4 ms·

$36M is because the school knowingly made false statements that destroyed a business, which was (presumably) worth ~$36M. If I knowingly-falsely call you a ped

$36M is because the school knowingly made false statements that destroyed a business, which was (presumably) worth ~$36M. If I knowingly-falsely call you a pedo and you lose your job as a result, then I’m liable for your lost wages. That’s how libel works. ETA: according to the lawsuit, that is. Idk the detailed facts of the case personally, just reacting to the article.

tptacek 4y ago
Once again, no. The jury awarded $11MM in actual damages, and the balance was punitive --- punitive damages are communicative and have nothing at all to do with the value of the business, beyond that they're capped at a low multiple of the actual damages.
- stjohnswarts 4y ago
  They serve a purpose here though, to get the college to slow their roll when it comes to attacking businesses without the full story. Sounds like a mob reaction to me, juries can be right sometimes, ya know?
- leereeves 4y ago
  Punitive damages aren't communicative unless the cost has a real impact on the defendant. Otherwise they just disappear in the rounding error of a wealthy defendant's expenses. In this case the defendant, Oberlin College, is a much larger business than the plaintiff, so the punitive damages should be much larger than the actual damages, if punitive damages are justified at all.
  - tptacek 4y ago
    They're communicative in intent. All I'm trying to say is that they're explicitly not tied to the economic damage of the tort. And that, constitutionally, there's a cap on punitive damages: due process prevents courts from just making up ruinous sums on the fly.
    - leereeves 4y ago
      You're right, of course. Punitive damages are limited. One unfortunate effect of that is that the very wealthy rarely face meaningful consequences. But the comment at the beginning of this thread asked why a defamation lawsuit needs to be that much, and I would answer: to deter acts like Oberlin's ruinous defamation of the bakery. If the intent is to communicate, the court has to speak loud enough to be heard.
      - tptacek 4y ago
        These are anomalously high punitive damages. There's a limit to how loudly the court can communicate.

tptacek 4y ago

Once again, no. The jury awarded $11MM in actual damages, and the balance was punitive --- punitive damages are communicative and have nothing at all to do with the value of the business, beyond that they're capped at a low multiple of the actual damages.

stjohnswarts 4y ago
They serve a purpose here though, to get the college to slow their roll when it comes to attacking businesses without the full story. Sounds like a mob reaction to me, juries can be right sometimes, ya know?
leereeves 4y ago
Punitive damages aren't communicative unless the cost has a real impact on the defendant. Otherwise they just disappear in the rounding error of a wealthy defendant's expenses. In this case the defendant, Oberlin College, is a much larger business than the plaintiff, so the punitive damages should be much larger than the actual damages, if punitive damages are justified at all.
- tptacek 4y ago
  They're communicative in intent. All I'm trying to say is that they're explicitly not tied to the economic damage of the tort. And that, constitutionally, there's a cap on punitive damages: due process prevents courts from just making up ruinous sums on the fly.
  - leereeves 4y ago
    You're right, of course. Punitive damages are limited. One unfortunate effect of that is that the very wealthy rarely face meaningful consequences. But the comment at the beginning of this thread asked why a defamation lawsuit needs to be that much, and I would answer: to deter acts like Oberlin's ruinous defamation of the bakery. If the intent is to communicate, the court has to speak loud enough to be heard.
    - tptacek 4y ago
      These are anomalously high punitive damages. There's a limit to how loudly the court can communicate.