Media Groups and Law Profs rally to Oberlin College’s defense in Gibson’s Bakery Appeal
The docket does not reflect anyone coming to the assistance of the Gibsons. As they have throughout this saga, the small bakery stands alone against well-funded corporate and legal power.
We previously covered how the NAACP had filed a motion for permission to file an Amicus Brief in favor of Oberlin College and Dean of Students Meredith Raimondo in the Gibson’s Bakery appeal.
Now more motions to file Amicus Briefs are flowing in in support of the college, as reflected on the court docket:
Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and others including 19 media groups
“First Amendment Scholars” consisting of 19 law professors
National Coalition Against Censorship, and others
Based on the court docket, the Gibsons’ attorneys have requested additional time to file objections to the filing of the amicus briefs. The Gibson’s have filed their Cross-Appeal Brief seeking to restore the full $33 million punitive damages verdict, but have not yet filed their response to the college’s Appeal Brief.
I haven’t had a chance to do much more than skim the briefs. I’ve had some *other stuff* going on in my life the past few days. The briefs seem focused on the defamation aspect of the case, which was only one of the issues on which the Gibsons prevailed, and seek to present this as a matter of student speech. If people want to review the briefs and comment in the comment section, that would be great. Help me out here.
The docket does not reflect anyone coming to the assistance of the Gibsons. As they have throughout this saga, the small bakery stands alone against well-funded corporate and legal power.
[Featured Image – Four generations of Gibson Family after Verdict][Photo Credit: Legal Insurrection Foundation]
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
When the left takes a side, the truth means nothing: only power does, and by any means necessary.
The American experiment is over.
Trump is like Lot, leading the Hebrews out of Sodom and Gomorrah.
This damn coup is so organized. There is a mastermind at work.
First they tried the garbage with Schiff, but PDTJ outlasted them (with our help, and his brilliance, of course – namely, the rallies).
Then they pulled the Covid crap, with China’s help. Looking back on Fauci’s background, it’s no surprise them that they had him in place to pull this scam (Fauci has been crying wolf his entire career – for over 30 years. That he’s a vain clown worked in their favor too.)
That didn’t work, so they called out the riot squad upon first opportunity.
Then the four rat generals (Mattis and company) start trashing PDJT on cue.
On cue, pelosi and the rest of the scum surrounding her do the “knee” chorus routine, wearing African scarves.
Whether Soros is still the mastermind, he should be sought out and killed, no less than bin Laden was.
The next shoe to drop is – ??? I really worry it’s a military coup.
In any event, whatever happens, we now know the scam. We know who the traitors are.
Using 13% of the population to riot indignantly and an entire generation of zombie narcissists to follow them has been a plan in the making for many years.
McCarthy was 100% right about the Communist threat in Hollywood in the 50s. We’ve seen it grow into giant tumor and trotted out at the exact moment.
AG Barr’s slow-walking of everything is not lost on most of us.
The swamp/left/islamic axis knows it must win in 2020, or destroy PDJT – and us – in the process. (Look no further than Prof. Jacobson.)
We have to hang on and push back as we’ve never done before. Our very lifes are depending on it.
“I’ve had some *other stuff* going on in my life the past few days.”
While the situation is not funny, this understatement of it is.
I am rooting for you, and rooting for the slimebags behind it receiving swift, irreversible justice.
“One man with courage makes a majority” – Thomas Jefferson
Not anymore. The swamp/left/islamic axis has seen to it that one man with a brick makes a majority.
We have to show them how wrong they are.
Which one man with a gun, or even a crossbow and effectively trump. Personally, I think that those throwing bricks should be shot.
I am curious to know what sort of entities or individuals would be of a nature to file on behalf of the Gibsons in an instance such as this?
With leave of the court – or consent of all parties – anyone can:
Ohio Appellate rule 17:
https://casetext.com/rule/ohio-court-rules/ohio-rules-of-appellate-procedure/title-iii-general-provisions/rule-17-brief-of-an-amicus-curiae
So if the parties don’t agree, anyone can still petition the court for permission to file an amicus brief. (The filer would submit the brief with the motion.)
I am wondering if maybe Prof. Jacobson should file an Amicus Brief on behalf of Gibson using the letters from his colleagues, his dean, and the students which shows the level of disrespect in the collegiate community for those whom they disagree with by denying them their first amendment rights by also denying them their livelihood.
The coup de grace would be to add Prof. Turley’s defense of Jacobson.
I think it shows the disconnect between those who say it is about free speech and what free speech really means. It also bolsters the evidence that the students attacked Gibson’s bakery because that was what they were taught to do by their professors.
The law in our country has devolved to the left’s mob.
Don’t look for justice in courts: there are tons of Enema Sullivans, and enough compromised Justice Roberts’ (was he an Epstein customer?) to tilt the scales.
And now they have swamp enforcers, like Mattis.
I can’t say this enough: we’re at war. When you get back to town, you’re going to see the gang slogan of “BLACK LIVES MATTERS” emblazed on main streets all over your city, as ominously as any gang graffiti.
We’re hiding in bunkers and we haven’t fully pushed back yet. When we do, it’s going to be loud.
The Legal Insurrection Foundation should.
May the truth continue to prevail over the loud liars and charlatans.
You say that like it someone else’s problem.
Whatever happens will be whatever we have the will to do.
“May” is not a word we need in our vocabulary anymore.
I’ve never filed an americus brief before. Have you?
Not surprising but 200 wrong does not make one right
“XX million people can’t be wrong.”
Ummmm, yes, actually, they CAN.
