Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This decision is a big f#cking deal.

It basically makes colleges responsible for the expressed OPINIONS of its students if such opinions can be viewed as potentially defamatory. And, as Oberlin points out, the only way for a university to avoid a tort is to categorically stop the students from expressing opinions.

Kinda weird that the rightwing so obsessed with “cancel culture” is basically salivating at suing universities for the speech of its students.

Read Oberlin’s appeal, the decision has huge legal ramifications:
https://www2.oberlin.edu/appeal/documents/Memo-in-Support-of-Jurisdiction.pdf

Of course, the next step to this is to sue universities if students accuse someone of being a “rapist” or “sexual harasser.”

Um… you do realize that the MAJOR instigator here was the idiot dean, Meredith Raimondo? She is responsible for whipping up the outrage among the students, and encouraging a woke mob to take down Gibsons over false accusations of “racial profiling.” The college stood by Raimondo, and doubled-down on the absurd accusations. Of course they are responsible for ruining this family. Why are you deliberately ignoring the facts of this case?
DP

Interesting, the university vigorously disagrees with your assessment:
https://www.oberlin.edu/news-and-events/bakery-litigation/10-key-facts

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
This decision is a big f#cking deal.

It basically makes colleges responsible for the expressed OPINIONS of its students if such opinions can be viewed as potentially defamatory. And, as Oberlin points out, the only way for a university to avoid a tort is to categorically stop the students from expressing opinions.

Kinda weird that the rightwing so obsessed with “cancel culture” is basically salivating at suing universities for the speech of its students.

Read Oberlin’s appeal, the decision has huge legal ramifications:
https://www2.oberlin.edu/appeal/documents/Memo-in-Support-of-Jurisdiction.pdf

Of course, the next step to this is to sue universities if students accuse someone of being a “rapist” or “sexual harasser.”


I think you are ignoring the actions of school administrators to call this holding the college responsible for student opinions. The college forced their caterer to break the caterer’s subcontract with the bakery. They actively participated in slandering the bakery. This isn’t about the students. It’s about the behaviour of the employees of the college.


Can you show me the law where one entity/business is required to engage with a specific service provider? Thanks.

That’s literally the free market at work.z

This is why I think the verdict was so large. The jury was sending a message to the college that cooler heads should have prevailed at the top and reigned in the SJW administrators. This whole situation is an illustration of the dangers of the "mob"---whether it be a January 6th mob of insurrectionists attacking the Capitol because of Trump's rhetoric or a group of lefty students being whipped up to attack a long time campus business in the name of racial equity. Three Oberlin students BEAT a local business owner. That is not behavior that can or should be defended by any educational institution. The school could have handled the entire incident very differently and brought the business and the students together for a productive, respective dialogue. Instead, the college administrators whipped up a mob to try to drive a long-time business owner out of business. Oberlin is a tiny town and the college is the 900 lb. economic gorilla. The verdict was the community's statement to the college about the misuse of that economic power. This was an extremely costly lesson. The president of the college should have shut those nutty deans down ASAP.

Oh, and out of curiosity---does the free marketeer poster above agree that the NFL owners have every right to use their economic monopoly to blackball Colin Kaepernick from playing pro football because of his kneeling?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
This decision is a big f#cking deal.

It basically makes colleges responsible for the expressed OPINIONS of its students if such opinions can be viewed as potentially defamatory. And, as Oberlin points out, the only way for a university to avoid a tort is to categorically stop the students from expressing opinions.

Kinda weird that the rightwing so obsessed with “cancel culture” is basically salivating at suing universities for the speech of its students.

Read Oberlin’s appeal, the decision has huge legal ramifications:
https://www2.oberlin.edu/appeal/documents/Memo-in-Support-of-Jurisdiction.pdf

Of course, the next step to this is to sue universities if students accuse someone of being a “rapist” or “sexual harasser.”


I think you are ignoring the actions of school administrators to call this holding the college responsible for student opinions. The college forced their caterer to break the caterer’s subcontract with the bakery. They actively participated in slandering the bakery. This isn’t about the students. It’s about the behaviour of the employees of the college.


Can you show me the law where one entity/business is required to engage with a specific service provider? Thanks.

