Oberlin College ordered to post $36 million bond to delay Gibson’s Bakery collection of Judgment

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If anyone wants to read an unbiased, fact-based analysis of the case that does not include political overtures, this is the best thing I've seen:

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/gibson-s-v-oberlin-college-how-false-6341044/

What's wild to me is that the jury and the court additional holds Oberlin responsible for the statement published by the Student Senate. So even if the Oberlin admin wasn't involved at all, because the Student Senate defamed Gibson's the university would still be on the hook. This is troubling for a number of reasons.

Thanks for the link, did you read it? It's pretty well reasoned why actions by the student Senate was linked to Oberlin admin. The student Senate derives it's authority from Oberlin, and Oberlin has oversight over the student Senate.

DP. But the consequence of this will be that colleges in Ohio need to crack down on student activities and exercises of free speech by students involved in those activities so that the college will not be held legally responsible for students’ statements. Editorials in the student newspapers, speaker invitations by campy political groups, and expression of speech will need to be filtered the administration first to make sure it is the “correct” kind of speech. That will be a pretty big hit for the campus Republican groups who have been fighting hard for freedom to invite controversial speakers for organization events.

Nope.
There is a difference between free speech and defamation. The Oberlin students and staff were not exercising free speech. They were most definitely defaming a business with no evidence to do so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If anyone wants to read an unbiased, fact-based analysis of the case that does not include political overtures, this is the best thing I've seen:

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/gibson-s-v-oberlin-college-how-false-6341044/

What's wild to me is that the jury and the court additional holds Oberlin responsible for the statement published by the Student Senate. So even if the Oberlin admin wasn't involved at all, because the Student Senate defamed Gibson's the university would still be on the hook. This is troubling for a number of reasons.

Thanks for the link, did you read it? It's pretty well reasoned why actions by the student Senate was linked to Oberlin admin. The student Senate derives it's authority from Oberlin, and Oberlin has oversight over the student Senate.

DP. But the consequence of this will be that colleges in Ohio need to crack down on student activities and exercises of free speech by students involved in those activities so that the college will not be held legally responsible for students’ statements. Editorials in the student newspapers, speaker invitations by campy political groups, and expression of speech will need to be filtered the administration first to make sure it is the “correct” kind of speech. That will be a pretty big hit for the campus Republican groups who have been fighting hard for freedom to invite controversial speakers for organization events.

Nope.
There is a difference between free speech and defamation. The Oberlin students and staff were not exercising free speech. They were most definitely defaming a business with no evidence to do so.

Think about what you’re saying there. If a college can be held liable for defamation by its students, you are forcing colleges and universities to review all student speech in advance to make sure none of it might be considered defamation and barring students from engaging in any speech that arguably could be construed as defamation. The same would go for anything that could be construed as tending to incite violence, or that could be construed as hate speech. The last one is a frequent grounds for opposition to right wing speakers, so this precedent will mean that college basically cannot allow any potentially controversial speakers because they cannot be sure the speaker won’t say something actionable for which the college may be held liable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If anyone wants to read an unbiased, fact-based analysis of the case that does not include political overtures, this is the best thing I've seen:

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/gibson-s-v-oberlin-college-how-false-6341044/

What's wild to me is that the jury and the court additional holds Oberlin responsible for the statement published by the Student Senate. So even if the Oberlin admin wasn't involved at all, because the Student Senate defamed Gibson's the university would still be on the hook. This is troubling for a number of reasons.

Thanks for the link, did you read it? It's pretty well reasoned why actions by the student Senate was linked to Oberlin admin. The student Senate derives it's authority from Oberlin, and Oberlin has oversight over the student Senate.

DP. But the consequence of this will be that colleges in Ohio need to crack down on student activities and exercises of free speech by students involved in those activities so that the college will not be held legally responsible for students’ statements. Editorials in the student newspapers, speaker invitations by campy political groups, and expression of speech will need to be filtered the administration first to make sure it is the “correct” kind of speech. That will be a pretty big hit for the campus Republican groups who have been fighting hard for freedom to invite controversial speakers for organization events.

Actually the consequence of this law will be that colleges in Ohio will need to hire staff and administrators who won't join in on social media mobs against innocent businesses and people. Pretty harsh lesson that colleges need to be the adults in the room and act responsibly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If anyone wants to read an unbiased, fact-based analysis of the case that does not include political overtures, this is the best thing I've seen:

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/gibson-s-v-oberlin-college-how-false-6341044/

What's wild to me is that the jury and the court additional holds Oberlin responsible for the statement published by the Student Senate. So even if the Oberlin admin wasn't involved at all, because the Student Senate defamed Gibson's the university would still be on the hook. This is troubling for a number of reasons.

