3 ms·

This is sad. Regardless of whether they'll get the money or whether the cost is justified, it's a bad state of affairs that an accusation and a protest etc. can

This is sad. Regardless of whether they'll get the money or whether the cost is justified, it's a bad state of affairs that an accusation and a protest etc. can more or less destroy a small (long standing) business like this. Things like "innocent until proven guilty" etc. are time tested and really need to be held up. It's a good thing that the courts see this and awarded punitive damages. Oberlin trying to appeal that is just part of the process so that whole thing works. However, the outrage culture which can be weaponised and deployed against anyone causing great long term damage without any checks and measures is not healthy.

tptacek 4y ago
There is in fact no "innocent until proven guilty" principle regarding accusations of misconduct. People can in fact make ill-founded or shaky accusations of bad behavior of all sorts. Our pesky First Amendment ensures that no law will pass establishing a statutory right to be free of criticism, even grave criticism. A false accusation that causes damage is grounds for a defamation claim, which is a tort. There is no "innocent until proven guilty" in tort law, either; torts are civil matters. It is not enough for a claim to be "false" to establish defamation liability. Most importantly, you have to prove that the "false claim" is not a subjective matter open to debate, and you have to prove the claim caused damages. Where people making accusations get into trouble is when they include specific factual claims in their accusation that turn out to have been false, or claim that they're making their accusation based on specific factual claims that they know about but are declining to reveal. Further, when this fact pattern involves a public figure, you have to do more than prove specific false factual claims that caused damage; you have to prove that the claims were made recklessly, not just negligently: that the accuser had good reason to know that the accusation was false --- it's not enough to say the accuser should have done more investigation, or should known better; you have to prove that they had evidence presented or obviously available to them that they deliberately ignored. Oberlin managed to screw all of this up in a variety of ways. That's one of the reasons this case was so noteworthy. But an institution like Oberlin can accuse a business of racism based on conduct that the institution finds racist, but others don't; that's not defamation. It is surely worth knowing here that Oberlin was not found liable for accusing Gibsons of racism, or for being "racist". Oberlin's right to deem Gibsons "racist" is constitutionally protected, whether you agree with Oberlin or not.
- noufalibrahim 4y ago
  This makes sense but it wasn't my point. Your post was informative though. Thanks. My point was the social (rather than legal angle). The fact that a mob was able to and decided that it was right to create an atmosphere that crippled an old business is the problem I'm mentioning.
  - tptacek 4y ago
    Mobs can do that. Pesky old First Amendment, again.

tptacek 4y ago

There is in fact no "innocent until proven guilty" principle regarding accusations of misconduct. People can in fact make ill-founded or shaky accusations of bad behavior of all sorts. Our pesky First Amendment ensures that no law will pass establishing a statutory right to be free of criticism, even grave criticism. A false accusation that causes damage is grounds for a defamation claim, which is a tort. There is no "innocent until proven guilty" in tort law, either; torts are civil matters. It is not enough for a claim to be "false" to establish defamation liability. Most importantly, you have to prove that the "false claim" is not a subjective matter open to debate, and you have to prove the claim caused damages. Where people making accusations get into trouble is when they include specific factual claims in their accusation that turn out to have been false, or claim that they're making their accusation based on specific factual claims that they know about but are declining to reveal. Further, when this fact pattern involves a public figure, you have to do more than prove specific false factual claims that caused damage; you have to prove that the claims were made recklessly, not just negligently: that the accuser had good reason to know that the accusation was false --- it's not enough to say the accuser should have done more investigation, or should known better; you have to prove that they had evidence presented or obviously available to them that they deliberately ignored. Oberlin managed to screw all of this up in a variety of ways. That's one of the reasons this case was so noteworthy. But an institution like Oberlin can accuse a business of racism based on conduct that the institution finds racist, but others don't; that's not defamation. It is surely worth knowing here that Oberlin was not found liable for accusing Gibsons of racism, or for being "racist". Oberlin's right to deem Gibsons "racist" is constitutionally protected, whether you agree with Oberlin or not.

noufalibrahim 4y ago
This makes sense but it wasn't my point. Your post was informative though. Thanks. My point was the social (rather than legal angle). The fact that a mob was able to and decided that it was right to create an atmosphere that crippled an old business is the problem I'm mentioning.
- tptacek 4y ago
  Mobs can do that. Pesky old First Amendment, again.