UVA and the alleged frat rape - Rolling Stone backpedals

Yep. It had nothing to do with them looking for a story to fit an already formed narrative.

It was simply the combination of a credible witness/victim and a sensitive subject that caused their downfall.

If only the editors had pushed a little harder, it could have all been avoided.

 

I'd be surprised if the frat can win a defamation suit.

Can a frat be defamed? Who are the people who were defamed?

 

Let's not fight this battle again.

Rape of all kinds is a huge problem. One of the biggest problems is victims being afraid to come forward.

This only reinforces that notion to all the meatheads whose first inclination is to believe women are lying.

A story that was sought out to highlight the problem and find the path toward a solution has set the movement back more than almost any other single factor.

 

I can't believe there's a chance in hell the frat would win. Not with the past incidents in its glorious history.

 

Seriously?
Sure.
It's no different than defaming McDonalds, or the Susan Komen Foundation.

 

Did that happen? Did those groups win?

I will be very surprised if that case goes to court. The "legal action" threat sounds like a lot of white boys puffing.

 

How could they lose?
Lionel Hutz could land a giant pile of money for these guys.
The story was false. Period. It can NOT be verified as to having happened.

 

I'll be surprised if it goes to court as well.
I think RS will be amenable to an out-of-court settlement.

RS has nothing to stand on.

 

Defamation is a lot harder to win than you think it is. Much like libel. It isn't just "they were wrong, they gots to PAY!"

You picked out McDonald's and Komen Foundation. Were there defamation cases that those groups won?

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Jackie only named one of the bros, right? And that named person didn't even exist, or wasn't even there, right?

Plus, I'd imagine the frat would have to claim loss of membership or new pledges as a direct result of this. Can't see that happening.

And, there is proof that members of this fraternity have raped before.

 

This says the bottom line is, it's complicated:

Libel law and the Rolling Stone / UVA alleged gang rape story — an update, in light of the Columbia School of Journalism report - The Washington Post

 

I agree with you. I am of the opinion that the fear/reluctance/unwillingness of women (and men) to come forward and report instances of rape/sexual assault is a problem, and that this article doesn't help, and potentially hurts, in this regard.

But, I don't believe we should have to preface every discussion about this article/issue with the acknowledgment that rape on campus is a problem. If you want to say that, you should give some evidence/context for the statement. And, if you don't want to fight a battle over it, you should probably drop it from discussion.

It's like you're disqualified from opining on the subject unless you state that point first, and frankly, this kind of think is happening too much, and it's an attempt to shut down discussion/debate at a time when we should be encouraging it.

And, I'm seeing more an more of this kind of thing. It's like saying, "well, we can all agree that any photographer unwilling to shoot a gay wedding is clearly a homophobic bigot, but..."

Well, no.

If you want to make a point, or an argument, then make it. But, don't enter "facts into evidence" that are not universally agreed upon, and don't pretend that your opinion is one that is universally agreed upon.