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

[dismal]

It's a sad day for America when you can't whip up an outrage mob without worrying about whether the "facts" you're using are true.

 

[Trausti]

Gibsson's won the lawsuit!
Gibson's Bakery v. Oberlin College: More than $11 million

And apparently the Jury can still award punitive damages. Good.

And they did! Go woke, go broke.

Gibson’s Bakery awarded more than $33 million in damages from Oberlin College; total awarded exceeds $40 million

 

[dismal]

So is that "social justice" or just regular justice?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Gee, what a shock. Ignorance is truly bliss, because you are actually celebrating a finding that contradicts your own fever dreams:

The verdict comes at a time of heightened scrutiny of free speech on college campuses. In March, President Trump signed an executive order that directed officials to link some federal funding to how well colleges and universities promote free speech.

Higher education institutions will likely have to balance that executive order and the verdict against Oberlin, Lynn Pasquerella, the president of the Association of American Colleges and Universities, said.

“Oberlin was doing the very thing that the president is now mandating — they were protecting the First Amendment rights of their students,” she said. “This is very unusual for colleges and universities to be held responsible for the speech and actions of individual students, faculty and staff.”

Since you evidently don't speak legal, if this decision is not overturned on appeal (which of course it eventually will be), then it means none of your closeted nazi cuck-buddies will be able to heil Hitler while in college either (but I guess since none of them are intelligent enough to get into college in the first place, that's not such a loss?):

Gibson’s legal complaint mentions a student senate resolution and makes much of the fact that the college allowed them to display it on college property. If that is enough to subject colleges to tens of millions of dollars in liability, they will have no choice but to much more aggressively censor their students.

That won't just apply to liberals, jackholes.

 

[dismal]

Gee, what a shock. Ignorance is truly bliss, because you are actually celebrating a finding that contradicts your own fever dreams:

The verdict comes at a time of heightened scrutiny of free speech on college campuses. In March, President Trump signed an executive order that directed officials to link some federal funding to how well colleges and universities promote free speech.

Higher education institutions will likely have to balance that executive order and the verdict against Oberlin, Lynn Pasquerella, the president of the Association of American Colleges and Universities, said.

“Oberlin was doing the very thing that the president is now mandating — they were protecting the First Amendment rights of their students,” she said. “This is very unusual for colleges and universities to be held responsible for the speech and actions of individual students, faculty and staff.”

Since you evidently don't speak legal, if this decision is not overturned on appeal (which of course it eventually will be), then it means none of your closeted nazi cuck-buddies will be able to heil Hitler while in college either (but I guess since none of them are intelligent enough to get into college in the first place, that's not such a loss?):

Gibson’s legal complaint mentions a student senate resolution and makes much of the fact that the college allowed them to display it on college property. If that is enough to subject colleges to tens of millions of dollars in liability, they will have no choice but to much more aggressively censor their students.

That won't just apply to liberals, jackholes.

The students had their free speech.

The school assisted in the publication and distribution of libelous materials.

tip: the latter was what cost the school this judgement.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Gee, what a shock. Ignorance is truly bliss, because you are actually celebrating a finding that contradicts your own fever dreams:

The verdict comes at a time of heightened scrutiny of free speech on college campuses. In March, President Trump signed an executive order that directed officials to link some federal funding to how well colleges and universities promote free speech.

Higher education institutions will likely have to balance that executive order and the verdict against Oberlin, Lynn Pasquerella, the president of the Association of American Colleges and Universities, said.

“Oberlin was doing the very thing that the president is now mandating — they were protecting the First Amendment rights of their students,” she said. “This is very unusual for colleges and universities to be held responsible for the speech and actions of individual students, faculty and staff.”

Since you evidently don't speak legal, if this decision is not overturned on appeal (which of course it eventually will be), then it means none of your closeted nazi cuck-buddies will be able to heil Hitler while in college either (but I guess since none of them are intelligent enough to get into college in the first place, that's not such a loss?):

Gibson’s legal complaint mentions a student senate resolution and makes much of the fact that the college allowed them to display it on college property. If that is enough to subject colleges to tens of millions of dollars in liability, they will have no choice but to much more aggressively censor their students.

That won't just apply to liberals, jackholes.

