Reply to Oberlin defamation suit and verdict : not a good optic

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "Oberlin defamation suit and verdict : not a good optic "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]NYTimes ran an article including an interview with Floyd Abrams, a First Amendment lawyer. Abrams states that “the chances of ultimate reversal of the award are substantial.”[/quote]

It is an opinion, of course. Doesn't mean it will happen.

I suspect the award will be cut down on appeal but the college still found guilty of some liability.

The particular irony, and from Abrams himself, is his saying that the outcome represented “a double-barreled threat to free speech on campus." I'm not sure if there is true free speech on Oberlin's campus. The pattern of thought policing is infamously associated with Oberlin in the last few years.

And free speech has its own restrictions. Shouting fire in a crowded theater doesn't exclude you from prosecution if there was no such fire and damages occurred in the aftermath of the stampede to get out of the theater. The issue at here is defamation and whether the college aided and abetted by that defamation and if so, to what degree is the college responsible for aiding and abetting the defamation against the bakery? The reports on the actions of key Oberlin administrators surrounding the controversy is not helpful on Oberlin's behalf because it shows a pattern of the college administrators intervening on behalf of the students. [/quote]

PP dismisses NYTimes expert as having expressed a mere “opinion.”  S/he then go on give us his or her opinion of what’s gonna happen. Go figure. [/quote]

Having worked in journalism for a paper of NYTimes quality, I have good reasons to be careful before reading too much into quotes from experts. It's very feasible Abrams knew little about the Oberlin incident.  The Times wanted to speak to an expert and may have approached him (he has nothing to do with the lawsuit from what I can find) and he may very well not known of the matter  beyond a few basic information casually told to him by the reporter (student protesting alleged racism) and not the finer details of the lawsuit. This happens all the time. Abrams is a First Amendment lawyer and the lawsuit was based on defamation and other allegations, not free speech. And Abrams will have his own biases, just as we all do, and makes statements based on his bias.

And the NYTimes is just as guilty of any paper or media organization of having its own biases and selective reporting to promote a certain interpretation of events. The more dangerous attitude, which too many people fall into the trap of doing, is assuming everything stated in the Times is the correct or likely interpretation of any situation. It is merely the Times' opinion, and the Times will be looking at any situation from the perspective of the Times, which is certainly not balanced and non-biased. Following the Times like a sheepdog is the same mindset that causes other people to follow Fox News like a sheepdog.

That is why I am comfortable not taking seriously an "expert" opinion quoted in the Times or any other newspaper until I know more of the circumstances in which the expert gave the opinion and the extent of knowledge of the situation the expert is commenting on. And I am also old enough to know that experts are frequently and routinely proven wrong. In this case, the courts will decide, not Mr. Abrams. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics