Replies

I read the ad very carefully. To me it looks like the ad was vetted by their attorneys......and there's nothing-to-little in it to be legally libelous.

There are strict standards to be met before libel suits can be successful, although, of course, anyone can sue for libel.

I don't think we should get too excited about the evil 88 getting a payback.

As a disclaimer, I'm not an attorney, I only play one on TV.

Leni

I read the ad very carefully. To me it looks like the ad was vetted by their attorneys.

I read it carefully too. I believe the ad clearly implies that the young men are guilty of rape. If that is a false allegation, it is libel per se. It isn't necessary that the accused young men be listed by name. We know who the ad is about.

The ad does have a short disclaimer: "If they are guilty, I want them expelled." But the rest of the letter dismisses that disclaimer like the insubstantial fig leaf that it is.

It's debatable whether the young men were public figures according to the legal definition of the term when the libel was published. The first amendment protections accorded to speech directed at public figures might not be there in this case.

That doesn't mean a lawsuit would be easy to prosecute and win. And even if the young men were to win, collection on a judgment might be nearly impossible.

"I read the ad very carefully. To me it looks like the ad was vetted by their attorneys......and there's nothing-to-little in it to be legally libelous."

But it was perceived by the students, by the university, by the town, and by the press as condemning the players. And the Group of 88 did nothing to correct that perception.

Until now.

And I say it's too little, too late.