Free Speech

Oberlin Has Been Ordered to Pay $44 Million in a Defamation Lawsuit. The Punishment Doesn't Fit the Crime.

A local bakery accused the college of defamation after students launched a public campaign against the store for racial profiling. Oberlin mounted a free speech defense.

|

A jury has awarded a whopping $44 million in damages to a bakery that accused Oberlin College of defamation after students launched a dishonest campaign against the store for racial discrimination.

It's not hard to sympathize with Gibson's Bakery: The actions of student activists were contemptible, and it appears Oberlin may have encouraged their behavior. According to leaked texts, for instance, Dean of Students Meredith Raimondo—who was also accused of passing out fliers at a student protest—expressed her desire to "unleash the students" on a professor emeritus who publicly sided with the bakery.

But the sheer amount of damages goes too far in the other direction, and likely violates state law.

The incident occurred on November 9, 2016, when an employee at Gibson's Bakery saw an Oberlin student swipe several bottles of wine from the establishment. He ran after the suspect on foot. When authorities arrived at the scene, both the thief and two of his friends—all of whom are black—were beating the cashier, who is white, as he laid on the ground. The three assailants, who have since disputed that racism played a part in the event, were arrested that night and later pleaded guilty to misdemeanors in connection with the incident.

Even so, protests soon followed, with a number of students claiming that the altercation was racially motivated. They also said that Gibson's has a long history of racial bias against its patrons, although it's worth noting that no such complaints have ever been filed against the store. Nevertheless, the bakery is "a RACIST establishment with a LONG ACCOUNT of RACIAL PROFILING and DISCRIMINATION," fliers read.

Following the incident, Oberlin College severed ties with the bakery—from which it previously placed a daily order—for two months.

The Gibson family then filed suit against the college, alleging that Oberlin had inappropriately supported students in the protests. The handouts, for instance, were made on campus using materials at the college and Raimondo assisted in giving at least one to a reporter, although other individuals testified they saw her pass out additional fliers as well. Oberlin countered that they were merely trying to preserve the safety of all parties and that they should not be held responsible for the words and actions of their students.

The jury sided with Gibson's, awarding $11 million in compensatory damages to atone for the harm—both economic and emotional—they experienced as a result of the backlash. But in a stunning rebuke to Oberlin, the jury placed another $33 million in punitive damages on top of that, meant to penalize the college for its conduct.

Reactions were predictably polarized. "This is condign punishment for the college's mendacity about helping to incite a mob mentality and collective bullying in response to 'racist' behavior that never happened," writes conservative George Will at The Washington Post. David French echoed those sentiments in National Review, calling it "a chilling effect that may well do some good."

Oberlin College and its students, on the other hand, framed the decision as a threat to free speech, writing that the ruling has "profoundly disturbing implications" for the First Amendment in an editorial for The Oberlin Review.

Conservatives, of course, have often been the ones accusing liberal-leaning colleges of chilling free expression. Yet it was Oberlin that put up a First Amendment defense in court, usurping the right's own logic to argue that a win for Gibson's would be a sucker punch for free speech.

The ironies are rich—and not lost on some of the students. "Conservative commentators often talk about a supposed crisis of free speech on campuses, wherein students wield the sword of political correctness to silence dissenting opinions," writes the student newspaper's editorial board. "To the contrary, this verdict is a real warning shot against free speech. The fact that those same commentators have widely lauded the verdict reveals their hypocrisy and lays their thinly-veiled agenda bare."

Conservatives often do abandon their free speech cards when they calculate it serves them. (See the conservative fight to regulate online speech.) But this case isn't nearly as cut and dry as Oberlin students have claimed.

As First Amendment expert Eugene Volokh points out, libel laws are certainly constitutional, especially when they are based on deliberate lies. One could make a convincing case that parties involved set out to defame Gibson's, as no documented history of racial profiling at the store exists.

With that in mind, the jury was tasked with one central question: Did administrators assist the protests apart from protecting the safety of participants, and did they—particularly Raimondo—do so with intent to malign the business?

"If you're acting as agents by passing out false information, then you have to answer for that," Volokh tells Reason. "But it's hard to see how that merits $11 million dollars in damages."

That number has since quadrupled with the punitive damages—a sum of money that far surpasses any concrete harm perpetuated by Oberlin's students and administrators. What's more, it exceeds Ohio's own cap on such damages, as current law stipulates that punitive awards may only reach double the compensatory.

So how did the panel come to the drastic conclusion? Juries have "wide discretion" in assigning a price tag to economic and emotional injury perpetrated by libel, Volokh says. If the brouhaha at Oberlin is any example, then, perhaps it's time that expectations are recalibrated on both sides of the debate, so that petty crimes don't automatically elicit cries of racism, and so that those cries aren't met with ludicrous punishments.

Advertisement

NEXT: U.S. Government Says Migrant Children Deserve Dirty, Traumatizing Conditions

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. This ruling is a warning against libel. There have been laws against libel and slander for centuries and free speech has survived

    1. If students can’t understand the nuance of the case (that Oberlin was punished for supporting and/or inciting the libel), then they need to find a new college.

      And what’s with college professors and administrators sticking their noses in everything? They want to selectively take credit for what students do and deny responsibility for what students do. Paglia is right, academics of today are the sellout hacks of yesterday.

      1. This isn’t a free speech issue. This is the Oberlin crisis-management line you are simply repeating.

        Gibson’s Bakery basically said, “We are not coming after Oberlin because of what the students said, we are coming after them because of what Oberlin said and did. Oberlin passed out these flyers. They distributed the defamatory student resolution.”

        Legal Insurrection has been all over this case from the beginning and the analysis there is head and shoulders over what appears here.

        1. At least the article has the merit of explicitly acknowledging, in its subtitle, that Oberlin’s actions constituted a “crime.” It is, in fact, unfortunate that no criminal charges were filed in this case. As Eugene Volokh has demonstrated, there is no “free speech” problem at all with criminalizing libel, and what Oberlin did involved an entire institution pushing an act of libel against a helpless victim. The only good thing that can be said about the college’s conduct is that it didn’t cause quite as much reputational damage as the “parody” engaged in here at NYU by our nation’s leading criminal “satirist.” See the documentation at:

          https://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

          1. Wait.
            Now defamation is a crime???
            A quick check indicates “not in Ohio”. And not in most states. And even where it is, it’s rarely prosecuted – and usually defeated on First Amendment grounds.
            When I went to law school, no mention was ever made of the “crime” of defamation. Only the civil tort.

            1. Unfortunately, libel does remain uncriminalized in many American states, but hopefully that policy error will soon be corrected everywhere in this great nation. I would recommend reading Eugene Volokh’s authoritative discussions of the matter. See for example his article on this website at:

              https://reason.com/2019/04/10/the-first-amendment-and-criminal-libel-l/

              Incidentally, I would like to take this opportunity to commend Professor Volokh for carefully avoiding any discussion of the outrageous opinions of certain “international human rights” groups that have argued that there is some kind of “free speech” problem involved in criminalizing libel. We here in America know better, and Eugene, especially, knows exactly what’s constitutional and what isn’t.

              1. P.s. I should also point out that even where libel is not yet explicitly regarded a crime, we can usually find some kind of legal pretext to criminalize it, usually under some other statute somewhere on the books. And even if some of the cases eventually get thrown out on “First Amendment” grounds (ha-ha-ha), prosecuting the charges usually has a solid dissuasive impact.

    2. You’d think an ‘assistant editor’ might understand the meaning of the word ‘punitive.’

      But apparently not.

      1. The “assistant editors” seem to be below the median commenter here when it comes to intelligence and cluefulness.

        1. I suspect it is largely a problem of getting what you pay for.

    3. I wondered why the bakery has not sued the students for libel/defamation? The College was clearly wrong to abet the students, but the original defamation was by students, no?

      1. I imagine the pockets of the University are just a bit deeper than those of the students.

      2. Forget libel. How is three guys assaulting a clerk to retain stolen merchandise not a felony?

        1. Meh… true, but pettifogging chickenfeed compared to the REAL issue, which is hate screech.

        2. Bingo.

          College town. College privilege.

          Almost certainly no jail time and likely a probation after which the conviction is expunged.

          The Lefty ruling class takes care of their own.

      3. Seem to recall reading the college has a $1 billion endowment.
        So, deep pockets. And now that they’ve prevailed, they could easily force settlements, if so desired.
        But $33 million is probably seen as adequate compensation.
        Let the college crack down on the students.

        1. From my understanding endowments are to be used only for the reasons the donors specify so they can’t touch them to pay for this. Also insurance wont cover this. Looks like the students will have to pay up with increased tuition and fees. The students were aided and abetted by the Dean of Students. That’s why the school was hit. The school has the clout in that town it;s probably why a jury filled with townees hit them good and hard. I also suspect the school leaned on the cops to drop charges on the original perps. I expect the judgement will be lowered. I understand that the bakery would have settled for two hundred grand but the arrogant asswipes at the school decided to go to court.

          1. “endowments are to be used only for the reasons the donors specify”

            Sometimes, but not always, and often the specificity is interpreted rather broadly. But, even if they took it all out of the endowment, that will still affect their finances for years to come.

          2. ” I also suspect the school leaned on the cops to drop charges on the original perps. ”

            Unlikely. This isn’t Oberlin’s first rodeo. The police know the score.

          3. “From my understanding endowments are to be used only for the reasons the donors specify so they can’t touch them to pay for this.”

            So that the Oberlin apparatchiks have a corporate slush fund that they can spend to attack people, but can’t be taken away from them.

            Perhaps this is the law, but if so it is thoroughly corrupt. “I give this corporation money to spend that can’t be taken from them in legal judgments.”

            Can I get my paycheck under those terms?

          4. re: “endowments are to be used only for the reasons the donors specify”

            Once upon a time that was sorta the rule but it hasn’t been the rule for quite a while. Endowments are gifts. While the recipients of the gift can honor any conditions requested by the donor (and really should honor them if they ever want any more gifts), the donor has no binding authority to compel the recipient to comply once the gift has been made.

            There was a case not that long ago that was exactly on-point to this issue. Unfortunately, I do not remember the case name.

    4. I’ve read some local reporting and honestly this is a piss poor article that relied only on Volokh as a source.

      This all went according to Ohio law. You write “it appears Oberlin may have encouraged their behavior” but the jury found that to be a fact and calculated $11m in losses to the business who was attacked. Ohio law also allows the jury to assess up to triple that amount in punitive fines, and they decided on that, to the full extent of the law, without which they may well have found for higher punitive numbers.

      1. Nice to know they didn’t exceed the cap.
        Frankly, given that punitive damages are supposed to punish behavior, does $44 million even register against a $1 billion endowment? That’s what? Interest on the principal for one year?

        Should have been more like $200 million.

    5. ITT Chemleff lights his nearly nonexistent credibility on fire to defend his fellow libs.

      1. And THEN I ACT LIKE THE MOST OBNOXIOUS IDIOT POSSIBLE, AND NO ONE CAN TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ME AND THE REAL CHEMJEFF HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH

  2. Au contraire,, that $11 million is perfectly reasonable for intentional destruction of a family business all out of proportion to the alleged crime, which in reality was exactly right (apprehending a shoplifter who joined with two friends to beat up the employee who chased him down). The $33 million punitive damages (soon to be reduced to $22) sounds fine to me, for a university and its admins who never expressed any remorse or took any responsibility.

    1. “for a university and its admins who never expressed any remorse or took any responsibility”

      The punishment should be enough to wake these people the hell up

      1. The jury here was not allowed to see that, after their finding for the plaintiffs, that the defendants sent out a letter blasting the verdict. That showed the school learned nothing from the finding.

        1. SAD!

        2. The school still hasn’t learned a damned thing. They’re still claiming they got sued for the speech of their students and denying that they aided, abetted, and pushed the whole thing along.

          If anything, the verdict should be LARGER.

      2. Eh. That’s a week of interest from their endowment. It won’t matter in the slightest to any of them. In fact it probably used as a plea for more alumni fundraising.

        1. It’s Oberlin, not Harvard. Google says Oberlin has an endowment of about $870 million. Assuming a 5 percent annual draw, it would yield about $43,500,000 per year. So the total damages are sucking up almost an entire year of endowment income. Worse, it’s unlikely that all of the $870 million is unrestricted money. Lots of it is probably for scholarships, the fencing team, and perhaps even a fund assuring more authentic chicken dishes in the cafeteria. Oberlin is screwed.

        2. Leftists are locusts. Everywhere they go, they make bonfires of accumulated capital to light the way to the totalitarian future they dream of.

          Why should they give a damn about Oberlin? There are more institutions too loot, and the locusts always take care of their own. If they drain Oberlin to the last penny, that will only give them more street cred with the other locusts.

    2. $44 million because one professor helped make some social justice fliers? That’s ridiculous.

      1. That’s ridiculous.

        It’s not just “making some social justice flyers.” It’s acting as a representative of the university to defame and ruin the livelihood of a business that’s been a fixture in the local community for generations, and had about half their business with the university before this happened.

        Keep in mind that, when cooler heads were cautioning against trying to run Gibson’s out of business, Raimondo said in an email “FUCK EM,” and that if she had it her way, she’d “unleash the students” if the whole thing didn’t need to be put behind them.

        It’s not just “handing out flyers”–it was a well-documented case of malicious intent to ruin these people over a fucking hate hoax. Yeah, $44 million is just fine, even if it will be reduced to $33 million. It’s a warning shot to academia that there’s consequences for using the student body as your Maoist Cultural Revolution vanguard to destroy people over nothing.

        1. I very much do not support the student protest of the University in this case. But I think this case casts a broad net as to what libel can be defined as. And if this is the punishment it will give many the incentive to financially ruin people.

          1. But I think this case casts a broad net as to what libel can be defined as. And if this is the punishment it will give many the incentive to financially ruin people.

            This isn’t any different than what happened in the Hogan/Gawker case. The same “chilling effect” claims were made, yet clickbait media continues to be dominated by left-wing hive thought (when they’re not going out of business as their venture capital and left-wing sugar daddy funding runs out).

            1. So maybe libel laws aren’t very effective? In that case, the university just seems like a soft target for a big payout.

              1. With their resources, no University is a soft target.

              2. Utilitarian arguments are shit.

                The university is an extremely hard target, but they were so far over the line they deservedly got smacked good and hard.

                So, in this case, libel law was was extremely effective for the injured plaintiffs.

                And isn’t that what justice is about?

                1. I guess so. Obviously the bakery suffered damages, I don’t doubt that. $44 million just seems like a lot, and I doubt that the bakery would follow this suit if it wasn’t for the universities deep pockets (note that I am backing away from my original stance).

                  1. The University is rich AF. No doubt that played a role.

                  2. Good on you for reconsidering. Now, consider that the bakery originally offered a quit claim if the University would just stop inciting the students and give them a meager $200k to stop the bleeding. Oberlin told them to pound sand. So no, the deep pockets theory doesn’t wash.

                    1. “Now, consider that the bakery originally offered a quit claim if the University would just stop inciting the students and give them a meager $200k to stop the bleeding. Oberlin told them to pound sand.”

                      That seems both germane and missing from the article.
                      If the jury knew that, I’ll bet it became an issue in the discussion.

                  3. You have to realize though that no one can put a price on emotional damage. Emotional damages is a serious issue that is not properly addressed. 44 million for something that can affect a person for the rest of their lives and business is a slap on the wrist if you ask me.

              3. So maybe libel laws aren’t very effective?

                Seems pretty effective to me if Oberlin’s getting socked with a $33 million payout.

                1. Oberlin will definitely rethink their position in the future but will other universities? Unfortunately, even with the bad press that this sort of activism usually garners (see Harvard, Laurier etc.), it hasn’t done much to dissuade others.

                  1. They wont rethink, they will just be quieter about their biases.

                    1. They’ll do neither.

                      Oberlin’s endowment is their money to burn in great sacrificial pyres in tribute to Social Justice. And they will. And then they’ll move on to the next juicily endowed host.

          2. The university financially ruined a family. Shall there be no consequences? Does not the university need some incentive to NOT ruin families?

            1. But they only ruined them with SJW speech:(

              1. What an exceptionally stupid rejoinder.

              2. I C now. You are a proggie to whom “financially” has no meaning. No wonder you are so obtuse.

                1. Come one guys I was joking. I don’t know much about libel and at first it set off some alarm bells so I wanted some answers.