No. This verdict is about the actions of the school officials, not the actions of the students.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Wrong. The students drove everything that happened and this ruling—should it stand, which it won’t—would only result in less freedom of speech, not more:

Gibson’s attorneys made numerous attempts to show that statements by students and professors somehow represent statements by Oberlin itself. None of these arguments are convincing. The student senate is not controlled by the college and allowing the senate to post its resolution on college property is not tantamount to an official endorsement of that resolution. To hold otherwise would force colleges to proactively censor student governments.

Gibson’s attorneys also made much of the fact that some Oberlin administrators attended the protests. But, of course, Oberlin would want to have a presence at the protests to ensure both student safety and that students were respecting the law. This verdict tells colleges that if they send administrators to watch out for student safety they can be sued for millions of dollars. That is not in anybody’s best interests.

In fact, Oberlin did issue what could be described as an official statement about the incident. Then-President Marvin Krislov signed a public letter shortly after the incident stating: “Regarding the incident at Gibson's, we are deeply troubled because we have heard from students that there is more to the story than what has been generally reported. We will commit every resource to determining the full and true narrative, including exploring whether this is a pattern and not an isolated incident. We are dedicated to a campus and community that treats all faculty, staff and students fairly and without discrimination. We expect that our community businesses and friends share the same values and commitments.”

There is no reasonable interpretation of this official letter as a libelous statement. Holding Oberlin College legally responsible for other statements such as flyers and resolutions written by students creates a powerful incentive for censorship.

Other statements that were used against Oberlin are statements by individual faculty members, including a piece written by a retired professor. Allowing this verdict is a clear threat to academic freedom since it tells colleges that they can be punished for allowing faculty to express controversial ideas.
...
None of this is to say that Oberlin or its students acted well....So, Oberlin is far from perfect. But to punish a college for not reining in its students, administrators, and faculty even when they are not speaking on the college’s behalf represents an extraordinary threat to academic freedom and to freedom of speech.

And why is this happening in the first place? Well, gee, what could be some clues...?

The danger is especially great here because this multi-million-dollar verdict is clearly part of the larger culture war going on in America. The jury pool, in this case, is from a community that is significantly more conservative than the college is. Fox News coverage gleefully tied the situation to the “nationwide controversy surrounding universities and political correctness” and contained a link to a story about canceling Columbus Day and quoted President Trump’s denunciation of “speech codes, safe spaces and trigger warnings”.

Libel law has a long history of being used as a weapon in culture wars, especially where race is involved. The leading Supreme Court libel case, New Times v. Sullivan, involved a huge verdict by an Alabama jury against the New York Times based upon some minor mistakes in an ad denouncing police treatment of Martin Luther King. The Court recognized that local juries could use libel awards to punish newspapers for views that were unpopular in the local community. The same is certainly true for libel suits against colleges that are politically out of step with their local communities. The libel law, in this case, is especially dangerous because it allows for “per se” damages—the awarding of damages without proof of actual harm. That is in addition to punitive damages that are intended to punish the defendant rather than to compensate the plaintiff for any actual loss.

This case isn’t a situation of good guys versus bad guys. The protestors seemed to prejudge the situation and a number of Oberlin administrators showed poor judgment. Nevertheless, this verdict represents a very real threat to the future and mission of American universities, which are already under siege from numerous quarters. This will be even more so if punitive damages are piled on later this week. Hopefully, the appellate courts will see this danger and reverse this decision.

But, again, jackhole deplorables don’t ever think about anything, they just do and say whatever their puppeteers tell them to do and say especially when it fucks them in their own asses.

If these damages stand, then you can guarantee that the next time any worthless pos white-trash supremacist that ever even opens their syphilitic pie hole on any campus—assuming such a moron could actually get into any university—the lawsuits will come fast and furious against that university citing the ludicrous Oberlin ruling that a university is responsible for the words of its students.

While I personally would love to see any traitor nazis set on fire instead of listening to their pathetic drivel, free speech means exactly that and trying to blame the university for the words or actions of free citizens is simply not acceptable, no matter how much any of those nazi-wannabes wannabe nazis.

 

[dismal]

In the future you may wish to acquaint yourself with some of the basic facts before posting. Sometimes aggressive personal attacks and colorful swearing do not overcome woeful ignorance when trying to craft a persuasive argument.

