Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
Regardless of your narrow re-frame of the issue, you admitted to the general principle. You therefore implicitly conceded the argument to Koy.
-
Features
Apparently you are now "racist" if you prosecute black shoplifters and assaulters
- Thread starter Derec
- Start date
Regardless of your narrow re-frame of the issue, you admitted to the general principle. You therefore implicitly conceded the argument to Koy.
Huh? I have no idea what you're babbling about. What general principle do you imagine I've admitted to?
Jarhyn
Wizard
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2010
- Messages
- 17,135
- Gender
- Androgyne; they/them
- Basic Beliefs
- Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Yeah, I'm confused about this too. (edited)
Edit: after all, you don't seem to be applying this same disdain you have for shoplifters to certain orange turds committing slightly higher crimes like obstruction of Justice and genocide.
Edit2: I mean if resisting arrest justifies a beating from cops, what should obstruction net you? Summary execution?
Edit3: oh, I get it, your principle must be "laws are for brown and/or poor people"!
Last edited by a moderator:
Axulus
Veteran Member
So the precedent of this case is that universities must be very careful in allowing their resources to be used to propagate libel/slander and should stop any faculty propagating such libel/slander in any kind of official role, or the university may be subject to damages that such libel/slander causes. Seems reasonable to me. Businesses are subject to damages caused by their employees routinely. Why should it be any different for libel/slander?
How is this an affront to free speech? Libel/slander is not protected speech.
How is this an affront to free speech? Libel/slander is not protected speech.
Axulus
Veteran Member
False analogy. The equivalent would be Noam Chomsky, during regular business hours as a university employee, using university resources (rooms for meetings, office supplies and computer equipment to print posters and flyers and send out emails, posting such flyers and handing them out on university property) to propagate libel/slander resulting in harm to a business or individual, and the university knowing about it and allowing such illegal activity to continue. This precedent says that MIT would be financially liable for the harm that Chomsky caused. Not too different from any business being financially liable for the harm caused by actions of their employees.
Question is if the school merely allowed it or endorsed it via any school official in their capacity as a school official.
The school should not be held liable if it merely allows students to protest something, even if done on campus.
And if somebody like Milo comes along and says something hateful while giving a speech on a campus, should the school be liable for his slander? No.
The school should not be held liable if it merely allows students to protest something, even if done on campus.
And if somebody like Milo comes along and says something hateful while giving a speech on a campus, should the school be liable for his slander? No.
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
It wasn't a false analogy as actually those things are included, just not written. So, for example, I went to an activist thing in a lecture hall. They used school resources, like the light bulbs, electricity, heat and the space. There were flyers from students posted on boards in the hall. I bet that was school paper from the computer center. Noam Chomsky was a speaker. When interviewers for political purposes come to talk to him, he's often in his office on school property, not in his personal home/apartment. Here is an example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-U56oPQado8
Did you even think about these things before you posted?
Last edited:
You're right. and in this case, a school employee did not merely allow it, they participated, contributed, helped, provided supplies... basically instigated and perpetuated the whole thing.
But if it were just a segment of the students doing their own thing, I would agree with you. That wasn't what happened though... in this case the school got WAAAAAY involved.
Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
They did not, but even if they had, there is nothing illegal/libelous about that.
They did not.
Not really an issue.
Not really an issue.
Completely false.
Tell it to the Judge, as they say... because he ruled against your bald denials. It was these points that were key in determining liability. These are not my presumptions, these are the findings of the court.
Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
No, the Jury did. Big difference.
Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
Here's some fun from Oberlin's side of the story (emphasis mine):
Iow, it was evidently at the request of the police that Oberlin have Oberlin personnel like Raimondo and Reed at the protest. And the protest, which was spontaneously organized literally the night of the incident between Allyn Gibson, Jr and the three Oberlin college students, was communicated by Reed to Gibson's that a "protest was expected."
Oh, those pesky facts.
Iow, it was evidently at the request of the police that Oberlin have Oberlin personnel like Raimondo and Reed at the protest. And the protest, which was spontaneously organized literally the night of the incident between Allyn Gibson, Jr and the three Oberlin college students, was communicated by Reed to Gibson's that a "protest was expected."
Oh, those pesky facts.
The relevant difference is not between judge and jury, but between court attendees and you.
Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
No, it's between Judge and Jury, but in regard to both, I am demonstrably far superior based on the facts that (1) Oberlin's arguments for summary dismissal (also linked in my previous post) are irrefutable (particularly the fact that considering someone to be racist is a purely subjective opinion and therefore protected speech, full stop) and (2) the Jury evidently didn't even understand Ohio punitive statutes, let alone the evidently esoteric distinctions they were incapable of parsing, such as the difference between being asked for information and receiving a flyer in response to your request and someone officially designated to hand out flyers.
Just the simple fact that they could not understand that personal comments in emails do not constitute official policy positions of the institution itself proves they didn't know what the fuck they were doing.
Have you ever been on a Jury? As someone once said, they're loaded with people too stupid to get out of Jury duty.
I have served on a jury once (foolish of me - totally could have gotten out of it, and I should have, in retrospect) and also as an expert witness in computer forensics, testifying as to the procedures used to recover data from the slack space of a removable storage device. I have prepared dozens of affidavits for similar purposes, but only one time has it been challenged by the defense, requiring my testimony.
That said, I am not here to debate the quality of examination of evidence in the trial. I am here to contribute to the OP-led discussion regarding the social dynamic of this situation. The outcome of the court may be inconvenient to your point of view, but that is not going to drag me into a debate over their methods.
Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
The "social dynamic" is that a bunch of townies weren't intelligent enough to understand what free speech entails.Yeah, I tend to take the rights of assembly and freedom of speech very seriously. Not to mention the abuse of the court system for personal--or in this case apparently--social vendettas, particularly in the immediate wake of one of the most contested and contentious elections America has ever faced.
So what is it you do wish to discuss if not rights or law or how the court in this case totally screwed the pooch and as a result the rights of assembly and free speech of pretty much everyone are in jeopardy until such time as this idiotic judgement is reversed on appeal?
I certainly hope no one here is using their work computer to post anything anywhere, let alone here or on social media, because if so, anyone who wanted to could now cite the Oberlin ruling as a legal argument that your company is suborning libel. I mean, they are the ones providing you with the resources to post what you posted, so whatever you may have posted must therefore be an official policy of your company and as an employee, you are therefore an official agent of the company and therefore you have no personal opinions, only the opinions of the company, so....you know........it all ties together.
ronburgundy
Contributor
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..
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.
As mentioned previously, this case focuses on the actions of school officials in helping produce and distribute libelous material.
I highlighted what seemed to be the most important examples the plaintiffs presented in post #148.
I don't see how anyone being slightly familiar with the basic facts of the case, having awareness of the issues in libel cases in general, and a possessing modest capacity to read English words could come away with the idea this case opens the door for schools to be sued for hosting speakers, not suppressing student speech or whatever other parade of horribles may be imagined.
These sorts of judgments can be entirely avoided by one thing: not having school officials participate in the production and distribution of libelous materials.
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
barbos
Contributor
Exactly! And since the the work duty of university employees is babysit their students they are liable for the damage caused. Case closed.