Apparently you are now "racist" if you prosecute black shoplifters and assaulters

[dismal]

Currently, companies are not liable for those things. They are liable when an employee causes harm as a product of them performing their work duties, which includes harm caused by incompetent execution of those duties.

Exactly! And since the the work duty of university employees is babysit their students they are liable for the damage caused. Case closed.

It might help to read up on the facts of the case before posting. That would save you typing a bunch of irrelevant words.

Maybe start back here:

https://talkfreethought.org/showthre...l=1#post683784

 

[ronburgundy]

The equivalent would be that if any employee of any company uses their cell phone while at work to post something on twitter, the company they work for are responsible for the content of that speech. Even if they are on lunch break, if they do it while in a chair owned by the company, then the company is responsible.
Or a cable installer is out on the job, they decide to go home and kill their wife. The cable company is now responsible for that murder b/c he was on the clock at the time and used the van to drive home?

Currently, companies are not liable for those things. They are liable when an employee causes harm as a product of them performing their work duties, which includes harm caused by incompetent execution of those duties. Companies can be expected to ensure their employees are competent enough not to cause accidental harm to others. They cannot and are not expected to control every personal decision an employee makes to do something outside the scope of their job. The exception is if they ignored obvious signals that the employee was dangerous or mentally unstable.



So, it seems reasonable to you that every University hire thousands of additional full time lawyers to screen every single word ever uttered or typed by any employee, whether on campus, off campus but in official capacity, off campus in an unofficial capacity but using a laptop paid for by grants, etc..

How is this an affront to free speech? Libel/slander is not protected speech.

If Universities could protect themselves from such an absurd precedent (which would require billions of additional dollars), it would require them censoring speech prior to it ever being found to be libel or slander. Any possibility of it being so would have to be censored. And since about 1% of things that could possibly be found to be slander by a jury are actual slander, that means 99% of what is censored by the University would be legal speech.

It might help to read up on the facts of the case before posting. That would save you typing a bunch of irrelevant words.

Maybe start back here:

https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...and-assaulters&p=683784&viewfull=1#post683784

Of course you cut out what I was actually responding to, so you could create the dishonest strawman that defines your every post.
My comments apply directly to Axulus' saying that Universities and all companies should be held liable for any "slander" engaged in by any employee that is in any way making use of company resources.
"universities must be very careful in allowing their resources to be used to propagate libel/slander" "Businesses are subject to damages caused by their employees routinely. Why should it be any different for libel/slander?"

That is independent of whether the judgment in this particular case actually establishes that precedent.

 

[barbos]

Currently, companies are not liable for those things. They are liable when an employee causes harm as a product of them performing their work duties, which includes harm caused by incompetent execution of those duties.

Exactly! And since the the work duty of university employees is babysit their students they are liable for the damage caused. Case closed.

It might help to read up on the facts of the case before posting. That would save you typing a bunch of irrelevant words.

Maybe start back here:

https://talkfreethought.org/showthre...l=1#post683784

Cool, I read it, did not help me at all. In fact it was quite irrelevant

 

[dismal]

It might help to read up on the facts of the case before posting. That would save you typing a bunch of irrelevant words.

Maybe start back here:

https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...and-assaulters&p=683784&viewfull=1#post683784

Of course you cut out what I was actually responding to, so you could create the dishonest strawman that defines your every post.
My comments apply directly to Axulus' saying that Universities and all companies should be held liable for any "slander" engaged in by any employee that is in any way making use of company resources.
"universities must be very careful in allowing their resources to be used to propagate libel/slander" "Businesses are subject to damages caused by their employees routinely. Why should it be any different for libel/slander?"

That is independent of whether the judgment in this particular case actually establishes that precedent.

You may also want to lookup what "strawman" means.

 

[dismal]

It might help to read up on the facts of the case before posting. That would save you typing a bunch of irrelevant words.

Maybe start back here:

https://talkfreethought.org/showthre...l=1#post683784

Cool, I read it, did not help me at all. In fact it was quite irrelevant

So, you felt a description of what was testified to at the case was irrelevant to the case? Not sure where to go with that.

