Court Decision on Gibson’s Suit Threatens Student Speech

OPINIONSOPINIONS

September 16, 2022

BeReal Can’t Save Social Media

Hanna Alwine

I am trying to break my habit of checking Instagram every morning. I know I do it not because I want to know what has changed between 1 and 7 a.m., but because my morning scroll has become a ritual. There is something comforting about sifting through the remnants of others’ lives and keeping subconscious mental notes on people you haven’t seen or heard from for years but with whom you still share your biggest accomplishments and aspirations. A girl who moved away in seventh grade now goes to college in Michigan; a boy you met at summer camp is standing among the ruins of Pompeii. Is he studying abroad or are his parents filthy rich? There’s no way to know. What you do know is that the gelato looks heavenly.

With typical social media apps, these glimpses into others’ lives are not really glimpses at all, but curated montages of shareable moments deemed worthy of being incorporated into an online persona. What we choose to post online defines who we are and significantly impacts others’ perceptions of us. These layers allow us to project idealized versions of ourselves.

Our ability to manipulate our online presence is a new phenomenon that has changed the way we interact with ourselves and one another. We are treated to a constant barrage of others’ highlights, making it easy to compare our worst, most intimate selves with others’ best. Numerous studies have linked high levels of anxiety and depression with consistent social media use. School assemblies warning against the dangers of too much screen time are presented to us from a young age. The app store has become crowded with apps ironically intended to limit screen time. These are Band-Aid solutions. They don’t get to the heart of the issue, which is not the amount of time we spend online, but the way we spend it.

A new social media platform called BeReal claims to be the antithesis of everything wrong with social media. Every day, at an unspecified time, users receive a notification that “it’s time to BeReal,” and are prompted to take two photos of whatever they are doing at the time: one with their front camera, one with the back. BeReal users have followers just like other social media platforms, except for one important caveat: until you have posted your own BeReal, you cannot see others’. Its design mitigates any effort you might make to curate your own experiences. The goal is to show your life as it is, without any false pretenses or manipulations. It also curtails the endless scrolling many social media apps rely on to draw users in. You can see your followers’ BeReals for the day,

SUBMISSIONS POLICY

See Social, Page 7

The Editorial Board encourgages anyone interested in submitting an Opinions piece to email the Opinions editors at opinions@oberlinreview.org to request a copy of the Opinions primer. Opinions expressed in editorials, letters, op-eds, columns, cartoons, and other Opinions pieces do not necessarily reflect those of The Oberlin Review staff. Submission of content to the Review constitutes an understanding of this publication policy. Any content published by The Oberlin Review forever becomes the property of The Oberlin Review and its administrators. Content creators retain rights to their content upon publication, but the Review reserves the right to republish and/or refuse to alter or remove any content published by the Review. It is up to Senior Staff’s discretion whether to alter content that has already been published. The Oberlin Review appreciates and welcomes letters to the editors and op-ed submissions. All submissions are printed at the discretion of the Editorial Board. All submissions must be received by Wednesday at 4:00 p.m. in the Opinions email for inclusion in that week’s issue. Full-length pieces should be between 800 and 900 words; letters to the editor should be less than 600 words. All submissions must include contact information, with full names and any relevant titles, for all signatories; we do not publish pieces anonymously. All letters from multiple writers should be carbon-copied to all signatories to confirm authorship. The Review reserves the right to edit all submissions for clarity, length, grammar, accuracy, and strength of argument, and in consultation with Review style. Editors work to preserve the voice of the writers and will clear any major edits with authors prior to publication. Headlines are printed at the discretion of the Editorial Board. The Review will not print advertisements on its Opinions pages. The Review defines an advertisement as any submission that has the main intent of bringing direct monetary gain to a contributor or otherwise promoting an event, organization, or other entity to which the author has direct ties.

