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 Id write about it.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
The only stone the bells will toll for will be a tombstone.
UVA is a $2.8B annual enterprise that has been seriously libeled by this monumental goof.
After their lawyers get through with them, RS will cease to exist.
RS has been a mouthpiece for the ultra-left for many years disguised as MSM. Time to thrust the dagger deep into its heart.
It’s possible the woman was raped somewhere, by someone and has her facts distorted because of drugs or booze.
The ‘reporter’ should have delved into her background more thoroughly and done due diligence.
Cannot see how she could ‘interview’ the suspects - how would that have been accomplished?
I think you will find Eugene Volokh and his blog The Volokh Concpiracy is held in high regard by the legal community and many conservatives.
I followed the Duke false rape case at Volokh Conspiracy and at KC Johnson’s Durham in Wonderland site. Both of those blogs were instrumental in disseminating accurate information about the false rape claim. Volokh has also been supportive of free speech and pro-life events on college campuses from a legal perspective.
The guy is very very smart. He graduated from UCLA at 14 or 15 with a degree in math. His blog is probably the most influential legal blog and the most read.
He’s still wrong though about lowering the threshold on campus sexual assault.
The rapist was not definitively identified, which means that there was no material damage done to any individual, so who would have standing to sue? Secondly, the charge of rape was made and the "newspaper" reported it. If they used the right "weasel words" ("alleged", "suspect", etc.), they are within their rights to publish the assertion, without rendering any judgment as to guilt or innocence.
I am willing to bet that if the fraternity took RS to court, they would be making an out of court settlement.
I do think the fraternity will sue Rolling Stone and that suit could effectively shutter the magazine.
Big names on the roster, so it looks like they've got deep pockets. I'd guess the Frat and UVA ought to be getting probably 8 figure settlements.
What ACP does with RS afterwards ought to be pretty entertaining.
A better response, IMHO, is to first sue for libel; win or get a huge settlement; then use the money to quietly and systematically kill its author, the editors, and especially the publisher and his entire family. Spend the remaining money on a nice night out. Problem solved.
First, anyone can start a lawsuit and sometimes doing so makes a point even if it eventually gets dismissed. So it may be worth a try.
Second, I would like to see the University get sued. As we saw with Duke, the university administrators are quick to throw their own students, at least the white male ones, under the bus without any investigation at all. That is just wrong; given that many, perhaps most, frat members are still teenagers, I think they are victims of bullying. I president Sullivan is a bully and needs to be held legally accountable.
Suing both RS and UVA will require the disclosure of the wench who made the false claim in print.
She's the one who has to worry about subsequent libel suits and how to pay for them, not UVA or RS........they have their own stable of lawyers.
Suing both RS and UVA will require the disclosure of the wench who made the false claim in print.
She's the one who has to worry about subsequent libel suits and how to pay for them, not UVA or RS........they have their own stable of lawyers.......
This time she will truly be screwed........
We will see, but that rag needs to be shuttered, much like 60 Minutes II.
One element that Volokh left out which would make a libel case stronger — some of the “reporter” Erdley’s comments since the publication. She actually admitted to shopping around for a good rape story to sensationalize, and settling on UVa as a target because she didn’t like the University’s realtive lack of radical left-feminist politics or their Southern culture. That indicates some malice aforethought.
It libels the university to print a false story about students having misbehaved there?
If forcing students to behave was in the university’s claims, it could be seen, but this is like a claim to have defamed Walmart because someone printed a false story of a Walmart store having experienced shoplifting.
Under what moral law?
She should have just shut up while she was ahead.
It’s not worth arguing about for sure, and we both have others who read it the same way each of us did. Opposite opinions.
:>)
Oh wait. ...different lying rape claim.
Nevermind
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.