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

[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.

Um, pedophilia is *not* an action, but a sexual predilection, and it isn't actually illegal.

Acting on the "predilection," however, is illegal and since it's difficult to believe that someone who has admitted to such a predilection has never acted upon it, if you wish to accuse someone of having a particular sexual predilection--but not something they ever acted upon--and you make it clear that you have no proof and that this is just your opinion, then it may be considered protected speech, but then you'd still have to provide reasons why you hold that opinion (because the act is illegal).

The act of having better natural sun protection is not a crime, so irrationally hating someone for their superior DNA is not the same thing and/or accusing someone of hating someone else for having superior DNA is not the same thing as expressing a seriously held opinion of someone having a criminal predilection toward raping children.

For hopefully the last time, however, the reasons for the opinions of racism in regard to Gibson's bakery were in fact stated in court documents and depositions.

 

[J842P]

Um, pedophilia is *not* an action, but a sexual predilection, and it isn't actually illegal.

Acting on the "predilection," however, is illegal and since it's difficult to believe that someone who has admitted to such a predilection has never acted upon it, if you wish to accuse someone of having a particular sexual predilection--but not something they ever acted upon--and you make it clear that you have no proof and that this is just your opinion, then it may be considered protected speech, but then you'd still have to provide reasons why you hold that opinion.

For hopefully the last time, the reasons for the opinions of racism on behalf of Gibson's bakery were in fact stated in court documents and depositions.

Look, all I'm saying is that the analogy is apt.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Um, pedophilia is *not* an action, but a sexual predilection, and it isn't actually illegal.

Acting on the "predilection," however, is illegal and since it's difficult to believe that someone who has admitted to such a predilection has never acted upon it, if you wish to accuse someone of having a particular sexual predilection--but not something they ever acted upon--and you make it clear that you have no proof and that this is just your opinion, then it may be considered protected speech, but then you'd still have to provide reasons why you hold that opinion.

For hopefully the last time, the reasons for the opinions of racism on behalf of Gibson's bakery were in fact stated in court documents and depositions.

Look, all I'm saying is that the analogy is apt.

And all I am countering with is that it is not apt. You are free to voice your opinion that you think someone else is a racist, because it's (a) subjective and (b) not criminal to be a racist. It should be, but it's not. You are not, however, free to voice your opinion that someone else rapes children, because it's (a) a truth claim and therefore objectively quantifiable and (b) criminal to rape children.

So, the analogy is not comparable in the slightest.

 

[ronburgundy]

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.

Being stupid is not more or less objective than being racist, and engaging in stupid behavior is no more or less objective than racist behavior. Both refer not to observable actions themselves,but to believed psychological processes that can produce a near infinite variety of actions that can be produced by other factors. For example, you follow a person around a store, and someone infers that you did so b/c you are racist. Identically, you give someone the wrong change or just take a full minute to find the price of their item and they infer that you are stupid.

If you want to argue truth as a defense you must demonstrate to a jury a preponderance of evidence that your statement is true.

Wrong. As the standard legal definition I quoted states, the burden is on the plaintiff to show that the statement is objectively false and that the speaker knew or should have known that it was false.

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.

Which is only relevant if the claims as racism were specifically only about that exact event. But they were not and the jury knew they were not, b/c the statement explicitly referenced "a long history" which shows that it was a very general statement that covered any of a countless number of events about which there is no evidence either, only the subjective perception of how people think they were treated. But this is critical, b/c the bakery's lawyers argued that the statements were specifically about that particular event and not a more general perception. Their case was based on this argument and yet the supposed libelous statement are explicitly more general than just that one incident.

And the history of shoplifting arrests at Gibson's showed Blacks were not arrested more than their percentage in the population.