 

[ronburgundy]

It might help to read up on the facts of the case before posting. That would save you typing a bunch of irrelevant words.

Maybe start back here:

https://talkfreethought.org/showthre...l=1#post683784

Cool, I read it, did not help me at all. In fact it was quite irrelevant

So, you felt a description of what was testified to at the case was irrelevant to the case? Not sure where to go with that.

Well, none of what was testified to at the case was relevant to the central aspect of the law, which requires that plaintiffs prove the statements to be objectively false. Since we know with certainty that its inherently impossible to prove such statement objectively false, we know this was not done and that the jury did not obey the law in reaching their ruling.

To show the statements were false, the bakery would need to show that there has never been a single instance where any of their employees have done or said anything the could be reasonably interpreted as being "racist" or "discrimination". IOW, they would need video and audio of every action of their employees to prove a broad inclusive negative.

That is why most of what you posted is actually about things that the members of the administration said (like "Fuck Roger") that have no relevance to the defamation claim but merely make the University look mean and unsympathetic in ways that legally have no bearing on the complaint but emotionally manipulate the jury into punishing the school b/c they weren't very nice.

It sets the precedent that any statement that is considered offensive or unpleasant is slander, unless the speaker can prove the statement is objectively true.

 

[ronburgundy]

It might help to read up on the facts of the case before posting. That would save you typing a bunch of irrelevant words.

Maybe start back here:

https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...and-assaulters&p=683784&viewfull=1#post683784

Of course you cut out what I was actually responding to, so you could create the dishonest strawman that defines your every post.
My comments apply directly to Axulus' saying that Universities and all companies should be held liable for any "slander" engaged in by any employee that is in any way making use of company resources.
"universities must be very careful in allowing their resources to be used to propagate libel/slander" "Businesses are subject to damages caused by their employees routinely. Why should it be any different for libel/slander?"

That is independent of whether the judgment in this particular case actually establishes that precedent.

You may also want to lookup what "strawman" means.

"an intentional misrepresention of an claim that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument."

You deleted the statements by Axulus that were part of my own post to make it seem my claims were about this Oberlin case in particular rather than about the far more general notion that Universities in general (and therefore all companies) should be held liable for any words or actions by their employees that makes use of any company resources.

 

[dismal]

You may also want to lookup what "strawman" means.

"an intentional misrepresention of an claim that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument."

You deleted the statements by Axulus that were part of my own post to make it seem my claims were about this Oberlin case in particular rather than about the far more general notion that Universities in general (and therefore all companies) should be held liable for any words or actions by their employees that makes use of any company resources.

I did not delete it. The forum software deleted it.

But if you want to talk about cases other than this one perhaps you should start a new thread.

This case was about Oberlin personnel acting in their official capacity aiding in the production and distribution of libelous material.

At least it seems we can agree on your post being irrelevant to the topic.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

At least it seems we can agree on your post being irrelevant to the topic.

Ooh. Irony. Fun.

 

[Trausti]

So, you felt a description of what was testified to at the case was irrelevant to the case? Not sure where to go with that.

Well, none of what was testified to at the case was relevant to the central aspect of the law, which requires that plaintiffs prove the statements to be objectively false. Since we know with certainty that its inherently impossible to prove such statement objectively false, we know this was not done and that the jury did not obey the law in reaching their ruling.

Wait. What? ronburgundy is a pedophile. As we know that it's inherently impossible to prove such statement objectively false, I guess this wouldn't be libel.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

So, you felt a description of what was testified to at the case was irrelevant to the case? Not sure where to go with that.

Well, none of what was testified to at the case was relevant to the central aspect of the law, which requires that plaintiffs prove the statements to be objectively false. Since we know with certainty that its inherently impossible to prove such statement objectively false, we know this was not done and that the jury did not obey the law in reaching their ruling.

Wait. What? ronburgundy is a pedophile.

