4 ms·

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 publ

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

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.