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

[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.

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?

Of course it does - but that's not what the topic is here, is it? However, how do you feel about the violent protests at Berkeley and Middlebury in the past couple of years? Sounds like you're arguing those students should have been sent to jail. I agree.

[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.

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?

Of course it does - but that's not what the topic is here, is it? However, how do you feel about the violent protests at Berkeley and Middlebury in the past couple of years? Sounds like you're arguing those students should have been sent to jail. I agree.

We are also talking about the legal precedent this case sets. Well, some of us are trying to, but the MAGAs keep trying to dodge and deflect from the issue because they apparently can’t figure out a substantive response.

[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.

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?

Of course it does - but that's not what the topic is here, is it? However, how do you feel about the violent protests at Berkeley and Middlebury in the past couple of years? Sounds like you're arguing those students should have been sent to jail. I agree.

We are also talking about the legal precedent this case sets. Well, some of us are trying to, but the MAGAs keep trying to dodge and deflect from the issue because they apparently can’t figure out a substantive response.

That you keep trying to insert "MAGA" into all of your posts makes it clear you are not a serious person. As has already been stated, this has nothing to do with "MAGA." You can take your obsession elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

Of course it does - but that's not what the topic is here, is it? However, how do you feel about the violent protests at Berkeley and Middlebury in the past couple of years? Sounds like you're arguing those students should have been sent to jail. I agree.

We are also talking about the legal precedent this case sets. Well, some of us are trying to, but the MAGAs keep trying to dodge and deflect from the issue because they apparently can’t figure out a substantive response.

That you keep trying to insert "MAGA" into all of your posts makes it clear you are not a serious person. As has already been stated, this has nothing to do with "MAGA." You can take your obsession elsewhere.

People who insert MAGA into all their posts should be watched carefully. When someone has that much hate in their heart, they are likely to want to eliminate others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

Of course it does - but that's not what the topic is here, is it? However, how do you feel about the violent protests at Berkeley and Middlebury in the past couple of years? Sounds like you're arguing those students should have been sent to jail. I agree.

We are also talking about the legal precedent this case sets. Well, some of us are trying to, but the MAGAs keep trying to dodge and deflect from the issue because they apparently can’t figure out a substantive response.

That you keep trying to insert "MAGA" into all of your posts makes it clear you are not a serious person. As has already been stated, this has nothing to do with "MAGA." You can take your obsession elsewhere.

People who insert MAGA into all their posts should be watched carefully. When someone has that much hate in their heart, they are likely to want to eliminate others.

Eh, I read it more as lazy and stupid. These people have no capacity for nuance. It’s actually sad how unintelligent the average American is.

[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.

Oh Lord. There is a huge difference between the student body and the student Senate. Anything the college officially sanctions and exercise authority/control over, it must not use as a tool for slander/libel. It must also exercise it's powers to prevent slander/libel by the same. I also don't think you are making the right argument about the "correct" kind of speech. What's at hand here are claims of facts, not opinions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

Of course it does - but that's not what the topic is here, is it? However, how do you feel about the violent protests at Berkeley and Middlebury in the past couple of years? Sounds like you're arguing those students should have been sent to jail. I agree.

We are also talking about the legal precedent this case sets. Well, some of us are trying to, but the MAGAs keep trying to dodge and deflect from the issue because they apparently can’t figure out a substantive response.

That you keep trying to insert "MAGA" into all of your posts makes it clear you are not a serious person. As has already been stated, this has nothing to do with "MAGA." You can take your obsession elsewhere.

Okay, here’s a rewrite. Now can you figure out a substantive response, or will you find a different way to distract and deflect?

We are also talking about the legal precedent this case sets. Well, some of us are trying to, but certain other people keep trying to dodge and deflect from the issue because they apparently can’t figure out a substantive response.

[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.

Oh Lord. There is a huge difference between the student body and the student Senate. Anything the college officially sanctions and exercise authority/control over, it must not use as a tool for slander/libel. It must also exercise it's powers to prevent slander/libel by the same. I also don't think you are making the right argument about the "correct" kind of speech. What's at hand here are claims of facts, not opinions.

Why is the student senate fundamentally different from the student newspaper in this regard? Or from an official, school-sanctioned college republicans/democrats organization? Or an official Black or Hispanic students association?

[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.

Oh Lord. There is a huge difference between the student body and the student Senate. Anything the college officially sanctions and exercise authority/control over, it must not use as a tool for slander/libel. It must also exercise it's powers to prevent slander/libel by the same. I also don't think you are making the right argument about the "correct" kind of speech. What's at hand here are claims of facts, not opinions.

Why is the student senate fundamentally different from the student newspaper in this regard? Or from an official, school-sanctioned college republicans/democrats organization? Or an official Black or Hispanic students association?

Depends on the form and format of the student newspaper. If a student newspaper is purely independent, it's unlikely the school would be liable. However, as with many/most student newspapers, which are officially sanctioned by the school, and operated in a way that does not make it a public forum, then it will also be liable for libel. Here again, I will just point out that there is a huge difference between the student body and a student newspaper. The former is a collection of private individuals, the later is a component of the school with participation from students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

Of course it does - but that's not what the topic is here, is it? However, how do you feel about the violent protests at Berkeley and Middlebury in the past couple of years? Sounds like you're arguing those students should have been sent to jail. I agree.