So, then you are saying that anytime there is a non-proportional outcome between racial groups, then that does prove racism? Of course not, since countless times you have repeatedly denied that such stats have any evidential value. If unequal outcomes don't prove racism, then equal outcomes do not show a lack of racism. If more blacks got arrested, you'd argue that's b/c they steal more. Well, if whites are more likely to visit and steal from that store, but the store engages in profiling, then you can wind up with equal arrests. Exactly b/c profiling refers to subjective motives and not to actual observable actions, the number of times police are called is not directly relevant. When profiling occurs, police are rarely called b/c there is no actual theft. Profiling simply means being more carefully watched, it means the profiler appears to suspicious of someone based upon race. IF that sounds like something highly subjective that can almost never be proven or disproven, it's b/c it is.

 

[dismal]

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.

Being stupid is not more or less objective than being racist, and engaging in stupid behavior is no more or less objective than racist behavior. Both refer not to observable actions themselves,but to believed psychological processes that can produce a near infinite variety of actions that can be produced by other factors. For example, you follow a person around a store, and someone infers that you did so b/c you are racist. Identically, you give someone the wrong change or just take a full minute to find the price of their item and they infer that you are stupid.

If you want to argue truth as a defense you must demonstrate to a jury a preponderance of evidence that your statement is true.

Wrong. As the standard legal definition I quoted states, the burden is on the plaintiff to show that the statement is objectively false and that the speaker knew or should have known that it was false.

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.

Which is only relevant if the claims as racism were specifically only about that exact event. But they were not and the jury knew they were not, b/c the statement explicitly referenced "a long history" which shows that it was a very general statement that covered any of a countless number of events about which there is no evidence either, only the subjective perception of how people think they were treated. But this is critical, b/c the bakery's lawyers argued that the statements were specifically about that particular event and not a more general perception. Their case was based on this argument and yet the supposed libelous statement are explicitly more general than just that one incident.

And the history of shoplifting arrests at Gibson's showed Blacks were not arrested more than their percentage in the population.

So, then you are saying that anytime there is a non-proportional outcome between racial groups, then that does prove racism? Of course not, since countless times you have repeatedly denied that such stats have any evidential value. If unequal outcomes don't prove racism, then equal outcomes do not show a lack of racism. If more blacks got arrested, you'd argue that's b/c they steal more. Well, if whites are more likely to visit and steal from that store, but the store engages in profiling, then you can wind up with equal arrests. Exactly b/c profiling refers to subjective motives and not to actual observable actions, the number of times police are called is not directly relevant. When profiling occurs, police are rarely called b/c there is no actual theft. Profiling simply means being more carefully watched, it means the profiler appears to suspicious of someone based upon race. IF that sounds like something highly subjective that can almost never be proven or disproven, it's b/c it is.

Look, it does me no good to keep telling you you are wrong. You can attempt to resist reality all you like, but it makes dealing with observable things that happen more challenging.

My advice to you would be to call Oberlin and tell them exactly where their lawyers messed up. It seems they really could have used someone with your vast knowledge and experience in litigating libel claims on their side.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Look, it does me no good to keep telling you you are wrong.

Especially since you are so blatantly and demonstrably wrong yourself.

My advice to you would be to call Oberlin and tell them exactly where their lawyers messed up.

They didn't mess anything up. The jury did.

Do you seriously not understand how our jurisprudence works, or, in this case, failed to work and why we have an appeals process for precisely this reason?

 

[dismal]

Well, let's hope the Gibson's can live with the fact experts on the internet know their case is unwinnable.

Maybe the $40 million they won will help them get over it.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Well, let's hope the Gibson's can live with the fact experts on the internet know their case is unwinnable.

Maybe the $40 million they won will help them get over it.

Boy you REALLY don't understand how our jurisprudence works. First of all, as has already been pointed out, the Jury broke Ohio law by trying to award that amount. So right off the bat nowhere near that amount would be given to Gibsons no matter what.

Second, because the case will be appealed--all the way to the SCOTUS probably--and once there overturned, they likely will never receive any money.

 

[dismal]

Well, let's hope the Gibson's can live with the fact experts on the internet know their case is unwinnable.

Maybe the $40 million they won will help them get over it.