Here is some of the more damning testimony that the school could not refute:

Clarence “Trey” James, an African-American who had worked at the store since 2013, first denied that any racism existed in either the store’s treatment of its customers, or how he has been treated. “Never, not even a hint,” James said. “Zero reason to believe, zero evidence of that.”

James said he had moved to Oberlin from Cleveland to have a better family life for his young daughter. He is a single-father of a teenager, and he said that he and his daughter were invited over Dave Gibson’s house for Thanksgiving and Christmas dinner.

James said he was working at the store during the protests and could see Raimondo directly outside the front door, as he was working the cash register near the front windows and store entrance. Raimondo has claimed she was merely at the protest because it was her administrative duty to oversee the safety of the students and to keep the event “lawful.” She has repeatedly said she was not an “active participant.”

But James said he saw Raimondo “standing directly in front of the store with a megaphone, orchestrating some of the activities of the students. It appeared she was the voice of authority. She was telling the kids what to do, where to go. Where to get water, use the restrooms, where to make copies.”

James said Raimondo was taking part in the distribution of these flyers. “She had a stack of them,” James testified, “and while she was talking on the bullhorn, she handed out half of them to a student who then went and passed them out.”

The level of “participation” in the protest grew to higher levels with the last two witnesses. Two employees who worked in the school’s music conservancy offices (just down the street from the Gibson’s store) said students were allowed to use the conference room in their offices, make copies of the flyers that said Gibson’s was racist, use the restrooms of these offices, and were brought in pizza and beverages by the music conservancy administrators that had been ordered by the school.

https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/...sh-the-students-or-not-that-was-the-question/

Jason Hawk, editor for the Oberlin News Tribune, testified earlier in the trial that he had attended the Nov. 10 protest and that Meredith Raimondo gave him a flyer when he asked what the protest was about. Hawk said in testimony. “She argued we didn’t have the right to take photos of the protest,” He wrote in his initial story that the flyer that said “This is a RACIST establishment with a LONG ACCOUNT of RACIAL PROFILING and DISCRIMINATION” was “literature provided by the Oberlin College Dean of Students Meredith Raimondo, who stood with the crowd.”

The school didn’t like that description of the event in the local newspaper, and Oberlin College’s director of media relations, Scott Wargo, send Hawk and email to retract what they had written and replace it with “that literature was provided by the organizers and not Meredith Raimondo.”

Hawk insisted he was not wrong: “Sorry, Scott, but that’s simply not true. Meredith Raimondo handed me the literature.”

When emailed by Wargo what Hawk had said, Raimondo emailed back, “He is a liar.”

She had testified in court during her first time on the witness stand that she did hand Hawk one of the flyers, but claimed she did not know he was a media member at the time. She acknowledged again that did give Hawk a single flyer, even though she had said he was a liar for saying she did so.

https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/...upon-what-the-meaning-of-the-word-support-is/

The plaintiffs’ lawyers had plenty of examples of what they told the jury was “personal beliefs overshadowing professional responsibility.” In one email, Ben Jones, the vice president of communications for the school wrote to his co-executives in the school administration that, “I love how these Gibson supporters accuse us of making rash assumption decisions, but are totally blind to their own assumptions … all these idiots complain about the college.”

He closed with, “Fuck-em … they’ve made their own bed now.”

When Roger Copeland, an Oberlin College professor of theater and dance (he is “emeritus” status now) wrote a letter to the campus newspaper soon after the protests ended, and criticized how the school was treating Gibson’s in the letter, Jones sent a text message in caps saying, “FUCK ROGER COPELAND.”

“Fuck him,” Raimondo responded in a message. “I’d say unleash the students if I wasn’t convinced this needs to be put behind us.”

https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/...sh-the-students-or-not-that-was-the-question/

so, to recap officials of the school were observed coordinating student protests with a megaphone, handing out libelous fliers including to the media, offering school resources to support protestors, and displaying a malicious "release the students" attitude toward people who disagreed with the position they supposedly didn't have.

It's easy to see why the jury wanted to punish the crap out of them.

It's also easy to see how this sort of judgment can be avoided in the future without even slightly suppressing student speech. Namely, by not having school officials aiding in the production and distribution of libelous materials.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

In the future you may wish to acquaint yourself with some of the basic facts before posting.

