There was also a link to another article laying out the evidence of collusion by school administrators to do economic harm to the owners of the bakery. Do you defend that behavior as well?

There's another user who made the point that the facts of this case extend to a dean accusing the business of committing a criminal act. Based on those facts, I think there's a much better argument that you could be making rather than arguing that defending the right to say something is the same as defending the underlying stupid comment.

A closer precedent would be yelling "this sucks!" in a crowded theater of a film that in fact is quite good and then calling for people to boycott it on that faulty basis. Mostly joking with this example, but it kinda gets to where we disagree too.

A defamation claim must be premised on a (stated or unstated) false assertion of fact. Pure opinions are not covered: http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/opinion-and-fair-comment-pri.... Whether a movie is good or bad is a pure opinion—it cannot be falsified and cannot be the basis of a defamation claim. Arguably, whether someone is racist is an opinion too, although on the flip side it generally carries the connotation that the conclusion is based on actual conduct and can be considered an assertion about these (unstated) facts.

But whether someone has a “long history of racial profiling,” as the Oberlin dean asserted, is a factual assertion about past events. It’s falsifiable, and was proven false at trial.

Two points @grellas mentioned are key.

First, this case involves falsehoods. Factually untrue assertions are generally outside the scope of protected speech: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/lying.h.... (Otherwise, the first amendment would swallow claims for fraud, false advertising, etc). This case, moreover, doesn’t fit the scenarios where false statements can be protected expression, such as hyperbole or satire.

Second, the speech was against a private party. The first amendment restrictions on defamation claims are less stringent when it comes to private parties than to the government, politicians, or public figures. In particular, where defamatory speech turns out to be false, it might still be protected by the first amendment if it was directed to a public figure and the false statements were not made recklessly or knowingly. But if a private party is involved, that additional layer of protection doesn’t exist. (The theory being that there is a greater interest on making statements about public figures, where sometimes you might get the facts wrong, than with private figures.)

I’m a first amendment extremist, but a defamation claim here doesn’t strike me as problematic any more than a prosecution for fraud. There is no legitimate expressive value in spreading demonstrable falsehoods about a private party. Nor is there a slippery slope. The key elements of private party versus public figure, and demonstrably false versus possibly true statements are bright line limits that have long served us well.

Not that I disagree at all with what you're saying about defamation! But the idea that lies are unprotected speech seems like a very dangerous slippery slope. Like, Singapore would claim to support "free speech" with that (gigantic) exception.

I'd love to hear any of the actual false statements ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OR ITS STAFF. I relied on the so far uncontested statement of facts offered by OP. If those facts are wrong I'd be thrilled to revisit my position.

A high ranking university employee handed out a flyer containing damaging assertions of fact, with the intent that people believe and act upon those assertions, and at trial offered nothing to suggest she had even a good faith belief that those assertions were true. That’s not an exercise of free expression.

(False accusations of racism or racial profiling, on the other hand, should absolutely be protected.)

Edit: One thing I'd add. Even though our positions on this individual case are in opposition, we actually agree about the First Amendment issues far more than you do with people who are criticizing me for thinking the Constitution has any implications on libel law.

I think what you’re really concerned about is when people, in good faith, level an accusation of racism or racial profiling that turns out to be debatable or wrong. They shouldn’t be prosecuted. But that’s not what happened here. It’s not a high hurdle to show that an accusation of racism or racial profiling is not at least colorably true. Had the university done so, it likely would have gotten off the hook. They could have, for example, pointed to a suspicious pattern of calling the police. The university didn’t even try to do that.

I think the law is correct here. It’s one thing to protect expression made in good faith that turns out to be wrong. That’s important to avoid chilling effects. It’s another thing entirely to protect expression where there is not even a good faith basis to believe that the allegations are true.

Here, I wonder whether it's not the speech that got the university in trouble so much as the concerted and diligent effort to harm Gibson's business through multiple means.

> It’s one thing to protect expression made in good faith that turns out to be wrong. That’s important to avoid chilling effects.

I agree with this strongly.

Edit: Also, I think, given you're a lawyer, you'd agree with me that a client of yours is on much safer ground when the thing they're accusing somebody of is about their general character rather than a crime. (Not that you'd have given your approval on the flyer with just that one claim struck out.)

But she went beyond expressing an arguable opinion. Saying that someone has “a long history racial profiling” is an assertion that a pattern of concrete events have taken place. It’s not an assertion about someone’s “general character.” It’s falsifiable. Moreover, the dean couldn’t even construct a fig leaf, some post hoc rationalization, to defend that assertion. She all but admitted she had tried to destroy someone’s business based on the equivalent of a “fake news” Facebook post.

For what it’s worth, I consider myself a liberal, and I went to a liberal arts college cut from the same cloth as Oberlin and wrote anonymous posts debating what I perceived as the excesses of liberal campus activists.

2. I did not call it any of it a sham, let alone "the entire legal process." No need to make things up.

3. People should be encouraged to think for themselves!

He's not the first - the reason I didn't bring it up in my reply was that I agree with it. Libel (and true threats, and incitement to imminent lawless action) absolutely are limits on the first amendment and free speech. They're limits I, even as a free speech advocate/extremist, happen to agree with, but they are limits.

If that doesn't qualify as libel, what does? That it was done as part of a protest is orthogonal.

What were the libelous comments by the college, specifically? I looked at the link provided and didn't see any actual comments from the flyer or dean of student's speech.

"Students, professors and administrators held protests, charging that the bakery was racist and had profiled the three students."

Literal comments or the flyer would be better, I agree, but it doesn't look like anyone is objecting to this description of the content of the protests.

Do you also believe that calling somebody a "serial sexual harrasser" should never be libel, even when inaccurate?