Boy you REALLY don't understand how our jurisprudence works. First of all, as has already been pointed out, the Jury broke Ohio law by trying to award that amount. So right off the bat nowhere near that amount would be given to Gibsons no matter what.

Second, because the case will be appealed--all the way to the SCOTUS probably--and once there overturned, they likely will never receive any money.

See, that's why I come here. Where else can you get such sophisticated legal analysis?

Many people would actually think that losing more in damages than the statutory limit allows is a sign the school's legal arguments were bad.

But we have the libel law experts here so we can see it's just a bold strategy that will probably pay off for them.

[YOUTUBE]9HVejEB5uVk[/YOUTUBE]

 

[J842P]

Look, all I'm saying is that the analogy is apt.

And all I am countering with is that it is not apt. You are free to voice your opinion that you think someone else is a racist, because it's (a) subjective and (b) not criminal to be a racist. It should be, but it's not. You are not, however, free to voice your opinion that someone else rapes children, because it's (a) a truth claim and therefore objectively quantifiable and (b) criminal to rape children.

So, the analogy is not comparable in the slightest.

Well, then you are simply mistaken: saying someone is a pedophile is not the same as claiming they rape children. Indeed, there are pedophiles who have never raped a child, but suffer from intense urges to have sexual relations with pre-pubescent children and seek out treatment. You are equivocating between child sexual assault / rape and pedophilia. Being a pedophile is not an act. Both racism and pedophilia are truth claims, and neither are against the law, although, they are both associated with illegal acts (racial discrimination in public accommodation, child rape). They constitute objective facts about the world, albeit, because they both constitute facts about the psychological aspects of human beings, they can be hard to establish objectively.

I'm probably close to a free-speech absolutist, so I think libel should apply only to very specific cases where it can be shown that the persons accused of libel knew that the claim was false, or it can be established that the claim was maliciously concocted. I'm not sure that is the case here. But either way, the analogy is apt.

 

[dismal]

I'm probably close to a free-speech absolutist, so I think libel should apply only to very specific cases where it can be shown that the persons accused of libel knew that the claim was false, or it can be established that the claim was maliciously concocted. I'm not sure that is the case here. But either way, the analogy is apt.

Generally those standards are applied for "public figures". If you destroy a private citizen's livelihood by defaming them with false claims you may be held liable for damages. Good or bad, it's the way tort law works.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

defaming them with false claims

Being the key.

In my opinion, you're a racist.

That's not a claim (true or false). That's my opinion.

 

[dismal]

defaming them with false claims

Being the key.

In my opinion, you're a racist.

That's not a claim (true or false). That's my opinion.

OK, now do:

"This is a RACIST establishment with a LONG ACCOUNT of RACIAL PROFILING and DISCRIMINATION".

And if you're up for it:

"A member of our community was assaulted by the owner of this establishment yesterday. A 19 y/o young man was apprehended and choked by Allyn Gibson of Gibson's Food Mart & Bakery. The young man, who was accompanied by 2 friends was choked until the 2 forced Allyn to let go. After The young man was free Allyn chased him across College St and Into Tappan Sq. There, Allyn tackled him and restrained him again until Oberlin police arrived. The 3 were racially profiled on the scene."

Just someone's opinion, that.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

defaming them with false claims

Being the key.

In my opinion, you're a racist.

That's not a claim (true or false). That's my opinion.

OK

Great. You agree.

now do:

"This is a RACIST establishment with a LONG ACCOUNT of RACIAL PROFILING and DISCRIMINATION".

Yep. What about it? Still an opinion (but also something that was supported by Oberlin in their petition for summary judgement).

And if you're up for it:

Always.

"A member of our community was assaulted by the owner of this establishment yesterday.

Fact.

A 19 y/o young man was apprehended and choked by Allyn Gibson of Gibson's Food Mart & Bakery.

Fact.

The young man, who was accompanied by 2 friends was choked until the 2 forced Allyn to let go.

Fact.

After The young man was free Allyn chased him across College St and Into Tappan Sq.

