I am just saying that juries have a lot of power in this country.
IANAL, but my understanding is her main roadblock is that she must prove that it was false for the administration to assert her actions were âIslamaphobicâ. If it gets to a jury, it becomes their judgment call, and I suspect she would win.
Do they have the power to nullify a Defendantâs constitutional projections in a civil matter?
_______________________________-
I am not a structural engineer, but lemme tell you why this bridge is safe.
Bridges work or fail based upon science and mathematics.
Juries do not, as emotional impact and sympathy with the victims has a big impact on payouts. Exhibit A is the $40M+ payout to Gibsonâs bakery. Exhibit B is the $1B+ payouts that Alex Jones is liable for.
Believe to or not, there is more to understanding the practice of law than referencing a few outlandish headlines. Your fundamental assumption, that this issue will be decided by a jury, is mistaken.
Further reinforcing the adjunctâs side is the statement by the national level of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. It reads in part:
âFor almost thirty years, CAIR has beenâŠexposing, countering, and preventing incidents of Islamophobia. This pervasive form of bigotry harms countless people here in America and around the world. We never hesitate to call out Islamophobia, but we never use the word Islamophobia lightly. It is not a catch-all term for anything that we find insensitive, offensive or immoral. To determine what constitutes an act of anti-Muslim bigotry or discrimination, we always consider intent, actions and circumstancesâŠâ
âAlthough we strongly discourage showing visual depictions of the Prophet, we recognize that professors who analyze ancient paintings for an academic purpose are not the same as Islamophobes who show such images to cause offense. Based on what we know up to this point, we see no evidence that Professor Erika LĂłpez Prater acted with Islamophobic intent or engaged in conduct that meets our definition of IslamophobiaâŠ
1 Like
You mean her defamation case? What does the statement by CIAR tell us about whether calling the professor âIslamophobicâ is an false statement of fact or a statement of opinion protected by the First Amendment?
1 Like
Post 85 was not in response to your post but simply additional information relevant to the thread. At this point, the only ones that supported the student and administration was the local CAIR branch, and their stance has been rejected by the national group.
My question remains, nonetheless. What does the statement by CIAR tell us about whether calling the professor âIslamophobicâ is an false statement of fact or a statement of opinion protected by the First Amendment?
Since @hebegebe brought up the Gibsonâs case, the appellate opinion in that case is a good place to look for a discussion about what constitutes fact vs opinion in a libel/defamation case, and what gets a case to a jury. https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/9/2022/2022-Ohio-1079.pdf
The appellate court stated: âIt was for the trial court to decide as a matter of law whether the statements alleged to be defamatory were constitutionally protected speech or actionable as statements of fact.â In fact, Oberlin was granted summary judgment before trial on Gibsonsâ claims that were based on the studentsâ chants about the bakery being racist. Those claims never went to the jury.
At trial, the sole issues were whether Oberlin had âdisseminated false, written statements of fact that caused the Gibsons significant harm.â The case focused on the flyer that was disseminated and on a student senate resolution, both of which stated that the Gibsons had a long âhistoryâ or âaccountâ of racial profiling and discriminatory treatment. The court distinguished saying Gibsons was âracistâ (opinion) from what it considered more factual claims about Gibsonsâ âhistoryâ or âaccount.â
âTo determine whether an alleged defamatory statement is fact or opinion, we examine
four factors: the specific language used, whether the statement is verifiable, the general context of the statement, and the broader context in which the statement appeared.â
The court concluded that the claims about Gibsonsâ historical behavior were more in the nature of verifiable facts, not opinion. Therefore it was proper, according to the court, to let that go to the jury.
Regardless of whether you think the result in Gibsons was right or wrong, it illustrates why FIRE thinks that calling the lesson âIslamophobicâ is more opinion than fact, and therefore should be protected. I admire the fact that FIRE strives to be consistent in its approach to what speech is protected.
6 Likes
Are you a lawyer? If so, I will consider your opinion on whether it goes to a jury as more informed than mine.
Is there some reason why @Corinthianâs excellent post doesnât resolve the issue for you?
1 Like
@Corinthianâs post was certainly informative. But the scenarios are slightly different, as Gibson was a business serving Oberlin, whereas the adjunct was an employee of the college.
So I will ask a different question. What disparaging thing can a business publicly say about an employee and have it be protected free speech? For example, can a business publicly call someone a racist and then fire that person without repercussions? Or misogynist? Or unethical? Does the answer change if the vast majority disagree with the assessment of the business?
The school made a big mistake by saying (writing) anything about the professor. Should have just said âSorry, no renewal for you. Have a nice life.â
But I do think the professor will have a hard time, if it makes it that far in trial, proving damages. She was a low paid contractual employee. Other schools have said they support her (and you could infer they would hire her âif only they had an open positionâ). She will have to prove her damages and itâs not like she was making millions (Gretchen Carlson) or that she had the potential to make millions. What do other instructors who have not had their contracts renewed do? They look for other jobs.
In the context of whether or not opinions are protected speech, this is a distinction without a difference.
Anyone else suspect it will be settled out of court, esp since the U apologized? Theyâre the ones getting a lot of bad press over what they did (understandably). One would think theyâd want to end it quickly and with âsomethingâ to make amends.
Free speech or not, they were wrong doing and saying what they did.
3 Likes
As I said above, I wouldnât be surprised, if only to try to put a stop to the bad publicity.
3 Likes
Here is another NYT article (gift link), about an exhibition at Macalester College by Iranian American artist Taravat Talepasand that was temporarily shut down due to student complaints. Apparently Erika LĂłpez Prater now teaches at Macalester and is mentioned in the article as well.
1 Like
Thank you for sharing this piece. I think it actually illustrates the subject topic well. Although Macalesterâs initial reaction was troubling, Iâm glad that it was temporary and provided some time for reflection (though perhaps the reflection would have been better off before the exhibit opened rather than later). And frankly, I think the solution worked. Keep the work open and available to all but make it so that nobody sees it without wanting to see it (i.e. donât put it in a window right in front of the sidewalk). Also, I donât object to a content/trigger warning, either.
I do think that itâs concerning when any group is trying to censor/squash the arts/literature, whether that squashing is coming from the right or the left. I understand the need for sensitivity to others, but I think a warning/notice ahead of time is sufficient, but that the work should still be available. Frankly, the censorship attempts that are going on in parts of the country is really frightening me and we need to stop heading down this slippery slope.
Although the piece says that Erika Lopez Prater now works at Macalester, I wonder if she always worked there, or at least was also working there at the time of the Hamline debacle. Itâs not at all uncommon for adjuncts to work at multiple universities in order to make a living.
Thanks for sharing this with the community, @tamagotchi.
4 Likes
Thanks for the gift link. This article, and even the comments, were food for thought.
2 Likes