"Sexual predator"?

So, what is your definition for libel? As it doesn't appear to be the same one in common usage. I am massively in favour of free speech, but I suspect even Voltaire would want some method of restitution to be available should people be spreading lies about him around town.

Whether something is libel and unprotected would obviously depend on the lie. We seem to agree about that so I'm not sure what you're claiming I believe.

And before you claim it's different because being a pedophile is a crime - it's not a crime. Acting on it is. Just how being racist isn't a crime, but refusing to serve customers based on race is.

* It's (apparently, in many circumstances, consult lawyer) not defamation to relate your interpretation of facts already on the record. In other words, it's often not defamation if you're simply wrong about something, so long as you're not relating your wrongness in a manner that would lead a reasonable person to think you're authoritative for your claim. "Based on a bunch of stuff I read in the paper, Gibson's has a history of racial profiling" might be a much safer thing to say than "as faculty and administrators of Oberlin College I'm informing you that Gibson's has a history of racial profiling".

* If the injured party is a "public figure", you have to do more than prove a falsifiable false statement that causes actual injury; you also have to prove malicious intent, meaning that the speaker knows that what they're saying is false, and is saying it specifically in order to harm someone.

I think you're talking about "actual malice" which as I understand it does not require a particular intent. It is just that you know the statement is false (or have reckless disregard for whether it is false or not). It doesn't matter why you said it.

Of course, devoid of context, 'racist' is pretty subjective as well. I'm guessing if the statements had been left sufficiently ambiguous, they might have gotten away with it. But they weren't - they accused them of a very specific racism, and demonstrated a reckless disregard for the truth.

From a quick search, looks like in cases such as these, the standard would be that the statements are made with 'actual malice' [1].

Edit: I noticed you asked what the law should be, not what it is. I guess I'm not so sure of the answer, but I'd venture that statements made with 'actual malice' should be included in libel.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_statements_of_fact#Priva...

You're a racist.

Just exercising free speech over here, am I doing this right?

Now imagine a world where I could win. For tens of millions of dollars. That should scare you. Thanks for making my point.

I'm not sure if I agree with the gp commenter, but it doesn't seem to be a particularly unreasonable opinion to hold.

Now to your question:

> What benefits do you think free-for-all slander and libel would give society exactly?

I DON'T favor "free-for-all" slander or libel. But to the extent that I draw the line differently from you, the benefit to society would be that society gets to debate what exactly it means to be racist and hopefully that open debate leads to something useful. I like the idea that you combat speech with more speech because I think it leads to better outcomes for all of us. I don't think it's helpful to have people live in fear of saying anything controversial.

If I damage you with lies in word or in print, you are entitled to be made whole. If I lied about you and it cost you millions of dollars as a result, yes, you should be allowed to sue me to get those millions back.

What problem do you have with this system?

Edit: and if the damages were done with malice, society is absolutely entitled to add punishment on top of correcting the harm that brought the case to court.

I think people define "racist" differently. Some see it in terms of systems. Some people think calling out racism is itself racist. Some view certain types of jokes as being a sign of being racist. There are as many definitions of the term as there are people.

I have repeatedly mentioned there are limits, but my problem with the system you laid out (which I'd argue is far more extreme than what was decided in this case) is that I'm a free speech guy who thinks we're better off when we can discuss issues openly.

You can already do this. You just can't harm people with your speech and expect no consequences.

The thing here is that you're not being harmed by rhetoric. If you were, you'd have a case.

Would a reasonable person read my post in context and somehow walk away believing you were a racist? You know they wouldn't.

So if Eli Cash was my actual name (rather than a Royal Tenenbaums character), and if I didn't get a job because the employer googled my name and your claim came up..? You really think I'd have a real case?

I guess if we still disagree nothing can be done about that. We've both made our points.

Maybe you have some intellectual humility and give deference to the judge and jury that heard all the facts rather than declaring them to be wrong based on a summary of a summary.

The college argued they were (limited purpose) public figures. The judge disagreed, clearly. I was making a point that to argue there are no First Amendment implications to libel laws is so far from established interpretations of the Constitution that it should give people who care about free expression pause.

> based on a summary of a summary

Are you disputing the summary? If so, which parts? I don't agree that judges and juries are always right and we should not form our own opinions, if that's what you're implying.

Do you think simply calling somebody racist, even when wrong, should be protected by the first amendment? My bet is that you do. And so this comes down to the set of facts. If you have contrary sets of facts, let's hear them!

HTH

Sadly, most people only care about scoring points against those they disagree with politically. Even at the cost of these freedoms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan

As I stated elsewhere, there are absolutely limits to libel laws based on Constitutional issues as decided in NYT v Sullivan. I wish people were arguing that based on the facts of this case, not to worry. Instead what I'm hearing from comments like yours is that calling somebody racist and urging a boycott based on it should be enough, just because the underlying accusation is wrongheaded.

Another point you make here doesn't make sense: this isn't about "national debate". This is, roughly, about one agent harming another agent with a set of lies designed to harm. If this case involved a newspaper editor getting sued for libel because he called a politician a liar, then yes, you might have a point. But it isn't.

I would disagree if you're claiming that the national debate about racism only applies to newspapers talking about politicians. There's a HUGELY IMPORTANT debate in the culture generally about racism that I'd argue just as important if not moreso.

(That said, from a legal standpoint it's obviously true that a politician is a clearer-cut case of a public figure. That obviously matters when judging the merits. But you seemed to be suggesting that talking about this case in terms of the national debate around racism is irrelevant.)

Libel absolutely has First Amendment limits. I think you can debate whether the facts of the case meet those limits, but to claim there's no Constitutional issues at stake is a pretty extreme argument to make.