[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.