3 ms·
This judgement is problematic on so many fronts, most concerning is it chills free speech, and attaches popular moral precepts to political speech. Oberlin is
by alsaaro 4y ago
This judgement is problematic on so many fronts, most concerning is it chills free speech, and attaches popular moral precepts to political speech.
Oberlin is now responsible for the speech of its adult students and now must censor them in a Ministry of Truth like role to avoid civil liability. Must they also censor researchers debunking the efficacy of drugs in trials causing financial harm to Big Pharma?
Gibson's may even be right morally, they are unfairly maligned as racists, but free speech doesn't hinge on morality, but liberty.
- googlryas 4y agoNot at all. What Oberlin isn't allowed to do is the same thing it wasn't allowed to do before - help organize a boycott of a legitimate business based on libelous accusations. The students can still do whatever they want to the extent that the institution chooses to not punish them.
- tptacek 4y agoOberlin can arrange a boycott of a business like Gibson's for being "racist" or "pro-carceral" or any of a dozen other woke reasons. What they can't do is publish false statements of actual fact, like the assertion that an employee of Gibson's assaulted a student.
- alsaaro 4y agoYou can organize a boycott for any conceivable reason, the reason doesn't have to make logical sense, be politically correct, or moral. Do you believe business are entitled to your money? And if they no longer earn your business they should be able to sue you? This perversity happened during the Civil Rights movement, white business owners sued blacks who caused them financial losses for refusing to patronize their racist establishments.