Thanks for the link, did you read it? It's pretty well reasoned why actions by the student Senate was linked to Oberlin admin. The student Senate derives it's authority from Oberlin, and Oberlin has oversight over the student Senate.

DP. But the consequence of this will be that colleges in Ohio need to crack down on student activities and exercises of free speech by students involved in those activities so that the college will not be held legally responsible for students’ statements. Editorials in the student newspapers, speaker invitations by campy political groups, and expression of speech will need to be filtered the administration first to make sure it is the “correct” kind of speech. That will be a pretty big hit for the campus Republican groups who have been fighting hard for freedom to invite controversial speakers for organization events.

Actually the consequence of this law will be that colleges in Ohio will need to hire staff and administrators who won't join in on social media mobs against innocent businesses and people. Pretty harsh lesson that colleges need to be the adults in the room and act responsibly.

Now you’re just dodging the issue. Let’s bring it back to this specific issue of Oberlin’s liability for allegedly defamatory statements by the student senate. What specific policies, practices and actions do you believe Oberlin’s administration should have had/performed to prevent the allegedly defamatory statement from being made and/or to avoid liability for the statement?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If anyone wants to read an unbiased, fact-based analysis of the case that does not include political overtures, this is the best thing I've seen:

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/gibson-s-v-oberlin-college-how-false-6341044/

What's wild to me is that the jury and the court additional holds Oberlin responsible for the statement published by the Student Senate. So even if the Oberlin admin wasn't involved at all, because the Student Senate defamed Gibson's the university would still be on the hook. This is troubling for a number of reasons.

Thanks for the link, did you read it? It's pretty well reasoned why actions by the student Senate was linked to Oberlin admin. The student Senate derives it's authority from Oberlin, and Oberlin has oversight over the student Senate.

DP. But the consequence of this will be that colleges in Ohio need to crack down on student activities and exercises of free speech by students involved in those activities so that the college will not be held legally responsible for students’ statements. Editorials in the student newspapers, speaker invitations by campy political groups, and expression of speech will need to be filtered the administration first to make sure it is the “correct” kind of speech. That will be a pretty big hit for the campus Republican groups who have been fighting hard for freedom to invite controversial speakers for organization events.

Actually the consequence of this law will be that colleges in Ohio will need to hire staff and administrators who won't join in on social media mobs against innocent businesses and people. Pretty harsh lesson that colleges need to be the adults in the room and act responsibly.

Now you’re just dodging the issue. Let’s bring it back to this specific issue of Oberlin’s liability for allegedly defamatory statements by the student senate. What specific policies, practices and actions do you believe Oberlin’s administration should have had/performed to prevent the allegedly defamatory statement from being made and/or to avoid liability for the statement?

Nice try pal. The oberlin dean defamed that family business and I think the award should have been higher.

Oberlin was wrong and hurt that family. Save your double talk for your spouse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If anyone wants to read an unbiased, fact-based analysis of the case that does not include political overtures, this is the best thing I've seen:

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/gibson-s-v-oberlin-college-how-false-6341044/

What's wild to me is that the jury and the court additional holds Oberlin responsible for the statement published by the Student Senate. So even if the Oberlin admin wasn't involved at all, because the Student Senate defamed Gibson's the university would still be on the hook. This is troubling for a number of reasons.

Thanks for the link, did you read it? It's pretty well reasoned why actions by the student Senate was linked to Oberlin admin. The student Senate derives it's authority from Oberlin, and Oberlin has oversight over the student Senate.

DP. But the consequence of this will be that colleges in Ohio need to crack down on student activities and exercises of free speech by students involved in those activities so that the college will not be held legally responsible for students’ statements. Editorials in the student newspapers, speaker invitations by campy political groups, and expression of speech will need to be filtered the administration first to make sure it is the “correct” kind of speech. That will be a pretty big hit for the campus Republican groups who have been fighting hard for freedom to invite controversial speakers for organization events.

Actually the consequence of this law will be that colleges in Ohio will need to hire staff and administrators who won't join in on social media mobs against innocent businesses and people. Pretty harsh lesson that colleges need to be the adults in the room and act responsibly.

Now you’re just dodging the issue. Let’s bring it back to this specific issue of Oberlin’s liability for allegedly defamatory statements by the student senate. What specific policies, practices and actions do you believe Oberlin’s administration should have had/performed to prevent the allegedly defamatory statement from being made and/or to avoid liability for the statement?