That’s literally the free market at work.z

This is why I think the verdict was so large. The jury was sending a message to the college that cooler heads should have prevailed at the top and reigned in the SJW administrators. This whole situation is an illustration of the dangers of the "mob"---whether it be a January 6th mob of insurrectionists attacking the Capitol because of Trump's rhetoric or a group of lefty students being whipped up to attack a long time campus business in the name of racial equity. Three Oberlin students BEAT a local business owner. That is not behavior that can or should be defended by any educational institution. The school could have handled the entire incident very differently and brought the business and the students together for a productive, respective dialogue. Instead, the college administrators whipped up a mob to try to drive a long-time business owner out of business. Oberlin is a tiny town and the college is the 900 lb. economic gorilla. The verdict was the community's statement to the college about the misuse of that economic power. This was an extremely costly lesson. The president of the college should have shut those nutty deans down ASAP.

Oh, and out of curiosity---does the free marketeer poster above agree that the NFL owners have every right to use their economic monopoly to blackball Colin Kaepernick from playing pro football because of his kneeling?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This judgment against Oberlin has been upheld.
cnn.com/cnn/2022/09/09/us/oberlin-college-bakery-lawsuit-payment-reaj/index.html

Oberlin grad and eegads. I don't really understand how this comes out to a $36 million judgment, though. That seems crazy high based on every recounting I've read of what actually happened.

It’s RWNJ culture of victimhood gone wild.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This decision is a big f#cking deal.

It basically makes colleges responsible for the expressed OPINIONS of its students if such opinions can be viewed as potentially defamatory. And, as Oberlin points out, the only way for a university to avoid a tort is to categorically stop the students from expressing opinions.

Kinda weird that the rightwing so obsessed with “cancel culture” is basically salivating at suing universities for the speech of its students.

Read Oberlin’s appeal, the decision has huge legal ramifications:
https://www2.oberlin.edu/appeal/documents/Memo-in-Support-of-Jurisdiction.pdf

Of course, the next step to this is to sue universities if students accuse someone of being a “rapist” or “sexual harasser.”

Um… you do realize that the MAJOR instigator here was the idiot dean, Meredith Raimondo? She is responsible for whipping up the outrage among the students, and encouraging a woke mob to take down Gibsons over false accusations of “racial profiling.” The college stood by Raimondo, and doubled-down on the absurd accusations. Of course they are responsible for ruining this family. Why are you deliberately ignoring the facts of this case?
DP

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This judgment against Oberlin has been upheld.
cnn.com/cnn/2022/09/09/us/oberlin-college-bakery-lawsuit-payment-reaj/index.html

Oberlin grad and eegads. I don't really understand how this comes out to a $36 million judgment, though. That seems crazy high based on every recounting I've read of what actually happened.

It’s RWNJ culture of victimhood gone wild.

Really? So leading a boycott against a business because of the owner's race is just no big deal? And leading it through a college that accepts federal student loans as well! I thought we were past Jim Crow etc.

+1 not to mention the accused were actually guilty of the crime. Glad these woke imbeciles were held accountable.

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
This decision is a big f#cking deal.

It basically makes colleges responsible for the expressed OPINIONS of its students if such opinions can be viewed as potentially defamatory. And, as Oberlin points out, the only way for a university to avoid a tort is to categorically stop the students from expressing opinions.

Kinda weird that the rightwing so obsessed with “cancel culture” is basically salivating at suing universities for the speech of its students.

Read Oberlin’s appeal, the decision has huge legal ramifications:
https://www2.oberlin.edu/appeal/documents/Memo-in-Support-of-Jurisdiction.pdf

Of course, the next step to this is to sue universities if students accuse someone of being a “rapist” or “sexual harasser.”


I think you are ignoring the actions of school administrators to call this holding the college responsible for student opinions. The college forced their caterer to break the caterer’s subcontract with the bakery. They actively participated in slandering the bakery. This isn’t about the students. It’s about the behaviour of the employees of the college.


Can you show me the law where one entity/business is required to engage with a specific service provider? Thanks.

That’s literally the free market at work.z

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This decision is a big f#cking deal.

It basically makes colleges responsible for the expressed OPINIONS of its students if such opinions can be viewed as potentially defamatory. And, as Oberlin points out, the only way for a university to avoid a tort is to categorically stop the students from expressing opinions.

Kinda weird that the rightwing so obsessed with “cancel culture” is basically salivating at suing universities for the speech of its students.

Read Oberlin’s appeal, the decision has huge legal ramifications:
https://www2.oberlin.edu/appeal/documents/Memo-in-Support-of-Jurisdiction.pdf

Of course, the next step to this is to sue universities if students accuse someone of being a “rapist” or “sexual harasser.”

