I am not going to accuse the three white lady judges of being racists. . .

Because even if under prior case law in Ohio, that is not prima facie defamation as a solid matter of law, the three white lady judges who sat on the panel who refused to over turn the trial verdict in the Oberlin case?  They decided it is.  Sorta.

I did skim the opinion last night, to double check the handling of the whole does an accusation of racism = defamation question?   And the opinion (just checked it again,) really avoided that critical and specific part.  They just say the finding of the lower court was correct, with out dealing with the critical matter.  They note in the opinion:  

"To 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."

But they fail to show how the accusations are in fact defamatory.  They quote "The specific language used," but are virtually silent on the matter of why the accusations of 'racist' could be considered, as a matter of law, as defamatory.  Re fucking ipsa loquitur does not fucking apply here!

This matters because last night I looked up the critical question and yes.  There is caselaw in Ohio that says being called a racist is not defamation. As a rule.

Ahhhh. But here is the tricksy bit.  I missed this in the trial court opinion,  but the appeals court judges rest their finding of a valid determination of defamation per se on this shit:

"The trial court found that allegations of an assault, if untrue, were defamatory per se and Oberlin has not raised a timely or proper challenge to that ruling by the trial court.3"

That clearly was error at the trial court  and by the appeals court.  

From some Ohio law firm's website. 

In Ohio, a statement may be considered ‘per se’ if it falls that constitute defamation within one of four categories:

• A statement that accuses the victim of an indictable offense involving moral turpitude or infamous punishment,
• A statement implying the victim has an offensive or contagious disease meant to isolate or ostracize the victim,
• Words that injure a person in their trade or occupation, or
• Statements that subject the victim to public hatred, ridicule, or contempt.

Being accused of (unspecified) assault does not seem to meet the requirements for defamatory per se.   That last category, the only one that gets them within striking distance of legitimacy, is really vague.  And being accused of assault does not rise to most people's idea of subject to public hatred, and shit, because just like accusations of being a racist are so common to be meaningless?  And some people brag about the accusation?  People brag about kicking ass and shit, all the time, and other people, for what ever allegiance or other reasons, will cheer them on, or after the fact.

In all honesty, the caselaw in Ohio is so fucked up and vague this case should be taken up by the Ohio Supreme Court just to create some bright lines.  The caselaw says the matter of whether a statement is mere defamation or a per se case is a "matter of law"  but they allow for  too much reading of the tea leaves to be instructive to the people what is or isn't defamation?  I think both the trial court and the appellate court totally fucked upon this part.  Determining:  "the general context of the statement, and the broader context in which the statement appeared."

Some snot nosed college bratz shit talked the local merchants.  The college aided the snot nosed college bratz shit talking the local merchants.  Seems more like the opinion of snot nosed college bratz shit talking the local merchants, than anything that a reasonable person would take seriously, with the exception of snot nosed college bratz and their minders/educators. 

I actually think that even under the vague caselaw of Ohio,  the case should have been dismissed and never gone before a jury.

We will see.

Oh  and I checked. Two of the judges were GOP,  and one not. And all were white ladies. 

Even if  I am right in thinking  OSC needs to set a clear standard  (I don't fucking trust fucking judges much, by default.)  There is a GOP to Dem split of four to three.  And politics will have a lot to do with if it get's docketed, and how shit ends up.  

 There really should be a clear line saying being accused of being a racist is not cause for a defamation case. and that is the politics of it! But it should not be political.  As was said in a Federal court case out of Illinois, back in 1983:

"In daily life "racist" is hurled about so indiscriminately that it is no more than a verbal slap in the face; the target can slap back (as Stevens did). It is not actionable unless it implies the existence of undisclosed, defamatory facts, and Stevens has not relied on any such implication."  Stevens v. Tillman (7th Cir. 1983.)

I argue (got to be carful, even if I have had a general disclaimer here for years and years,)  that what this case was about to start, and still is about is white supremacy and anti work ism and anti cancel culture.  Pure politics of the worst kind.  JMO!