We are also talking about the legal precedent this case sets. Well, some of us are trying to, but the MAGAs keep trying to dodge and deflect from the issue because they apparently can’t figure out a substantive response.

That you keep trying to insert "MAGA" into all of your posts makes it clear you are not a serious person. As has already been stated, this has nothing to do with "MAGA." You can take your obsession elsewhere.

Okay, here’s a rewrite. Now can you figure out a substantive response, or will you find a different way to distract and deflect?

We are also talking about the legal precedent this case sets. Well, some of us are trying to, but certain other people keep trying to dodge and deflect from the issue because they apparently can’t figure out a substantive response.

No legal precedence was set here. This is a clearcut libel case. Existing legal understanding was applied. Maybe Oberlin forgot that it controls the student Senate, but "remember your rights and responsibilities" is not a new novel doctrine.

[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.

There has always been a distinction between defamation and free speech.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

Of course it does - but that's not what the topic is here, is it? However, how do you feel about the violent protests at Berkeley and Middlebury in the past couple of years? Sounds like you're arguing those students should have been sent to jail. I agree.

We are also talking about the legal precedent this case sets. Well, some of us are trying to, but the MAGAs keep trying to dodge and deflect from the issue because they apparently can’t figure out a substantive response.

That you keep trying to insert "MAGA" into all of your posts makes it clear you are not a serious person. As has already been stated, this has nothing to do with "MAGA." You can take your obsession elsewhere.

Okay, here’s a rewrite. Now can you figure out a substantive response, or will you find a different way to distract and deflect?

We are also talking about the legal precedent this case sets. Well, some of us are trying to, but certain other people keep trying to dodge and deflect from the issue because they apparently can’t figure out a substantive response.

No legal precedence was set here. This is a clearcut libel case. Existing legal understanding was applied. Maybe Oberlin forgot that it controls the student Senate, but "remember your rights and responsibilities" is not a new novel doctrine.

No legal precedent was set here? So you’re saying that if a similar fact pattern occurred at a different Ohio college, no court rulings in this case, even at the appellate level, should be considered at all in evaluating that school’s liability for statements by its student government? Once Oberlin pays, the case should be wholly disregarded going forward?

[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.

There has always been a distinction between defamation and free speech.

Defamation is an exception to free speech. There are many other exceptions as well, such as speech that incites violence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

Of course it does - but that's not what the topic is here, is it? However, how do you feel about the violent protests at Berkeley and Middlebury in the past couple of years? Sounds like you're arguing those students should have been sent to jail. I agree.

We are also talking about the legal precedent this case sets. Well, some of us are trying to, but the MAGAs keep trying to dodge and deflect from the issue because they apparently can’t figure out a substantive response.

That you keep trying to insert "MAGA" into all of your posts makes it clear you are not a serious person. As has already been stated, this has nothing to do with "MAGA." You can take your obsession elsewhere.

Okay, here’s a rewrite. Now can you figure out a substantive response, or will you find a different way to distract and deflect?

We are also talking about the legal precedent this case sets. Well, some of us are trying to, but certain other people keep trying to dodge and deflect from the issue because they apparently can’t figure out a substantive response.

No legal precedence was set here. This is a clearcut libel case. Existing legal understanding was applied. Maybe Oberlin forgot that it controls the student Senate, but "remember your rights and responsibilities" is not a new novel doctrine.

No legal precedent was set here? So you’re saying that if a similar fact pattern occurred at a different Ohio college, no court rulings in this case, even at the appellate level, should be considered at all in evaluating that school’s liability for statements by its student government? Once Oberlin pays, the case should be wholly disregarded going forward?

Sorry, i was not precise with my language. No *NEW* precedence was set here, meaning there is no new standard of how laws should be applied to the present set of facts.

[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.

Oh Lord. There is a huge difference between the student body and the student Senate. Anything the college officially sanctions and exercise authority/control over, it must not use as a tool for slander/libel. It must also exercise it's powers to prevent slander/libel by the same. I also don't think you are making the right argument about the "correct" kind of speech. What's at hand here are claims of facts, not opinions.

Why is the student senate fundamentally different from the student newspaper in this regard? Or from an official, school-sanctioned college republicans/democrats organization? Or an official Black or Hispanic students association?

Depends on the form and format of the student newspaper. If a student newspaper is purely independent, it's unlikely the school would be liable. However, as with many/most student newspapers, which are officially sanctioned by the school, and operated in a way that does not make it a public forum, then it will also be liable for libel. Here again, I will just point out that there is a huge difference between the student body and a student newspaper. The former is a collection of private individuals, the later is a component of the school with participation from students.

A college wouldn’t be responsible for the activities of a wholly unaffiliated organization? Ground breaking legal analysis there. 🙄

And also not what we’re talking about, which is the activities of school-recognized student organizations.