[deogeo]

There's a line between dumb speech and libel. The faculty members were informed of the facts of the case, yet continued their counterfactual accusations of the bakery, and used the college to put severe economic pressure on the bakery.

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

[elicash]

I'm going based on OPs description, which nobody on either side of the debate seems to object to. A different list of facts could convince me of something different, certainly.

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.

[deogeo]

Reading the article, several of the college faculty claimed the bakery's actions were racist, for which they had no evidence, and plenty of evidence against.

"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.

[elicash]

I don't think simply calling somebody "racist" should EVER be libel. Even when inaccurate. But hey, that's me and I'm a free speech supporter.

[hollerith]

>I don't think simply calling somebody "racist" should EVER be libel. Even when inaccurate.

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

"Sexual predator"?

[inflatableDodo]

>I don't think simply calling somebody "racist" should EVER be libel. Even when inaccurate.

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.

[elicash]

> 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.

[inflatableDodo]

I actually think that it depends pretty much completely on the context. There is no list of phrases that are innocent or malicious in and of themselves. Something that can seem innoccuous in most situations can be a matter of life or death in others. So no, I don't think we seem to agree. And could you answer the question rather than dancing around it?

[deogeo]

What about calling someone a pedophile? Should that also not be libel?

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.

[elicash]

What about "jerk?" Should that be libel if there's no evidence the person is a jerk?

[tptacek]

There can't be, because "jerk" is a subjective assessment, and defamation requires a statement of fact. The "falsifiability" rubric Rayiner has been using is helpful. I'm not a lawyer, but I read lots of defamation lawyers, and note that you can further extend the requirements for defamation:

* 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.

[deogeo]

That's a good point. The difference is that 'jerk' is on its face a subjective assessment, an opinion, while 'racist' is less so. I have a feeling there's supreme court precedent drawing a more exact line.

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...

[mullingitover]

> I don't think simply calling somebody "racist" should EVER be libel. Even when inaccurate.

You're a racist.

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

[elicash]

Yep. Even if I had your name, I wouldn't sue! And if I did, I'd hope that it'd get laughed out of court.

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

[mullingitover]

It would suck to live in a world where people can destroy your life by spreading lies about you, and you have no recourse. That's not the world we live in. What benefits do you think free-for-all slander and libel would give society exactly?

[lolcat5e]

No need to imagine. There are countries where you would win.

[bradleyjg]

You cited NYT v Sullivan in several places in this thread. What facts lead to you weigh to come to the conclusion that the Gibsons are public figures?

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.

[elicash]

> public figures

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!

[bradleyjg]

The case file is available for public inspection at Lorain County Clerk of Courts, 225 Court Street, First Floor, Elyria, OH 44035.

HTH

[elicash]

The argument that they're public figures is available online in PDF form, so you have even LESS of an excuse to not have read it or even seemingly to have been AWARE of it.