Fraternity Files $25M Defamation Suit Against Rolling Stone

[GennGreymane]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b0307f2cae72b5

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — The fraternity that was the focus of a debunked Rolling Stone article about a gang rape filed a $25 million lawsuit against the magazine Monday, saying the piece made the frat and its members "the object of an avalanche of condemnation worldwide."

The complaint, filed in Charlottesville Circuit Court, also names Sabrina Rubin Erdely as a defendant. It is the third filed in response to the November 2014 article entitled "A Rape on Campus: A Brutal Assault and Struggle for Justice at UVA." Three individual fraternity members and recent graduates of the University of Virginia are suing for at least $225,000 each, and a university associate dean who claims she was portrayed as the "chief villain" is suing the magazine for more than $7.5 million.

Rolling Stone spokeswoman Kathryn Brenner said the magazine has no comment on the lawsuit.

The article described in chilling detail a student's account of being raped by seven men at the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity house in September 2012. It portrayed university officials as insensitive and unresponsive to the plight of the student, who was identified only as Jackie, and suggested that the attack was emblematic of a culture of sexual violence at the elite public university.

The story horrified university leaders, sparked protests at the school and prompted a new round of national discussions about sexual assault on U.S. campuses.


JAY PAUL VIA GETTY IMAGES
However, details in the lengthy narrative did not hold up under scrutiny by other media organizations. For example, Phi Kappa Psi did not host any social event at its house on the day of the alleged gang rape as the article claimed. Additional discrepancies led Rolling Stone to commission an examination by the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, which said in a blistering report that Rolling Stone failed at virtually every step, from the reporting by Erdely to an editing process that included high-ranking staffers.

An investigation by Charlottesville police also found no evidence to back up Jackie's claims. Rolling Stone retracted the article, and the magazine's managing editor and Erdely both apologized. The fraternity said the damage was already done.

"These allegations did not concern harmless fraternity pranks," the fraternity said in the lawsuit. "These were allegations of ritualized and criminal gang-rape that Rolling Stone knew were the predicates for annihilation of Phi Kappa Psi and widespread persecution of its members."

The complaint alleges that the magazine set out to find a story of "graphic and violent rape" at an elite university and rejected other possible stories that were not sensational enough.

"Rolling Stone and Erdely had an agenda, and they were recklessly oblivious to the harm they would cause innocent victims in their ruthless pursuit of that agenda," the lawsuit said.

[Deleted]

"These allegations did not concern harmless fraternity pranks," the fraternity said in the lawsuit. "These were allegations of ritualized and criminal gang-rape that Rolling Stone knew were the predicates for annihilation of Phi Kappa Psi and widespread persecution of its members."

----

"Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience."
"They have a lot of pain, but it is not a pain that I would necessarily have spared them. I think it ideally initiates a process of self-exploration. 'How do I see women?' 'If I didn't violate her, could I have?' 'Do I have the potential to do to her what they say I did?' Those are good questions."
- Feminist Catherine Comins on why it's OK to falsely accuse men of rape

oh and let's not forget the classics:

"Politically, I call it rape whenever a woman has sex and feels violated."
- Catherine MacKinnon

"The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist."
- Ti-Grace Atkinson

[Independent voter]

The First Amendment will probably protect them. Gross negligence isn't enough, the fraternity has to prove Rolling Stone was malicious and out to get them. That's very difficult to prove. And if it goes to trial you'll be surprised who shows up to support Rolling Stone, the First Amendment is precious to a lot of people, they'll all say Rolling Stone is ran by idiots, but that's not enough to violate Rolling Stone's First Amendment Rights, they are a news source after all.

Let's see if the settle out of court.

[GennGreymane]

The First Amendment will probably protect them. Gross negligence isn't enough, the fraternity has to prove Rolling Stone was malicious and out to get them. That's very difficult to prove. And if it goes to trial you'll be surprised who shows up to support Rolling Stone, the First Amendment is precious to a lot of people, they'll all say Rolling Stone is ran by idiots, but that's not enough to violate Rolling Stone's First Amendment Rights, they are a news source after all.

Let's see if the settle out of court.

That is what is most likely to happen.

[Ryme]

Having seen the aftermath of what that article was, at least in part, responsible for I wish them every luck in this lawsuit. Hopefully it will add another step to the media abiding by the innocent until proven guilty mantra that guides western justice.