Ahh, Dismal. You're aptly named. In the future you may wish to acquaint yourself with a functioning brain cell, because you didn't present anything "damning." To whit (emphasis mine):

Jason Hawk, editor for the Oberlin News Tribune, testified earlier in the trial that he had attended the Nov. 10 protest and that Meredith Raimondo gave him a flyer when he asked what the protest was about. Hawk said in testimony. “She argued we didn’t have the right to take photos of the protest,” He wrote in his initial story that the flyer that said “This is a RACIST establishment with a LONG ACCOUNT of RACIAL PROFILING and DISCRIMINATION” was “literature provided by the Oberlin College Dean of Students Meredith Raimondo, who stood with the crowd.”

He asked what the protest was about. She handed him the information. End of fucking story. Again, just like you ask me for a glass of water, I hand you a glass of water. In no way does that mean that my official function is "glass of water hander outer."

Your moron fucks it up again:

The school didn’t like that description of the event in the local newspaper, and Oberlin College’s director of media relations, Scott Wargo, send Hawk and email to retract what they had written and replace it with “that literature was provided by the organizers and not Meredith Raimondo.”

Hawk insisted he was not wrong: “Sorry, Scott, but that’s simply not true. Meredith Raimondo handed me the literature.”

No, the literature was provided by the organizers. Meredith Raimondo simply handed him a piece of paper that was in turn provided by the organizers.

She had testified in court during her first time on the witness stand that she did hand Hawk one of the flyers, but claimed she did not know he was a media member at the time. She acknowledged again that did give Hawk a single flyer, even though she had said he was a liar for saying she did so.

Wrong. She said he was lying in regard to the implication that she had created the flyers and/or that she was officially distributing the flyers, when in fact, once again, she was simply responding to a request for assistance.

"Can you tell me what this protest is about?"
"Here is a piece of paper with the information you are asking about."

Again, NOT the same thing as someone officially dispatched from the College to be the designated flyer distribution individual or the like.

The fact that you--Dismal--could not easily figure this out on your own should disturb you just as much as it should have disturbed you that the clearly biased author of the piece you posted couldn't figure that out. Instead you continue to post this idiot's sophistry:

The plaintiffs’ lawyers had plenty of examples of what they told the jury was “personal beliefs overshadowing professional responsibility.”

AIRN'T. Personal opinions are protected free speech. Just because someone says in an email to a colleague:

“I love how these Gibson supporters accuse us of making rash assumption decisions, but are totally blind to their own assumptions … all these idiots complain about the college.”

He closed with, “Fuck-em … they’ve made their own bed now.”

Does not in any way constitute an official policy position by the Dean or the President or the Board of Directors of the School, which is what it would necessarily have to be if in fact the college itself were taking an official position. A vice president of communications is in no way authorized to establish any such official policy. Precisely the opposite, in fact, since it's the communications department whose job it is to communicate such policy decisions as handed down by the Dean or the President or the Board, etc.

When Roger Copeland, an Oberlin College professor of theater and dance

And we're done. Again, I can't believe it comes as a shock to you, but the opinions of a professor of theater and dance do not in any way constitute an official position of the College.

so, to recap officials of the school were observed coordinating student protests with a megaphone

Aka, telling them where to stand and making sure they were safe. See, the way we know that, is that you had to carefully qualify that statement with the word "coordinating" instead of saying what actually would be contentious, which would be something like "leading the protest with the use of a megaphone to make official statements from the college against Gibson's," but of course, that didn't happen.

So, you evidently are intelligent enough to see how you're carefully trying to word things to make them seem different than they actually are--and hey, it worked on the idiots in the gene jury pool so, good on ya

But, again, it won't work on anyone higher up the evolutionary food chain (i.e., on appeal).

handing out libelous fliers including to the media

See? That's exactly[/i] the lie Raimondo referred to. She was NOT "handing out flyers" as in an official position--i.e., as directed by the Dean or President or Board--or primary reason for being there was to be one of the designated flyer distributors.

