5 ms·

We may need laws in place that prevent public accusations of this category of career-ending adjectives.

toomuchtodo 4y ago
https://cpj.org/reports/2016/03/north-america/ https://cpj.org/reports/2016/03/north-america/ Some states have them, some don’t, and the US Constitution’s First Amendment puts limits on the laws that do exist.
- remarkEon 4y ago
  It's 1A but it's also SCOTUS precedent. If NYT v. Sullivan were to be revisited, these limits could change. Justice Thomas has expressed (on multiple occasions, though I don't have the opinions handy) that he wants to do that. Personally I think it should be revisited. The recent case of a Duke volleyball student claiming that racial epithets were yelled at her during a came turned out to be false, but not after the usual cycle of social media enabled outrage. I bring it up because it's another instance where all of the facts are easily verifiable, and journalists seem to not care to actually look at them and report what actually happened.
  - puffoflogic 4y ago
    Well we can't have SCOTUS following the suggestions of racists like Thomas. /s?
hirundo 4y ago
Here's the flyer that was fatal to Oberlin's case: https://firstamendmentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Screen-Shot-2019-06-17-at-11.27.15-AM.png https://firstamendmentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/S... "This is a RACIST establishment ...": That's a statement of opinion, not actionable. "... with a LONG ACCOUNT of RACIAL PROFILING and DISCRIMINATION.": That's a statement of fact, and it was therefore actionable and cost Oberlin's insuror millions. That seems like a reasonable way to split the difference between free speech and libel.
- Ferrotin 4y ago
  Are you a lawyer with experience handling these kinds of cases? "This is a RACIST establishment ..." sounds like a defamatory statement to my naive ears when it is made without any fact behind it.
  - jlawson 4y ago
    The power of the word "racist" (like all woke-words) is that it has lots of definitions, which the speaker can slip between depending on the needs of the moment. In this case, the two definitions and their purposes would be: Definition 1. "One not actively working to create equal outcomes for non-white groups (even simply being neutral/disinterested is racist in this definition)". This is the definition of racist in the popular How to Be an Antiracist. This would be used to attach the word to the target. Definition 2. "One directly and intentionally harming people of non-white races out of conscious and deliberate hatred". Basically the KKK definition. This is the implication that's attached to the target, after definition 1 is used to "stick" the word onto the target. It's an amazing "stick and stab" tactic that, somehow, we haven't yet developed cultural antibodies against.
    - brightball 4y ago
      When did “non-white” get included into the definition of racism exactly? Those definitions are…I can’t find the word…
      - Gigachad 4y ago
        The modern redefinition of racism is that it requires someone both be classically racist as well as having a higher privilege than the victim. So if you are racist to someone perceived as being higher privilege, it isn’t racist.
        MomoXenosaga 4y ago
        To be fair people of "higher privilege" probably don't care too much what the unfortunates think of them. But what annoys me is that class is now equated with race. There are millions of poor whites in America who are not nor ever will be privileged.
pyuser583 4y ago
Laws like that are in place, and they’re what ended McCarthyism. One problem is they are very civilly focused. How much money did you lose? A corporate execute might be out millions, while the guy at MacDonalds might be out a few thousand.

https://cpj.org/reports/2016/03/north-america/ https://cpj.org/reports/2016/03/north-america/ Some states have them, some don’t, and the US Constitution’s First Amendment puts limits on the laws that do exist.

remarkEon 4y ago
It's 1A but it's also SCOTUS precedent. If NYT v. Sullivan were to be revisited, these limits could change. Justice Thomas has expressed (on multiple occasions, though I don't have the opinions handy) that he wants to do that. Personally I think it should be revisited. The recent case of a Duke volleyball student claiming that racial epithets were yelled at her during a came turned out to be false, but not after the usual cycle of social media enabled outrage. I bring it up because it's another instance where all of the facts are easily verifiable, and journalists seem to not care to actually look at them and report what actually happened.
- puffoflogic 4y ago
  Well we can't have SCOTUS following the suggestions of racists like Thomas. /s?

hirundo 4y ago

Here's the flyer that was fatal to Oberlin's case: https://firstamendmentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Screen-Shot-2019-06-17-at-11.27.15-AM.png https://firstamendmentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/S... "This is a RACIST establishment ...": That's a statement of opinion, not actionable. "... with a LONG ACCOUNT of RACIAL PROFILING and DISCRIMINATION.": That's a statement of fact, and it was therefore actionable and cost Oberlin's insuror millions. That seems like a reasonable way to split the difference between free speech and libel.

Ferrotin 4y ago
Are you a lawyer with experience handling these kinds of cases? "This is a RACIST establishment ..." sounds like a defamatory statement to my naive ears when it is made without any fact behind it.
- jlawson 4y ago
  The power of the word "racist" (like all woke-words) is that it has lots of definitions, which the speaker can slip between depending on the needs of the moment. In this case, the two definitions and their purposes would be: Definition 1. "One not actively working to create equal outcomes for non-white groups (even simply being neutral/disinterested is racist in this definition)". This is the definition of racist in the popular How to Be an Antiracist. This would be used to attach the word to the target. Definition 2. "One directly and intentionally harming people of non-white races out of conscious and deliberate hatred". Basically the KKK definition. This is the implication that's attached to the target, after definition 1 is used to "stick" the word onto the target. It's an amazing "stick and stab" tactic that, somehow, we haven't yet developed cultural antibodies against.
  - brightball 4y ago
    When did “non-white” get included into the definition of racism exactly? Those definitions are…I can’t find the word…
    - Gigachad 4y ago
      The modern redefinition of racism is that it requires someone both be classically racist as well as having a higher privilege than the victim. So if you are racist to someone perceived as being higher privilege, it isn’t racist.
      - MomoXenosaga 4y ago
        To be fair people of "higher privilege" probably don't care too much what the unfortunates think of them. But what annoys me is that class is now equated with race. There are millions of poor whites in America who are not nor ever will be privileged.

pyuser583 4y ago

Laws like that are in place, and they’re what ended McCarthyism. One problem is they are very civilly focused. How much money did you lose? A corporate execute might be out millions, while the guy at MacDonalds might be out a few thousand.