[Kasierith]

The First Amendment will probably protect them. Gross negligence isn't enough, the fraternity has to prove Rolling Stone was malicious and out to get them. That's very difficult to prove. And if it goes to trial you'll be surprised who shows up to support Rolling Stone, the First Amendment is precious to a lot of people, they'll all say Rolling Stone is ran by idiots, but that's not enough to violate Rolling Stone's First Amendment Rights, they are a news source after all.

Let's see if the settle out of court.

The bar for malicious intent is lower when it is a business being sued as opposed to an individual. The main focus of the prosecutor will be to demonstrate direct damages done to warrant the amount.

[Saucexorzski]

Good for them i hope they win and i really wish this would teach 3rd wave feminist and leftist media that making shit up to prove a narrative is down right low.

[shmee51]

The First Amendment will probably protect them. Gross negligence isn't enough, the fraternity has to prove Rolling Stone was malicious and out to get them. That's very difficult to prove. And if it goes to trial you'll be surprised who shows up to support Rolling Stone, the First Amendment is precious to a lot of people, they'll all say Rolling Stone is ran by idiots, but that's not enough to violate Rolling Stone's First Amendment Rights, they are a news source after all.

Let's see if the settle out of court.

For general defamation what you're showing is damage. If you can prove that someone published a story (which they obviously did) and that it was false (which it obviously was) and that it was injurious (which it obviously was) then the only thing that's going to hold you back in court is if the person you're claiming defamed you had a "privileged status" - which are situations like judges making a statement about a ruling (which is protected) or a witness under oath lying in court (which is then perjury instead).

If they want to seek full damages for libel against individuals, THEN they have to prove malicious intent.

[satimy]

The First Amendment will probably protect them. Gross negligence isn't enough, the fraternity has to prove Rolling Stone was malicious and out to get them. That's very difficult to prove. And if it goes to trial you'll be surprised who shows up to support Rolling Stone, the First Amendment is precious to a lot of people, they'll all say Rolling Stone is ran by idiots, but that's not enough to violate Rolling Stone's First Amendment Rights, they are a news source after all.

Let's see if the settle out of court.

Are you sure libel requires malicious intent? I know defamation does, but I'm rather sure libel is more about proof in writing

[Stormdash]

The First Amendment will probably protect them. Gross negligence isn't enough, the fraternity has to prove Rolling Stone was malicious and out to get them. That's very difficult to prove. And if it goes to trial you'll be surprised who shows up to support Rolling Stone, the First Amendment is precious to a lot of people, they'll all say Rolling Stone is ran by idiots, but that's not enough to violate Rolling Stone's First Amendment Rights, they are a news source after all.

Let's see if the settle out of court.

First Amendment defense isn't a guarantee. First, fraternity would at least argue they are not a "public figure" or limited purpose public figure, but if they are, the "actual malice" standard doesn't actually mean "malice" like it sounds. It means "knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth or falsity". Think the frat has them nailed on that.

That said, defamation law doesn't always protect unsavory or unlikeable people. On a torts exam, George Zimmerman had NBC's balls on a plate for false lights claim, but still didn't get anywhere... because George Zimmerman, basically. A judge or jury who has drunk the college rape culture kool-aid might similarly bounce their claim.

EDIT: the case that articulates the test that balances defamation with the First Amendment is NYT v. Sullivan, for your Google/wiki/findlaw curiousity.

- - - Updated - - -

For general defamation what you're showing is damage. If you can prove that someone published a story (which they obviously did) and that it was false (which it obviously was) and that it was injurious (which it obviously was) then the only thing that's going to hold you back in court is if the person you're claiming defamed you had a "privileged status" - which are situations like judges making a statement about a ruling (which is protected) or a witness under oath lying in court (which is then perjury instead).

If they want to seek full damages for libel against individuals, THEN they have to prove malicious intent.

Misstated in several areas. First, there are "damages per se" in defamatory statements of certain types, including the commission of serious felonies or grossly immoral behavior -- as for instance gang rape. And, malicious intent simply isn't an element of defamation at all. "Actual malice" is a standard in the first amendment defense, but doesn't mean anything like what the word malice means. Generally defamation only requires that the statement be made at least negligently. You don't need to have an intent to harm someone to defame them