            2. “The university financially ruined a family.”

              Did they? This seems like assuming facts not in evidence. The bakery lost the college’s daily order for two months, but presumably that was not the bulk of their business. (I’m just guessing here, and I am happy to be corrected….)

              1. Oberlin has a student body of around 2900 students and 330 faculty in a town of 8800. I am betting the daily order plus the bad publicity severely harmed the businesses bottom line. And don’t forget the ultimate goal was to drive the business under as punishment for “racism” which there is no evidence of

                1. You could be right, but presumably they don’t supply 3000+ items daily. I assumed that they supply about 100 items to a local campus shop — something like a coffee shop that sells pastries. Any loss of business hurts the bottom line, of course, but the “financially ruined a family” statement did strike me as conjecture.

                  1. Given that the company’s financial statements are not public (nor should they be), we should defer to the jury on this. They felt that the financial portion of the damages amounted to some fraction of $11 million.

              2. The jury, who had access to a lot more detailed facts from both sides than you or I do, decided that the direct damages to the bakery were $11 million. I can’t speak for your family’s finances but losing $11 million would certainly ruin mine.

          3. “it will give many the incentive to financially ruin people.”

            This is idiotic.

            There’s no ‘incentive’ because no one can pursue damages unless they’ve been libeled, and then can prove it in court.

            By your logic, people will somehow *solicit* libel?

            then gleefully spend…. a long protracted battle in court over a charge that is rarely successful?

            The law isn’t changed by this case. Proving libel is incredibly difficult, and the rare occasions it happens its often because defendants suffer from mammoth egos and end up shooting themselves in the face.

            That’s exactly what happened in the Gawker case, and seems like what happened to Oberlin;

            The school’s idiot general counsel sent out a mass email criticizing the jury’s decision.. before they’d even met to determine damages.

            https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/06/oberlin-college-mass-email-criticizing-jurors-could-influence-punitive-damages-hearing-in-gibsons-bakery-case/

            1. Good point, and thanks for the article. I am just worried that the lines between activism and libel will be blurred but maybe this case is more obvious than I thought.

            2. “The school’s idiot general counsel sent out a mass email criticizing the jury’s decision.. before they’d even met to determine damages.”

              Dunno how s/he is paid, but I’ll bet it’s soon to change.
              I wonder if this is the same bone-head who told the bakery yo buzz off when it offered a settlement…

          4. The libel was deliberately organizing a campaign to destroy the business on what the organizers knew to be a lie. Gibson’s didn’t toe the progressive narrative and the Oberlin administration was out to destroy them because of that.

          5. “And if this is the punishment it will give many the incentive to financially ruin people.”

            You have it exactly backwards. The award serves as a disincentive to financially ruin people, which is precisely what the college tried to do.

      2. They bought pizza for the protestors. They bought gloves for the protestors. They let them use a University building (Music Conservatory) as protest HQ.
        The Dean of Students got a bullhorn and led the protests. The University published and spread False information. Professors let protestors skip class. Faculty who objected were threatened, and internal emails showed that the Dean of Students wanted to turn the mob on them, a la Evergreen State.

        Not directly the University’s fault, but protestors also went to the home of the 92 year old father of the current owner and beat on his doors and windows, causing him to fall and almost die. He wears a cervical collar for the rest of his life and can’t look up.

        In no way is the maximum allowable punative damage NOT appropriate.

        1. Amazing that Binion couldn’t see fit to note any of that, but worked damned hard to bring in the ‘conservatives pounce’ angle.

          This place has gone to complete shit.

      3. The fucking DEAN OF STUDENTS was leading the motherfucking rally.

        That’s what’s fucking ridiculous. Other than you.

        1. Careful, unless you have $44 million to pay

          1. Unless you can show evidence that he knowingly lied about you being an idiot then you have no case. Try again. If you are going to be snarky at least attempt to sound educated.

            1. Could it possibly be that I don’t know the difference. It seems like you’re the one who felt it necessary to show your snarky intelligence, not me. And you stupid either way! It’s unbelievable!

          2. This is the comment that definitively proves Melvin is a bullshit concern troll. He has a side and he’s just faking ignorance – here he’s trying to insinuate that this ruling means that two people cannot have unfavorable opinions about each other (while in his other comments he’s just pretending he doesn’t have all the basic facts of the story – “oh, I didn’t know it was the dean!”). So either he’s a total moron that doesn’t understand the situation or he’s deliberately trolling this forum. Given this snark right here, I am fairly certain he’s just a troll.

            1. This is a ridiculous amount of overthought. I don’t give a fuck about this stuff I am just asking questions and debating (and also killing time at work). Also, I don’t want to argue with a fucking anon named Finrod after I go home. I thought we sorted this out yesterday Trip.

              1. I took you at your word but after seeing additional comments you made here, I shouldn’t have. Its just too hard not to call out such blatant trolling.

                You’re debating without learning the basic facts of the story first? Seems like a solid foundation to debate from.

                1. Now in my defense I am trying to follow like 10 threads when I didn’t even know or care that much in the first place. Why don’t you and I go harass some dummies in today’s Reason Roundup comments instead?

                  1. I don’t harass anyone, but I will continue to call out your fake concern trolling when I run across it.

                    1. Well next time try to get it right

      4. Melvin, it wasn’t some professor making fliers.
        It was the dean of students passing out fliers at a protest. Fliers that contain clear, known, and malicious lies with the explicit intent of destroying the business.

        It was that same dean on the bullhorn at the protest. Again, shouting libel that from internal e-mails she clearly knew to be false.

        They didn’t just support the protests. They lead them. They orchestrated the willful and deliberate destruction of a business for a crime that they knew did not happen.

        1. Fair enough. I did not realize it was the dean. If they truly did knowingly lie with malicious intent I guess the university is accountable. But it is the lying that matters and not the support of activism (buying pizza, gloves etc.). Or am I wrong about that as well?

          1. That’s actually a very good question.
            If the students are, rather can be proven, guilty of defamation and the university facilitates the spreading or promotion of that defamation through use of campus facilities, equipment, policy, financial considerations, and/or other resources – can the university be held liable for defamation?
            In the case of an employee from X Corp, distribution of material produced with company resources or on company grounds/time puts X Corp in a tough spot. I’d say that if the employee were not immediately fired upon X Corp discovering the defamatory actions, they can be held liable due to implicit endorsement of that defamation.
            A) am I correct?
            B) what is the difference between an employee of X Corp and student(s) of a university?
            In both cases, the larger organization allowed their resources to be used to defame the victim, either wilfully or through negligence.
            As a juror, based on my knowledge at this moment, I’d have to say that yes, the larger organization is responsible for defamation.

            1. Take the example of something like FoxNews suspending Judge Jeanine for saying Ilhan Omar is a traitor or whatnot. The statement isn’t defamatory, as it’s both an opinion and Omar is willingly/voluntarily a public figure, but it stays close enough that Fox has to be concerned that inaction would at the very least imply endorsement.

              1. Exactly, it’s tough, and it seems like the line is blurry. Many in this comment section have conflated the support of activism and the willful dishonesty which, to me, seem like they should be separate when it comes to libel.

                1. If the university supports defamatory (in a legal sense) activism, how are they not on the hook for wilfull dishonesty?
                  That is, if the university supports activism that crosses the line, isn’t the university at least partially responsible?

                  1. I think they can be held responsible if the defendant can prove that the university knowingly supported dishonest activism. But I imagine that it is pretty difficult to prove that and this case is one of very few.

          2. If you don’t know even the basics, then just STFU

            1. Because he’s concern trolling. He could easily just read a few articles on this subject, but instead he’s here in the comments trying to fake ignorance. Its a weak tactic to get readers to second-guess themselves and its not working.

              Who the fuck goes in the comments to learn totally basic sets of facts about a story? It takes hours to get a bunch of replies if you want to learn this way, while it would only take a few minutes to read a couple articles. I call bullshit on Melvin. He’s a concern troll.

              1. “I call bullshit on Melvin.”

                I’m glad you specified that. You could just as easily had been talking about Binion.

                1. Why not both. Trip is right that I was pushing it a bit. Although I still think that $44 million is a bit excessive.

    3. I’m not lawyer, but I have to agree. The actions of the students, with the full support of the university administration, has permanently damaged the reputation of this establishment. This is an establishment that exists only with the good will of the university. They are now permanently tarred with the moniker of “racist” and their livelihood has been irreparably damaged.

      This isn’t a case about free speech, it’s a case about libel and defamation. A spontaneous student protest is one thing, but the administration consciously chose to encourage the protest against this business.

      1. A spontaneous student protest is one thing, but the administration consciously chose to encourage the protest against this business.

        They not only chose to encourage it, but they made no effort to deflate the situation when it came out that the store was, in fact, shoplifted and the owner was beaten up by the thief and his friends for the crime of trying to recover his stolen property.

        Instead, there were unsourced accusations of “institutional racism” despite the fact that black employees of the store went on record saying that the owners didn’t have a racist bone in their body and everyone was treated the same.

        Come to think of it, maybe that was the real crime in the minds of the SJW lunatics–that the Gibsons’ treated all people the same, and that instead they should have acknowledged their white privilege and let themselves be robbed blind as reparations.

        1. “they should have acknowledged their white privilege and let themselves be robbed blind as reparations.”

          This was actually one of the demands of the student protestors, that the bakery institute a ‘one free theft’ rule and not press charges against black shoplifters for a first offense.

          1. It was the request of the college, too. That was another strike against them, because everyone and their brother knew the college would give them some restorative justice wrist slap and tell them, “Now don’t you go stealing again, okay?”

        2. The store also.had a completely population neutral shop lifting arrest record based on race. Ironically oberlins no trespass list was heavily minority.

      2. “The actions of the students, with the full support of the university administration, has permanently damaged the reputation of this establishment.”

        After all of this publicity, I doubt that the bakery’s reputation has been “permanently damaged” — given town/gown tensions, it might have enhanced the bakery’s reputation.

    4. I have no idea what’s reasonable, but if it isn’t enough to cause some pain, what’s the point of punitive damages?
      Of course, this probably didn’t make much of a dent in the Oberlin endowment.

      1. It didn’t make much of a dent. From what I understand, the punitive damages are capped at 2-3 times the compensation, otherwise the jury might have awarded more.

  3. Yeah, I have zero sympathy for Oberlin. The jury’s award may seem excessive, but letting it stand may help slow the crazy we’re seeing at colleges across the country. This one seems especially blatant – screaming “racist!” because you got caught stealing, then beat the guy who caught you – deserves scorn not support.

  4. Oh, Lord. First of all, defamation is not free speech. The jury determined that the college was not engaged in free speech, they were engaged in defamation, deliberately spreading lies in order to cause harm to the bakery. And secondly, the whole point of punitive damages as opposed to compensatory damages is to punish the victimizer, not compensate the victim. If you want to argue that you think the judge and jury decided the case wrongly, that’s fine, but the whole point of the decision is that this is not a free speech case.

    1. The argument that Binion’s making that it was “illegal” was particularly exceptional. The jury knows damn well that there’s a compensation limit and that it will be reduced to the max allowed under state law at the end; the award was solely about sending a message to Oberlin that they can’t have it both ways when it comes to the actions of their students and administrators. If these institutions are going to act like de facto in loco parentis, then they get to suffer the consequences of their student body and staff chimping out.

      1. If these institutions are going to act like de facto in loco parentis

        Don’t they have a legal in loco parentis role? It seems ridiculous when the students are almost all legally adults, but that’s what I’ve been told.

      2. Does the law actually limit what damages a jury can declare? If not, then their amount is not illegal even if the same law limits the actual damages that can be imposed.

        1. The punitive damages are limited to twice the compensatory amount per state law. IOW, the jury awarded $33M in punitive damages, but because the compensatory amount was $11M, that will be dropped down to $22M in the final session.

          1. According to legal insurrection, that is a guideline not a hard cap.

            They may be wrong. I dunno.

  5. Don’t think of it as a free speech penalty, think of if as a stupid penalty.

    Oberlin and its SJW club members tried to use a false moral issue as both offence and defense, and lost. And yes, this has bigger implications for legal decisions of all kinds that derive from at least one party or group screaming “racist”.

    1. Don’t think of it as a free speech penalty

      You don’t have to, because this case has NOTHING to do with free speech. It’s a suit for defamation and was decided correctly.

  6. Billy Bunion is an even weaker columnist than Shikha Dalmia. And that’s saying something.

    1. Billy Bunion is an even weaker columnist than Shikha Dalmia. And that’s saying something.

      While I don’t disagree with the sentiment, I don’t think Billy has the legs to catch Shikha running.

      1. I’m convinced Shikha and somin fucked and named their child Billy. His first handful of articles were all worse open border arguments than even Jeff.

        1. To be sure. Oh wait…that’s Rico.

  7. Free speech doesn’t include the right to slander someone as a racist and destroy their business and reputation. It is takes a special breed of stupid to not see the difference between holding people responsible for libel and slander and depriving people of the right to speak their opinion on campus. But, Binion is appearently up to the challange.

    I am left to wonder what the hell is the matter with people.

    1. Perhaps you should actually read the piece. I explicitly say that libel laws are constitutional and, in my opinion, do not infringe on the First Amendment. I take issue, though, with the ludicrous punishment, which is certainly disproportionate to the damage caused and exceeds limits set by state law. Nuance is important, and I encourage you to use it.

      1. Really, what are you doing here except saying conservatives are hypocritical for not seeing the two situations as the same?

        Conservatives, of course, have often been the ones accusing liberal-leaning colleges of chilling free expression. Yet it was Oberlin that put up a First Amendment defense in court, usurping the right’s own logic to argue that a win for Gibson’s would be a sucker punch for free speech.

        The ironies are rich—and not lost on some of the students. “Conservative commentators often talk about a supposed crisis of free speech on campuses, wherein students wield the sword of political correctness to silence dissenting opinions,” writes the student newspaper’s editorial board. “To the contrary, this verdict is a real warning shot against free speech. The fact that those same commentators have widely lauded the verdict reveals their hypocrisy and lays their thinly-veiled agenda bare.”

        1. Yeah Billy. There’s no irony here and conservatives weren’t threatening anyone’s first amendment rights. This is a straightforward libel case and the jury properly rejected the phony free speech defense.

          1. There’s nothing worse than a shit head author who drops into the piece to defend himself then sitters away to avoid thd actual discussion.

            Shut the fuck up and take your beating, or be an adult and defend it. This half measure shit is tiresome.

      2. Do you suppose it’s possible, if it was your livelihood that was being threatened, you might choose to draw the “ludicrous” line a bit differently?

      3. Billy, I read every word of it, and think if anyone is missing the nuance it is you. The actions of Oberlin’s administration were deliberate, malicious and reckless; that much is crystal clear. You make no attempt to quantify the actual damages here– you just wave your hand and call the judgement ludicrous. Physical injuries, lost business, damaged reputation– where’s the actual math that justifies your view? I am disposed to trust the jury far more than yourself here.

        1. The math is crucial. Reputational damage is not just about the impact on today’s income. It also affects future income and thus the overall asset valuation of the business. It can be tremendously financially devastating.

          The number does smell to high. But Binion doesn’t nothing beyond looking at it as a lottery ticket.

        2. Not just one jury – there were two distinct juries. One for the trial, and a second one to assess the punitive damages.

          But, what do any of them know?

          1. It was the same jury. The difference is that in between, they were allowed to hear evidence concerning malice that would be considered prejudicial in determining actual damages but is important in determining punitive damages.

      4. The university consciously and with malice destroyed a family business, and ruined the reputations of innocent people. Maybe the university ought to mandate some “let’s not be stupid” training for their administrators? A university with a billion dollar endowment should think twice before engaging in a libelous (or is it slanderous?) public campaign against innocent people.

        Forty four million seems about right to me, maybe a bit on the low side.

      5. Disingenuous interpretation of your own article. You waited until the middle of the article to bring up the fact that this has nothing to do with free speech, after blathering on quoting other people about how horrible this is for free speech.

        If your supposed issue is with the amount awarded, you should have made that claim up front and defend it. Instead, you make the baseless claim without argument (other than “it violates state law!”) in the 3rd paragraph, then go on to parrot MANY other people about free speech (even though this has nothing to do with free speech), and you have the gall to draw a false equivalency between this and the to censorship of conservatives on college campuses.

