UVA and the alleged frat rape - Rolling Stone backpedals

Twenty years ago, right?

 

"I support the troops, but ..."

 

I'm no lawyer, but...

They story made it sound like gang rape was an institutionalized initiation process, and they made no attempt to find out if this was true or false.

That sounds defamatory to me.

It wasn't just some broad claim. It was a claim that implicated every pledge of the fraternity, and those running the pledge process, over a number of years, even if it didn't do so by name.

 

Defining the problem is a particularly germane statement in a discussion about a reporter making up a story to fit her preconceived notions of the problem. That's all I'm saying.

 

That's different than, "we can all agree that the troops are deserving of our support, but..."

One is an opinion, the other is a demand that we all agree with your opinion if we want to further discuss the issue, and a prerequisite for giving one's opinion on anything else related to the issue.

 

I think we can all agree that Frat Bros are all assholes who would rape a drunk co-ed if they thought they could get away with it, but...

 

As we all know, "said it planned to sue" is a lot different from suing. A couple of weeks ago, Ray McDonald's lawyer said he planned to sue the woman who accused him of sexual assault. Still no lawsuit filed.

The WP article Creosote linked deals specifically with group size. Seems to say that once you get above 25 or so people, the idea of defamation of the entire group loses steam. So if the frat had 50 or more members, probably a non-starter.

 

OK. but you attempted to define two problems.

One, that rape on campus "IS" a problem, and two that fear of reporting rape is a problem.

I agree with the second contention, and am willing to be shown evidence of the first one. It may be true as compared to rape elsewhere, but that hasn't been proven to me, and some of the attempts to prove it have been outrageous, and exhibited a clear attempt to "prove" something despite the facts.

 

In this case, it's directly relevant to the discussion. Erdely's actions suggest the problem is falsely inflated - i.e. she HAD to make something up because real facts don't exist.

Except real evidence DOES exist. Lots of it. And that gets lost in all this journalistic idiocy. The story was there to tell, if only someone half-competent got the assignment instead of Erdely.

 

Right. I think Creosote is saying it's not defamatory because they've raped before, and, thus, they don't necessarily have a reputation that was harmed by this piece.

That's like saying that it's open season on accusing all Carolina Panthers of murder now because of Rae Carruth.

 

Ah ... but what about the freshman class of that fraternity, in that particular year?