsons were private figures in this libel case, they were required to prove only that Oberlin acted with negligence, not actual malice."
  - linksnapzz 5y ago
    The Sullivan decision is often said to be the US press's license to defame. Slander and libel are not, and have never been, a necessary component of Free Speech.

Manuel_D 5y ago

>I accept there are legally recognized limits to free speech, but Oberlin is not doing any speaking, their students are. This is factually incorrect, as per the above comment as well as other coverage of these events. Oberlin administrators, acting in an official capacity for the university, also made libelous statements towards the bakery. That's what they're being sued for, not the speech of their students.

alsaaro 5y ago
Is Oberlin's position libel? In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court determined malice is required for libel in 1st Amendment cases involving public concern. Oberlin believed their students and adopted a position inconsistent with the facts (as established by a court), backing the wrong horse isn't malicious as much as a miscalculation. Free speech means you have the right to be wrong. Gibson's won an award of 30+ million, a punishment disproportionate to their damages, an outsized judgement which purpose is to chill political speech.
- Manuel_D 5y ago
  Among other things, the Dean of the university handed out flyers reading "This is a RACIST establishment with a LONG ACCOUNT of RACIAL PROFILING and DISCRIMINATION". University officials encouraged people to boycott the bakery on account of this false allegation of racism. In reality, the bakery had no history of racial profiling and discrimination. These false accusations were made in retaliation for refusing to let underage Oberlin students obtain alcohol from the bakery. Making false accusations against someone, and encouraging people to boycott their business on account of that false accusation is definitely malicious. The purpose of the law is to disincentivize, or "chill" illegal activities like this. This isn't chilling support for any particular candidate or policy, this is chilling people from making false accusations of racism and encouraging people to boycott businesses on account of those false accusations.
- AlanYx 5y ago
  Malice isn't required if the party being defamed is a private figure. See para. 62 of the judgment: "Because the Gibsons were private figures in this libel case, they were required to prove only that Oberlin acted with negligence, not actual malice."
- linksnapzz 5y ago
  The Sullivan decision is often said to be the US press's license to defame. Slander and libel are not, and have never been, a necessary component of Free Speech.