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:
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.
You actually had to edit your post to remove all of your "MAGA" garbage, and you're lecturing others about not having substantive responses? Oh, that's rich. You've been given many substantive responses, you simply choose to ignore them - or perhaps you don't understand all the big words. At any rate, the legal precedent is this: college/universities are legally responsible for defamatory statements that their administration and/or student organizations make - as they should be. This is a no-brainer. That you continue to defend the a$$holery that is Oberlin speaks volumes about you.
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:
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?
DP. It's not? Any school-sanctioned group is ultimately the responsibility of the school. If they make defamatory statements, the school can be sued. As it should be. Why do you continue to argue about something so obvious?
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:
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.
I don't know who is writting what but I'm the PP and the posts I was responding to mentions "student body" in one, and then "student newspaper" as an example of the former, as if these two are the same. They are clearly not. School-recognized is not the same thing as school-sanctioned. I am talking about school-sanctioned student-staffed organizations.
That covers pretty much every student government, newspaper, social club, sports team, or school recognized frat or sorority. Few student newspapers are truly independent of the university (ie, no money, advising, real estate, use of printers/tech systems, etc)
You are failing to grasp the nuance of this case. Oberlin isn't in trouble for it's students extreme views or behavior. It's responsible for the staff and officially sanctioned organizations and so liable when defamatory statement are made through the college's communications. Also, Oberlin staff used their positions within the college to make the defamatory statements appear to be sanctioned by the college itself. But no college is held responsible for the ridiculous viewpoints individual students post on social media or even if they write it into an op-ed in the school newspaper.
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:
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.
I don't know who is writting what but I'm the PP and the posts I was responding to mentions "student body" in one, and then "student newspaper" as an example of the former, as if these two are the same. They are clearly not. School-recognized is not the same thing as school-sanctioned. I am talking about school-sanctioned student-staffed organizations.
That covers pretty much every student government, newspaper, social club, sports team, or school recognized frat or sorority. Few student newspapers are truly independent of the university (ie, no money, advising, real estate, use of printers/tech systems, etc)
You are failing to grasp the nuance of this case. Oberlin isn't in trouble for it's students extreme views or behavior. It's responsible for the staff and officially sanctioned organizations and so liable when defamatory statement are made through the college's communications. Also, Oberlin staff used their positions within the college to make the defamatory statements appear to be sanctioned by the college itself. But no college is held responsible for the ridiculous viewpoints individual students post on social media or even if they write it into an op-ed in the school newspaper.
This.
What screwed the college was that the adminstrator was really really bad. She could have supported students and the school would have been fine. Brought water and food to protest. Helping make sure students were safe. That would have been fine. But the email and testimony showed that she was an organizer. She sanctioned school funds for making the sheets with the statements that she knew at the time to be false or misleading. She organized the students at the protest with the bullhorn. She helped cancel the bakery's school contracts for what she knew were false reasons. She had the power to call off the protest when she wanted to. There was a lot more. The jury had enough to conclude she was running the show. She should not have been. The college's general counsel is the one really to fire here. That person may be gone but it was that person's job to keep the adminstrator in her lane and not do these things.
+1
Every time I read about the lunacy and extremism of that dean, I get mad all over again. What a horrible, horrible person.
You are failing to grasp the nuance of this case. Oberlin isn't in trouble for it's students extreme views or behavior. It's responsible for the staff and officially sanctioned organizations and so liable when defamatory statement are made through the college's communications. Also, Oberlin staff used their positions within the college to make the defamatory statements appear to be sanctioned by the college itself. But no college is held responsible for the ridiculous viewpoints individual students post on social media or even if they write it into an op-ed in the school newspaper.
This.
What screwed the college was that the adminstrator was really really bad. She could have supported students and the school would have been fine. Brought water and food to protest. Helping make sure students were safe. That would have been fine. But the email and testimony showed that she was an organizer. She sanctioned school funds for making the sheets with the statements that she knew at the time to be false or misleading. She organized the students at the protest with the bullhorn. She helped cancel the bakery's school contracts for what she knew were false reasons. She had the power to call off the protest when she wanted to. There was a lot more. The jury had enough to conclude she was running the show. She should not have been. The college's general counsel is the one really to fire here. That person may be gone but it was that person's job to keep the adminstrator in her lane and not do these things.
Agree with almost all of this. Any school with a decided tilt toward one side of the political spectrum (be it right or left) should try to get a general counsel that is much more to the center to be a tempering voice. But I disagree that this fell entirely on the general counsel. Don't know how the Obie org chart works, but it is unlikely that the GC could have fired the Dean. This one is on the College President at the time. They should have reigned Meredith Raimondo in and fired her for insubordination if she didn't fall in line. I am astonished that the woman was hired by another educational institution after creating this financial nightmare for Oberlin. Talk about failing upwards.
I'm sure at her job interview it's not her that caused Oberlin's nightmare but rather the MAGA forces surrounding the baker, in her own personal opinion of course.
Oh, absolutely. Not only is Oberlin a complete joke now, but Oglethorpe is too, just from hiring that LWNJ. That is, if anyone has ever heard of it in the first place.
DP
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}