        If this article was really about the damages being excessive – you buried the lede (you wait until paragraph 16 to even start on giving a reason why you think the damages are too much), gave one measly quote from Volokh and then acted like the law on the issue is where the conversation should end. At best its a poorly written article by an amateur journalist. At worst you are trying to deliberately re-frame this as a free speech issue (even when you know it isn’t) and then threw in the argument about the amount of the damages at the very end so you can hide behind it when we call you out.

        1. +1

          This should be embarrassing to any serious author.

        2. Scathingly accurate.

        3. Legal insurrection said that it is a soft cap which can be exceeded under certain circumstances.

          I see no reason not to believe them.

        4. +1

      6. What you explicitly say is that *Volokh* says libel laws are constitutional. You don’t say that at all. In fact, you present the “free speech” case that the students present in their bullshit student paper, without a word of comment. So no, we read the article, and found it wanting.

      7. I take issue, though, with the ludicrous punishment, which is certainly disproportionate to the damage caused

        Why don’t you show us how the 11M in damages was determined and which element you think clearly wrong? If we were all reasonable people I would find it astonishing someone could assert this without having the slightest clue how the damages were determined.

      8. This is not so different from suing a city when they have bad cops, though Oberlin has far more financial resources than most cities. It’s not out of line in that it’s gonna take a sun of that amount to get some change in how things are handled in campus.

        1. It’s very different. Putting taxpayers on the hook for the actions of public servants has never been something I’ve been comfortable with. There’s a lack of direct consequences in that situation.

          Putting a private college on the hook for the actions of its administrators? A no-brainer.

      9. $11 Million was the Compensatory Damage calculated. I don’t think that covered the physical harm to the owners son, or the owners father, who is disabled for the rest of his life as a result.

        Maybe you should read a little more, your defense of a riotous mob subsidized and weilded by a SJW lunatic Dean of Students is what is ludicrous.

        I can’t wait for the Covington Kids to get their payday

      10. “the ludicrous punishment, which is certainly disproportionate to the damage caused”

        Punitive damages, by definition, aren’t intended to be proportionate to damages caused. They’re intended to dissuade institutions from engaging in similar behavior in the future.

      11. hey, Billy, perhaps you should actually read the piece.

        Because it’s pretty clear that you haven’t.

        You specifically say that Oberlin puts up a free speech case, that conservatives and free speech advocates are abandoning their free speech stances <because it's convenient, and it’s Eugene, not you who states that libel laws are Constitutional.

        Never though I’d have to tell the columnist to RTFA

      12. I look at Oberlin’s resources, and wonder what the fuck you’re talking about.

        They can pay this easily. I fail to see the lack of proportion you seem to.

      13. Billy. How much do you think a business that employs dozens of employees is worth? The answer is, quite a bit. Given the sheer magnitude of this protest and the fact that their largest client, the Oberlin college itself, will obviously never do business with them again, the business is essentially destroyed and will need to be replaced from the ground up. They need to be compensated for the full value of the business as it was before the protests happened.

        Without being privy to their financials, I cannot tell you exactly, but $11 million is not an unreasonable valuation for a business of this size and age. This was what the jury found was the actual damages to the bakery. The number was tripled in punitive damages, as the jury thought that Oberlin’s actions were deliberate, malicious, openly false, and showed no regard for humanity. They determined this through a series of absurd internal e-mails and a defense that claimed the bakery was worth a paltry $35,000. Note: a broken, disheveled gas station in the middle of nowhere is worth more than that, as any university with a business college MUST know. That brazen act of perjury probably did as much damage to the university as anything else. This also is after the judge excluded the University’s message to the alumni made after their verdict declaring their innocence and all-but calling the jury stupid.

        The jury gave this judgement as a message, knowing that the statuatory maximum for punitive damages is double actual damages.

        1. “Note: a broken, disheveled gas station in the middle of nowhere is worth more than that, as any university with a business college MUST know.”

          Oberlin is an explicitly far left institution. They don’t have a business school. They don’t even have a business department within Arts and Sciences. I would be surprised if they even have one class that remotely resembles an actual business course.

      14. And, Billy, everyone here is explicitly saying that you’re an inferior thinker and writer who doesn’t deserve to be employed in a role that requires either.

        Learn to code.

      15. Perhaps you should actually read the piece. I explicitly say that libel laws are constitutional and, in my opinion, do not infringe on the First Amendment.

        By extension, you must agree that this case had nothing to do with the First Amendment, and therefore the free speech defense Oberlin used was irrelevant, and that conservatives who are pleased by the decision are not being ironic at all. Your article, however, doesn’t seem to suggest this, at all.

      16. Billy, here is something a real journalist would do. Read the actual calculation from the trial.

        I cannot find where the 11 million came from myself. This quote from the Bakery’s economist said 5.8 million in actual damages. Still, your claims that multiple millions is “patently absurd” shows willful ignorance. That is a cardinal sin of any journalist. You should consider yourself lucky if Reason does not hand you a pink slip over such a shoddy lack of attention to your primary job function.

        https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/05/gibsons-bakery-v-oberlin-college-trial-day-7-damages-expert-says-show-gibsons-the-money/

      17. “I take issue, though, with the ludicrous punishment, which is certainly disproportionate to the damage caused and exceeds limits set by state law.”

        I take issue with your pejorative, and point out that “punitive damages” are not intended to be related to the damage caused; they are intended to punish those found at fault to keep them and others from doing the same in the future.

      18. Billy… buy a dictionary, look up the word punitive.

  8. I live is a small town where the local state university is the biggest employer and provides the highest wages and best job security. It also swings a very large bat which it uses with little regard for the un-woke locals.
    I suspect that Oberlin may have a similar relationship with the townies who have used the courts to express their regards.

  9. Get woke, go broke.

    Good riddance

    1. Oberlin has an endowment in the neighborhood of $800 million-$1 billion. They’ll still be fine after a $33 million carve-off.

      1. A popular rule for figuring reasonable annual draw on an endowment is the “4% rule”. At that rate, their endowment is worth $32-40 million per year. A judgement of $33-44 million hurts pretty bad– as it should.

        1. Eh. Liability insurance will cover a big chunk of it. As an entity, they probably won’t feel it. But there will likely be a string of firings / reshufflings.

          1. No one will be fired. No one will be reassigned.
            There will be a large pity party, a major fundraising effort, and business as usual.
            Punitive damages should be assessed as a percentage of assets, to more evenly inflict punishment.

            1. “No one will be fired. No one will be reassigned.
              There will be a large pity party, a major fundraising effort, and business as usual.”

              If so, the award is not large enough.

          2. I seem to recall seeing some reports that the insurer is seeking to avoid payment. Primarily because this involved willful acts, but also because the defendants rebuffed the insurance companies legal efforts.

          3. On the contrary.

            “The Lexington policy does not provide coverage for “bodily injury” or “property damage” intentionally caused by defendants. While the Lexington policy potentially provides coverage in relation to “personal and advertising injury,” defined to include defamation and/or disparagement in certain circumstances, the Lexington policy excludes any such coverage if “personal and advertising injury” is caused “with the knowledge that the act would violate the rights of another … ,” or if the insured published material it knew to be false. Further, the Lexington policy provides coverage for punitive damages insurable by law, but only where the corresponding award of compensatory damages is also covered by the Lexington policy. In this action, plaintiffs Gibson Bros., Inc., Allyn Gibson, and David Gibson allege that defendants Oberlin and Ms. Raimondo published material that falsely characterized the bakery owned by plaintiffs (“Gibson’s”) as being a racist establishment. While such allegations potentially implicate “personal and advertising injury,” plaintiffs also alleged that the statements were published with malice, were intended to injure plaintiffs’ business reputation, and were part of a purported campaign to harm plaintiffs. If it is established that the defendants knew the alleged statements were false, or if the defendants knew their alleged acts would violate plaintiffs’ rights, the Lexington policy would exclude coverage for any resultant damage. Thus, Lexington seeks to intervene in order to submit jury interrogatories to determine the extent of the defendants’ knowledge in relation to the alleged publications.

            Further, the Lexington policy provides coverage for punitive damages only when the punitive damages are assessed relative to covered compensatory damages. Here, plaintiffs seek punitive damages for the claims of libel, tortious interference with contract, tortious interference with business, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and trespass. Only the libel claim is potentially embraced by the Lexington policy. Thus, Lexington seeks to intervene in order to submit jury interrogatories and instructions to determine what punitive damages, if any, correspond to each cause of action.”

          4. No. The insurance has said they will not pay.

          5. Most Liability Insurance policies explicitly exclude punitive damage awards. Some states (MN and ND for example) forbid punitive damage payments by an insurer. The idea being that punitive damages are to punish. If not borne by the offender, they fail in their purpose.

      2. Actually, Oberlin college is not in exceptionally good financial shape. While they do have an endowment of about $850 million, Only about $50 million constitutes funds that are not earmarked for specific spending. Further, Oberlin is presently operating at a financial deficit. That means that each year their tuition income and other income sources are not enough to offset their expenses, and they are running about a $10 million/year deficit. That is not sustainable. Further, this verdict will hurt their further contributions, and may negatively affect future enrollment numbers.

        Maybe this is what Oberlin college needs to wake up, and get its house in order. Gibson Bakery never received an apology from Oberlin, nor would Oberlin issue a statement that Gibson’s was not a racist establishment, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

        The fact of the matter is that the administration was in agreement with the student body, which was evidenced by their participation and encouragement. Terrible facts all the way around by truly dreadful, awful people.

        I’d like to think that Raimondo would get fired, but I won’t hold my breath.

        1. “Actually, Oberlin college is not in exceptionally good financial shape.”

          Excellent.

  10. It is also unsurprising that Volokh, a guy who has never ran a business or worked outside of academics in his life would find it hard to see how the destruction of a family business that took generations to build could be worth $11 million.

    If someone slander Volkh and made it impossible for him to make a living as law professor, would he find it hard to see how that could be worth $11 million?

    1. If someone slander Volkh and made it impossible for him to make a living as law professor, would he find it hard to see how that could be worth $11 million?

      Volokh has worked outside academics. However, never as owner and, as you point out, the business was multi-generational; slander Volokh’s kid, beat him up, ruin both their livings’, *then* see what the damages come to.

    2. And the $11 million wasn’t just for the business loss, but for “pain and suffering” as well.

      I don’t know what the business was exactly or how big, but I’d hazard a guess that $11 million would be a high price if the business were being sold. The jury wanted to punish Oberlin. Which seems reasonable to me.

      1. But it was also a business that had provided the primary family income since the 19th century and, presumably, could have survived until the current youngest generation was a great-grandfather himself. Something like that is very difficult to assess an actual value for. It’s somewhere between ‘what it is worth on the market right now’ and ‘priceless.’

    3. It’s not Volkh’s pain, therefore it’s worth much less to Volkh than Volkh’s pain would be.

    4. Hmmm. You think Dr. Volokh would take a $11 million payday to walk away from the law?
      I hope (selfishly) he wouldn’t, but I suspect he would.

  11. And once again, Reason puts a headline out there and then doesn’t actually back it up with an argument. Reason’s “argument” boils down to: yeah, Oberlin probably defamed the bakery, but $11 million is, like, a lot of money, bro.

    But they don’t really get around saying that until after several paragraphs of hand-waving and trying to maneuver around the fact that this is a defamation case, not a free speech case. I see that the Reason staff is desperate to stay in the good graces of the twitter activists. The staff that writes for this rag are a bunch of cowards.

    1. Defamation cases should be looked at as free speech cases, I think. Not to say that defamation should be protected as free speech, but it’s important to make sure the line is carefully drawn between protected speech and defamation/libel/slander. In this case I think the jury did well with that.

      1. Oh common, people that argue semantics are boring. I mean, I agree that technically this has something to do with free speech in the legal sense (as in, we have to determine that this is not free speech, and is indeed libel).

        But I will accept your “ackshually” on this.

        1. If we don’t argue semantics, we don’t know what each other is talking about. I’m not sure what you had in mind when you say “free speech case”. I interpret it to mean a case where freedom of speech is a relevant issue. And in any case where people may be punished for speaking or facilitating speech or other communication freedom of speech is something that must be considered.

          1. Oh, you didn’t know what I was talking about? You were confused, huh?

          2. I get what you are saying, and I agree with your argument about the semantics. But it still makes you boring, Zeb, especially when, given the context, I don’t believe that you are confused about what I am trying to say.

    2. “The staff that writes for this rag are a bunch of cowards.”

      That’s ‘assistant editor’ to you, bub.

      Of course, Binion is an assistant editor the same way the counter teller at the bank is an ‘assistant vice president.’

  12. The is not a criminal case so the punishment isn’t designed to fit the “crime” but the damage. The outcome was both to put the bakery out of business (it only survived because the owning family worked without pay – an unsustainable stopgap) and to ensure the accused could never find comparable employment again. That the damage seems disproportional to the events is the result of the students and school who intentionally made a mountain from less than a molehill.

    Since the disproportional response is their own why should the court protect them from its results?

    And treating this as anti-free speech? How absurd! Neither the students nor school made any effort to establish whether their charges of racism were true or not yet make the accusation to intentionally put them out of business. It’s classic libel.

  13. >Conservatives, of course, have often been the ones accusing liberal-leaning colleges of chilling free expression. Yet it was Oberlin that put up a First Amendment defense in court, usurping the right’s own logic to argue that a win for Gibson’s would be a sucker punch for free speech.

    There’s a big difference between outlawing an ever increasing list of words/ideas as “hate speech” and trying to defend libel as free speech. No “usurpation of logic” here. The University knowingly played an inappropriate role in sicking a progressive hate mob on a business to ruin it based on lies.

    This verdict may be stiff, but it is not an attack on the first amendment. Oberlin has shown such illiberal tendencies that I’m certainly not going to shed any tears for them.

    1. There’s a big difference between outlawing an ever increasing list of words/ideas as “hate speech” and trying to defend libel as free speech. No “usurpation of logic” here. The University knowingly played an inappropriate role in sicking a progressive hate mob on a business to ruin it based on lies.

      Reason Magazine: Free Markets And Free Markets Wet Roads Cause Rain.

    2. Honestly, lawsuits like this have been a MAJOR part of how the left has forced businesses and institutions to bend to their will… Perhaps sane people need to start fighting back via the same means now that the left is overreaching with their crazy.

  14. From what I understand, when the initial verdict came down, Oberlin administration and student representatives chose to insult the jury for ruling against them and generally showing that they had no understanding that their actions were in the wrong. This being before the jury was set to contemplate punitive damages. In other words, they acted like entitled moronic brats who could not even bring themselves to fake contrition to avoid having the book thrown at them

    Also, one of the demands to the bakery was to have any future shoplifting students turned over to the school for punishment of a crime rather than to law enforcement.

    1. > Also, one of the demands to the bakery was to have any future shoplifting students turned over to the school for punishment of a crime rather than to law enforcement.

      That in a nutshell is the core of the problem. College administrators have taken it on themselves to be the police, judge, and juror in an imagined jurisdiction. They’re play acting at being a government. It’s why microaggressions are now considered to be as serious as rape, and why actual violent rape carries the punishment of mere expulsion.

      It’s one thing to have a campus police force to deal with crime that happens on campus grounds. But this crime (shoplifting and assault) occurred OFF CAMPUS, and the administrators have the hubris to demand the suspects be turned over to them.

      1. “The defendants were given a good talking to, and got some salve for their injured knuckles.”

  15. Glad to see, once again, the readers here correcting some really, really poor reporting on the part of Reason.

    Its only a matter of time until they get rid of this comment section so they can protect their propaganda.

    1. You know who else got rid of the comment section?

      1. Almost all local newspapers.

      2. Vespasian?

        1. Add Justinian to the list too.

    2. Go read the “tariffs cost 40,000 beer jobs” disaster

  16. riots have been started over such false accusations so the punishment does fit the crime by the school and their students looking to signal their stupidity

    1. what happened to the part of my comment that stated “luckily no riots occurred in this case.”

  17. The article leaves out at least a couple of facts harmful to Oberlin that tend to take their behavior beyond free speech.

    At some point the Oberlin police gave the fake id the student used to the Oberlin college cops, presumably to allow the campus police to evaluate the case. When asked to return the fake id, the college refused to return it until administrators were threatened with prosecution for obstruction of justice.

    The decision to terminate the contract was ordered by Raimondo although it was outside her area of oversight. Oberlin’s long-time head of food services thought the decision so unjust that she took a leave of absence and ultimately early retirement.

