The latest ruling in Gibson Bros., Inc. v. Oberlin College found that students, faculty, and Oberlin College itself cannot claim First Amendment protection for deliberately libeling a company. There is no First Amendment protection for libel. And it’s going to cost the ultra-left college $33 million.
It could have cost them more, but Ohio, where the school is located, has a cap that prevented greater financial pain from being inflicted.
The day after Donald Trump was elected president in 2016, three black students entered Gibson’s Bakery. The bakery has been serving students and residents of Oberlin, Ohio, since 1885. One of the three students tried to buy some wine using a fake ID card. When Allyn Gibson, grandson of the founder, who was working the register that day, refused to allow the student to buy the wine, he saw that the student was hiding two bottles of wine in his jacket.
As the student left with his two companions, Allyn chased after him to get video of the incident on his iPhone.
The police reported what happened next:
On Wednesday, November 9, 2016, at approximately 4:58pm, officers responded to the area of Gibson’s Bakery in reference to a report of a fight in progress.
As officers were responding to the area, dispatch advised that this was involving an alleged theft complaint.
Dispatch advised that Allyn Gibson, who is an employee of Gibson’s Bakery, was attempting to apprehend a subject who Allyn had witnessed attempt to steal several items.
As officers approached the area, Sgt. Ortiz, and Officer Feuerstein both stated they observed Allyn Gibson lying on his back with several individuals kneeling over him punching and kicking him….
Officers attempted to gain control of the situation and were met several times with resistance from several different individuals.
After a few minutes officers were finally able to take one female into custody and calm the incident and attempt to figure out what had taken place.
Fast forward: School officials supported a student-led riot involving some 200-300 radicals outside the bakery the following day. Some of the school’s staff, including the dean of students — one Meredith Raimondo — distributed flyers that said: “This is a RACIST establishment with a LONG ACCOUNT of RACIAL PROFILING and DISCRIMINATION. PLEASE STAND WITH US.”
The flyer then presented the school’s, and the student’s, view of what happened:
A member of our community was assaulted by the owner of this establishment yesterday.
A nineteen y/o young man was apprehended and choked by Allyn Gibson of Gibson’s Food Mart & Bakery.
The young man, who was accompanied by 2 friends was choked until the 2 forced Allyn to let go.
After [t]he young man was free, Allyn chased him across College St. and into Tappan Square.
There, Allyn tackled him and restrained him again until Oberlin police arrived.
The 3 were racially profiled on the scene.
They were arrested without being questioned, asked their names, or read their rights.
2 were released shortly after and charged with assault.
The young man is being held in Lorain County Jail, charged with robbery….
If you have been victimized by this establishment in any capacity, we ask you to stand with us in support of our community member.
Oberlin’s radical student senate issued a similar canard in support of the riot:
A Black student was chased and assaulted at Gibson’s after being accused of stealing.
Several other students, attempting to prevent the assaulted student from receiving further injury, were arrested and held by the Oberlin Police Department.
In the midst of all this, Gibson’s employees were never detained and were given preferential treatment by police officers.
Gibson’s has a history of racial profiling and discriminatory treatment of students and residents alike.
This is how the war not only against police but against the culture itself is being waged by radicals. When caught, they claim to be the victim. When charged, they seek refuge in the Constitution.
This time it didn’t work. Wrote Judge Donna Carr for the three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Judicial District:
The primary focus of the media coverage, and the several amicus briefs filed in this case, has been on an individual’s First Amendment right to protest and voice opinions in opposition to events occurring around them locally, nationally, and globally.
This Court must emphasize, however, that the sole focus of this appeal is on the separate conduct of Oberlin and Raimondo that allegedly caused damage to the Gibsons, not on the First Amendment rights of individuals to voice opinions or protest.
The award is the largest defamation ruling in Ohio’s history.
Its ramifications continue to reverberate as a warning against other similar institutions training radicals to disrupt, defame, and destroy.
Even Noah Feldman, the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, had to take the Gibson’s position:
From a First Amendment standpoint, you might think the loose language of the flyer would deserve protection.
But as a matter of First Amendment law, libel isn’t free speech.
And if you’re libeling a private citizen, not a public figure, it’s no defense that you acted without malice. If your statement was false and defamatory, you are liable — full stop.