Giving someone their coat as a courtesy and "handing out coats" are two entirely different things that you (and the author of that piece and evidently Gibson's lawyers) are trying to falsely equate. Yet another reason why this will be overturned in due course.

offering school resources to support protestors

Offering school resources to support student activism and again, that's NOT criminal or libelous or in way officially condoning the subject of that activism one way or the other, but at least your lack of reasoning is helping to explain how the jury got so easily duped.

and displaying a malicious "release the students" attitude toward people who disagreed with the position they supposedly didn't have.

Not a legitimate legal accusation. All people--staff, professors, students, you--can have whatever fucking "attitude toward people" they want. Unless and until it is something officially stated from the Dean or the President or the Board of Directors, it is NOT an official policy position of the College and therefore cannot be construed as coming from the College proper.

It's easy to see why the jury wanted to punish the crap out of them.

Yeah, because the jury was clearly a bunch of racist morons who aren't intelligent enough to sit the right way on a toilet, let alone on a jury. Again, if you're too stupid to figure out the difference between someone politely handing somebody else the information they've just requested and "handing out flyers" then, yeah, you're too stupid to figure out that Ohio law doesn't allow for punishing the "crap out of them."

It's also easy to see how this sort of judgment can be avoided in the future without even slightly suppressing student speech. Namely, by not having school officials aiding in the production and distribution of libelous materials.

It doesn't work that way. The jury's findings were such that the School was punished for the opinions of its students and faculty. So from now own, any student (or faculty member) who voice their opinion--no matter what it is--will put the school in jeopardy. Which means, once again for the slow volk, if this is not overturned (which it will be), then NO school will allow their students or staff to ever publicly voice their opinions no matter what they are.

Is it penetrating your fontanel yet? No alt-right student will be allowed to publicly state their opinion lest the school be held accountable.

Since most alt-right dipshits aren't intelligent enough to make it beyond grade school, the loss might not be too great in your opinion, but it most definitely means that everyone's free speech is jeopardized and won't be solved by making some sort of half-wit statement like "no school officials can aid in the production and distribution of libelous materials." What these idiots in the jury just did was make it libelous to publicly voice an opinion, not merely print it on a flyer.

 

[dismal]

Ahh, Dismal. You're aptly named. In the future you may wish to acquaint yourself with a functioning brain cell, because you didn't present anything "damning." To whit (emphasis mine):



He asked what the protest was about. She handed him the information. End of fucking story. Again, just like you ask me for a glass of water, I hand you a glass of water. In no way does that mean that my official function is "glass of water hander outer."

Your moron fucks it up again:

The school didn’t like that description of the event in the local newspaper, and Oberlin College’s director of media relations, Scott Wargo, send Hawk and email to retract what they had written and replace it with “that literature was provided by the organizers and not Meredith Raimondo.”

Hawk insisted he was not wrong: “Sorry, Scott, but that’s simply not true. Meredith Raimondo handed me the literature.”

No, the literature was provided by the organizers. Meredith Raimondo simply handed him a piece of paper that was in turn provided by the organizers.

She had testified in court during her first time on the witness stand that she did hand Hawk one of the flyers, but claimed she did not know he was a media member at the time. She acknowledged again that did give Hawk a single flyer, even though she had said he was a liar for saying she did so.

Wrong. She said he was lying in regard to the implication that she had created the flyers and/or that she was officially distributing the flyers, when in fact, once again, she was simply responding to a request for assistance.

"Can you tell me what this protest is about?"
"Here is a piece of paper with the information you are asking about."

Again, NOT the same thing as someone officially dispatched from the College to be the designated flyer distribution individual or the like.

The fact that you--Dismal--could not easily figure this out on your own should disturb you just as much as it should have disturbed you that the clearly biased author of the piece you posted couldn't figure that out. Instead you continue to post this idiot's sophistry:

The plaintiffs’ lawyers had plenty of examples of what they told the jury was “personal beliefs overshadowing professional responsibility.”

AIRN'T. Personal opinions are protected free speech. Just because someone says in an email to a colleague:

“I love how these Gibson supporters accuse us of making rash assumption decisions, but are totally blind to their own assumptions … all these idiots complain about the college.”

He closed with, “Fuck-em … they’ve made their own bed now.”

