I'd bet Rolling Stone would make a huge cash settlement to avoid discovery.
Posted on 12/06/2014 7:48:24 AM PST by Perdogg
Several readers have asked: If the Rolling Stone article describing the alleged gang rape of a UVA student at a Phi Kappa Psi fraternity party is materially false, could the Rolling Stone be successfully sued for libel? This is a good illustration of some important libel law principles, so I thought I’d write about it.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
I’m not an attorney, but he seems to have done a reasonably good analysis and come to the conclusion that there isn’t a case for libel.
To boil it down to two sentences.
Not likely.
After all Tolling Stone is a member in good standing of the approved media in this country.
Tolling - Rolling
Damn keyboard has the R too close to the T.
Honest. It cannot be because I got in a hurry and did not proof read.
Someone would have to be purposely/recklessly lied about for it to be a libel. They will run a correction and that will be the end of it.
Maybe it is the Stone for whom the bell tolls
It would be an expensive case to litigate, and I'm not sure it's worth the $$, but I bet you ANYTHING that if you could subpoena her (the authoress, not the lying "victim") tweets, her Facebook page, and whatever else she's created by way of social media that it would be VERY easy to prove malice.
Reckless disregard for the veracity of what was alleged? Malicious intent? Yes to both.
In effect, it's the Duke Lacrosse case all over again.
Except this isn't true. Internet sleuths have already gotten the names of Phi Kappa Psi frat brothers from 2012 and who are now targets of harassment.
I'd bet Rolling Stone would make a huge cash settlement to avoid discovery.
Did you read the same article?
Seems to me he makes a case that there IS a case for libel. By the fraternity as an institution and by several different individuals, most notably the probably very few male members of her small study group.
He points out that it might not be in the best interest of the person libeled to file suit, but that’s a completely separate issue.
I hope they sue RS for everything they’ve got.
Stikes me as down right hilarious that in Almost Famous Rolling Stone is portrayed as so credible it fact checked Crowe’ stillwater story.
Life NOT imitating art.
I’m sure I read the same article, but I was left with the impression that any case for libel would be very weak.
I should have also noted that the author was being published in the Washington Post, which makes his conclusion a fait accompli.
The key here is money. If UVA can afford it, they can wage a very expensive lawsuit that will financially cripple RS and the author.
An additional benefit would be the emails, postings, tweets, etc that discovery would bring to light. That would probably discredit RS, it’s editorial management and the author.
It wouldn’t matter whether the suit was wine or not. An example would be made and a message sent that there are repercussions for this sort of thing.
I don’t intend to get into an argument over what was said. But that’s certainly not the impression I got.
Your mileage obviously varies. :)
The key here is money. If UVA can afford it, they can wage a very expensive lawsuit that will financially cripple RS and the author.
An additional benefit would be the emails, postings, tweets, etc that discovery would bring to light. That would probably discredit RS, it’s editorial management and the author.
It wouldn’t matter whether the suit was wine or not. An example would be made and a message sent that there are repercussions for this sort of thing.
________________
I agree an apology doesn’t hack it.
In all worlds lawsuits and compensations are tracked and practices are changed depending on the out come of lawsuits.
Liability is a very strong motivator. So both the RS and the reporter need to be sued.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.