    The university tried to leverage the contract suspension against Gibsons to force Gibsons to agree to call the college for every student’s first shoplifting offense rather than call the police. That would be 5000 get out of jail free cards, every year.

    Evidence was admitted that showed that Gibsons lost $500,000 per year in revenue as a result of the protests/boycott/contract termination. Put a 10x multiplier on that and you get $5 million in actual damages for loss of business. Add something for emotional distress (certainly it wasn’t zero) and $11 million in total actual damages doesn’t look that far out of line. As to punitive damages, nobody ever agrees on what those “should” be, but given the egregious conduct of the college administration, something above zero is certainly reasonable.

    1. As to punitive damages, nobody ever agrees on what those “should” be, but given the egregious conduct of the college administration, something above zero is certainly reasonable.

      I’d say a reasonable amount is whatever it takes to get the offending party to conclude that they’re never going to do that again.

      1. If the loser doesn’t beg for mercy, it wasn’t too much.

        If the loser scoffs and laughs and insults the winner, it wasn’t enough.

        1. So you’re saying I haven’t been hard enough on you SQRLSY.

    2. Consider that regardless of the outcome, they’ll never be able to run the business in that town again, at least not anywhere near that level. If they do clear $500k annually, the $11 million award might be low.

  18. So does this mean that Gibson Bakery now has a controlling interest in Oberlin College?

    Perhaps they could do something useful with that and start a Bakery Studies program; then the little ones could hope to graduate with a useful skill.

  19. Oh yeah, free speech absolutism until someone lies in a certain way and then we will bankrupt them. That’s just how free speech works.

    1. “until someone lies in a certain way”

      As in slander and libel, to the effect that the family business lost about $500,000 a year in revenue?

      Suppose I went around saying you molested children? Would that fall under your idea of “free speech absolutism?” I don’t think so.

      1. +100. Saying free speech equals the right to slander is like saying the right to keep and bear arms equals the right to commit armed robbery or assault with a deadly weapon.

        1. Can we agree that slander has to be a very limited and that this case pushed those boundaries into a free speech argument?

          1. No we can’t. The facts in this case absolutely support slander.

          2. We can agree that slander/libel are limited and that this case pushed into slander/libel territory and the damages are just & correct.

            1. I disagree.
              The college successfully destroyed a business.
              Eye-for-an-eye would be just and correct.

          3. If you want to agree with idiots you are free to agree with whatever you want Melvin.

        2. I had heard in the past some commentors argue that firing a gun randomly in a public space should carry no consequences if you do not actually hit anyone.

          Some libertarians have some difficulty with the responsibility face of the liberty coin.

          1. I have some sympathy for the “no harm, no foul” concept. However, it doesn’t take into consideration the related concept of “threat” — which I think can be defined as “imminent unavoidable harm”. I have just as much right to respond to a threat as I do to the harm itself, since I have no way of differentiating the two. If someone aims a gun at me, the consequences should be exactly the same as if carried out.

            Shoot a gun into the air, and everybody within range has every right to beat the shit out of you and arrest you.

            A bank robber whose note says “I have a gun” or whose gun is his finger in a picket has no right to expect any favors for not having a real gun or using a real gun.

          2. I had heard in the past some commentors argue that firing a gun randomly in a public space should carry no consequences if you do not actually hit anyone.

            I can quote fringe people and paint them as the mainstream on your side too.

            1. Do it!

          3. I had heard in the past some commentors argue that firing a gun randomly in a public space should carry no consequences if you do not actually hit anyone.

            How exactly is that a comparable analogy, considering the property theft, assault, loss of business, and reputation damage that took place here?

          4. Some libertarians also like to do thought experiments and take devil’s advocate positions to test the libertarian ethical system.

            1. People who claim they are playing the Devil’s advocate are rarely -if ever- playing.

              1. Well, then they aren’t playing devil’s advocate.

                1. No they’re just boring equivocators.

        3. Exactly

      2. Fair enough. But libel should be a fringe case that is very difficult to prove. This case is far from meeting those conditions and sets a poor precedent in my opinion.

        1. Bullshit, This is a textbook case of lible. The university said the bakery had a long history or racial profiling and that it targeted and had its students arrested for no reason other than them being black. The truth was it had no history of racial profiling and the students were caught shoplifting and later pleaded guilty. That is slander. This is not a poor precident at all.

          1. The student protesters said that the bakery had a history of racial profiling, not the university. And I can just as easily understand this to be a case of stupidity and misinformation as I can it being intentional defamation. Maybe the professor believed that the bakery was racist from what she was told. I will do some reading about libel cases though to see what I’m missing.

            1. The university distributed flyers and assisted the protestors. They also stopped doing business with the bakery.

              1. The university can associate themselves with student activities and of course they can choose who to do business with. They have to prove, however, that the university purposefully lied with malicious intent.

                1. And they did prove that. Read Romando’s emails.

                  1. I will do that

                2. “”The university can associate themselves with student activities and of course they can choose who to do business with”‘

                  And if they actively assist with libel, they can be punished for it.
                  If the university would not have aided with the libel, they could not have been sued.

                  1. In my opinion, they can buy pizza for the idiot students but they can’t show dishonest intent. Like they can support activism of any kind from a neutral position.

                    1. And if they bought pizza for the university KKK chapter planning to go lynch somebody?

                    2. That isn’t exactly what I would call peaceful protest

                    3. So if its “peaceful” the university can support any activism they want with no responsibilities, up to and including defamation and/or incitement, but if its violent then the university bears responsibility?
                      The actions of the university would be the same in each instance, it’s the actions of the demonstrators that varies.
                      It seems like you’re saying that peaceful demonstration that doesn’t include defamation is legally the same as demonstration that consists of defamation regarding lack of university responsibility, but violent demonstration confers responsibility on the university – despite the university taking the exact same actions in each scenario

                  2. No, I do not think they have a legal right to knowingly support defamation.

        2. ‘But libel should be a fringe case that is very difficult to prove.’
          It is.

          ‘This case is far from meeting those conditions..’
          It is not.

        3. The jury thinks they proved the case, and I guarantee the jury knew more of the facts than you know.

          1. Low bar

        4. Are you Jeff’s retarded sock?

      3. Oh, like accusing ChemJeff and Palin’s Buttplug of being child molesters? Or maybe you’re referring to the way right wing media and other organizations accuse abortion doctors of murder and harass their businesses for years enough to incite murder and terrorist attacks?

        1. Palin’s buttplug got banned for posting instructions for accessing child porn on the dark web. It is what it is.

        2. Oh, like accusing ChemJeff and Palin’s Buttplug of being child molesters?

          Oh no, a couple of random internet commenters with anonymous handles were accused of being pedophiles! (PS–in chemjeff’s case, it was arguing that immigrant child molesters were having their liberties squelched if the US didn’t automatically let them in when they sought asylum. A child molester getting necked by his third-world banana republic government is none of our concern. And shriek admitted that he was banned, before turning around and claiming that he wasn’t.)

          Or maybe you’re referring to the way right wing media and other organizations accuse abortion doctors of murder and harass their businesses for years enough to incite murder and terrorist attacks?

          Murder and terrorist attacks aren’t illegal?

        3. Can you substantiate any actual harm to “ChemJeff” or “Palin’s Buttplug”?

          Because – the the idiotic title of this article not withstanding – none of this involves criminal law, so there must be actual damages for any of it to matter.

          1. Jeff was asked to move to the back of his 8th grade class for saying stupid shit. So some harm.

        4. Jeff wants to import child rapists.

          Watch him balk when asked to link to that conversation.

          Screech.

          1. It’s cool.
            I have it saved on my computer.
            Next time I’m on my laptop, rather than my phone, reading Reason I’ll post it

        5. right wing media and other organizations accuse abortion doctors of murder and harass their businesses for years enough to incite murder and terrorist attacks

          I don’t think that abortion should be illegal where a majority of the citizens find it reasonable.

          However, a growing fetus is not a ‘potential’ life, like an unfertilized chicken egg. Given almost no extra care whatsoever by the host, it will eventually become a fully-formed human. Calling the deliberate act of terminating an unborn human murder is not unreasonable. It is certainly not libel or slander.

          It may not be long before we perfect the technology of an artificial womb. At the point where a fetus can be transplanted from an unwilling host, what is and what is not a ‘viable’ human will be very important legal distinction. It will be a lot harder to justify not calling it murder to terminate a non-parasitic fetus.

    2. Oh yeah, free speech absolutism until someone lies in a certain way and then we will bankrupt them.

      And?

      Also be aware that if your “lying in a certain way” causes someone to get killed, we may even lock you in a cage for it. I’m not entirely sure how long you’ve been interacting with people, but sometimes they can be funny like that.

      1. Ok but you have to admit that this isn’t a cut and dry issue when considering free speech. It just seems so easy for this precedent to be expanded far past these marginal cases.

        1. “this isn’t a cut and dry issue when considering free speech.”

          You need to explain your reasoning for this assertion. To me, the actions of Oberlin have nothing to do with free speech.

          1. Well because people lie all the time and if it becomes easy to prove that lies negatively effect others than defamation can easily be used as a tool of suppression.

            1. Well because people lie all the time and if it becomes easy to prove that lies negatively effect others than defamation can easily be used as a tool of suppression.

              Are you suggesting we have a dearth of advertising and/or creative or biased reporting in our society because both journalists and salespeople are too scared that they might get caught up in a lie? That there are a host of people walking the street homeless who would be middle Americans if only our laws against fraud and defamation weren’t so oppressive?

              1. Well no, it doesn’t seem so bad now. I am, however, a little worried that these laws could extend to set that sort of precedent in the future (maybe not to that extent though).

                1. Seems unlikely. You haven’t offered up anything to show that this would happen, so your argument is unconvincing.

                  I’m more worried about telling huge multi-million institutions that they have free reign to defame whomever they please. But I suppose you’re on the side of large multi-million organizations and I’m on the side of individuals just trying to live their lives. It is what it is.

                  1. You haven’t added anything except for your bad faith comment which I won’t indulge.

                    1. I’m demanding you add something to back up your claim. The fact that you won’t isn’t my problem, and just shows the rest of the commenters here that you are concern trolling.

                      My job is done I suppose, unless you are actually a lot less shallow than you make yourself out to be.

                    2. Yeah I’m pushing some buttons a bit, but I got a much firmer response on this issue than I expected. No hard feelings.

                    3. You’re only pushing buttons by repeatedly posting about how concerned you are without offering up a reason for that concern – nothing about how this decision could be applied in future situations that would be cause for your concern.

                      You would be pushing a whole lot less buttons if you actually gave some reasoning behind your concern. The fact that you don’t, but you keep repeating the “I’m concerned” bit, makes you look like a disingenuous troll.

                    4. I think it’s more uninformed and less ‘trolling’. I wasn’t trying to be disingenuous to begin with. And hey, libel has held up to my superficial 1a argument so that’s good news.

                    5. Fair enough, I’ll take you at your word.

            2. Oberlin college is not a person simply fiibbing a bit. Oberlin controls that town. They consciously lied and destroyed a family’s livelihood. Oberlin is powerful, the Gibson family is not. And they did their best to stoke racial resentment. Oberlin was malicious.

              The harm done by Oberlin, and by the left media against Nick Sandman, harms the country at least as much as it does the innocent victims of their lies. The left is determined to make Americans hate each other for our skin color. The media is filled with inane stories along the lines of “white woman calls police on black families having a barbeque”. These “stories” are not news, they are morality plays highlighted for the ugly purpose of stoking racial resentment.

            3. That’s the whole idea, to suppress people from harming others with deliberate lies.

              See: Covington Catholic

        2. I don’t think it’s setting precedent (the double-damages cap didn’t appear out of nowhere) and, considering Oberlin has an $880M endowment and that it’s not unlikely that they could pick up an angel donor who thinks they did no wrong, the situation is not as dire as you claim.

          1. Maybe not. The jury is still out on libel laws for me though. Need to do some reading.

            1. The NAP requires doing no harm. Lying about a crime and driving a family business into ruin is harm.

              If the university’s agents had said “the owners don’t believe in the tooth fairy” (or even “the owners believe in the tooth fairy”), there would have been no financial harm to speak of.

              Both are lies, Can you not see the difference?

              Harm has consequences.

              1. But it was one professor at the university and the harm was done by the student protesters regardless. Just seems like an over-correction. Also, I do see the difference in your rather condescending argument. Good faith arguments only from me.

                1. Concern trolling only from you.

                2. But it was one professor at the university and the harm was done by the student protesters regardless

                  It wasn’t just a professor, it was the Dean of Students, and the harm was enabled by her, as a representative of the university, through the stoking of mob action.

                  1. Damn it was the dean. My bad. Thought it was just a tenured professor stoking activism like usual. I will continue to rethink my position on this one.

            2. I am, however, a little worried that these laws could extend to set that sort of precedent in the future (maybe not to that extent though).

              This is always the case and I think it’s pretty clear or decided that a decision the other way as precedent or case law would be worse.

              It could be an example and it could proliferate. However, if Liebeck v. McDonalds is any indication, Oberlin College will still be encouraging students to shoplift and shout ‘Racists!’ at local businesses for decades to come.

              1. But that happens all the time and very few defendants have become exceedingly rich

                1. That’s kinda the idea. The justice system isn’t there to catch and fine every McDonald’s employee who heats coffee past 180°F, it’s there to punish larger institutions when they offend repeatedly and flagrantly.

                  It may not be the best form of justice, but the alternatives such as more frequent and lower-level punishments or simply allowing it all to happen aren’t much more just.

                  1. Well I guess so. It’s better than a fine paid to the Feds anyway.

            3. Bet your jury would come back posthaste if you were actually libeled.

              1. Only if there was profit to be had.

        3. Melvin, you’re defending oberlin ablotnfor someone who admits they are ignorant about the case. Stop being a Jeff.

          1. Hey! Be careful with your Jeff comparisons. I don’t want anyone getting any ideas.

    3. Oh yeah, free speech absolutism until someone lies in a certain way and then we will bankrupt them. That’s just how free speech works.

      Getting hit with a lawsuit is far preferable to the victimized party shooting you in the face.

      And Oberlin isn’t getting “bankrupted.” They have an endowment of at least $800 million. $33 million isn’t going to cause long-term harm, although they’ve done enough in this particular case that the town itself might start treating them like pariahs.

      1. Okay maybe this punishment is scaled to a wealthy institution. I just hope it sends the right message and doesn’t dissuade peaceful protest. Hopefully, next time the students can get the facts straight.

        1. Hopefully next time the university won’t lie and won’t encourage the students to lie.

          1. Absolutely on the lying part. I’m fine with the university supporting activism from a position of honesty.

  20. Where’s the shit heel Kirkland at? Here we have a private university, founded by Presbyterian Ministers getting it’s comeuppance and he’s decided to skip out on his usual schtick of reminding us how only retards at private Christian universities would be stupid enough not to just accept PC culture?

    1. He shat up the Roundup section with his usual NPC bot remark this morning. He’s not coming close to this one.

    2. Ouachita Baptist really shat the bed again

    3. Progressives don’t consider Presbyterians to be Christians.

      1. Sure they do, they’re the “good” kind of Christian, like Mr. By-ends from Pilgrim’s Progress.

        1. Sure they do, they’re the “good” kind of Christian

          The Unitarian Christian Church in my town has a banner with “Pride” spelled out in rainbow letters.

          Some others have quotes about love and all of God’s children and that makes sense to me, but the Unitarian *Christian* Church has decided to put, arguably, *the* mortal sin up as its literal banner for at least this month.

          1. Unitarians aren’t Christian, for the mere fact that they practice religious relativism and cleave to worldly fashions of what is “good.”

            1. Unitarians aren’t Christian, for the mere fact that they practice religious relativism and cleave to worldly fashions of what is “good.”

              I always understood Unitarians to be more liberal and don’t consider conservatism to be a defining or intrinsic characteristic of Christianity but, yeah, when you’re celebrating pride about vices, you’re no longer Christian and rather overtly/defensibly anti-Christian.

        2. They’re also the kind of Christians with empty parking lots on Sunday mornings.

    4. Don’t speak the demon’s name lest you invoke it,

  21. perhaps it’s time that expectations are recalibrated on both sides of the debate, so that petty crimes don’t automatically elicit cries of racism, and so that those cries aren’t met with ludicrous punishments.