Nice try pal. The oberlin dean defamed that family business and I think the award should have been higher.

Oberlin was wrong and hurt that family. Save your double talk for your spouse.

In other words, you can’t defend the court’s decision to hold Oberlin liable for speech by its students (as separate from speech by administrators personally), so you’re going to pretend that issue doesn’t exist. Typical MAGA idiocy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If anyone wants to read an unbiased, fact-based analysis of the case that does not include political overtures, this is the best thing I've seen:

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/gibson-s-v-oberlin-college-how-false-6341044/

What's wild to me is that the jury and the court additional holds Oberlin responsible for the statement published by the Student Senate. So even if the Oberlin admin wasn't involved at all, because the Student Senate defamed Gibson's the university would still be on the hook. This is troubling for a number of reasons.

Thanks for the link, did you read it? It's pretty well reasoned why actions by the student Senate was linked to Oberlin admin. The student Senate derives it's authority from Oberlin, and Oberlin has oversight over the student Senate.

Yep. There is zero question that Oberlin administration gave its full backing to the student Senate - and vice-versa. Oberlin was fully responsible for reining in both its zealot admins and its ridiculous student body.
DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If anyone wants to read an unbiased, fact-based analysis of the case that does not include political overtures, this is the best thing I've seen:

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/gibson-s-v-oberlin-college-how-false-6341044/

What's wild to me is that the jury and the court additional holds Oberlin responsible for the statement published by the Student Senate. So even if the Oberlin admin wasn't involved at all, because the Student Senate defamed Gibson's the university would still be on the hook. This is troubling for a number of reasons.

Thanks for the link, did you read it? It's pretty well reasoned why actions by the student Senate was linked to Oberlin admin. The student Senate derives it's authority from Oberlin, and Oberlin has oversight over the student Senate.

DP. But the consequence of this will be that colleges in Ohio need to crack down on student activities and exercises of free speech by students involved in those activities so that the college will not be held legally responsible for students’ statements. Editorials in the student newspapers, speaker invitations by campy political groups, and expression of speech will need to be filtered the administration first to make sure it is the “correct” kind of speech. That will be a pretty big hit for the campus Republican groups who have been fighting hard for freedom to invite controversial speakers for organization events.

DP. The issue here is that both the college and the student senate defamed a family and business by FALSELY accusing them of racism. That's it. This has nothing to do with "controversial speakers." The lesson is simple: don't falsely accuse anyone of racism. The end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If anyone wants to read an unbiased, fact-based analysis of the case that does not include political overtures, this is the best thing I've seen:

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/gibson-s-v-oberlin-college-how-false-6341044/

What's wild to me is that the jury and the court additional holds Oberlin responsible for the statement published by the Student Senate. So even if the Oberlin admin wasn't involved at all, because the Student Senate defamed Gibson's the university would still be on the hook. This is troubling for a number of reasons.

Thanks for the link, did you read it? It's pretty well reasoned why actions by the student Senate was linked to Oberlin admin. The student Senate derives it's authority from Oberlin, and Oberlin has oversight over the student Senate.

DP. But the consequence of this will be that colleges in Ohio need to crack down on student activities and exercises of free speech by students involved in those activities so that the college will not be held legally responsible for students’ statements. Editorials in the student newspapers, speaker invitations by campy political groups, and expression of speech will need to be filtered the administration first to make sure it is the “correct” kind of speech. That will be a pretty big hit for the campus Republican groups who have been fighting hard for freedom to invite controversial speakers for organization events.

Nope.
There is a difference between free speech and defamation. The Oberlin students and staff were not exercising free speech. They were most definitely defaming a business with no evidence to do so.

Exactly. How anyone could argue otherwise is a mystery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If anyone wants to read an unbiased, fact-based analysis of the case that does not include political overtures, this is the best thing I've seen:

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/gibson-s-v-oberlin-college-how-false-6341044/

What's wild to me is that the jury and the court additional holds Oberlin responsible for the statement published by the Student Senate. So even if the Oberlin admin wasn't involved at all, because the Student Senate defamed Gibson's the university would still be on the hook. This is troubling for a number of reasons.

Thanks for the link, did you read it? It's pretty well reasoned why actions by the student Senate was linked to Oberlin admin. The student Senate derives it's authority from Oberlin, and Oberlin has oversight over the student Senate.

