That would be the one positive that comes out of it and I am very happy the judge forced the case for this reason.

Because by "...could be used as a cudgel against other schools" we all know your fear is "...'could be used as a cudgel to make people think twice about using lies and smears as a tactic'.


Your side loses a lot, if threatened with real monetary consequences for baseless accusations and lies and society is better off over all if you are fearful and silenced in that regard.

Hasn't stopped you or others in the far left from weaponizing them and just believing no consequences will ever come back to bite you for it.

If anything the far left has got so emboldened in thinking no body/gov't would ever hold them to account that it has lead to this.

Again parallels to Trump and the extreme right. You just keep pushing, get away with and push further, thinking you will never be held to account.

Until....

Did you lose the script? It’s the bakery suing Oberlin for defamation. Maybe it’s confusing for you when you switch back and forth between wanting to cancel Oberlin in this thread and wailing about CANCEL CULTURE in the thread next door.

Trolly, Id say f these bastards, the school, the students all of them, this all was terribly wrong:


"Six years ago, in 2016, an Oberlin College student with a fake I.D. got carded by a clerk at Gibson’s Bakery. Unable to buy wine legally, the student attempted to shoplift several bottles. When the store clerk took out his cellphone to take a picture of the student, the student tried to slap it away—hitting the clerk’s face.

The incident devolved into a physical altercation between the student, two friends, and the clerk. By the time the police arrived, they found store owner David Gibson lying on the ground, while the three Oberlin students punched and kicked him. The police arrested all three students. Eventually, in August 2017, all three students would plead guilty to shoplifting and acknowledge that Gibson’s response was justified."





When the incident first occurred, because the shoplifters were black, the Oberlin community quickly accused Gibson’s of racism and discrimination in a series of high-profile attacks. Gibson’s and the college had a longstanding relationship, students regularly frequented the bakery, and there had been no prior suggestion that the owners or employees were racist. All of that context was conveniently ignored."



https://www.forbes.com/sites/frederi...illion-poorer/

No one ITT is defending the shoplifters.

imagine this happened to you.

first they steal from you then they kick and beat you lying on the ground. and the next day, they protest and attack you and your family and call you a racist. faaawk

now I understand those 40M in damages.

the student is just a dumb kid trying to save his ass, he couldn't come clean although he should have.

I'm blaming the school and nobody else.

The case between the bakery and Oberlin was a civil case. I was referring to the criminal case against the student that was described in the civil complaint. Courts have no rule in approving civil settlements (except in class actions, which this is not).

Also, I am not theorizing about what the judge in the criminal case thought. In its ruling rejecting the plea deal, the court said:

or where they racist idk? it doesn't seem like it. if the bakery was racist, Forbes would know and report it , right?

ahh idk man. it looks like this kid didn't want to get kicked out of school man. and he made some **** up.

My brother in Christ, the fact of whether or not the bakery is racist is not the important issue here.

Yes, all agreed to the verdict.

Ya that script is the one you need to face more often.

Free speech does not mean defamation and slurs and lies should be able to go uncontested and unpunished.

I know you think it should, and I know moreso you are concerned about how you will participate in society if you cannot use those things as tools of silence.

BUt if you are now trying to equate suing someone for defamation and slander as Cancel Culture all i have to say to you is 'LULZ'.

According to your latest argument it seems you think the issue here is the ability of the aggrieved to sue for defamation and libel, as you seem to be trying to say doing so is Cancel Culture.

Trolly can't possibly want this, Cuepee.

I read all the articles I read all this thread for the last hour. it's terrible, seriously messed up. Trolly got it all wrong at the start of the thread, but he wasn't the only poster.

slowly but steadily you arrived at the right conclusions. there is a new York post article that sums it all pretty well. it's a long article. they blame a prof, a blond chick as resposible for most of the schools actions and atrocities like the protest and flyers. some uni or college in Alberta is now unfortunate to have her. the Dean is an idiot too, she stalled the payment.

I didn't want to post all these articles and tell you everything because it seriously made me mad and sad. it's really a sad story. the business owner and his son both died. at 92 and 61 I believe, the problem is they died after a years long harassment and legal battle, protests from the school and students. and the school rejecting and refusing to pay up. it broke them. they had to release half of their staff. it's really heartbreaking what happened.


The school never stopped to mess with this shop and only now after public outrage I.e. from stanford profs they paid. that was just too late, too much damage happened. the son of the owner died before his father at 61. both were the owners running this bakery.


there was no racism, surely they had problems with shoplifting students for some years but they weren't racist. the students admitted they made that up. so they made right at the end. nobody of the school has apologized. they got tormented for years with students harassing them mentally and physically. they broke this family.

So yes if you didn't know, now you know. read the Washington post articles, new York post and wall street journal about this case if you're interested or you don't believe me.

The implication of all this is that the college supposedly has the responsibility of policing everything a campus group or professor says or what anyone posts on a school bulletin board. It could have a chilling effect on free speech, yet the Cancel Culture crowd seems pretty cool with it. Several law scholars seem worried about where this could lead.

I dont think this has anthing to do with free speech. A Universtity acts like a small country here, it has a president, a vice president, staff and student body. They were all complicit. It came all from the president, dean in this case.

They as a whole were arrogant and wrong and rightfully punished.
This was a small town, a college next to a bakery. And hundreds of students rioting outside the shop for years because they had a posting on the bulletin board from the top staff. They died before they could clear their names. Clearing their name of being called a racists was very important to them. Atrocity. And before some racists say typical, atrocities are done to all people, it goes both ways as this case shows.

Should Dave Chapel face action for saying that the person who attacked him was transgender? Seems it was a defamation and lie rolled into one.

The dean of a college is not credibly responsible for everything said by a student campus group. He’s not directing them.

This is more like holding Dave responsible for a defamatory statement one of his fans makes.

I imagine that the standard for assessing whether the actions of employees can be imputed to the employer are the same for universities as for any other organization. Those sorts of standards generally turn on questions like: (i) was the employee acting within the scope of his or her employment?; and (ii) was the employer encouraging or directing the employee to act?

here you can see the staff thats (partly) responsible. She moved to a college in atlanta.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-students.html

oh believe me she was responsible in many ways.

She was pressured to pay by public outrage, that includes public letters from other schools. She even played dumb and still told her staff and students to avoid the bakery.

She paid 4 days ago I believe. And it happened in 2016. The family and business were victims of terror for that many years.

Who is in charge of this mess? of course the president of the school. She organized protests, told her students, told everyone of her staff to avoid, printed flyers, and cut business ties. That all happened under her supervision and most of it was even instructed by her.

Until now she hated that bakery. I dont know why, because she had to pay 36 millions probably and then see her ass fired.

maybe you can get behind the paywall.


"why I quit teaching at oberlin"


https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-qui...ty-11662045107

and here is the idiot prof again thats responsible, she looks like an idiot truely.

https://nydailypaper.com/oberlin-col...gn1490ito1490/

here are letters from a stanford prof, that probably lead her to pay up.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/oberlin...ce-11662480574


Now I have to focus on my stuff.

This article mentions that most stores don't chase after shoplifters because they don't want it to escalate to violence, but it doesn't say that business have to let shoplifters go (just that they generally do).

What percentage of people even know where Oberlin college is or what it is?

Its a small liberal arts college that was mean and arrogant to the villagers I read. Because they are the " academics."

The Hoover article, of course, does not mention that California can't stop you from shoplifting. It even mentions that California is enacting tougher penalties for shoplifting overall, but that's not enough apparently.

Yea that doesn't really work.