https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/09/us/ob...eaj/index.html

Seems excessive. thoughts? Or will this get locked?

Professors not allowed to boycott a bakery? Sounds like CANCEL CULTURE to me!

Not threadworthy

I disagree, this is a completely astonishing case. $40 million for defamation (well beyond any actual damages) and the college didn't even engage in the supposed defamation! Plus the courts refused to cap damages and are refusing to hear any appeals. Literally I can sue you for a billion dollars if one of your students calls me a racist, where are QP and the rest of the histrionic free speech warriors?



https://www.insidehighered.com/news/...d-local-bakery

There are like 5 active threads here. Anyway, I think it's somewhat insane. When I first read the headline I read it as $36.59 (I missed the MILLION part) and thought ok, seems reasonable.

And the whole thing stemmed from someone being DETAINED for trying to buy alcohol underage. Detained? Reminds me of when the Bush girls got arrested for using fake IDs.

I get why you would be offended by the idea that you cannot just use slander and lies to label someone as a tactic to bury them and cancel them after all who would you be without that. But these actions you guys deny exist and that you laugh at any consequences for while hand waving them away, are real.

even now I see you lying about my position in a latter post. I have never argued, EVER, for free speech without consequences when it crosses into areas of defamation and slander. You are the hypocrite here as you would limit and see people punished for all sorts of speech you demand them use.

Whilst i do think this settlement is excessive, and I am uncertain the University should have been tied into it as opposed to just the professors, it does seem like a significant award was merited.

blah blah blah

Even if we concede that there really was defamation occurring, it's absurd to hold a school liable for anything its students say. Also absurd to award the bakery damages vastly exceeding anything they could demonstrate. If you're mad about students not wanting to buy tickets to Larry the Cable Guy you should be very alarmed by this.

I don't think the bolded was why Oberlin was on the hook. I think Oberlin was on the hook because of the participation of deans and professors.

If Jeff Sachs is correct (ianal so maybe he's wrong here) part of the issue was indeed speech by the student senate. It seems to suggest that Oberlin is on the hook for the speech of any student-run club loosely associated with the university.

Even they should of course be free do what they want as private individuals (still of course subject to libel laws)-- but it sounds like they used University resources.

“using university resources” seems like an incredibly low bar. If I walk into a campus library and print out a defamatory pamphlet, is the school on the hook for that? What if a student club is using a university meeting room? There’s no way Oberlin can reasonably be expected to police anything anyone does with a university resource.

Fair point and I'm sure I could have worded that better....I meant more that (given the participation of the deans and the fliers) it was sanctioned by the school.

There is no better example of how deeply dishonest you are then your attempt to change the narrative of my words above by cutting out this which speaks to exactly what you feel you NEED to lie about and pretend I did not say, so you can have something to be critical of me on...

"...Whilst i do think this settlement is excessive, and I am uncertain the University should have been tied into it as opposed to just the professors..."


Once again you demonstrate the very point of how people like you on the left know your arguments are devoid of fact and legitimacy and that you can never seem to be right or relevant if you respond honestly and only can seem relevant if you lie and slander.

Expensive lesson to learn that you shouldn't react before the facts.

I just read about this incident and saw that all three students eventually pled guilty to the charges filed against them.

I do think it's crazy that some large groups of activist types are jumping to conclusions and protesting the arrests of any young people of color. This was clearly not a case of police brutality or anything notably improper about the arrests. And then they're protesting and attempting to harm the (allegedly, at the time) victimized small business, not the police.

I'm happy to see some action taken against these kinds of knee-jerk reactions, but I don't know enough about the case to say if the University itself should be held responsible.
Seems likely they were sued because they have the deepest pockets. And the amount of money awarded certainly does seem excessive, but maybe not out of line with lots of similar exemplary awards where juries are trying to send a message to those who might otherwise do something similar in the future.

Right. The school isn't on the hook because someone used a photocopier in the library. I can only assume that the plaintiffs argued that the school knowingly allowed its name to be used to further or add gravitas to the defamatory statements.

I haven't looked at the case nearly closely enough to have a view on whether that is true.

It's also an expensive lesson to learn that false accusations of racism can have consequences.

Here is a link to the complaint if anyone is interested:

http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/0...ge.lawsuit.pdf

I'm not an attorney, but after reading most of that I can see why Oberlin lost so hard.

The question is, why would a school try to destory a bakery business? Are they just evil woke people who like to call people racist?

Possibly. But I think the real answer starts at the bottom of page 15. It's quite the plot twist. (hint: it's not a student using a school copier to print flyers)

Interesting.

So the university wanted that building and land for a long time and were fighting with the cafe owners for ages.

They understood that people on the left like Trolly are both willing to jump on any smear, slander and lie campaign and cancel the accused offender. In this case the 'canceling' they were seeking would have been to stop all customers going, and force the shut down and sale of the business at a nice low ball price.


Now we can wait for Trolly to hand wave away any of that as meaningful.

It reminds me of something from the Sopranos. I didn’t realize what “woke mob” actually meant.

I'm skeptical that it was a play by Oberlin to get the property at a lowball price. Those few paragraphs in the complaint weren't substantiated by much of anything.

Oberlin's commitment to its political brand seems to have led to some poor decisions. I think that it is probably as simple as that.

Don't know what's more hilarious, the idea that some academic administrators in a woo-woo liberal arts college are running an elaborate mafioso shakedown, or that they decided to trust the kids in the student senate enough to let them in on their diabolical schemes.

Larger city universities have learned to be plenty worldly and rapacious about real estate stuff. NYU is one of the most hated landowners in downtown Manhattan.

But I don't see it in this case.

Locally, this case is old news as it has been on appeal forever. The plaintiff counsel completely destroyed the credibility of the School administrators and professors during the trial. They were contradicted by their own internal documents and the independent witnesses. Coupled with Oberlin"s historical intolerance of and elitist attitude towards it's community, this case was the perfect storm for slapping the school with a dose of reality for their wrongful conduct.