Fact.

There, Allyn tackled him and restrained him again until Oberlin police arrived.

Fact.

The 3 were racially profiled on the scene."

Opinion, supported by the fact that although all of them were on public property by the time the police arrived and it was Allyn--the white guy--who initiated the violence and was clearly in the dominant position, the police only arrested the black kids.

Just someone's opinion, that.

Yes, it was, and again it was supported by the factual events.

Unless Ohio has some sort of vigilante justice law that that you know of that allows employees to take the law into their own hands and impersonate officers in assaulting and restraining people outside of their establishment--and on public property, no less--that they merely suspect of being shoplifters, then at the very least the police should have arrested everyone involved until such time as they could figure out who did what and why.

Instead, they let the white guy--the one who was actually committing the violence--go while arresting the ones who were defending the guy who allegedly was trying to shoplift.

Or does he also not get due process protection under Ohio law?

 

[dismal]

Oh yeah, that reminds me it's a complete waste of time to talk to you. My mistake for trying.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Well, then you are simply mistaken:

I am demonstrably not.

saying someone is a pedophile is not the same as claiming they rape children.

Yes, actually it is. Saying, "In my opinion, you look like someone who would commit pedophilia" or the like is not the same thing as claiming they rape children, but saying, "You are a pedophile" is most definitely and unquestionably accusing them of actually raping children.

Indeed, there are pedophiles who have never raped a child,

It's irrelevant what the other person may or may not actually be; the question of defamation goes to the intent of the person making the defaming accusation. If I were to publish: "J842P is a pedophile." You would have a claim of defamation against me. It wouldn't matter if I then clarified to the court, "No, I didn't mean that he ever acted on it, I just meant it in the clinical sense because he told me one time that he had certain urges."

That defense wouldn't fly, because the damage inflicted upon you by my false claim arises from what others would have inferred from my statement, not whether or not my original intention was to merely express an opinion.

If I were to publish: "I believe that J842P has pedophillic tendencies, but I don't believe he has acted on them." Then you would not have a defamation case against me.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Oh yeah, that reminds me it's a complete waste of time to talk to you. My mistake for trying.

Coward. You are served your ass on a silver plate and then pull this childish bullshit to avoid the fact that you have no legitimate counter argument.

 

[dismal]

Oh yeah, that reminds me it's a complete waste of time to talk to you. My mistake for trying.

Coward. You are served your ass on a silver plate and then pull this childish bullshit to avoid the fact that you have no legitimate counter argument.

Heh. Well, good luck with the ol' arrogance/ignorance combo.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Oh yeah, that reminds me it's a complete waste of time to talk to you. My mistake for trying.

Coward. You are served your ass on a silver plate and then pull this childish bullshit to avoid the fact that you have no legitimate counter argument.

Heh. Well, good luck with the ol' arrogance/ignorance combo.

Says the one who couldn't present any counter arguments.

Good luck with the cowardice.

 

[Gun Nut]

Unless Ohio has some sort of vigilante justice law that that you know of that allows employees to take the law into their own hands and impersonate officers in assaulting and restraining people outside of their establishment--and on public property, no less--that they merely suspect of being shoplifters, then at the very least the police should have arrested everyone involved until such time as they could figure out who did what and why.

Not sure about Ohio specifically, but most states have provision for a citizen's arrest... where that can happen and under what circumstance varies state to state, but such a provision exists... and it is not "impersonating a police officer" unless they claim to be one.
I personally have placed dozens of people under a type of citizen's arrest in my past career in Security. Only twice did it involve physical force on my part..tackling a person that was attempting to leave the area with stolen goods. which never became an issue. One time a knife was pulled on me and I chose to let the kid go (since he dropped the stack of jeans he "smashed and grabbed". I could have shot him. I chose not to. The jeans were on the ground and he was not advancing towards me with the knife, but backing away.
anyway... you are not a vigilante for performing a citizens arrest upon a person that has caused you or your business harm.