Yep. There is zero question that Oberlin administration gave its full backing to the student Senate - and vice-versa. Oberlin was fully responsible for reining in both its zealot admins and its ridiculous student body.
DP

Cool, now explain how this ruling doesn’t mean Ohio universities will have to crack down on controversial speakers engaged by student political groups.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If anyone wants to read an unbiased, fact-based analysis of the case that does not include political overtures, this is the best thing I've seen:

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/gibson-s-v-oberlin-college-how-false-6341044/

What's wild to me is that the jury and the court additional holds Oberlin responsible for the statement published by the Student Senate. So even if the Oberlin admin wasn't involved at all, because the Student Senate defamed Gibson's the university would still be on the hook. This is troubling for a number of reasons.

Thanks for the link, did you read it? It's pretty well reasoned why actions by the student Senate was linked to Oberlin admin. The student Senate derives it's authority from Oberlin, and Oberlin has oversight over the student Senate.

DP. But the consequence of this will be that colleges in Ohio need to crack down on student activities and exercises of free speech by students involved in those activities so that the college will not be held legally responsible for students’ statements. Editorials in the student newspapers, speaker invitations by campy political groups, and expression of speech will need to be filtered the administration first to make sure it is the “correct” kind of speech. That will be a pretty big hit for the campus Republican groups who have been fighting hard for freedom to invite controversial speakers for organization events.

Nope.
There is a difference between free speech and defamation. The Oberlin students and staff were not exercising free speech. They were most definitely defaming a business with no evidence to do so.

Think about what you’re saying there. If a college can be held liable for defamation by its students, you are forcing colleges and universities to review all student speech in advance to make sure none of it might be considered defamation and barring students from engaging in any speech that arguably could be construed as defamation. The same would go for anything that could be construed as tending to incite violence, or that could be construed as hate speech. The last one is a frequent grounds for opposition to right wing speakers, so this precedent will mean that college basically cannot allow any potentially controversial speakers because they cannot be sure the speaker won’t say something actionable for which the college may be held liable.

Nice spin - or rather, wishful thinking - but no. You are twisting this into something it is not. The students were egged on by the activist administration, in particular, Raimondo. There is no getting around this. Do you have some kind of ulterior motive here?
DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If anyone wants to read an unbiased, fact-based analysis of the case that does not include political overtures, this is the best thing I've seen:

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/gibson-s-v-oberlin-college-how-false-6341044/

What's wild to me is that the jury and the court additional holds Oberlin responsible for the statement published by the Student Senate. So even if the Oberlin admin wasn't involved at all, because the Student Senate defamed Gibson's the university would still be on the hook. This is troubling for a number of reasons.

Thanks for the link, did you read it? It's pretty well reasoned why actions by the student Senate was linked to Oberlin admin. The student Senate derives it's authority from Oberlin, and Oberlin has oversight over the student Senate.

DP. But the consequence of this will be that colleges in Ohio need to crack down on student activities and exercises of free speech by students involved in those activities so that the college will not be held legally responsible for students’ statements. Editorials in the student newspapers, speaker invitations by campy political groups, and expression of speech will need to be filtered the administration first to make sure it is the “correct” kind of speech. That will be a pretty big hit for the campus Republican groups who have been fighting hard for freedom to invite controversial speakers for organization events.

DP. The issue here is that both the college and the student senate defamed a family and business by FALSELY accusing them of racism. That's it. This has nothing to do with "controversial speakers." The lesson is simple: don't falsely accuse anyone of racism. The end.

You think accusing someone of being racist is the only “wrong” thing you can do with speech? You don’t think inciting violence carries legal consequences?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If anyone wants to read an unbiased, fact-based analysis of the case that does not include political overtures, this is the best thing I've seen:

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/gibson-s-v-oberlin-college-how-false-6341044/

What's wild to me is that the jury and the court additional holds Oberlin responsible for the statement published by the Student Senate. So even if the Oberlin admin wasn't involved at all, because the Student Senate defamed Gibson's the university would still be on the hook. This is troubling for a number of reasons.

Thanks for the link, did you read it? It's pretty well reasoned why actions by the student Senate was linked to Oberlin admin. The student Senate derives it's authority from Oberlin, and Oberlin has oversight over the student Senate.

DP. But the consequence of this will be that colleges in Ohio need to crack down on student activities and exercises of free speech by students involved in those activities so that the college will not be held legally responsible for students’ statements. Editorials in the student newspapers, speaker invitations by campy political groups, and expression of speech will need to be filtered the administration first to make sure it is the “correct” kind of speech. That will be a pretty big hit for the campus Republican groups who have been fighting hard for freedom to invite controversial speakers for organization events.

Actually the consequence of this law will be that colleges in Ohio will need to hire staff and administrators who won't join in on social media mobs against innocent businesses and people. Pretty harsh lesson that colleges need to be the adults in the room and act responsibly.

