• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Oberlin College to pay bakery 11M after furthering racism accusations jury

3leftsdoo said:
TU, when I first started posting here, you struck me as a person of character and integrity.

In this instance, you're hung up on an irrelevant and tangential matter to this discussion, but I think it's possible you're aware on some level that you've made a serious mistake.

As such, let me offer you the opportunity to go back and reread our exchanges on the matter of threats of harm vs advocating violence in our discussions on free speech.

If you possess the integrity I first believed you did, you'll see you've made a serious error in conflating my words.

If you don't discover - and publicly acknowledge - your error, I'll conclude that my initial assessment of you was incorrect.

To refresh your memory, this is the position I have always maintained:

1) It is rarely legal in the United States (especially for non-state actors) to threaten violence, bodily harm or death.

2) It is protected speech in the United States to advocate violence against others, up to and including the president. This is why, for instance, Johnny Depp and Kathy Griffin - among others - were never arrested or charged for so doing in regard to Trump.

Again, this is the position I have always maintained.

To make this a win-win for the forum we both value, I'll offer you a 5 to 1 incentive/challenge:

If you discover and admit your error, you'll donate $100 to the forum.

If, on the other hand, you can quote me stating a position which contradicts the one above, I will donate $500 to the forum.

Win - win. :)

You will have 48 hours from accepting this challenge to A) Post the quote, and B) PM me that you've posted it.

I will then donate $500 to the forum.

If you cannot find such a quote (hint: it doesn't exist), you must donate $100 before the 48 hours expire.

If you choose not to accept this challenge, your integrity and character will be demonstrated. :(

I wish you all the best in this task, and genuinely hope you're successful in discovering your error, and acknowledging that you've made it.

If it makes you feel any better, attorneys (including good ones) don't merely make frequent silly mistakes; such mistakes are constant.

HAND
Click to expand...

Sorry, you don't get the acceptance that you wanted.

I posted specific statutory provisions that directly contradicted your position that "It is protected speech in the United States to advocate violence against others, up to and including the president.".

Unless you can show me that the section of the US Code that I linked to simply does not exist, I will continue to maintain that you are incorrect when you maintain that "It is protected speech in the United States to advocate violence against others, up to and including the president.".

I don't dispute that you have been consistent in maintaining your position that "It is protected speech in the United States to advocate violence against others, up to and including the president." - I simply say that you are flat out wrong and back that up with the specific section of the US Code that says so.

So, you won't see me "admitting" that you are not saying that "It is protected speech in the United States to advocate violence against others, up to and including the president.", nor will you see me "admitting" that you are correct - and I have the US Code on my side.
 
Common Sense 1 said:
Here it is from the jury......

Oberlin College hit with maximum PUNITIVE DAMAGES (capped at $22 million by law) in Gibson’s Bakery case

Added to $11 million compensatory damages, brings total to $33 million

The jury just rendered its verdict on punitive damages in the Gibson’s Bakery v. Oberlin College case.

Daniel McGraw, our reporter in the courtroom, reports that in addition to the $11.2 million compensatory damages awarded last Friday, the jury awarded a total of $33 million in punitive damages, which will probably be reduced by the court to $22 million because of the state law cap at twice compensatory (it’s not an absolute cap, but probably will apply here). That brings the total damages to $33 million. We will have the breakdown soon. The jury also awarded attorney’s fees, to be determined by the judge.

Oberlin College hit with maximum PUNITIVE DAMAGES (capped at $22 million by law) in Gibson's Bakery case
Click to expand...

If I were the college administrators, I'd be looking at a resolution proposal that [a] paid 100% of the bakery's legal fees, provided the bakery owners with a "hefty" (say in the neighbourhood of $1,000,000) sum of cash, and [c] set up a dedicated scholarship fund with the remainder of the judgment awarded with the bakery owners having sole say on what the terms of eligibility and the annual payouts were. Since the amount of the scholarship fund would be a "donation" then resultant tax write-off should keep the bakery owners from having to pay any income tax for decades (especially if the payments out, which were then rolled over into the scholarship fund, were spread out over time).

Lawyers get paid. Bakers get a bundle. Deserving students get a cash infusion. Government gets screwed. What's not to like?
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Sorry, you don't get the acceptance that you wanted.

I posted specific statutory provisions that directly contradicted your position that "It is protected speech in the United States to advocate violence against others, up to and including the president.".

Unless you can show me that the section of the US Code that I linked to simply does not exist, I will continue to maintain that you are incorrect when you maintain that "It is protected speech in the United States to advocate violence against others, up to and including the president.".

I don't dispute that you have been consistent in maintaining your position that "It is protected speech in the United States to advocate violence against others, up to and including the president." - I simply say that you are flat out wrong and back that up with the specific section of the US Code that says so.

So, you won't see me "admitting" that you are not saying that "It is protected speech in the United States to advocate violence against others, up to and including the president.", nor will you see me "admitting" that you are correct - and I have the US Code on my side.
Click to expand...

Your momentous failure to grasp our laws and history in this area are matched only in magnitude by your refusal to educate yourself.

You did not.

You are incorrect.

See above.

You do not; see above.

And by the way, I'm not surprised that you've squirmed out of admitting you've conflated and misstated my position heretofore, just disappointed.

Sometimes first impressions can be terribly wrong.

:(
 
3leftsdoo said:
Your momentous failure to grasp our laws and history in this area are matched only in magnitude by your refusal to educate yourself.

You did not.

You are incorrect.

See above.

You do not; see above.

And by the way, I'm not surprised that you've squirmed out of admitting you've conflated and misstated my position heretofore, just disappointed.

Sometimes first impressions can be terribly wrong.

:(
Click to expand...

One, the man is a lawyer, he might know a little more about the law than you do, random internet guy.

Two, you did say it was legal to threaten people with violence including up the President, that wasn't a misrepresentation, he quoted you verbatim.

Three, you're supportive argument referenced two incidents of not actual threats of violence but jokes by a comedian and an actor. If Kathy Griffin was the leader of a militia group and held up a depicted severed head of the president and then called on all her followers to bring her his actual head, that would illegal. You might of found the jokes in poor taste as I did, but no one seriously thought Griffin was seriously calling for the murder of Trump.
 
Master Debator said:
One, the man is a lawyer, he might know a little more about the law than you do, random internet guy.

Two, you did say it was legal to threaten people with violence including up the President, that wasn't a misrepresentation, he quoted you verbatim.

Three, you're supportive argument referenced two incidents of not actual threats of violence but jokes by a comedian and an actor. If Kathy Griffin was the leader of a militia group and held up a depicted severed head of the president and then called on all her followers to bring her his actual head, that would illegal. You might of found the jokes in poor taste as I did, but no one seriously thought Griffin was seriously calling for the murder of Trump.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant/fallacious ad hom.

Completely false; let me know if you'd like to accept the challenge. (You'll squirm out as well of course.) :)

False. Perhaps; more information needed, as in your ridiculous courthouse graffiti hypothetical. Reasonable people might conclude that she was advocating Trump's decapitation, and you sidestepped Depp's advocacy for Trump's assassination - both entirely legal; like TU, you have an extremely poor understanding of the issues, the law, and our history. :)
 
3leftsdoo said:
Irrelevant/fallacious ad hom.

Completely false; let me know if you'd like to accept the challenge. (You'll squirm out as well of course.) :)

False. Perhaps; more information needed, as in your ridiculous courthouse graffiti hypothetical. Reasonable people might conclude that she was advocating Trump's decapitation, and you sidestepped Depp's advocacy for Trump's assassination - both entirely legal; like TU, you have an extremely poor understanding of the issues, the law, and our history. :)
Click to expand...

One, you're internet challenge is ridiculous, no one has any confidence whatsoever in you conceding you were wrong. We can all see exactly what you wrote. It's right there dude. Two, I sidestepped nothing. They were both jokes. No reasonable people think otherwise. Who are these mythical people?
 
ecofarm said:
You said, "let's stop all justice".

So, just **** black people who never got theirs.
Click to expand...

The two black kids involved got their justice. They pled guilty to the shoplifting charge. Of course for you, justice would require that they not be prosecuted because they are black.
 
3leftsdoo said:
I predict less than 1/10th of the amount noted today will be paid, one hopes after years of legal wrangling, and further exposure of the bakery's sleaziness/greed.
Click to expand...
If the college decides to go down that road it may end up costing them millions more. Included in the judgement is the college is on the hook for the plaintiffs legal costs. Everytime they delay the lawyers will turn it into billable hours.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
False and laughably ignorant.
Click to expand...

Fact. Anyone with a "defamation and disenfranchisement case" would need to file suit to receive justice. Even if they are black.
 
3leftsdoo said:
Where we going? :)

Not without freedom from potential consequence. (It has not.)

Who are "those people?"

It's much more complicated - as explained to you previously - but it's not illegal to advocate violence, no.

See above.

See above.
Click to expand...
Maybe you worded it poorly and you're being misunderstood but if thats the case you're not making any effort to correct what you said above.

What you said above, in the way you stated it, is absolutely incorrect. Here is an example of it being wrong for you.

Victim of Charlottesville attack sues racist groups, organizers of rally | Local News | athensnews.com

The suit alleges that Vanguard America, which counted Fields as a member, as well as the Daily Stormer and other defendants, helped organize the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, and called the planning of the rally an incitement to violence for the attendees.*
Click to expand...