Established 1874 Volume 152, Number 2

EdItOrIal BOard

EdItOrS-IN-ChIEf Kushagra Kar Emma Benardete

MaNagINg EdItOr Lauren Krainess

OPINIONS EdItOrS Elle Giannandrea Emily Vaughan

Court Decision on Gibson’s Suit Threatens Student Speech

After five years of litigation, Oberlin College v. Gibsons Bros., Inc. drew to a definitive close with the College’s announcement of its intent to pay the bakery $36.59 million. With Gibson’s naturally glad to move forward from trial and the College committed to its ongoing mission of academic excellence, the only missing piece of the puzzle is how College students are feeling. At this point, no students on campus have a direct connection to the original incidents at the bakery, and even this Editorial Board finds itself distant from this critical moment in the College’s recent history.

The fact is, however, that our disconnect from past Oberlin students’ protests doesn’t mean we’re unaffected by this litigation coming to an end. In fact, the conversation is now more pressing than ever — the upholding of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas’ ruling sets the precedent that academic institutions are liable for the written comments of their students. According to the courts, opinions, if asserted as facts in a written form, do not fall under First Amendment protections of free speech. That means every protest, op-ed, or written assertion of any kind, if it qualifies under that definition of libel, may compromise not only the producers of the content, but the College itself.

As a politically active community that prides itself in holding problematic actors accountable, it should worry us that academic institutions can be held responsible for students’ declarations of protest. Going forward, these institutions will be forced to protect their own legal interests above the free speech of their students. If there were previously concerns that the College wasn’t hearing student demands, we are now entering territory where the College may be legally obligated to silence those thoughts before they are even voiced. In its appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court, the College’s lawyers placed significant emphasis on the dangers of this precedent to First Amendment protections, as reported in the Review last week.

Part of the justification for holding the College responsible for Student Senate’s resolution on the Gibson’s, as stated in the 9th District Court of Appeals’ Decision, was that “Oberlin assisted the student senate in its activities by providing it with financial support; a faculty advisor, [Meredith] Raimondo; an office in the student center; and a nearby glass display case within which it could post announcements.”

Many organizations that colleges generally consider to be independent entities, including student press and government, still receive some extent of support, financial or otherwise, from their institutions. If any speech that an academic institution facilitates in any way is considered to be the responsibility of the institution, then colleges and universities will be forced to more closely control the speech of every chartered student organization. Beyond just chartered groups, this ruling also has disconcerting implications for individual speech. In the ruling against the College, the courts have affirmed that institutions are responsible not only for the speech of established organizations, but also that of individual students. The fliers were not created by a chartered student organization; rather, they were conceived by an anonymous group of students with shared aims. Their collaboration was not sponsored by the College, yet the College was found responsible for their product. While this Editorial Board wishes to highlight the precarious nature of expressing opinions going forward, we do not wish to create a sense of hopelessness. Given the newly set precedent that institutions can be held liable for their students’ words, it is imperative that students remain informed and ensure that we have our facts straight when we protest or disseminate literature. It goes without saying, but accuracy in both the facts and the manner in which they are presented can make or break any accusations of libel. It is important to frame those claims as disagreement in opinion, not statements of fact. Both documents held as libelous by the courts asserted that the owners of Gibson’s were “racist” and “assaulted” students. The original altercation was subject to ongoing litigation that later concluded that Allyn Gibson Jr. was not racially motivated in his actions and did not assault the students. Furthermore, he was not an owner of the bakery, and the actual owners of the bakery could not be proven to be racist. Thus, neither of these claims reflected indisputable fact in the eyes of the court. Rather, they were one of many possible perspectives on the totality of facts in the case. What is essentially a technicality in the difference between opinion and representation of fact formed the basis for a massive defamation suit.

Taking these precautions will generally protect student activists from being accused of defamation. Students will need to take steps to steer clear of College interference. As is policy with the Review, and over the course of this trial has become the case with Student Senate, it is important to clearly state which parties are represented by an opinion. If the College remains assured of legal immunity from the articles of protest, it will have no incentive nor grounds to meddle with those comments. At the same time, clear and deliberate statements of ownership encourage accountability, which will result in greater engagement and courage from potential supporters. Demonstrating clear ownership over thoroughly researched claims is the best chance we have at ensuring the effectiveness of our future activism.