    GTFO with this measured response bullshit!

    1. The cries of racism erupt because of the bizarre logic of SJW theory that punishing a black person for a crime that person was caught committing is racism. You cannot rationally deal with such an absurd belief.

      1. It’s clearly racism to expect a black student to be punished for shoplifting.

      2. They were just collecting reparations.

        1. To drown the sorrows of racism?

  22. “a RACIST establishment with a LONG ACCOUNT of RACIAL PROFILING and DISCRIMINATION,”

    It’s true. Expecting people to be 21 to buy liquor is discriminatory and asking them to not steal is racist AF.

    1. Even though the parities in question admitted to shoplifting, and were in fact beating up the white store employee, Oberlin saw this as on opportunity to signal their mighty virtue on a small business, which they likely saw as both convenient and an easy target. The fact that it completely blew up in their faces is just priceless. Now of course the administration is doubling down on how right they are [by virtue of being academic and socially superior, I suppose] and all the while hoping they don’t get canned for this outlandish stunt that is literally costing the school millions.

      1. Doubling down on their stupidity is expected behavior at this point, but I doubt anyone will get canned. Based on the doubling down I doubt that anyone affiliated with the college at all will ever accept any amount of responsibility. I suspect they’ll use this incident as a springboard to victimhood.

        1. Sadly you are most likely correct; I was no doubt applying the rules of my world, knowing full well it just doesn’t work that way in never land. They will indeed be the victims for trying to do the “right thing” by alleging racism where it did not exist and slandering a mall townie business.

    2. Expecting them to have an ID is racist, per voting law logic.

      1. As is expecting them not to steal.

        Seems a little bit backwards.

      2. Yeah, they would have accepted a fake ID from a white student.

        1. I thought I was joking when I posted the above comment, but after further reading about the protests, I’ve found that the student protesters actually did allege that Gibson’s routinely allowed white students to shoplift and accepted fake IDs from them, while routinely calling the police on Black shoplifters and underage alcohol purchasers, and this was the basis of their accusation of a “LONG ACCOUNT of RACIAL PROFILING and DISCRIMINATION”. They were demanding that Black students be allowed to steal from the store and buy alcohol under age just like the white students.

          1. What if a white student uses a black fake ID?
            What if a black student uses a white fake ID?

            Did they even test their hypothesis???

            1. What if a white male student uses a Black female’s ID?

              1. Well that’s just ludicrous now

              2. It depends on how the student “identifies.”

          2. It was shown at trial that the shooting arrest record for the store marched racial population percentages. Oberlins trespassing list was majority black though.

            1. The “safety” of white women trumps racial fairness for Black men in progressive priorities, though you’ll never hear them admit it.

            2. “Shooting arrest record”??? I _hope_ that’s Autocorrect!

              Out of 40 arrests for shoplifting at Gibson’s bakery, 32 were white and 33 were Oberlin students. Any would-be SJW with _any_ interest in the truth could have easily determined that Gibsons was aggressive towards shoplifters but certainly wasn’t targeting blacks.

              And Oberlin College may not have been able to precisely determine the numbers from their own records, but could clearly see that the vast majority of students arrested for shoplifting at Gibsons were white. Yet their officials implicitly endorsed the lie about racism by barring the cafeteria from buying baked goods from Gibsons, and by allowing the use of college facilities to spread the lie. The college directly spread this lie by the Dean of Students materially assisting in the protest and handing out lying leaflets herself.

              A leftist professor doing this would be nothing remarkable, but the Dean of Students can be assumed to speak and act for the college unless the college acts to disown her words and actions. But in fact, they supported them, and still did _after_ losing the trial.

              But it’s worse than that: 33 out of 40 thieves apprehended were Oberlin students. Unless there is some reason that it was much easier for student thieves to target Gibsons than townie thieves, that means that most of the thieves in town were students. Either Oberlin somehow gave (mostly white and upper-middle class) thieves an advantage when selecting them from the applications, or it was encouraging it’s students to steal – even before the Dean of Students went all out with supporting a protest that basically said that busting a thief who happens to be black is worse than violent theft.

              If they’d fired the Dean of Students, tried to damp down the student activists, published the truth about the arrests, and returned to buying Gibson’s products, the college would have been responsible only for part of the damages. As it is, they supported the lie, supported their insanely socialist Dean, and acted to increase the damages – and they deserve to pay for every cent of damages, and all the punitive damages the law allows. I only regret that the officials responsible aren’t directly responsible for paying the first part of the award out of their own salaries, savings, retirement account, homes, and cars.

  23. Where is reason getting these guys? Libel is free speech now? Intentionally interfering with prospective economic advantage via libel is ok? This was the intentional and wanton destruction of the livelihood of a bunch of innocent people. Oberlin got off easy, frankly.

    1. Now do medical clinics that provide reproductive services for women.

      1. You again with this exceptional idiocy?

      2. Try to bring up something totally irrelevant because the current topic makes you feel uncomfortable.

        1. It’s analogous conduct. Deep right-wing pockets incite mobs, slander doctors and interfere in lawful business practices.

          1. You have an inability to discuss the issue at hand.

          2. There are no mobs. They can’t enter the clinic, like the protestors entered the bakery. They even have to stay X number of feet away.

            You see anti-abortion “mobs” on fictional TV shows. You don’t see them in real life.

            And, Mr Orwell, there are no “reproductive services” being provided, as the services eliminate the offspring

          3. Call me when they go inside the clinic and start interfering, like the SJW mob did with Gibson’s. Until then, STFU, slaver.

  24. I don’t see how $11 million dollars damages for a slander that made the business the target of activists and basically ruined their reputation and the business’ reputation is ludicrous punishment. A simple present value of money calculation tells you that $11 million dollars is worth about $300,000 a year in lost revenue, assuming a 3% return on investment. That doesn’t seem outragious at all.

    1. And with an $880M endowment and 350ish employees, $33M in punitive damages doesn’t seem too excessive. If the endowment eats half or more and the rest is divided among the employees equally it’s something like $50K per. Obviously, the janitors shouldn’t have their wages garnished to the tune of $50K over this but it’s up to Oberlin to figure out how much hits the endowment and who should be shitcanned for it.

      I think it would, obviously, make more sense to wrangle it back to the $22M already allowed under the law, but still, not an unfathomably excessive amount of money or one that will likely destroy the institution.

      Just imagine if pre-2016 Trump had done something like this. Would $44M or $33M be excessive?

  25. There are two important facts that I don’t see mentioned in this piece but that I’ve read about elsewhere:

    1) “Oberlin’s dean of students, Meredith Raimondo, handed out a flier accusing Gibson’s of having a “long account of racial profiling and discrimination.”

    2) “Administrators told them they’d reinstate the catering contract if they dropped charges against the three shoplifting students and promised to contact the school, not police, if other students stole from their store in the future.”

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/oberlin-pays-for-smearing-the-town-grocer-11560294176?

    So, from an objective standpoint, it appears that the jury inflicted punitive damages against Oberlin because university officials circulated lies about the owners of the bakery and, meanwhile, wanted them to become contractually obligated to not call the police on future shoplifters in exchange for taking off the pressure.

    The university officials in question should be investigated for extortion, which is a criminal charge. No, the First Amendment doesn’t protect your freedom to violate other people’s rights with your speech any more than the Second Amendment protects your freedom to violate other people’s rights with your gun. I hope someone has subpoenaed the Oberlin officials’ emails to see if there is any evidence of a conspiracy to commit extortion.

    1. P.S.

      My understanding is that Ohio law limits punitive damages to twice the amount of compensatory damages, in which case the $33 million in punitive damages should be reduced to $22 million on appeal.

      In regards to the $11 million in compensatory damages, paying the business owner some multiple of lost revenue (not profit but revenue) seems perfectly appropriate. When you buy or sell a business, it’s typically at some multiple of earnings–just like a p/e ratio on the stock market.

      If the business can only be sold for substantially less today than it was before their revenues fell because of the libel, then that amount needs to be added to whatever compensation they should get for lost revenue and whatever other damages they suffered as a result.

      1. As someone that does corporate acquisitions for a living. I attest to the fact that what Ken says regarding multiples & valuations is true.

    2. Yeah, this isn’t even close to a free speech issue.

  26. An important point here that a lot of people – including the students, based on their editorial – seem to be missing. Oberlin wasn’t punished for the speech of its students, even though that speech was arguably both slanderous and libelous. The judge was pretty damn careful about limiting testimony as to the behavior of Oberlin students.

    The university was punished for the behavior of its administrators. If you go read about the testimony at the trial, the documented behavior of Oberlin’s administration was waaaay over the line. Had they decided to simply be neutral, or to work behind the scenes to try to reduce tensions, we wouldn’t be talking about this verdict today because it never would have happened.

    1. Yep, your administrators are agents of the institution. If Google Managers were acting on behalf of the company, then Google is liable for their actions.

    1. I think they should have made the Dean be the baker’s butler.

  27. But in a stunning rebuke to Oberlin, the jury placed another $33 million in punitive damages on top of that, meant to penalize the college for its conduct.

    “Get Woke, Lose $44 Million In Compensatory Damages” doesn’t have the same ring as “Get Woke, Go Broke”, but it works for me.

  28. Oberlin College and its students, on the other hand, framed the decision as a threat to free speech, writing that the ruling has “profoundly disturbing implications” for the First Amendment in an editorial for The Oberlin Review.

    Oh NOW it’s a first amendment issue. Fuck off.

    1. Oh NOW it’s a first amendment issue. Fuck off.

      Borders on speech are just imaginary lines, man! Speech should be open to everyone!

    2. It’s like predestination. Islamic terrorists yell “Allah Akbar” before they attack, in part, because they’re saying that God wouldn’t let me do this in his name if it wasn’t his will. Muslims generally believe in predestination. God doesn’t reject you because you eat pig; you eat pig because God rejected you–before you were born! To think that you choose to do other than God’s will is blasphemy. You are not powerful enough to go against God’s will. You cannot escape sin by your choices. The problem isn’t what you choose. The problem is who you are.

      The Westboro Baptist Church believes in predestination, too, and comes to similar conclusions as ISIS for that reason. Protesting the funerals of fallen soldiers with signs that read, “Thank God for Dead Soldiers” is all about predestination. God is all powerful. If he didn’t want that soldier to die, nothing in the world could kill him. God must want the Westboro Baptist Church to protest that funeral, too, otherwise God wouldn’t have sent them there! I’m not sure it’s the predestination that has the effect. I think it’s the lack of uncertainty that the predestination engenders. Once you know you’re right, everything else becomes a means to an end.

      I see the same kind of behavior from social justice warriors. Once they know they’re right, it doesn’t matter how they get there. If it’s anti-racist, then they’re right to do what they do. Pro-free speech or anti-free speech, what’s the difference so long as it’s anti-racism? Uncertainty and justifications aren’t even on the menu. If you’re planning to do whatever’s necessary in order to stop racism, you have to know that you’re right. If you think racists might have free speech rights, then you’re not just part of the problem. You’re the enemy.

      1. Interesting insight Ken, might also explain why otherwise devoutly anti-religious leftists are able to make common cause with Islamic extremists.

        They all certainly have a different understanding of free will and how it relates to personal responsibility and liberty.

        1. Islam is a progressive religion – remake Man through central planning to “correct” nature, based on strict classifications of identity.
          Ken hits the nail on the head with his observations about predestination.

          1. Further, radical leftism has been allied with Islamism since the 60s (see the Marxists and Palestinians).

            The fundamental structure of Islamism is the same as that of Leftism/Progressivism. They differ only in superficialities

            1. “They differ only in superficialities.”

              Yes, I am certain that is how the non-religious progressives/leftists see it. But I doubt that sincere/devout Islamists would make the same assertion.

              Which does indicate an asymmetry in the relationship, if nothing else.

              1. I’d think the vast majority of progressives are willfully blind or don’t think about the fundamental sameness with Islam. Progressives like to think of fascism, communism, social democracy, democratic socialism, Islamism as fundamentally different – but all are just types of progressivism.
                And progressivism depends on a superficial perspective. Seeing patterns and structures, deeper meaning must be suppressed – lest fundamental inconsistency be exposed. Fascism and islamism can somewhat avoid this, as they’re not based upon “altruism”.
                For this reason, and what you mention, Islamism will win out over global socialism.
                For now they are allies, each side thinking they’re using the other. But if they succeed, Islamism will go on to become the dominant force in the world. Say what you will about it otherwise, Islamism is principled and uncompromising. Global socialism of the West is composed of weak and petty people

                1. “Global socialism of the West is composed of weak and petty people”

                  You left out preening. But otherwise yes, that is mostly true. Unfortunately, in totalitarian crowds, there also tend to be a small but significant number of ruthless and iron willed people. The sorts who would have no qualms about resorting to eliminating opposition by any means necessary. If that means ‘finally waking up to a ‘religious’ menace’ then so be it.

                  Islam’s principle and lack of compromise is ultimately a weakness in that sweepstakes.

                  1. My prediction is that the Merkel types will convert.
                    The Soroses of the global socialist world on the other hand…

  29. Tough shit. Oberlin should’ve settled instead of rolling the dice with the jury.

    1. You make a great point. If Oberlein had seen the damage they had caused and done the right thing and tried to settle and make the bakery whole, they could have avoided a lot of expense. But they didn’t do that. So, they can now live with the verdict of the jury.

    2. All they had to do to “settle” was to retract libelous statements.

      This is 100% their bed they are laying in

    3. If we want to go with should’ve, they should’ve have stayed out of it.

  30. Based on the awards in the “Roundup” cases, where no actual damage is even proved * , the amounts seem obscenely light. I would have preferred punitive damages of 45% of all endowment funds, 100% inflation adjusted replacement of business income in perpetuity, and firing of all involved administrators and faculty. But, in full disclosure, I am a mean old man.

    * One ‘study’, of questionable content from a corrupt UN agency, against multiple more rigorous scientific studies. “I used Roundup, I have cancer. No need to prove causation, just give me a bazillion dollars”

    1. The actual award was going to be limited by state law regardless; like the Gawker case, the jury was pissed off enough to send the defendants a message about institutional responsibility. They set it just high enough that Oberlin has a more difficult case of claiming that it’s strictly punitive, but not too low that it won’t send a message.

      Progressives being who they are, they appear to not be getting it. They should just take the L and move on, but they seem to determined to ruin their reputation within the town even more than they already have.

  31. “…an employee at Gibson’s Bakery saw an Oberlin student swipe several bottles of wine from the establishment.” No. Swipe is something you do at the checkout stand. They stole the wine.

    1. Funny thing about words is that sometimes they can have more than one meaning.

      1. And sometimes different words have the same basic meaning, but with significantly different shades of meaning, so that a statement can be slanted without being false by choosing words carefully. Such as, when and act of stealing is subtly minimized by calling it “swiping” instead.

  32. We’Re lIbErTaRiAns!

  33. Why Billy, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world… but for Reason?

  34. Damn Billy, that’s a lot of brown on your nose. Seriously, did you graduate at Oberlin or something? At every step of the way Gibson’s was reasonable, even offering to drop the lawsuit for a public apology, and at every step of the way, Oberlin kept digging a deeper hole. Even after being found in the wrong, and knowing they’d have to go before the same jury the next week to decide punishment payouts, Oberlin made the brilliant decision to release an email basically saying “don’t worry, just because the judge and jury are idiots doesn’t mean we aren’t morally right on this issue”. Oberlin deserves the full $44m, if nothing else then as a wake up call.

  35. Seriously, did you graduate at Oberlin or something?

    He went to UVA which brings great potential for mockery with the Erdely Rape Hoax. How do you suppose he blames both sides for that?

    1. Maybe he raped someone while he was there

      *note: I didn’t say he definitely did rape someone, as that would be libelous. Though, since Billy is a public figure, I guess if I left out the word ‘definitely’ but still said he raped someone, it wouldn’t be actionable since I don’t know that he didn’t rape someone…

  36. Yes, there is a limit to the amount of punitive damages that can be awarded, BUT it should be noted that according to Ohio Revised Code 2315.21 (F):
    If the trier of fact is a jury, the court shall not instruct the jury with respect to the limits on punitive or exemplary damages pursuant to division (D) of this section, and neither counsel for any party or a witness shall inform the jury or potential jurors of those limits.
    So the jury came up with the figure completely by their own accounting, clearly sending a message.

    1. Precisely, caps are in place to limit the top end of a punitive damages award, but the legislature didn’t want juries deciding on — or lawyers to argue — the specific award based on some percentage of the damages allowed under the cap. This isnt the type of case — a business as the plaintiff — that the legislature was probably thinking about. And, no doubt, Oberlin didn’t think its conduct could be tortious.

  37. Not a bad article for the Op Ed section of your local newspaper.

  38. $44 million in damages, for the ‘crime’ of printing fliers on University copiers?

    You’re kidding right? Even if the fliers were libelous, how could those fliers possibly have accounted for $11 million in economic damages to the bakery? How much does it gross in a year anyway?

    1. Hey fuckwit, if you read the thread, or understood finances at all, you’d have your answer. It was broken down, with reasonable assumptions, several times. Be ignorant harder.

      Let me be the first to say though that not one single person is surprised that your ignorant ass is slurping this steaming pile of article.

    2. “$44 million in damages, for the ‘crime’ of printing fliers on University copiers?”

      And no fuckhole, Oberlin did far more than that. You are literally showcasing your ignorance.

      Now fuck off Melvin.

    3. I agree, it should have been more.

      1. For printing flyers? You’re kidding right?

        1. Are you really this insistent on being ignorant? Have some god damned dignity Jeff. You entire ass is showing right now.

        2. Here Jeff. Because you’re lazy and insist on remaining stupid.

          “NashTiger
          June.24.2019 at 12:46 pm
          They bought pizza for the protestors. They bought gloves for the protestors. They let them use a University building (Music Conservatory) as protest HQ.
          The Dean of Students got a bullhorn and led the protests. The University published and spread False information. Professors let protestors skip class. Faculty who objected were threatened, and internal emails showed that the Dean of Students wanted to turn the mob on them, a la Evergreen State.

          Not directly the University’s fault, but protestors also went to the home of the 92 year old father of the current owner and beat on his doors and windows, causing him to fall and almost die. He wears a cervical collar for the rest of his life and can’t look up.”

          That isn’t an exhaustive list.

          But it puts the pin in your fucking retarded claim that Oberlin was only” printing fliers” you fucking moron.

          1. Your citation is missing.

            1. There’s a twitter thread by Legal Insurrection where they tweeted out a series of information directly from court transcripts. See if this link works for you, so you can become educated on the actual events that took place in this case:

              https://tinyurl.com/y3bkwf8x

              1. Well, your link of course gives an anti-Oberlin view of things.

                It does seem like Oberlin’s complicity in the actual libel part of things hinges on Raimondo handing out a flyer to a reporter, and Raimondo using a bullhorn once for a purpose that is disputed.

                It would be difficult to imagine how buying pizza for the students could be considered libelous.

                So if you think that those actions merit a $44 million judgment, then yeah I’m gonna question that.

                1. You’re still ignoring facts, and are human garbage.

                  1. “They let them use a University building (Music Conservatory) as protest HQ.”

                    Let’s ignore that too Jeff.

                    1. “Local reporter testified Raimondo tried to block him from taking photos of protest and handed him flyer accusing Gibson’s of racial profiling ”

                      “Raimondo testified she didn’t know if racial profiling accusations true”

                      “Former Oberlin College security director was at protest and testified college admins not trying to calm things down and college admin tried to intimidate him into not taking photos”

                      “Internal emails are big part, including Raimondo’s “unleash the students” and “fuck him” (directed at retired prof defending Gibsons) ”

                      ” African-American bakery employee denied racism, said Raimondo “orchestrating” protest and flyer distribution “She had a stack of them and while she was talking on the bullhorn, she handed out half of them to a student who then went and passed them out.”

                      It goes on and on you fucking idiot.

                      When you ask for a link, don’t pull a Jeff and pretend you read it. ACTUALLY read it Jeff.

                    2. Jeff the idiot “there is no evidence Oberlin was involved”

                      Gets evidence

                      Jeff the idiot “I’ll need a citation”

                      Gets exhaustive citation from A Thinking Mind

                      Jeff the idiot “Well, that court provided testimony and exhaustive evidence is skewed anti-Oberlin, so I reject it”

                      The entire world “Yes Jeff, we knew you would do that, because you’re a fucking clown”

                2. “Well, your link of course gives an anti-Oberlin view of things.”

                  Hey dumbass, the jury, with all the original documents and testimony, didn’t think so.

                  But go ahead, after advertising that you were utterly ignorant, double down and ignore the evidence because it makes your assertions look moronic.

                3. I understand that there is some troll trying to bait me for some more of his attention whoring. I am not interested in playing his narcissistic games today. Perhaps if he says something intelligent worth responding to, I might. But that hasn’t happened yet.

                  1. I’m sorry you look like a stupid asahole for ignoring evidence that doesn’t adhere to your preferred outcome.

                    Again. Like you always do.

            2. “Your citation is missing.”

              The kind of disingenuous bullshit you get from the postmodern left.

              He doesn’t say it’s false. He doesn’t offer evidence that it’s false. He just invites you to waste your energy shoveling more facts in his face.

              Facts he will only ignore and deny when you provide them.

        3. They were actively helping to distribute those fliers that contained false claims. There were active elements at Oberlin who thought administration should be trying to defuse the situation, but they were overruled by the Dean of Students who thought escalation was more appropriate, even when she could not knowingly attest to whether Gibsons’ Bakery was engaging in racist conduct.

          Gibsons’ even offered to settle the lawsuit if the University was willing to backtrack and offer a public apology. The University refuse to apologize. They also tried to armtwist the bakery into agreeing to call the University, not the police, for any first-time offenses of shoplifting from their store.

          There were multiple horrible dishonest bad actions on the part of Oberlin in this case well beyond letting students use university printers.

          1. Well according to the links that you provided, it seemed to boil down to the handing out of the one flyer by Raimondo, and the use of the bullhorn. The rest of it can’t really be viewed as libelous.

            I think there were probably some town-and-gown issues at play, as well as the jury viewing Oberlin with deep pockets and the big bad institution fighting against the poor little guy victim. It’s hard to believe that Oberlin’s conduct could be considered worthy of a $44 million judgment since they weren’t even the ones who started the protests, designed the flyers, or any of that. *At worst* the did a few things which could be considered as taking sides in the protests. But it was the students themselves who did the dirty work.

            1. OMFG how are you STILL ignoring evidence

              1. Its jeff. That’s his thing. He came in with a really ignorant and stupid framing of the incident based on reading a headline or two and he knows better than the actual evidence presented at child. We call that doing The Jeff.

                1. A wise man named me wrote:
                  Facts he will only ignore and deny when you provide them.

                  racebaiterjeff doesn’t argue in good faith.

          2. Don’t you even Progress, bro?

            1. Can you believe Jeff’s clown ass?

              He is literally ignoring evidence because it came from me. He is fucking clowning himself because his puerile impulses keep him from acknowledging he is wrong because I pointed it out.

              What the fuck is wrong with a person that they reach that level of pathetic like Jeff has?

            2. So “progress” is taking it out on the big bad institution with the deep pockets?

              I would expect someone who actually wants to see the law enforced, have it applied appropriately to the circumstances.

              It wasn’t Oberlin who created the flyers or organized the protests, it was the students themselves. At worst Oberlin had a small helping hand in it.

              Were there libel suits against the student organizers of the protests?

              But then again this is you we’re talking about, so I”m sure you’re quite happy with a $44 bazillion judgment against Oberlin because it “pwns the libs”.

              1. “At worst Oberlin had a small helping hand in it.”

                He’s still ignoring the evidence. Can you believe this fucking clown?

              2. ““pwns the libs”.”

                Which is why you’re desperate to minimize and delgitimize it. It directly involves your fellow travelers, and it’s a loss, so you hate it.

                To the point of repeatedly lying.

        4. STFU dimwit

          1. Aww, am I harshing on a supposed Big Win for Team Red with facts and logic? Sorry not sorry.

            1. “with facts and logic”

              The calling card self-conceit, obviously delusional, of the progressive

            2. No, you’re ignoring the full evidentiary case loss that is open to anyone who isnt a fucking ignorant pederast.

          2. Shh.
            Let him keep talking.
            Chemjeff meltdowns are hilarious

            1. He knows he fucked up and he knows I know. Which means he will be eating this every day forever.

        5. No. I’m not kidding. The damages were too small.

    4. So if I go around your neighborhood and put up flyers falsely saying you are a child molester and your wife divorces you and you lose your job and all of your friends as a result, I can defend the resulting lible suit by saying “it was just a flyer”?

      My God you are fucking stupid.

      1. The question isn’t about whether the flyer was libelous or not. The question is whether Oberlin should be held liable for libel even though it only served as the place where the copiers were located. The students created the fliers, nobody disputed that.

        1. There you are misrepresenting what happened again, because you’re human garbage.

          1. “Facts he will only ignore and deny when you provide them.”

        2. “The question is whether Oberlin should be held liable for libel even though it only served as the place where the copiers were located”

          No that isn’t the question you fucking hydrocephaloid. They did much more than “only serve as the place where the copiers were located”.

          You are so pathetic, how are you just flat disregarding evidence idiot?

        3. The question isn’t about whether the flyer was libelous or not

          Jesus Christ. That you’re pathetically attempting to deflect to something as irrelevant as where the fucking flyer was printed (when anyone who’s read the case knows that’s not the fucking issue) shows how desperate you are to be a troll.

          1. That was one of the items that was brought up, was it not?
            Making the copiers available to student groups doesn’t seem like particularly libelous activity, even if the fliers themselves are libelous.
            That is why John’s whole analogy fails.
            And it’s amusing that you’re accusing me of being a troll, when the deranged comments of a real troll surround all of my responses.

            1. “Making the copiers available to student groups doesn’t seem like particularly libelous activity,”

              That you continue to minimize their behavior shows you know you got caught lying.

              And… What law school did you attend?

              Right.

            2. That was one of the items that was brought up, was it not?

              That’s not what the case was about, however desperately you’re trying to make it so.

              And it’s amusing that you’re accusing me of being a troll, when the deranged comments of a real troll surround all of my responses.

              Well, you certainly can’t defend the conduct of the university or its representatives, and are clearly assmad that your fellow leftists got hammered for being leftist mob trash, so yes, you’re resorting to trolling.

    5. Jeff… too fucking stupid to go read the case files or accompanying judgement. Thought tulpa was joking above, but here you are threadshitting in your ignorance again. Do you ever try to gather facts before saying something completely stupid?

  39. Why are bakeries now always the flashpoint?

    1. Didnt you see the Terminator movies? That’s where armageddon starts.

  40. In a sentence above the author writes:

    “…both the thief and two of his friends […] were beating the cashier […] as he laid on the ground.”

    The last bit should be instead “as he lay on the ground.” Tip for journalism students: dig into the definitions of “lay” and “lie”.

    1. I think its actually ‘lie’ – if the victim was on the ground and not in the process of going to the ground.

      Either way, it’s clear that Reason doesn’t believe or participate in meritocracy.

  41. Gibson has a website that indicates they are still in business, open, etc. How would I fine Oberlin for this pretty obvious case of libel?
    Have Gibson submit federal tax returns for years before and after the libel. Have an expert in small business valuation calculate the fair market value of the business then and now. Crunch numbers and make Oberlin pay the difference, plus the Gibson’s legal fees, and then times two for their assholery and the pain and suffering of the Gibsons. Juries always need to consider true value of harm claimed to be suffered or justice is denied.

  42. “The question is whether Oberlin should be held liable for libel even though it only served as the place where the copiers were located”

    Despite the fact that no one argues the builded part is a lie, not even Oberlin, Jeff is so desperate to delgitimize this verdict that he repeated it.

    Consider that. He wants this verdict against his fellow travelers to be wrong so badly that he will knowingly lie to try to make it so. He HAD evidence, and made a false statement, KNOWING it was false.

    1. This is so fabulous, and such an own goal for him, I look forward to clubbing his idiot ass with it forever.

    2. Oh look at you, misrepresenting a discussion by leaving out the context. How novel!

      In my conversation with John, we were discussing simply the issue of the flyer itself, not the entire rest of the case.

      Oberlin did not create the flyer, Oberlin did not design the flyer, Oberlin’s only role with the flyer is to host the copy machines where they were duplicated. In this narrow context, Oberlin is no more liable for libel than Kinko’s would be if the flyers had been duplicated there.

      But, you decided to take that one comment entirely out of context and use it to spin some ludicrous narrative about me. Did you notice where I indicated where I thought Oberlin might be at fault? Oh, perhaps you did, but decided knowingly to ignore such claims knowing it was false. Huh.

      Now unless you post something actually intelligent, back to ignoring you.

      1. “Oberlin’s only role with the flyer” should be “Oberlin’s only role with CREATING the flyer”

        1. It doesn’t matter, you’re a sad fucking liar and everyone can see it.

      2. “Oh look at you, misrepresenting a discussion by leaving out the context.”

        I FUCKING QUOTED YOU you lying clown.

        Jeff thd idiot liar “but but but CONTEXT!!!!”

        Save it bitch. You lied and I was there. Now, you are going to eat it forever.

      3. “, we were discussing simply the issue of the flyer itself, not the entire rest of the case”

        The conversation is RIGHT THERE you lying piece of shit.

        1. Right?

          I mean, it’s not like he can go back and edit the posts where he claims that Oberlin’s only involvement was “handing out one flyer” and nothing else…
          We can all see it.
          But now he’s trying to claim “In my conversation with John, we were discussing simply the issue of the flyer itself, not the entire rest of the case.”

          Sad.

          1. Well, the good news is he gets to eat it forever. Just like his desire to import child rapists.

  43. Jeff, caught lying, then lies about lying while screaming “CONTEXT!!!”

    “$44 million in damages, for the ‘crime’ of printing fliers on University copiers?

    You’re kidding right?”

    That’s your question. It is clear to anyone with any understanding of discourse that you found that unbelievable and were soliciting a discussion of any other reasons for the judgment.

    John obliged, giving a hypothetical meant to analogize Oberlin’s libelous behavior to other libelous behavior, initiated by posting flyers.

    AT NO POINT IN THE CONVERSATION WERE YOU EVER ” discussing simply the issue of the flyer itself” because John’s response was discussing libelous behavior AND the flyer you idiot.

    You’re a fucking liar and your claim that ” it only served as the place where the copiers were located” EVEN INCONTEXT is a lie. There was ALWAYS the libelous behavior as well.

    A lie by YOU. A Liar.

    And I caught you.

    1. I suppose this is your way of admitting that, previously, you deliberately omitted the context in order to try to distort what I said, by now trying to rewrite the context in order to fit your narrative about me.

      1. This is where you clearly display your psychosis, jeff.
        Maybe see somebody about that

      2. If that’s what you took from me proving you’re a liar, you’re dumber than anyone thought possible.

  44. Me – quotes Jeff, proving he’s a liar

    Idiot Jeff “CONTEXT!!!!”

    Me quoted the entire convo, the context of which changes nothing and Jeff is still a liar

    Jeff the idiot “see I told you”

    Yes Jeff, you told us you were an idiot in post after post, and for some reason can’t accept that we agree

  45. Lemme see if I get this straight.

    Three black kids steal from a bakery. They get caught and even beat down some guy. They get arrested and everyone screams ‘racism!’ and then descend upon Gibson’s to ‘burn it down’ so to speak. The administrators of Oberlin then took part by handing out propaganda before all relevant facts were gathered and encourage students to try and put a decades old bakery out of business.

    Then, the administrators of the school double down after the verdict but before the punitive damages part comes down.

    Okay.

    The bakery gets $44 million because a) the three students pleaded guilty (go seek the video of Oberlin police arresting one of the students who cried for his mother) and it wasn’t racism and b) they went through hell as they were almost effectively put out of business. The process is the punishment as they say.

    I say the punishment fits the damn crime.

    Instead, Reason somehow tries to make this a 1A issue by spinning it in a way that blames conservatives because Oberlin had a right to hand out leaflets? Maybe but it was all a lie. They went for the jugular and the jury did the same.

    FUCK. THEM.

    Is Reason for real with all this ‘to be sure’ and ‘they’re just as bad crap? Are they this naive?

    A message has to be sent. These are real lives running these businesses.

    Next time Woke schools will think twice before jumping to conclusions looking to destroy a business and the lives within.

    Smarten up Reason.