That's a quantifiable accusation, not a personally held opinion. If you had made such a statement in earnest, you would need to provide evidence of the accusation.

In regard to a personally held opinion, such as Trausti is a racist, other than dozens of things you've posted, what evidence could anyone provide?

As to the "things you've posted," note that Oberlin did provide such evidence:

Despite its storied history, some members ofthe Oberlin community viewed the Gibson family, particularly Allyn D. Gibson ("Allyn Jr.") the son and grandson of Plaintiffs David Gibson and Allyn W. Gibson, respectively--as racist. (Ex. (1G & EL of Allyn Jr. Dep., attached hereto as Exhibit 3.4) Additionally, the Bakery had adopted an "us versus them" mentality toward Oberlin College students, a major customer group. (Compl. 1176.) Allyn Jr.--a frequent poster on social media often attacked "entitled" Oberlin students, contending that the Bakery's relationship with Oberlin College students had devolved to the point where he did not trust "about 85% ofthe students" who stepped foot inside the store (Ex. CC of Allyn Jr. Dep., attached hereto as Exhibit 3.) Before long, some non-white students reported that they had been treated poorly and regarded with suspicion while inside the Bakery. (See Aug. 13, 2014 Yelp Review by Mimi F., Ex. B to Snyder Aff.) These feelings of distrust between Gibson's Bakery and its customers continued through the fall of 2016, by which point the annual revenues of Gibson's Bakery had steadily declined by approximately 15% since 2013. (Damage Report — Economic Damages Relating to Lost Profits, by Plaintiffs' expert, Frank J. Monaco, at p. 10, which is attached hereto as Exhibit 4.) Allyn Jr. violently assaults an unarmed Oberlin College student.

The fractured relationship between Gibson's Bakery and Oberlin College students reached a crescendo on November 9, 2016, the day after the presidential election. Just before 5 p.m. on November 9, Allyn Jr., who is white, violently attacked Jonathan Aladin, an unarmed black Oberlin College student, according to multiple witness accounts. (See Witness Statements of Nicole Baxter-Green, Ruben Perry, Ana Goelzer, and Scott Medwid, Ex. C to Snyder Aff.). Allyn Jr. suspected Mr. Aladin of attempting to pay for a bottle of wine with a fake ID and trying to steal two other bottles of wine. (See Oberlin Police Dept. Offense Report of Incident No. 16-00621 (the "Police Report"), p. 2, Ex. E to Snyder Aff.) Allyn Jr. put Mr. Aladin into a chokehold and repeatedly tackled Mr. Aladin as Allyn Jr. pursued him into Tappan Square while he attempted to -flee in front of many shocked witnesses. (Witness Statements of Nicole BaxterGreen, Ruben Perry, Ana Goelzer, and Scott Medwid, Ex. C to Snyder Aff.; Witness Statement of Eli Forster, which is attached as Ex. F to the Affidavit of Meredith Raimondo ("Raimondo Aff.").5) Two of Mr. Aladin's friends—black female Oberlin College students—soon intervened and, after telling Allyn Jr. to let him go, tried to pry Allyn Jr. off Mr. Aladin. (Ex. C to Snyder Aff.; Witness Statement of Eli Ferster, Ex. F to Raimondo Aff.)

Oberlin police officers arrived and arrested Mr. Aladin and his two friends, but did not arrest Allyn Jr. (Police Report, p. 2, Ex. E to Snyder Aff; Ex. C to Snyder Aff.; Ptl. Feuerstein Dep.6 at 52:19-23.) According to David Gibson, Allyn Jr.'s father and a storeowner, shortly after these arrests, three Oberlin College students approached him in the Bakery and informed him that they intended to make their outrage as to Allyn Jr.'s. assault known. (D. Gibson Dep. at 123:25-126:1.)

So in addition to the general bad blood between Oberlin students and Gibsons in evidence in the above accounts, the police arrest the black kids but not the white guy who was the one who instigated and pursued the violence off of the store's property and out into the streets. That's illegal, yet he was not arrested while the others were.

