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.
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.
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