    1. I don’t think anyone here isn’t arguing that the Oberlin management isn’t responsible to at least some extent. The question is about the degree. It seems to center around Ms. Raimondo’s actions. She evidently handed out a few fliers that had libelous content, and she used a bullhorn during a protest, the purpose of her use is disputed (Gibson’s claim it was to participate in the protest itself and lasted half an hour, Raimondo claims it was just to give information to the students and was only a minute or two). The rest of the participation by Oberlin can easily be construed as the university serving in a quasi-parental role in helping to support the students’ material needs without necessarily endorsing the students’ particular point of view. For example, making the copiers available, or buying pizza, or making a conference room available. These sounds like actions that any university might take towards any group of students regardless of their particular purpose or cause. It seems to me that a liability of $44 million for the demonstrated ACTIONS of the university which may have stepped over the line, seems rather absurd. Should Oberlin face some punishment, particularly with regards to Ms. Raimondo’s actions which likely did cross the line from neutral administration, to outright activism? Sure. Should they be penalized $44 million, or even $33 million? I think that’s rather silly, and I think this large of judgment can probably better be explained by pre-existing town-gown issues in the city being manifested in this particular case, as well as punishing a perceived deep-pocketed institutional figure against the “little guy” bakery.

      1. er that should be:

        I don’t think anyone here IS arguing that the Oberlin management isn’t responsible to at least some extent.

        too many double negatives

        1. Jeff you’re such a useless pathetic lyign fuck. We saw you argue that or rather, completely minimize their behavior while ridiculing the idea that they were in any way responsible.

          The ONLY reason you are changing your tune NOW is because of how hard you got kicked you lying tool.

          1. Are you even still here? I would have thought your meds would have kicked in by now.

            Oh wait, you’re not on your meds!

            1. It’s fairly obvious you know you got caught lying.

          2. Tony has a much better personality, and it’s fun to watch himself talk through realizing he’s wrong.
            Jeff isn’t nearly as entertaining, just pathetic.

            1. Well the worst part is that he assumes everyone is as stupid as he is, so he can bluster his way out of his inane opinions.

              It’s like that old Jon Lovitz “that’s the ticket!” skit, only I am not willing to just let his stupidity slide like the characters in the skit do for Jon Lovitz.

        2. “For example, making the copiers available, or buying pizza, or making a conference room available. These sounds like actions that any university might take towards any group of students regardless of their particular purpose or cause. It seems to me that a liability of $44 million for the demonstrated ACTIONS of the university which may have stepped over the line, seems rather absurd. ”

          Dunno what you said up top.

          But a college run by mature adults don’t engage period before damn facts are in. Raimondo was out of line and while I can understand some may argue the penalty was excessive, I don’t.

          These people lust to ruin lives.

      2. Oh and by the way, if I were Oberlin’s president, I would fire Ms. Raimondo so fast it would make her head spin. Whatever her intentions might have been, she has done far more harm than good in this case.

        1. “Oh and by the way, if I were Oberlin’s president”

          Ahahahahahahah it’s a shit show but come on ahahahhaahahah

          1. She is still the Dean of Students. Looks like the damages were insufficient.

      3. You’re still leaving out a lot of the actions taken that really made this an issue of the university.

        Oberlin employees-more than just Raimando, who is the most notable-attended a rally at Gibsons’. They claimed they were there to help calm the situation, but police officers at the scene dispute that they made any attempt to keep things calm, instead offering tacit support to the students. This was not on school grounds, mind you, this was them leaving the campus to join the students in protesting.

        In fact, at that protest was the director of the school’s multi-resource center. This testimony came from the former Security Director for Oberlin College. He went to the protest with his camera phone and began taking pictures, and this school official supposedly threatened to key his car if he didn’t stop taking pictures.

        One of Oberlin’s professors, a man named Roger Copeland, wrote a letter to the college newspaper because he was critical of the protests, and felt they were being unfair to the behavior. Internal communications from the university (released through discovery) showed an e-mail thread under the heading “Fuck Roger Copeland.” Essentially, they got pissed at someone who thought the situation should be defused.

        There was another resident of the city, who was also apparently a low level employee in the communications department, wrote an email to the vice president of the communications department, a man named Ben Jones. She stated that “the students are on the wrong side of this issue and they will refuse to listen to any point of view that isn’t their own.”

        Ben Jones wrote back to her in a reply, “The police report is bullshit, obviously biased toward Gibsons’ and this is not an isolated incident.” Later on in the email he explained that his corroboration that this wasn’t an isolated incident…came from a group of high schoolers who showed up at the protest. He later testified that his statement that the police report was bullshit was done without any communication to the police, to the police department, or any other attempts to gain more insight into whether he was even speaking the truth. This guy put more credence into a group of high-schoolers he’d never met than literally anyone who didn’t agree with him.

        1. Oberlin employees-more than just Raimando, who is the most notable-attended a rally at Gibsons’. They claimed they were there to help calm the situation, but police officers at the scene dispute that they made any attempt to keep things calm, instead offering tacit support to the students. This was not on school grounds, mind you, this was them leaving the campus to join the students in protesting.

          This was the incident with the bullhorn, I think. There is evidently some dispute as to who actually did what at this protest. Sure I think this is probably where Raimondo, and I suppose others, may have stepped over the line. But again, ask yourself, is going to a protest worth $44 million in damages?

          In fact, at that protest was the director of the school’s multi-resource center. This testimony came from the former Security Director for Oberlin College. He went to the protest with his camera phone and began taking pictures, and this school official supposedly threatened to key his car if he didn’t stop taking pictures.

          IIRC this was not corroborated by anyone. Who knows if this threat was actually made. Nevertheless, nobody’s car was damaged. But *even if* someone’s car had been keyed – how would that have been libelous *towards the Gibsons*? This is a non-issue as far as I can see.

          One of Oberlin’s professors, a man named Roger Copeland, wrote a letter to the college newspaper because he was critical of the protests, and felt they were being unfair to the behavior. Internal communications from the university (released through discovery) showed an e-mail thread under the heading “Fuck Roger Copeland.” Essentially, they got pissed at someone who thought the situation should be defused.

          Oberlin employees are free to express contemptuous feelings towards other Oberlin employees without it being a libelous act *towards the Gibsons*.

          And the Ben Jones thing – I don’t know, I didn’t read that part of the transcript. What day was that on?

          1. I’m being as factual as I can here with you. Let me put it to you straight: The protest itself and the whole purpose of it was to cast the Gibsons’ as a racist institution. The things I’m describing are instances of the school itself taking the side of the students, and supporting them in casting this assertion. Not merely standing back and allowing the students to make this claim (which is libelous) but actually supporting the students’ actions.

            Sure, the man’s car was not keyed. But he was there with the student crowd, he was not, as the university claimed, trying to de-escalate but was in fact supporting the students and threatening people who were just watching.

            Now, is it libel? Libel is helping to spread and disseminate harmful information that they knew to be false, or at least, failed to take any actions to ascertain whether it was true. Many of the actions I’ve pointed out are evidence that the university was unfairly biased, and instead of telling the students to do their own thing, was instead afraid of pissing off the students by appearing too generous to Gibsons. They acted with a reckless disregard for the truth. They got on a bullhorn. They spread papers. They circulated internal emails promising to support their students.

            It’s important that you recognize that a pattern of activity is more informative than any one single act. It’s not just, “they handed out a flier,” or “they got on a bullhorn” or “they told one member of the faculty to go fuck himself.” It’s all of that together showing a consistent pattern of behavior, including their rejection of Gibsons’ request of a $200K settlement for lost revenue paired with a simple apology. It was pointed out, when the defense was making its case and was cross-examined, that the university never even considered making a statement that “the Gibsons are not white supremacists,” or “We do not believe the Gibsons’ is racist.” It never once crossed their minds that they might be wrong in the two years before this reached a jury.

          2. But again, ask yourself, is going to a protest worth $44 million in damages?

            Maybe you should ask your lefty boos if trying to destroy someone’s livelihood, particularly a multi-generational small business that’s adored by the local town members, over a hate hoax is worth that much.

            1. “trying to destroy someone’s livelihood”

              IT WAS THE STUDENT PROTESTORS WHO TRIED TO DO THAT. Oberlin doesn’t direct or control them.

              What role did *Oberlin* have in this? Was it *some* role? Yes. Was it a $44 million role? No, I think that’s pretty absurd.

              Does it make the right’s culture warriors feel good that an institution identified with the left is being punished? Well sure. But that alone doesn’t justify the $44 million verdict on its merits.

              1. IT WAS THE STUDENT PROTESTORS WHO TRIED TO DO THAT. Oberlin doesn’t direct or control them.

                Hey, dumbfuck, you’re deliberately ignoring the part about university administrators, particularly the Dean of Students being involved in this, too (and no, you disingenuous fuck, it wasn’t just “printing out flyers”), and going out of their way to provide active, material support–not just for the act of protesting itself, but the message that defamed the business that it was racist. To claim that the university “doesn’t direct or control them” is an outright lie in this case. When you argue otherwise, you’re lying.

                What role did *Oberlin* have in this? Was it *some* role? Yes. Was it a $44 million role? No, I think that’s pretty absurd.

                Just because YOU think it’s absurd doesn’t make it so. The business had a long-standing contract with the university that it lost as a result of the protest, and the owners worked without a salary for months just to keep their business open. It’s never going to get that contract back because the university doesn’t want to admit that members of its staff fucked up, not to mention the fact that this incident further damaged the somewhat tenuous relationship between the university and the town itself.

                What ultimately damaged the university’s case were the texts and emails from its own staff members–NOT the conduct of the students. You’ve deliberately chosen to remain ignorant of the facts of the case, but that’s your fault, not the jury’s.

                Does it make the right’s culture warriors feel good that an institution identified with the left is being punished? Well sure. But that alone doesn’t justify the $44 million verdict on its merits.

                You don’t have a single fucking clue about “the merits”–you never even bothered to educate yourself of the facts of the case. So your opinion about what constitutes a justifiable verdict here doesn’t mean jack shit.

    2. “Then, the administrators of the school double down after the verdict but before the punitive damages part comes down.”

      And, as noted up-thread (but not in the article), the bakery offered a settlement, and Oberlin told them to buzz off.
      So we’ve got stupid for, in effect, inciting a riot under false claims, use of the school’s facilities to do so, internal pressure at the school to make sure of staff support, spurning an offer to admit error for cheap, and then whining about the verdict before punitive damages are considered.
      $44M sounds about right to ‘send a message’.

      1. “inciting a riot”

        lol

        1. chemjeff radical individualist
          June.24.2019 at 9:53 pm
          “lol”

          Fucking lefty ignoramus apologetics expected and noted.

          1. I really have no idea how you can get “inciting a riot” from this case.

            1. Because you’re ignorant. We knew this already.

            2. “I really have no idea how you can get “inciting a riot” from this case.”

              Not surprised; I’d suggest you read the comments (the article is pathetic).
              According to what seem to be valid claims, Oberlin ‘officers’ promoted the claims via email, offered space to the organizers, pressured staff who did not agree, granted absence to those protesting, and more.
              What would you call that?
              I’m not sure what

              1. No way, “the question is whether Oberlin should be held liable for libel even though it only served as the place where the copiers were located.

                $44 million in damages, for the ‘crime’ of printing fliers on University copiers?

                You’re kidding right?”

                1. Oh look it’s Tulpa LOOK AT MEEEE!!!!!

                  1. I never minimized Oberlin’s behavior ever, yeah, that’s the ticket!!!

                    1. chemjeff “that’s the ticket!!!”
                      June.24.2019 at 10:30 pm
                      “I never minimized Oberlin’s behavior ever, yeah, that’s the ticket!!!”

                      You’ve done nothing but, you pathetic piece of shit. Do you hope no one noticed?
                      Hint: Few of us here are stupid enough to ignore your constant lies.

                    2. Sevo,
                      “chemjeff “that’s the ticket!!!”” is Tulpa sock-puppeting me.
                      I haven’t *minimized* the behavior of Oberlin’s staff, I’m questioning whether it rises to the level of a $44 million judgment, that’s all.

                    3. Basically, Tulpa is so desperate for attention that he’s willing to steal my identity in an attempt to fool you into responding to his comments, thinking they come from me.

                    4. I haven’t *minimized* the behavior of Oberlin’s staff, I’m just minimizing the behavior of Oberlin staff that’s all.

                      That’s the ticket!!!!

                2. chemjeff “that’s the ticket!!!”
                  June.24.2019 at 10:20 pm
                  “No way, “the question is whether Oberlin should be held liable for libel even though it only served as the place where the copiers were located.
                  $44 million in damages, for the ‘crime’ of printing fliers on University copiers?
                  You’re kidding right?”

                  Do you think your lies are accepted by anyone here?
                  Fuck off, asshole.

                  1. Sevo,
                    “chemjeff “that’s the ticket!!!”” is not me, it is Tulpa attempting to steal my identity. Because he is desperate for attention.

                    1. Ahhahaajaj STEAL HIS IDENTITY AHAHHAHAAHHAHA

                    2. Ahahahahaj he said steal his identity lolololol

            3. Jeffrey dear, the key to not being an obvious idiot is learning about the subject BEFORE you say something stupid. The second key is to not double down on your stupid comment after being called on it.

              1. Why do you assume that everyone else reads the same right-wing news sites that you read?

                Don’t you even realize how much of a bubble you live in?

                1. You didn’t read ANYTHING about this you pathetic fuck. So save that shit.

  46. To be honest I am surprised that this one little case has received so much attention from the commenters here.

    If you polled 100 random people on this case, I would bet maybe only 1 or 2 of them would have even heard that this episode even had occurred.

    But the comment count is looking to exceed 400, which is a huge number for here.

    Huh.

    1. “To be honest”

      First time for everything.

    2. An attempt by a Reason writer to make the false equivalence between those on the right objecting to Antifa, and a university which seems to have actively and purposely ruined a business because of (lefty) lies will tend to get sort of attention here.
      I’m sure you are not a business owner, nor have the slightest inking of what those sort of lies can do to the success of a business, so you probably ought to STFU.

    3. I like how Jeff’s defense is “other people are ignorant too, not just me.”

      1. Okay Jesse, how many people do YOU think are intimately familiar with what happened at Oberlin? I am quite sure your online right-wing buddies know every detail, but I stand by my assertion that maybe only a few percent of the general population even knows that some event happened there.

        I find it interesting that this topic, among all of the ones that could have received such a response, is the one that did.

        1. “Okay Jesse, how many people do YOU think are intimately familiar with what happened at Oberlin?”

          Enough who have read the links and comments to realize you are a pathetic lefty apologist.
          You should try to do the same.

          1. I think narcissism is when I fuck up and people tell me about it!!!

            1. That happens a lot with you.

            2. chemjeff “that’s the ticket!!!”
              June.24.2019 at 11:12 pm
              “I think narcissism is when I fuck up and people tell me about it!!!”
              Fuck off.

          2. And you’re a crochety old man who yells at everyone to get off his lawn.

            Nevertheless, I stand by my assertion. Of all the events that have transpired over the past few years, this is definitely one of the more obscure ones, but it has also generated one of the higher comment counts. Why do you think that is?

            1. I think narcissism is when I fuck up royally and people tell me about it!!!

            2. chemjeff radical individualist
              June.24.2019 at 11:13 pm
              “And you’re a crochety old man who yells at everyone to get off his lawn.”
              You’re a fucking lefty ignoramus who has nothing other than age to whine about. Get back to me when you have something substantive, asshole.

              “Nevertheless, I stand by my assertion. Of all the events that have transpired over the past few years, this is definitely one of the more obscure ones, but it has also generated one of the higher comment counts. Why do you think that is?”
              And I stand by my assertion that you’re a fucking lefty ignoramus: You, and you alone, claim ‘nothing to see here; move along’, while the commentariat says otherwise.
              Perhaps if you *weren’t* a fucking lefty ignoramus, you’d see what others do, rather than trying dick and weave?
              Naah. That would require honesty. You, Tony, turd JFree have none of that…

              1. You, and you alone, claim ‘nothing to see here; move along’

                I didn’t say “nothing to see here”. I said that it was one of the more obscure events of the past couple of years. Is that really in doubt? I simply find it curious that a relatively obscure event has found such a large amount of discussion about it here at Reason.

                No doubt this event is NOT obscure among right-wing circles and I think it goes to show how much the Reason commentariat overlaps with your generic right-winger. Which IMO is kind of sad.