What Allyn should have done when he first suspected criminal behavior is called the police and informed them of a suspected shoplifting. End of story.

He didn't. He evidently chose instead to take the law into his own hands, which, on their own property may have been justified (I'm not conversant in Ohio property law), but once it went out into the public square then Allyn should have also been arrested for assault, regardless of what crimes the other kids may or may not have been guilty of as well.

The point being that such an apparent bias toward letting the white guy go after he went vigilante justice on a black kid would easily result in additional opinions of racism and privilege among the local community.

It wasn't just Oberlin students that were at the protest.

Beginning late in the morning on November 10, 2016, and during the store's business hours on the next day, a few hundred individuals gathered near Gibson's Bakery to protest Allyn Jr.'s violent physical attack on a student, and to express their concerns over racial bias by the Bakery.
...
The protesters, comprised largely, but not exclusively, of Oberlin College students, held signs, chanted, and disseminated flyers that called Gibson's Bakery a racist establishment. (See e.g., Ptl..Crossan Dep. at 12:4-7; C. James Dep. 3 at 98:14 16). David Gibson and Allyn Jr., however, left town after the assault and were not present for any of the protests. (D. Gibson Dep. at 287:24-288:4; Allyn Jr. Dep. at 176:19-177:4.)

Later that same day, the Oberlin College Student Senate passed a resolution decrying the Gibson's Bakery's disregard for student customers. (Email from K. Dunbar to M. Krislov and M. Raimondo (Nov. 10, 2016, 11:15 p.m.) and Oberlin College Student Senate Resolution, Ex. C to Raimondo Aff.)

The owner and their criminal son skipped town and weren't even at the protests to know what if anything was actually being said!

 

[dismal]

So, you felt a description of what was testified to at the case was irrelevant to the case? Not sure where to go with that.

Well, none of what was testified to at the case was relevant to the central aspect of the law, which requires that plaintiffs prove the statements to be objectively false. Since we know with certainty that its inherently impossible to prove such statement objectively false, we know this was not done and that the jury did not obey the law in reaching their ruling.

Wait. What? ronburgundy is a pedophile. As we know that it's inherently impossible to prove such statement objectively false, I guess this wouldn't be libel.

Well, it's objectively true he doesn't know what he's talking about. There is no standard of "objective proof" in a civil trial.

Oberlin could have asserted the "Truth" as defense against libel, but apparently they couldn't muster a preponderance of evidence that the material they assisted in producing and distributing was true.

From the trial descriptions I linked earlier it does not even appear they put much effort into trying. I think perhaps the police records showing Gibsons had detained something like 4 Blacks out of 40 people for shoplifting and the complete lack of other evidence they were racists may have made that a challenge.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Wait. What? ronburgundy is a pedophile. As we know that it's inherently impossible to prove such statement objectively false, I guess this wouldn't be libel.

Well, it's objectively true he doesn't know what he's talking about. There is no standard of "objective proof" in a civil trial.

Horsehit, but irrelevant.

Oberlin could have asserted the "Truth" as defense against libel

They did.

but apparently they couldn't...

...account for a biased jury or judge that did not understand the fact that racism is an opinion--a subjective judgement call--and therefore cannot be considered libelous, which is why this ruling will ultimately be overturned.

From the trial descriptions I linked earlier it does not even appear they put much effort into trying.

Well, hey, look at that. You just presented a subjective opinion in spite of the fact that the objective evidence I posted proves otherwise.

I think perhaps the police records showing Gibsons had detained something like 4 Blacks out of 40 people for shoplifting and the complete lack of other evidence they were racists may have made that a challenge.

And another one. So, to you it appeared that there was a challenge not met, when in fact the objective evidence showed that they did in fact meet the challenge.

So if you were on the jury, ignorance would win just like it did this round. If I were on the jury, our freedom of speech and assembly would not now be in jeopardy.

See how that works now?

 

[ronburgundy]

So, you felt a description of what was testified to at the case was irrelevant to the case? Not sure where to go with that.

