[ThrustVectoring]

>Free speech standards in the US requires you have evidence to back up what you're saying if you're going to speak negatively of someone

You're free to speak negatively of people, you just can't damage someone's reputation by spreading false facts. I'm allowed to call my neighbor a poopyhead or the like, but I can't tell people that he sexually molests children.

Debate is fine, lively discussion is fine, talking negatively about people is fine. What crosses the line is when you go after someone's livelihood or ability to live in peace. That's really what this case is about - Oberlin college administrators got into a disagreement with a local bakery, so they tried to use their clout and influence to run them out of business. Juries really do not approve of that sort of behavior.

[surge]

This better clarifies what I meant, I wasn't clear enough in how I stated it. I meant the student body were spreading false statements (facts) about the football player's actions and what was said which damaged their reputation.

[wutbrodo]

> I'm allowed to call my neighbor a poopyhead or the like

I just want to point out that I'm tickled by the fact that I made a point with the exact same term upthread, a moment before coming across your comment. I like your style

[elicash]

> I'm allowed to call my neighbor a poopyhead or the like, but I can't tell people that he sexually molests children.

"Racist" is more in the category of the former than the latter. The "assault" allegation in the flier handed out, in part, by a dean is admittedly more of a gray area than either of your examples.

[lliamander]

> "Racist" is more in the category of the former than the latter.

Depends on how likely you are to be fired from you job if you are accused.