Does not in any way constitute an official policy position by the Dean or the President or the Board of Directors of the School, which is what it would necessarily have to be if in fact the college itself were taking an official position. A vice president of communications is in no way authorized to establish any such official policy. Precisely the opposite, in fact, since it's the communications department whose job it is to communicate such policy decisions as handed down by the Dean or the President or the Board, etc.

When Roger Copeland, an Oberlin College professor of theater and dance

And we're done. Again, I can't believe it comes as a shock to you, but the opinions of a professor of theater and dance do not in any way constitute an official position of the College.

so, to recap officials of the school were observed coordinating student protests with a megaphone

Aka, telling them where to stand and making sure they were safe. See, the way we know that, is that you had to carefully qualify that statement with the word "coordinating" instead of saying what actually would be contentious, which would be something like "leading the protest with the use of a megaphone to make official statements from the college against Gibson's," but of course, that didn't happen.

So, you evidently are intelligent enough to see how you're carefully trying to word things to make them seem different than they actually are--and hey, it worked on the idiots in the gene jury pool so, good on ya

But, again, it won't work on anyone higher up the evolutionary food chain (i.e., on appeal).

handing out libelous fliers including to the media

See? That's exactly[/i] the lie Raimondo referred to. She was NOT "handing out flyers" as in an official position--i.e., as directed by the Dean or President or Board--or primary reason for being there was to be one of the designated flyer distributors.

Giving someone their coat as a courtesy and "handing out coats" are two entirely different things that you (and the author of that piece and evidently Gibson's lawyers) are trying to falsely equate. Yet another reason why this will be overturned in due course.

offering school resources to support protestors

Offering school resources to support student activism and again, that's NOT criminal or libelous or in way officially condoning the subject of that activism one way or the other, but at least your lack of reasoning is helping to explain how the jury got so easily duped.

and displaying a malicious "release the students" attitude toward people who disagreed with the position they supposedly didn't have.

Not a legitimate legal accusation. All people--staff, professors, students, you--can have whatever fucking "attitude toward people" they want. Unless and until it is something officially stated from the Dean or the President or the Board of Directors, it is NOT an official policy position of the College and therefore cannot be construed as coming from the College proper.

It's easy to see why the jury wanted to punish the crap out of them.

Yeah, because the jury was clearly a bunch of racist morons who aren't intelligent enough to sit the right way on a toilet, let alone on a jury. Again, if you're too stupid to figure out the difference between someone politely handing somebody else the information they've just requested and "handing out flyers" then, yeah, you're too stupid to figure out that Ohio law doesn't allow for punishing the "crap out of them."

It's also easy to see how this sort of judgment can be avoided in the future without even slightly suppressing student speech. Namely, by not having school officials aiding in the production and distribution of libelous materials.

It doesn't work that way. The jury's findings were such that the School was punished for the opinions of its students and faculty. So from now own, any student (or faculty member) who voice their opinion--no matter what it is--will put the school in jeopardy. Which means, once again for the slow volk, if this is not overturned (which it will be), then NO school will allow their students or staff to ever publicly voice their opinions no matter what they are.

Is it penetrating your fontanel yet? No alt-right student will be allowed to publicly state their opinion lest the school be held accountable.

Since most alt-right dipshits aren't intelligent enough to make it beyond grade school, the loss might not be too great in your opinion, but it most definitely means that everyone's free speech is jeopardized and won't be solved by making some sort of half-wit statement like "no school officials can aid in the production and distribution of libelous materials." What these idiots in the jury just did was make it libelous to publicly voice an opinion, not merely print it on a flyer.

I don't see much point in having this argument with you. They already had the trial. The plaintiff presented evidence that school officials participated in the preparation and distribution of libelous material. The school lost.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I don't see much point in having this argument with you.

Then why did you initiate it?

They already had the trial.

You understand what an appeal process entails, yes?

 

[dismal]

I don't see much point in having this argument with you.

Then why did you initiate it?

I mistakenly thought facts would have an impact on you.

Now I see there's no point in further discussion.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I don't see much point in having this argument with you.

Then why did you initiate it?

I mistakenly thought facts would have an impact on you.

Now I see there's no point in further discussion.