Well, none of what was testified to at the case was relevant to the central aspect of the law, which requires that plaintiffs prove the statements to be objectively false. Since we know with certainty that its inherently impossible to prove such statement objectively false, we know this was not done and that the jury did not obey the law in reaching their ruling.

Wait. What? ronburgundy is a pedophile. As we know that it's inherently impossible to prove such statement objectively false, I guess this wouldn't be libel.

False analogy. The nature of the claimed action makes all the difference. Pedophilia is a clear cut action that can be objectively observed, involving physical evidence, it is always a serious felony crime, and there is a strong moral if not legal burden on people who witness it to report it. IOW, anyone making the claim would be able to provide specific details about a particular incident, and if they cannot it strongly implies they are making it up. There is tons of evidence than can be and is used to prove an act of pedophilia, and that means that a lack of any evidence is itself evidence of a false claim.

In contrast, racism and racial profiling are mental processes that do not manifest in clear cut observable actions and are not crimes except when done in very narrow circumstances by particular authorities. Hardly any instances of racism and profiling result in any observable evidence. Precisely for the same reasons that most acts of racism and profiling are impossible to prove, they are also impossible to prove that a person making such a claim is knowingly lying.

 

[dismal]

Wait. What? ronburgundy is a pedophile. As we know that it's inherently impossible to prove such statement objectively false, I guess this wouldn't be libel.

False analogy. The nature of the claimed action makes all the difference. Pedophilia is a clear cut action that can be objectively observed, involving physical evidence, it is always a serious felony crime, and there is a strong moral if not legal burden on people who witness it to report it. IOW, anyone making the claim would be able to provide specific details about a particular incident, and if they cannot it strongly implies they are making it up. There is tons of evidence than can be and is used to prove an act of pedophilia, and that means that a lack of any evidence is itself evidence of a false claim.

In contrast, racism and racial profiling are mental processes that do not manifest in clear cut observable actions and are not crimes except when done in very narrow circumstances by particular authorities. Hardly any instances of racism and profiling result in any observable evidence. Precisely for the same reasons that most acts of racism and profiling are impossible to prove, they are also impossible to prove that a person making such a claim is knowingly lying.

What does this have to do with the case?

Are you suggesting it can't be libelous to call someone a racist because it could possibly be true even if you had no evidence they were?

Seriously?

Couldn't it possibly be true you are a pedophile?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Wait. What? ronburgundy is a pedophile. As we know that it's inherently impossible to prove such statement objectively false, I guess this wouldn't be libel.

False analogy. The nature of the claimed action makes all the difference. Pedophilia is a clear cut action that can be objectively observed, involving physical evidence, it is always a serious felony crime, and there is a strong moral if not legal burden on people who witness it to report it. IOW, anyone making the claim would be able to provide specific details about a particular incident, and if they cannot it strongly implies they are making it up. There is tons of evidence than can be and is used to prove an act of pedophilia, and that means that a lack of any evidence is itself evidence of a false claim.

In contrast, racism and racial profiling are mental processes that do not manifest in clear cut observable actions and are not crimes except when done in very narrow circumstances by particular authorities. Hardly any instances of racism and profiling result in any observable evidence. Precisely for the same reasons that most acts of racism and profiling are impossible to prove, they are also impossible to prove that a person making such a claim is knowingly lying.

What does this have to do with the case?

Everything, as you know damn well.

Are you suggesting it can't be libelous to call someone a racist

Not "suggesting;" it's a simple fact. Considering someone to be racist is a subjective opinion and therefore protected speech.

Accusing someone of raping children, however, is quantifiable and therefore shoulders a burden of proof. You can't possibly be so stupid as to not understand the difference between a subjectively held opinion and a quantifiable positive truth claim.

REGARDLESS, Oberlin did provide evidence of Gibson's bigotry, so you have hoisted yourself twice now. Go for the hattrick. We know you will.

 

[ronburgundy]

Wait. What? ronburgundy is a pedophile. As we know that it's inherently impossible to prove such statement objectively false, I guess this wouldn't be libel.