The left always believes that time is always on their side. They bring all the firepower to bear no matter what the issue. They believe that no one on the right will ever rally to the “cause”. We on the right often make the mistake that the law will be followed. This is often wishful thinking. Courts time and time again rule on emotion or perceived fairness, not on law or constitutional affirmation. I’m not sure this will ever change. We conservatives can help usher in the change by rallying to the side of right on these types of cases. If it’s important enough for the left to go to war, we should be there with overwhelming support!
We are such “rugged individualists” that we fail to “lend a hand” or work en masse like the left does. That, and yes, we expect the constitution to be followed and we’ve assumed (wrongly) that the left will respect it. Lawyer’s for business should be stepping up all over the place to help the Gibsons. Its in the best interest of all small business to make the verdict stick.
Shades of The Verdict (1982),
All the rich, lefty, connected types
versus
the good guys
These contrasting images capture the flavor of this case,
The Establishment (James Mason) directing his plentiful troops on how to destroy the plaintiff and her lawyer,
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084855/mediaviewer/rm2447082241?ft0=name&fv0=nm0000051&ft1=image_type&fv1=still_frame
The tenacious lawyer (Paul Newman) fighting for his wronged client,
https://i2.netflixmovies.com/dibsl9ebc/image/upload/w_1920,h_800,c_fill,g_faces,q_62/ezqaj5wl3zcgmjm1jmyj.jpg
Search for an article on Leninthink. It describes the syndrome we are facing perfectly.
The Left’s pathological disregard for truth is pushing us down the road where everything will be simply be one race against another. They will achieve what the white supremacists always wanted but never could.
White supremisists in this country never wanted anything more than non-whites in their lives.
They weren’t nearly as ambitous as antia, black lives matters or the democrats: who want to rule us like slaves.
Prof. Jacobson, with your contacts in the conservative legal community, you could probably find an appropriate organization that would be willing to submit an amicus brief to the Ohio appellate court on behalf of Gibson’s Bakery. Everything needs to be done to protect the verdict entered by the trial court.
There are other things which can be done, for example widespread negative comments about Oberlin, and also organizations supporting them.
Try to get people who have endorsed Oberlin to withdraw their support. If they have been bought, that is unlikely to work, but if they were duped, and they are swayed, they might be really pissed.
In order to avoid some odious household chores, I did a quick reading of the three documents. They are all quite obnoxious. Here’s my notes on them (hope the formatting works out):
Reporter’s Committee for Freedom of the Press
• This focuses entirely upon the flyer, reducing the whole lawsuit to being about the “student’s flyer” and stating that the entire case was about whether the college was liable for the “student’s flyer”.
• They claim that the college was just “redistributing” the “student’s speech”, and say that it is unfair to “redistributers” to be held liable for others’ speech, and would be horrible for news organizations, booksellers and libraries.
• The document keeps talking about “news organizations, booksellers and libraries”, as if comparing the college to a bookseller was a reasonable comparison. Later on it compares Oberlin to a news anchor who merely introduces a defamatory news store but had no role in drafting or editing it.
• They claim that such organizations can only be liable for defamation “upon a showing of actual malice”. (Wasn’t the ruling that Oberlin did actually show actual malice?)
• They claim that there wasn’t time for Oberlin to verify accuracy of the flier or the student resolution before they were created and distributed, totally ignoring all the subsequent events, such as Oberlin’s cancellation of the food contract, etc. Did the people who wrote this document even look at the actual case?
First Amendment Scholars
• This starts with a long history of defamation law, which looks to me like it is boilerplate: there is much that is completely unrelated to this case. (For instance, the section describing whether or not the defamed person needs to be actually named in the defaming text. The Gibsons’ were explicitly named.)
• They again pretend that the entire case was about the “students’ statements”.
• First, they argue that the students were the ones who “published” the statements and that they did not do so as the agents of Oberlin or because Oberlin ordered to do so, and therefore Oberlin cannot be held responsible for any defamation. They then say that Oberlin had the right to “aid and abet” the students in making their statements.
• Secondly, they then argue that words and statements such as “racist”, “long account of racial profiling” and “assault” are all vague opinions, cannot be proved objectively true or false and therefore could not have been defamatory. (!!!!)
• Lastly, they state that that the court should not have allowed the jury to consider punitive damages – this seems like a technical argument.
National Coalition against Censorship
• They claim that the whole lawsuit was about the Gibson’s attempting to “restrict student speech”.
• They claim that the Gibson lawsuit would result in “suppressing all discourse and opinions on what constitutes discriminatory conduct”. (Horrors, what a slippery slope!)
• They wax poetic about the supposedly wonderous history of Oberlin and how it has stood for justice! And against racism! And state that that the previous court erred in not considering this glorious history. Apparently Oberlin now has rights that lesser organizations do not have. (Really, they make this argument! See page 9.)
• They then claim, like the previous document, that nobody can possibly know what statements like “racist establishment” can possibly mean. And so, especially because Oberlin is so glorious, such statements are mere opinions and cannot be defamatory.
• They claim that finding Oberlin guilty would cause horrible harm to everyone, endanger free speech and inquiry, and cause universities to put horrible speech bans on everyone.
• In their summary, they again state that Oberlin has a wonderful history, and therefore because of this “historical context” cannot be held liable for defamation.
Alas, this is an old item so nobody’s probably reading it. However, I don’t know of another place to post this:
The American Bookseller’s Association posted a statement on their website about the Gibson case! https://www.bookweb.org/news/aba-joins-amicus-brief-gibson-bros-v-oberlin-577692
In it they state “After trying to buy wine with a fake ID, one of the students was chased out of the bakery and placed in a chokehold by one of the store’s employees.”
Yes, really. They are making up defamatory claims now.