Did a school official, in their capacity as a school official endorse the protest? That's what I'd want to know before taking a position on this. I don't agree with Koy that it would have to be a statement from the board or put through the communications department, etc. A simple statement to students or to the public by a school official in support of the protest would be enough. But did that actually happen? If not, then despite his pointless belligerence, I agree with Koy that it sets a dangerous precedent. If that lady actually was directing her students and supporting them and guiding them in the protest, or if she actually was handing out fliers (rather than remaining neutral and just handing a flier when asked for one), then I agree with this court and dismal. And I believe an appeals court would take the same approach.

 

[dismal]

I mistakenly thought facts would have an impact on you.

Now I see there's no point in further discussion.

Did a school official, in their capacity as a school official endorse the protest? That's what I'd want to know before taking a position on this. I don't agree with Koy that it would have to be a statement from the board or put through the communications department, etc. A simple statement to students or to the public by a school official in support of the protest would be enough. But did that actually happen? If not, then despite his pointless belligerence, I agree with Koy that it sets a dangerous precedent. If that lady actually was directing her students and supporting them and guiding them in the protest, or if she actually was handing out fliers (rather than remaining neutral and just handing a flier when asked for one), then I agree with this court and dismal. And I believe an appeals court would take the same approach.

See post #148 for some of the evidence that was produced in the trial. Click thru to the links if you want a day by day recap of the trial. This case was not about the students' speech at all. It was about the actions of school officials.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I don't see much point in having this argument with you.

Then why did you initiate it?

I mistakenly thought facts would have an impact on you.

Now I see there's no point in further discussion.

How convenient for you. That, however, does not change the fact that giving someone something they have requested from you is NOT the same thing as acting in an official capacity as delegated/instructed to by senior College authorities. If it doesn't come from the Dean of the School/President or the Board of Directors then it cannot be considered as an official policy action by the school itself.

Faculty and students--like ALL human beings in the United States--are protected under free speech to hold and express whatever opinions they choose. Only an official pronouncement/decree/instruction to act, etc, from senior "management" would constitute an official policy position and thereby actionable.

So, again, unless Raimondo was officially instructed by higher authorities at the School to actively protest--as in a signed direction to pick up a megaphone and initiate chants and responses--then her being there in an oversight capacity to, as you put it, coordinate students cannot constitute an official policy action on behalf of the institution and thereby actionable.

That's identical to arguing that the police are participating in a protest by placing barricades and instructing protesters to stay behind them.

The jury, iow, was wrong and the appeal process will bear that out. It's not like it's the first time a jury got shit wrong in this country, either through their own ineptitude/bias or through the fault of one of the attorneys or the judge.

Any faculty member (or student) could be in total agreement with the sentiment behind the protest--and openly express that opinion in any email or conversation or out loud in a public square for that matter, as it is their right to do so--but unless and until they were officially instructed to publicly voice that opinion by the College, it cannot be considered an act of the College as an institution. End of story as far as the legality goes, whether the jury ignored that fact or were not properly instructed on it is a different matter that the appeals process will eradicate.

So that is the fact that you see no point in further discussion, not my own strong opinions against any such sophistry.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Imagine the crap MIT would have gotten if every time Noam Chomsky said something on campus, legal precedent said it was an official policy of MIT.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Imagine the crap MIT would have gotten if every time Noam Chomsky said something on campus, legal precedent said it was an official policy of MIT.

Exactly.

 

[dismal]

Imagine the crap MIT would have gotten if every time Noam Chomsky said something on campus, legal precedent said it was an official policy of MIT.

You generally won't be sued for saying "something". You can be sued for saying libelous things.

Do you believe Chomsky says a lot of libelous things?

Seems like that would get him sued personally as he's got money.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Imagine the crap MIT would have gotten if every time Noam Chomsky said something on campus, legal precedent said it was an official policy of MIT.

You generally won't be sued for saying "something". You can be sued for saying libelous things.

Do you believe Chomsky says a lot of libelous things?

Seems like that would get him sued personally as he's got money.

So you admit it.

 

[dismal]

Imagine the crap MIT would have gotten if every time Noam Chomsky said something on campus, legal precedent said it was an official policy of MIT.

You generally won't be sued for saying "something". You can be sued for saying libelous things.

Do you believe Chomsky says a lot of libelous things?

Seems like that would get him sued personally as he's got money.

So you admit it.

Admit what? That people who say libelous things can be sued?

Yes, I confess to believing this. What a relief.