Now you’re just dodging the issue. Let’s bring it back to this specific issue of Oberlin’s liability for allegedly defamatory statements by the student senate. What specific policies, practices and actions do you believe Oberlin’s administration should have had/performed to prevent the allegedly defamatory statement from being made and/or to avoid liability for the statement?

Nice try pal. The oberlin dean defamed that family business and I think the award should have been higher.

Oberlin was wrong and hurt that family. Save your double talk for your spouse.

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If anyone wants to read an unbiased, fact-based analysis of the case that does not include political overtures, this is the best thing I've seen:

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/gibson-s-v-oberlin-college-how-false-6341044/

What's wild to me is that the jury and the court additional holds Oberlin responsible for the statement published by the Student Senate. So even if the Oberlin admin wasn't involved at all, because the Student Senate defamed Gibson's the university would still be on the hook. This is troubling for a number of reasons.

Thanks for the link, did you read it? It's pretty well reasoned why actions by the student Senate was linked to Oberlin admin. The student Senate derives it's authority from Oberlin, and Oberlin has oversight over the student Senate.

DP. But the consequence of this will be that colleges in Ohio need to crack down on student activities and exercises of free speech by students involved in those activities so that the college will not be held legally responsible for students’ statements. Editorials in the student newspapers, speaker invitations by campy political groups, and expression of speech will need to be filtered the administration first to make sure it is the “correct” kind of speech. That will be a pretty big hit for the campus Republican groups who have been fighting hard for freedom to invite controversial speakers for organization events.

Actually the consequence of this law will be that colleges in Ohio will need to hire staff and administrators who won't join in on social media mobs against innocent businesses and people. Pretty harsh lesson that colleges need to be the adults in the room and act responsibly.

Now you’re just dodging the issue. Let’s bring it back to this specific issue of Oberlin’s liability for allegedly defamatory statements by the student senate. What specific policies, practices and actions do you believe Oberlin’s administration should have had/performed to prevent the allegedly defamatory statement from being made and/or to avoid liability for the statement?

Nice try pal. The oberlin dean defamed that family business and I think the award should have been higher.

Oberlin was wrong and hurt that family. Save your double talk for your spouse.

In other words, you can’t defend the court’s decision to hold Oberlin liable for speech by its students (as separate from speech by administrators personally), so you’re going to pretend that issue doesn’t exist. Typical MAGA idiocy.

DP. What on earth are you babbling about? "MAGA" doesn't apply here, dope. Plenty of people of ALL political persuasions think what Oberlin did to this family is disgusting - and anyone defending it (YOU) is just as bad. Oberlin is responsible for not only their stupid students' defamatory speech, but also its stupid dean's defamation. Deal with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If anyone wants to read an unbiased, fact-based analysis of the case that does not include political overtures, this is the best thing I've seen:

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/gibson-s-v-oberlin-college-how-false-6341044/

What's wild to me is that the jury and the court additional holds Oberlin responsible for the statement published by the Student Senate. So even if the Oberlin admin wasn't involved at all, because the Student Senate defamed Gibson's the university would still be on the hook. This is troubling for a number of reasons.

Thanks for the link, did you read it? It's pretty well reasoned why actions by the student Senate was linked to Oberlin admin. The student Senate derives it's authority from Oberlin, and Oberlin has oversight over the student Senate.

Yep. There is zero question that Oberlin administration gave its full backing to the student Senate - and vice-versa. Oberlin was fully responsible for reining in both its zealot admins and its ridiculous student body.
DP

Cool, now explain how this ruling doesn’t mean Ohio universities will have to crack down on controversial speakers engaged by student political groups.

Are you the person who posted the latest link? If so, this is taken directly from it. Maybe read a bit more carefully next time.

WHAT DOES GIBSON’S MEAN?
First, organizations (companies, colleges, cities, and even states) should be careful with their actions and public communications regarding smaller organizations. As applied, organizations should not let someone else publish false statements via their communication channels, including social media, or respond with false information and then fail to remove the statements after learning of their veracity.

Second, what may seem like a small matter is still worth consulting experienced and ardent counsel. From filing suit through appeal, the litigation lasted about five years. Gibson’s, a much smaller organization than Oberlin College, could have folded or let Oberlin’s actions blow over. But it sought out counsel who zealously advocated on Gibson’s behalf for years and ultimately prevailed.

Third, since deep pockets are often a harbinger of victory in litigation, it can be tempting for organizations to do something that is borderline to appease constituents. But now, Oberlin is left with a $30+ million decision and widespread publicity as a result.