                1. chemjeff radical individualist
                  June.24.2019 at 11:42 pm
                  You, and you alone, claim ‘nothing to see here; move along’

                  I didn’t say “nothing to see here”.

                  chemjeff radical individualist
                  June.24.2019 at 4:22 pm
                  $44 million in damages, for the ‘crime’ of printing fliers on University copiers?

                  You’re kidding right?

                  1. (He’s going to say he didn’t literally say “nothing to see here” and that because he said it figuratively, he isn’t a liar, because he’s a fucking aspie and thinks that matters)

                2. chemjeff radical individualist
                  June.24.2019 at 11:42 pm
                  “I didn’t say “nothing to see here”. I said that it was one of the more obscure events of the past couple of years. Is that really in doubt? I simply find it curious that a relatively obscure event has found such a large amount of discussion about it here at Reason.”
                  So you are now claiming you didn’t say “nothing to see here” by claiming there’s “nothing to see here”? Thanks for the claim that that there’s “Nothing to see here”.

                  “No doubt this event is NOT obscure among right-wing circles and I think it goes to show how much the Reason commentariat overlaps with your generic right-winger. Which IMO is kind of sad.”
                  So your claim that there is “nothing to see here” reinforces your whine that those who do find there is ‘something to see here’ are other than your lefty buds?
                  Fuck off; tired of the bullshit.

                  1. Good heavens Sevo. I never said “nothing to see here” as a sort of normative declaration. I’m stating what I think is a factual claim that this event *hasn’t* been newsworthy over the past few years. Is that really in doubt?

                    Evidently this event has been important from the right-wing culture war point of view. I did not realize how important it was to you all. Fine I’ll take your word for it. It’s important to you. I can’t imagine why it would be important from any legal point of view. My only guess is that right-wingers think it’s important because they think it’s a victory over the evil left-wingers as represented by Oberlin. I think Oberlin’s role in the actual libel that took place is relatively small. Most of the libel seemed to emanate from the student protestors themselves, not from the official representatives of the university. YES it does appear that some of the university officials crossed the line. I don’t think that $44 million is a suitable punishment for the few ACTIONS that were taken by the university which led to the libel. That is all.

                    1. chemjeff radical individualist
                      June.25.2019 at 12:01 am
                      Good heavens Sevo. I never said “nothing to see here” as a sort of normative declaration.

                      chemjeff radical individualist
                      June.24.2019 at 4:22 pm
                      $44 million in damages, for the ‘crime’ of printing fliers on University copiers?

                      You’re kidding right?

        2. It looks like a rather substantial number of comments were generated in response to your blatant ignorance and idiocy.

  47. I can only hope this is some sort of satire.

    Oberlin was not just standing by, they orchestrated it, and went far, far beyond free speech. It wasn’t even close. This isn’t exactly difficult information to find.

    1. No way, “the question is whether Oberlin should be held liable for libel even though it only served as the place where the copiers were located.

      $44 million in damages, for the ‘crime’ of printing fliers on University copiers?

      You’re kidding right?”

      1. Liar. Troll. See several hundred of the comments above.

        1. Sorry, didn’t notice that this was a Chemjeff satirist rather than the lying troll himself.

  48. I know I just spent hours minimizing Oberlin’s behavior, and pretending they only allowed some copies to be made so what’s the big deal, but now that Tulpa et al. made me look like a fucking mongoloid, I’ll pretend I always said Oberlin was wrong!

    That’s the ticket!!!

    1. Get help. No really. You really are sad.

      1. The funny part is it’s your argument.

        You’re literally telling me to get help for using your argument.

  49. You can tell by how much I keep coming back and bitching, while insulting people by questioning their mental health that I know I have the best of this argument!!!

    And it isn’t like I concern trolled Tulpa for hours when he questioned the mental health of SQRLSY for his fits of verbal diarrhea!!! Nope never concern trolled anyone about the exact thing I’m doing now!!!

    That’s the ticket!!!

    1. OK, Jeff is stupid beyond most levels of acceptance, but the Jeff sock is not helping anything.
      I have no problem with anonymity, but Reason allowing unlimited socks is nothing if not promoting confusion; do we have to guess that the newest is one more Hihn.
      Earn your pay Welsh; no socks.
      Forget the pittance you got last year; $0.00 for 2019.

      1. Sevo, bro, at some point you gotta accept some personal responsibility. I never once made any attempt to make this look like anything other than a sock, and if it got you, you gotta have the manhood to own it and move on.

        I mean, Jeff is stupid, and while socking him I have acted stupid like he does, but come the fuck on.

        1. Oh this is rich.
          You deliberately try to deceive Sevo, and then when it works, you blame him for falling for it.
          Man up for once and take responsibility for your horrible choices.

          1. “You deliberately try to deceive Sevo,”

            Ahahahahahahah aha RUFKM??? AJAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHH

            1. I think what’s really rich is that when I act like a total shithead without regard for anybody else whatsoever making the biggest fucking fool of myself possible and shititng everywhere that no one pauses for a moment because they all believe it’s you without a second thought lolololol

        2. chemjeff “that’s the ticket!!!”
          June.24.2019 at 11:11 pm
          “Sevo, bro, at some point you gotta accept some personal responsibility….”

          Like maybe keeping your sig?
          Fuck off; I’m tired of games.

          1. I don’t care guy, all you do is bitch about everything.

            1. “chemjeff “that’s the ticket!!!”
              June.24.2019 at 11:42 pm
              “I don’t care guy, all you do is bitch about everything.”

              Shame on me for bitching about assholes like you.
              Fuck off and die.

              1. Or what, you’ll bitch MORE? Is that possible?

                1. chemjeff “that’s the ticket!!!”
                  June.24.2019 at 11:46 pm
                  “Or what, you’ll bitch MORE? Is that possible?”
                  What part of ‘fuck off and die’ was not clear, asshole?
                  Let me repeat:
                  Fuck off and die asshole!
                  You add nothing to the discussion other than confusion. Did youre mommy tell you you were clever?
                  Fcuk off and die.

                  1. What part of “or what, you’ll bitch MORE” was unclear you powerless old fuck?

      2. Sevo,
        I hope you remember who was trying to deceive you, and who was trying to inform you of the truth.

          1. Holy shit, that’s one of the funniest things I’ve ever seen

        1. chemjeff radical individualist
          June.24.2019 at 11:22 pm
          “Sevo,
          I hope you remember who was trying to deceive you, and who was trying to inform you of the truth.”
          Neither one; don’t bother claiming honors you’ve not won.

          1. Sevo I legitimately thought I was making it clear that I was fucking around and that I was spoofing Jeff I really didn’t realize that he’s so awful that I can’t make him look worse no matter what I do that’s my bad and I’ll eat this one

              1. I’m sorry, I forget some times that stupid old fucks are stupid and easily fooled.

                Of course, you even bitch about a mea culpa.

                1. Congratulations, Tulpa, you successfully deceived an old man.
                  Boy I bet you are real proud of yourself now.

                  1. Well, you should be concerned more about the fact that no matter what kind of asshole I act like, people still think it is plausibly you doing it.

                    Now about that mental health hypocrisy of yours…

        2. Jeff, I hope you remember your hypocrisy on the mental health thing and the fact that you ignored it because you know it’s true.

            1. chemjeff “that’s the ticket!!!”
              June.25.2019 at 12:07 am
              “*crickets*”

              *Stupidity*
              Either grow up or fuck off.

              1. Or what, you’ll impotently bitch even more?

  50. I think narcissism is when other people correct me!!!

  51. Me – spoofs Jeff, acts like total shithead, being as obstreperous and childish as possible, intentionally making it clear I was impersonating and denigrating jeff

    Jeff – you fooled people, stop impersonating me

    Me – THAT is the lesson you took?

    AHAHAHAJAHAHAAHAHAHAH

    I LITERALLY CANNOT ACT LIKE ENOUGH OF AN ASSHOLE TO GET PEOPLE TO THINK THAT I’M NOT THE REAL JEFF, AND THE REAL JEFF ADMITTED IT AHAHAHAHAHJA

    1. You could cut it out and let Jeff make a fool of himself rather than adding to the confusion.
      Fuck off.

      1. Why not both?

        Now, before this goes any further, no one cares that you got fooled clown and cursing at me has never gotten anyone what they wanted.

  52. Puhleez.
    The college lied and abetted those who lied, and aided the assault on the property.
    And… It’s not $44 m, it’s only $33 m. Relax. It’ll be reduced to the $11m in a year or so…

  53. So Ohio I know.

    Oberlin is this kinda post hippie PC place.

    There is nothing much else there but the college. It is a smallish private school.

    They are best in music. You can get other degrees if you want even biochemistry but that is not the place to learn that in Ohio. Case Western, Ohio State perhaps Cincinnati would be better for that.

    Mostly it is just some place most do not care much about, a typical small college town.

    What happened there should not have. The college and the townies should live in peace.

    The lawsuit was probably a good thing. Get people to chill back down. The attorneys for the university did not take the settlement and went to trial. Attorneys often do that because they are badass lawyers. They lost. Heck they get paid either way.

  54. The punishment is quite inadequate, since the perps will suffer no personal loss at all, not even being fired.

    -jcr

  55. In relation to Free Speech and Expression, Defamation have always been a touchy subject. It is true there are many cause where Defamation did cause allot of harm towards people however at the same time the Constitution did make it clear that the State should not Intervene when it comes to Speech and the reason being is that Government could abuse what ever power they get by their intervention. I know the term Slippery Slope have been throw around too much, but Libel Laws are a Slippery Slope. Tho with this specific case, the additional $33 million was going to far and should have just kept it at $11 million.

    Anyhow, the other day got into a bit of an argument on twitter with someone who claims that Defamation should be a Criminal Offense. Tho it’s Debatable if Suing over Defamation in a Civil Court is Anti-Free Speech or Not, Criminal Defamation is Definitely an Attack on Free Speech and among other things. Like to prove Defamation would require proving Malice, and if we go by the current High (as they should be) Standards of Burden of Proof it’s nearly impossible to prove Intent Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, like with crimes like Theft, Murder, and Rape they are relatively easy to prove or disprove because it require proving a Tangible Action, but not so with Defamation, and it would require an overall lowering the standard of Burden of Proof to make it enforceable and could lead to more false convictions of any crime. So yeah, on the basis of Free Speech as well as keeping a High Standards in Criminal Law, Criminal Defamation is out of the question.

    Anyhow, here an interesting thought. If someone was found Not Guilty of Murder in a Court of Law yet is still called a Murderer then that could be a valid case of Defamation. So with that in mind, should OJ Simpson have the right to charge (Civil and/or Criminally) Everyone?

  56. Anyone who thinks this is a first amendment issue isn’t very bright.

  57. It’s not in the federal trademark database, but there might be some kind of product which uses that name and established a trademark through usage………………….gocash7.com++
    Don’t copy “++ ” with web addresst

  58. Good. Fuck these people…

    Only in 2019 batshit crazy America could 3 thieving black people beat a diligent white employee trying to do his job… And then call it racism AGAINST THE BLACK PEOPLE.

    The monetary amount is ridiculous… But this is the EXACT same tactic the left has used to fuck over everybody who doesn’t agree with them. They’ve sued the fuck out of people over false racism allegations, taken them for 10s or 100s of millions of dollars against big businesses, and they don’t lose sleep over it… So why should somebody fighting back against their BS?

    The people who suggest always taking the high ground don’t realize we’re in the middle of a cold civil war right now. As such peace time footing just don’t cut it. We’re on war footing now, and people better start to realize it. If sane people don’t win the “cold” portion of the civil war by crushing these people in the sphere of public opinion, then shit might actually go to hot… And nobody really wants that.

    So I say turn up the heat on fighting dirty in non violent ways, and let’s see if we can actually save this country.

    1. We’re on war footing now, and people better start to realize it…So I say turn up the heat on fighting dirty in non violent ways, and let’s see if we can actually save this country.

      Anyone who doesn’t acknowledge this is either a quisling or completely ignorant. Like I told MelvinUpton above, better a raft of lawsuits than the Dean of Students and Oberlin’s SJW claque getting a load of buckshot in their faces. Once it starts to actually hurt these people financially, hopefully over the long term they’ll moderate their behavior.

      If not, at least my side owns most of the firearms.

      1. Yup. We’re literally a single large event away from things going hot IMO. If the right thing happened shit could explode. If you look at the lead up to the Revolution, American Civil War, or numerous other civil wars, we have almost all the same signs/things going on right now.

        If we’re lucky this might be a shit showy time like the 60s/70s, and we’ll beat the crazies back by winning the argument, and save the country… But if the right event happens, or if the crazies end up effectively winning and try to go to the outright throwing people in camps stage, etc… Well then shit could get real.

        Which is why I believe in fighting these people so hard in the court of public opinion now. This is NOT the time to be holding punches in the name of taking the high ground. That shit is reserved for calm, normal times, which we are NOT in.

        1. If we’re lucky this might be a shit showy time like the 60s/70s, and we’ll beat the crazies back by winning the argument, and save the country

          The 60s/70s was also a low-grade civil war, but people have forgotten how crazy things were back then–it wasn’t just the protests, race riots, or events like the 68 Democratic convention. Bombings of government buildings and other places like bars and movie theaters became so common that it literally led to the Republicans’ “Tough on Crime” stance that it’s maintained for nearly 50 years.

          “Days of Rage” by Bryan Burrough is a great read on that time frame. It’s incredible how crazy things actually got.

          1. Yeah. This was something that I slowly learned over the years, since I wasn’t alive back then. Shit got WAY worse than it is now. I think we’re heading for at least that level of crazy, if not going full on Civil War V 2.0 at some point.

  59. While I abhor our civil legal system/legal extortion racket, I very much agree with the decision here. This seems to be a clear cut case of libel and not about free speech. If an individual simply voiced their opinion, that’s purely speech. Here you have false claims about past racist behavior and overt efforts to damage the business with protests and fliers. Personally, I think protests are usually more about harassment than speech – union picket lines are a good example of this – and shouldn’t be protected if they interfere with somebody else’s freedoms. The actions of the students and Oberlin college were malicious and caused great economic and personal harm. There should be a better way to determine damages but the damages are immense. Ideally, there should be a judgement against the students as well, perhaps garnishing future wages. They were the most at fault. But our civil legal system is not good at this either since they don’t have “deep pockets.”

    1. They were the most at fault. But our civil legal system is not good at this either since they don’t have “deep pockets.”

      It’s like any civil lawsuit against a big company. The employees who might have fucked up aren’t going to be the targets, it’s the company as a whole. The “college” was targeted because members of the administration engaged in malicious and libelous behavior, encouraged the same on the part of the student body, passed out flyers printed on university stationary using university resources, participated in the protests with the students making the same defamatory claims, engaged in borderline blackmail when it said that the food contract would be restored on condition of the criminal charges against the students being dropped and future theft cases being referred to the school rather than the police, never retracted promotion of the accusations of the business being racist, and demonstrated malicious intent when calls for moderation were met with vitriol.

      And in the aftermath, the school has doubled down on its false claims that the lawsuit was based the actions of its students rather than the behavior of its administrators, and the resulting harassment of the owner and business that took place. Quite frankly, $44 million is probably too low if they aren’t going to get the message. Paraphrasing Meredith Raimondo, FUCK Oberlin–I’d say, burn the university to the ground and salt the earth if I didn’t think that this all needed to be put behind them.

  60. If you wish the facts of this case, go to “Legal Insurrection.”

    That blog had day-by-day coverage of the trial, together with insightful comments on both sides’ legal strategies – including strategies that were NOT employed.

    With all facts in hand most thoughtful people will likely conclude that the verdict – and the damages awarded – were right and proper.

  61. […] vice president and dean of students Meredith Raimondo guilty of libel. Jurors heard evidence that Raimondo distributed flyers meant to encourage the protest and that college officials used student funds to buy pizza and […]

  62. […] vice president and dean of students Meredith Raimondo guilty of libel. Jurors heard evidence that Raimondo distributed flyers meant to encourage the protest and that college officials used student funds to buy pizza and […]

  63. […] vice president and dean of students Meredith Raimondo guilty of libel. Jurors heard evidence that Raimondo distributed flyers meant to encourage the protest and that college officials used student funds to buy pizza and […]

  64. […] vice president and dean of students Meredith Raimondo guilty of libel. Jurors heard evidence that Raimondo distributed flyers meant to encourage the protest and that college officials used student funds to buy pizza and […]

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.