Well, it's objectively true he doesn't know what he's talking about. There is no standard of "objective proof" in a civil trial.

From Cornell Universities Legal information Institute:
To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.

Not only must the plaintiff show the statement was objectively false, but they must show that the speaker either knew or could have easily known it was false (aka "at least negligence"). Statements that harm others happen billions of times a day, and a huge % of them are false. But very few of them can be shown to be false and that the speaker would easily have know it. That is why defamation cases are so rarely successful.

 

[ronburgundy]

Wait. What? ronburgundy is a pedophile. As we know that it's inherently impossible to prove such statement objectively false, I guess this wouldn't be libel.

False analogy. The nature of the claimed action makes all the difference. Pedophilia is a clear cut action that can be objectively observed, involving physical evidence, it is always a serious felony crime, and there is a strong moral if not legal burden on people who witness it to report it. IOW, anyone making the claim would be able to provide specific details about a particular incident, and if they cannot it strongly implies they are making it up. There is tons of evidence than can be and is used to prove an act of pedophilia, and that means that a lack of any evidence is itself evidence of a false claim.

In contrast, racism and racial profiling are mental processes that do not manifest in clear cut observable actions and are not crimes except when done in very narrow circumstances by particular authorities. Hardly any instances of racism and profiling result in any observable evidence. Precisely for the same reasons that most acts of racism and profiling are impossible to prove, they are also impossible to prove that a person making such a claim is knowingly lying.

What does this have to do with the case?

Are you suggesting it can't be libelous to call someone a racist because it could possibly be true even if you had no evidence they were?

Seriously?

Absolutely. Just as it is not libelous to call someone stupid, a "snowflake", a "cuck", a "socialist", or the vast majority of insults about a person's subjective psychological states, thoughts, feelings, etc..

Libelous statements must be objectively false and the speaker must be shown to have known they are false or at least should have known it but were negligent.

 

[dismal]

What does this have to do with the case?

Are you suggesting it can't be libelous to call someone a racist because it could possibly be true even if you had no evidence they were?

Seriously?

Absolutely. Just as it is not libelous to call someone stupid, a "snowflake", a "cuck", a "socialist", or the vast majority of insults about a person's subjective psychological states, thoughts, feelings, etc..

Libelous statements must be objectively false and the speaker must be shown to have known they are false or at least should have known it but were negligent.

No, you are wrong. An opinion can't be libelous. The truth can't be libelous. Saying "I think Bob is stupid" is an opinion. Saying "Bob has a history of racist behavior" is not an opinion. It is a question of fact. If you want to argue truth as a defense you must demonstrate to a jury a preponderance of evidence that your statement is true.

Unfortunately for the school, the kid in question was not "profiled". He was caught with a fake ID and bottles of wine under his shirt. He pled guilty. And the history of shoplifting arrests at Gibson's showed Blacks were not arrested more than their percentage in the population.

Hence, "Truth" did not succeed as a defense against the Libel claim.

 

[J842P]

Wait. What? ronburgundy is a pedophile. As we know that it's inherently impossible to prove such statement objectively false, I guess this wouldn't be libel.

False analogy. The nature of the claimed action makes all the difference. Pedophilia is a clear cut action that can be objectively observed, involving physical evidence, it is always a serious felony crime, and there is a strong moral if not legal burden on people who witness it to report it. IOW, anyone making the claim would be able to provide specific details about a particular incident, and if they cannot it strongly implies they are making it up. There is tons of evidence than can be and is used to prove an act of pedophilia, and that means that a lack of any evidence is itself evidence of a false claim.

In contrast, racism and racial profiling are mental processes that do not manifest in clear cut observable actions and are not crimes except when done in very narrow circumstances by particular authorities. Hardly any instances of racism and profiling result in any observable evidence. Precisely for the same reasons that most acts of racism and profiling are impossible to prove, they are also impossible to prove that a person making such a claim is knowingly lying.

Um, pedophilia is *not* an action, but a sexual predilection, and it isn't actually illegal. If you can objectively verify pedophilia you can objectively verify racism.