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Master Debator said:
One, you're internet challenge is ridiculous, no one has any confidence whatsoever in you conceding you were wrong. We can all see exactly what you wrote. It's right there dude. Two, I sidestepped nothing. They were both jokes. No reasonable people think otherwise. Who are these mythical people?
Click to expand...

I'm shocked that you're squirming out - who could have seen THAT coming? (Post #133) :) Then accept the challenge and make the forum $500 richer, sparky. You're seeing things, but feel free to quote these imaginary comments. Of course you did - it's what you do. They weren't, but irrelevant: it's permitted speech. Nonsense. Ask TU; he should be able to explain, but based on his knowledge on this issue, perhaps I should have my doubts...
 
3leftsdoo said:
I'm shocked that you're squirming out - who could have seen THAT coming? (Post #133) :) Then accept the challenge and make the forum $500 richer, sparky. You're seeing things, but feel free to quote these imaginary comments. Of course you did - it's what you do. They weren't, but irrelevant: it's permitted speech. Nonsense. Ask TU; he should be able to explain, but based on his knowledge on this issue, perhaps I should have my doubts...
Click to expand...

wrong/irrelevant/ad hom
 
trouble13 said:
Ok i read up on this a bit more and understand the verdict now.

The college did indeed get involved by posting an offical news letter stating their position.

Here is a link to it

Gibson's Bakery v. Oberlin College Closing Argument: "When a powerful institution says you are racist, you are doomed"

They wanted to earn their sjw points and weighed in when they should of stayed out of it. Its sn interesting predicament for colleges.

If they dont take a stand the students attack them. If they do take the type of stand the students demand, they get hit with lawsuits.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

How about they just kick the students out of college for disturbing the academic institution and watch them flounder to try and get into another college after being kicked out of another one?
 
Fishking said:
How about they just kick the students out of college for disturbing the academic institution and watch them flounder to try and get into another college after being kicked out of another one?
Click to expand...
Colleges need to get back to teaching people how to think for themselves instead of what to think.



Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
3leftsdoo said:
Your momentous failure to grasp our laws and history in this area are matched only in magnitude by your refusal to educate yourself.

You did not.

You are incorrect.

See above.

You do not; see above.

And by the way, I'm not surprised that you've squirmed out of admitting you've conflated and misstated my position heretofore, just disappointed.

Sometimes first impressions can be terribly wrong.

:(
Click to expand...

I'm only going to bother with one of your points and that is your "You did not" in response to my "I posted specific statutory provisions that directly contradicted your position that 'It is constitutionally protected speech to advocate violence to others, up to and including the President'.".

To do that I will refer you to Post 51 of this thread where I included THIS LINK to the US Code.

As before, "I do so love to see those "Don wanna, donwanna, donWANNA." rebuttals.".
 
trouble13 said:
If the college decides to go down that road it may end up costing them millions more. Included in the judgement is the college is on the hook for the plaintiffs legal costs. Everytime they delay the lawyers will turn it into billable hours.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

One interesting thing that you can do with a monetary judgment (like the one that the bakery just got) is to use it to obtain what is known as a "Writ of Execution" (you can get the details at Rule 69 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure).

Obtaining one of those would allow the Plaintiffs to sequester and sell the property of Oberlin College in order to "satisfy the judgment". Of course any amount realized after payment of the requisite fees and expenses of sale, and after payment of the outstanding judgment, would be returned to Oberlin College.

The last time I had to get one of those, I specifically instructed the Bailiffs NOT to conduct a "walking seizure" but to actually move assets into storage pending sale (this costs more, but I knew that the judgment debtor was good for it) AND to start with the furnishings in the CEO's office and boardroom. Do you think that I was terribly surprised when the CEO ordered the CFO to IMMEDIATELY issue a cheque for the full amount of the judgment PLUS the Bailiffs' fees? Being a nice guy, I told the Bailiffs to go for coffee until the CFO could get the cheque to me, or 30 minutes, which ever was shorter.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
I'm only going to bother with one of your points and that is your "You did not" in response to my "I posted specific statutory provisions that directly contradicted your position that 'It is constitutionally protected speech to advocate violence to others, up to and including the President'.".

To do that I will refer you to Post 51 of this thread where I included THIS LINK to the US Code.

As before, "I do so love to see those "Don wanna, donwanna, donWANNA." rebuttals.".
Click to expand...

You're so wrong on so many levels it's (almost) shocking.

But you've dug in, and refuse to advance your understanding.

You're also depriving the forum of the $100 you'd have to donate if you were to take up my challenge.

As I said, first impressions can be terribly wrong. :(
 
3leftsdoo said:
You're so wrong on so many levels it's (almost) shocking.

But you've dug in, and refuse to advance your understanding.

You're also depriving the forum of the $100 you'd have to donate if you were to take up my challenge.

As I said, first impressions can be terribly wrong. :(
Click to expand...

You got nothing in response. Run run run boy. :lamo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom