Support NeoGAF

[DOWN]

http://news.yahoo.com/rolling-stone-rebuked-independent-report-campus-rape-story-001216264.html

Only a day after Columbia's school of Journalism released a report on the errors (http://news.yahoo.com/journalism-sc...stone-article-070617180.html?.gg_forward=true) of the Rolling Stone article and its printing, the fraternity at the center of the story is set to sue Rolling Stone.

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The University of Virginia fraternity chapter at the center of Rolling Stone magazine's retracted article "A Rape on Campus" said on Monday that it planned to sue the magazine for what it called "reckless" reporting that hurt its reputation.

 

[border]

How can they sue? What are their damages?

I suspect they have no way of proving malice, since even the most damaging investigations show negligence at worst. I have doubts that a frat really has the bankroll to wage an ongoing libel case anyhow.

 

[The Technomancer]

How can they sue? What are their damages?

I suspect they have no way of proving malice, since even the most damaging investigations show negligence at worst.

Weren't they banned from campus for at least a period?

 

[EdibleKnife]

How can they sue? What are their damages?

I suspect they have no way of proving malice, since even the most damaging investigations show negligence at worst. I have doubts that a frat really has the bankroll to wage an ongoing libel case anyhow.

Defamation probably.

 

[Fury451]

How can they sue? What are their damages?

I suspect they have no way of proving malice, since even the most damaging investigations show negligence at worst.

Probably for pain and suffering or slander/defamation of character as I'm sure members were mocked/bullied/ostracized in some capacity. It'll be hard to make anything really stick I imagine.

 

[whatsinaname]

How can they sue? What are their damages?

I suspect they have no way of proving malice, since even the most damaging investigations show negligence at worst.

You have to wonder. What editorial responsibility does the magazine hold for continuing to give this writer a platform even in the face of previous poor decisions and poor journalism, whether malicious or not.

 

[Madness]

How can they sue? What are their damages?

I suspect they have no way of proving malice, since even the most damaging investigations show negligence at worst. I have doubts that a frat really has the bankroll to wage an ongoing libel case anyhow.

I'd venture that being suspended from fraternity activities, singled out, and even punished in the sense that they weren't allowed kegs of beer on their grounds, had to hire security guards, and two people had to be sober at all times for no reason was enough of damages. It's good. It'll bring accountability to Rolling Stone and show how badly they fucked this all up. The money doesn't really matter at this point. They'd be well to take whatever they get, donate it to the school student Union, or women's shelter etc. But why let the morons from. Rolling Stone get off scot-free?

 

[entremet]

Defamation probably.

Yep. This.

 

[Delta Assault]

How can they sue? What are their damages?

I suspect they have no way of proving malice, since even the most damaging investigations show negligence at worst. I have doubts that a frat really has the bankroll to wage an ongoing libel case anyhow.

The members of UVA are going to be private individuals, not public figures. Thus, they don't need to prove malice.

If the person defamed was a private person, in most states, the person making the defamatory statement can only be held liable for defamation if he/she:
1) knew that the statement was false and defamatory, or
2) acted with reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the statement in making the statement, or
3) acted negligently in failing to ascertain whether the statement was true or false before making it.

Negligence is going to be the one they use, probably.

Damages for libel could be lost earnings and lost earning capacity suffered as a result of the statement, as well as pain and suffering, impairment to reputation and standing in the community, personal humiliation, shame, and disgrace. In this case, impairment to reputation is an obvious injury.

 

[border]

Defamation probably.

Probably for pain and suffering or slander/defamation of character as I'm sure members were mocked/bullied/ostracized in some capacity. It'll be hard to make anything really stick I imagine.

Winning a libel case requires that you prove malice - that the defendent(s) had a willful and knowing intent to harm someone by making statements they knew to be untrue. If the paper or magazine was reporting in good faith what they believed to be true, then you lose in court.

The members of UVA are going to be private individuals, not public figures.

The organization itself is public though. Would they be suing as individuals or as a collective organization?

 

[Bizazedo]

Damages for libel could be lost earnings and lost earning capacity suffered as a result of the statement, as well as pain and suffering, impairment to reputation and standing in the community, personal humiliation, shame, and disgrace. In this case, impairment to reputation is an obvious injury.

Creative math (issues getting jobs due to being alleged rapists multiplied out due to the next 40 to 50 years) could be used to ask for a huge sum.

 

[Saint Gregory]

I haven't been following this case but did the article name any specific frat members or did it accuse the frat as a whole of being a "rape frat"?

 

[superdeluxe]

Good Make RS hurt for this.

Still waiting for a public apology from RS and the writer of the article.

 

[esms]

Winning a libel case requires that you prove malice - that the defendent(s) had a willful and knowing intent to harm someone by making statements they knew to be untrue. If the paper or magazine was reporting in good faith what they believed to be true, then you lose in court.

I took journalistic ethics about a year ago, so I may be mixing things up, but I'm pretty sure only public figures need to prove malice. It was based off of a 1967? court case, I think. I'll grab my notes to put a few links to this post.

So, if the plaintiffs are indeed ruled as private individuals, winning this case will be a breeze.

 

[Delta Assault]

The organization itself is public though. Would they be suing as individuals or as a collective organization?

Actually, the organization itself might not be public either. Read this article.

Relevant section:

A. The fraternity members are almost certainly “private figures,” and I suspect that the local chapter and even the national fraternity likely would be, too. When an organization is a public figure is an unsettled question. Believe it or not, Computer Aid, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co. (E.D. Pa. 1999) concluded that Hewlett-Packard isn’t a public figure, and although I think that’s wrong, public figure status isn’t as broadly imposed on corporations as one might think.

In particular, a precedent in the federal Fourth Circuit (which contains Virginia), Blue Ridge Bank v. Veribanc, Inc. (4th Cir. 1989) concludes that the bank wasn’t a public figure. This suggests that a fraternity chapter and even the national fraternity probably wouldn’t be one, either. And, again, the individual members wouldn’t be public figures, unless there’s something about them that I don’t know.

So uh, it's complicated. But right now, I think their chances are pretty good.

 

[BobbyRobby]

If I mistakenly reported there was a bedbug infestation at a mattress store, without malice, I couldn't be sued?

Genuinely curious. Wouldn't my negligence be enough?

 

[The Technomancer]

Actually, the organization itself might not be public either. Read this article.

Relevant section:



So uh, it's complicated. But right now, I think their chances are pretty good.

Huh...that's kind of weird. They should be able to sue for a shitton of money though

 

[superdeluxe]

Rolling Stone is going to settle I'm guessing.

 

[Nealand Liquor]

How can they sue? What are their damages?

Slander and defamation of character immediately come to mind. False allegations/accusations of rape should come with stiff penalties, fines and mandatory hard time.

 

[superdeluxe]

I'm guessing they have some cause against the university as well?

 

[entremet]

Rolling Stone is going to settle I'm guessing.

Most of these cases never go to court, so most likely.

 

[Mesoian]

Rolling Stone is going to settle I'm guessing.

Most likely.

 

[genjiZERO]

As much as I detest fraternities (and especially those at UVA) they have a clear libel suit against Rolling Stone. I don't really think they do against the university though.

I'm guessing they have some cause against the university as well?

I'm not sure what the cause of action would be.

 

[spyder_ur]

Good Make RS hurt for this.

Still waiting for a public apology from RS and the writer of the article.

The writer did submit a statement.

I think it's pretty despicable not to apologize to, you know, the fraternity and the people you falsely accused of gang rape. Maybe there is a legal/liability reason for that though.

 

[Raistlin]

Winning a libel case requires that you prove malice - that the defendent(s) had a willful and knowing intent to harm someone by making statements they knew to be untrue. If the paper or magazine was reporting in good faith what they believed to be true, then you lose in court.

You sure about that?

http://defamation.laws.com/defamation-laws/libel-vs-slander

What are the elements of a cause of
action for libel or slander?

The elements
of a defamation suit; whether slander or libel, are:

1. A defamatory statement;

2. Published to a third party;

3. Which the speaker knew or should have
known was false;

4. That causes injury to the subject of
the communication

As far as I know malicious intent is not required, though you could argue the first half of #3 would assume implied malice? What I'm wondering about however is the second half of #3.

How loose are the requirements of 'should have known was false'? For example, can negligence, gross incompetence, and the like fall under such criteria? Failing your due diligence seems to be exactly what this is talking about, and both the outside review of the situation and RS's own apology openly state that was the case.

 

[Coketruck]

Good. Sadly, RS' insurance will probably cover the settlement; I'm sure they have freaking huge policy coverage just in case something like this happens. In a just world, though, they would be your so hard they would have to go out of business.

 

[genjiZERO]

You sure about that?

http://defamation.laws.com/defamation-laws/libel-vs-slander


As far as I know malicious intent is not required, though you could argue the first half of #3 would assume implied malice? What I'm wondering about however is the second half of #3.

How loose are the requirements of 'should have known was false'? For example, can negligence, gross incompetence, and the like fall under such criteria? Failing your due diligence seems to be exactly what this is talking about, and both the outside review of the situation and RS's own apology openly state that was the case.

Malice only matters if it's about someone who is in the public eye. A frat probably isn't and so regular rules apply.

 

[Raistlin]

Malice only matters if it's about someone who is in the public eye. A frat probably isn't and so regular rules apply.

Then I would assume what I pointed out most definitely applies here?


'should have known was false' is intentionally difficult to demonstrate because they don't want to condemn a defendant in situations where an unfortunate mistake or two were made. That however isn't the case here.

Everyone, at every level, failed miserably in their duty of due diligence. It's a classic case where the investigation, editing, etc were all intentionally (even if subconsciously) crippled in order to fit the initial narrative.

I suspect that's exactly what 'should have known was false' is intended to combat.

 

[BeatResetsTheWorld]

Winning a libel case requires that you prove malice - that the defendent(s) had a willful and knowing intent to harm someone by making statements they knew to be untrue. If the paper or magazine was reporting in good faith what they believed to be true, then you lose in court.



The organization itself is public though. Would they be suing as individuals or as a collective organization?

Which should be easy to prove not true considering the numerous questionable things about the case that were glossed over and the fact the that IIRC the writer has embellished stories in the past