Are they holding the College responsible for what the students did/said or the College's role in events? Sounds like the latter.

Anonymous wrote:This decision is a big f#cking deal.

It basically makes colleges responsible for the expressed OPINIONS of its students if such opinions can be viewed as potentially defamatory. And, as Oberlin points out, the only way for a university to avoid a tort is to categorically stop the students from expressing opinions.

Kinda weird that the rightwing so obsessed with “cancel culture” is basically salivating at suing universities for the speech of its students.

Read Oberlin’s appeal, the decision has huge legal ramifications:
https://www2.oberlin.edu/appeal/documents/Memo-in-Support-of-Jurisdiction.pdf

Of course, the next step to this is to sue universities if students accuse someone of being a “rapist” or “sexual harasser.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This decision is a big f#cking deal.

It basically makes colleges responsible for the expressed OPINIONS of its students if such opinions can be viewed as potentially defamatory. And, as Oberlin points out, the only way for a university to avoid a tort is to categorically stop the students from expressing opinions.

Kinda weird that the rightwing so obsessed with “cancel culture” is basically salivating at suing universities for the speech of its students.

Read Oberlin’s appeal, the decision has huge legal ramifications:
https://www2.oberlin.edu/appeal/documents/Memo-in-Support-of-Jurisdiction.pdf

Of course, the next step to this is to sue universities if students accuse someone of being a “rapist” or “sexual harasser.”

I think you are ignoring the actions of school administrators to call this holding the college responsible for student opinions. The college forced their caterer to break the caterer’s subcontract with the bakery. They actively participated in slandering the bakery. This isn’t about the students. It’s about the behaviour of the employees of the college.

Can you show me the law where one entity/business is required to engage with a specific service provider? Thanks.

That’s literally the free market at work.z

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This judgment against Oberlin has been upheld.
cnn.com/cnn/2022/09/09/us/oberlin-college-bakery-lawsuit-payment-reaj/index.html

Oberlin grad and eegads. I don't really understand how this comes out to a $36 million judgment, though. That seems crazy high based on every recounting I've read of what actually happened.

It’s RWNJ culture of victimhood gone wild.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This decision is a big f#cking deal.

It basically makes colleges responsible for the expressed OPINIONS of its students if such opinions can be viewed as potentially defamatory. And, as Oberlin points out, the only way for a university to avoid a tort is to categorically stop the students from expressing opinions.

Kinda weird that the rightwing so obsessed with “cancel culture” is basically salivating at suing universities for the speech of its students.

Read Oberlin’s appeal, the decision has huge legal ramifications:
https://www2.oberlin.edu/appeal/documents/Memo-in-Support-of-Jurisdiction.pdf

Of course, the next step to this is to sue universities if students accuse someone of being a “rapist” or “sexual harasser.”

I think you are ignoring the actions of school administrators to call this holding the college responsible for student opinions. The college forced their caterer to break the caterer’s subcontract with the bakery. They actively participated in slandering the bakery. This isn’t about the students. It’s about the behaviour of the employees of the college.

Can you show me the law where one entity/business is required to engage with a specific service provider? Thanks.

That’s literally the free market at work.z

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand how Oberlin is responsible. Students led the boycott and handed out flyers.

Oberlin administrators attended the student-led protest, but under the guise of supporting student-community relations. The school administrators did not call the business “racist.”

The school then attempted to end their business relationship with the school, but under OH law that’s some sort of actionable tort?

And how do they get to $36M? This is kind of an insane judgment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This decision is a big f#cking deal.

It basically makes colleges responsible for the expressed OPINIONS of its students if such opinions can be viewed as potentially defamatory. And, as Oberlin points out, the only way for a university to avoid a tort is to categorically stop the students from expressing opinions.

Kinda weird that the rightwing so obsessed with “cancel culture” is basically salivating at suing universities for the speech of its students.

Read Oberlin’s appeal, the decision has huge legal ramifications:
https://www2.oberlin.edu/appeal/documents/Memo-in-Support-of-Jurisdiction.pdf

Of course, the next step to this is to sue universities if students accuse someone of being a “rapist” or “sexual harasser.”

I think you are ignoring the actions of school administrators to call this holding the college responsible for student opinions. The college forced their caterer to break the caterer’s subcontract with the bakery. They actively participated in slandering the bakery. This isn’t about the students. It’s about the behaviour of the employees of the college.