Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: MechAg94 on November 04, 2016, 08:23:20 PM
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/jury-finds-reporter-rolling-stone-responsible-for-defaming-u-va-dean-with-gang-rape-story/2016/11/04/aaf407fa-a1e8-11e6-a44d-cc2898cfab06_story.html
The 10-member jury concluded that the Rolling Stone reporter, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, was responsible for defamation, with actual malice, in the case brought by Nicole Eramo, a U-Va. administrator who oversaw sexual violence cases at the time of the article’s publication. The jury also found the magazine and its parent company, Wenner Media, responsible for defaming Eramo, who has said her life’s work helping sexual assault victims was devastated as a result of Rolling Stone’s article and its aftermath.
Sounds like the award amount has yet to be determined. I hope it sticks and they get screwed over with a high award. There needs to be consequences for knowingly publishing false stories.
-
Sounds like the award amount has yet to be determined. I hope it sticks and they get screwed over with a high award. There needs to be consequences for knowingly publishing false stories.
Hmm... I think that it'll be somewhere around 3 orders of magnitude less than the Gawker award. Unlike them, Rolling Stones knows when to roll over and apologize.
A couple million, at most, to cover some 'corrective' advertising, and to cover the costs of the University's response.
-
What this country needs is a little more public caning to go along with this sort of thing.
-
Hmm... I think that it'll be somewhere around 3 orders of magnitude less than the Gawker award. Unlike them, Rolling Stones knows when to roll over and apologize.
A couple million, at most, to cover some 'corrective' advertising, and to cover the costs of the University's response.
The lawsuit wasn't filed by the university, it was filed by the now-former dean who was portrayed in the article as insensitive and uncaring. In all likelihood, her status as "former" dean is a direct result of the article, so they owe her big time for trashing her career.
-
I am surprised. I watched her interview with a student journalist and it was bad.real bad. Their "honor code" is such that no one has been put out for rape, and she,admits the rapes happened that the guys admitted to it. But they are expelled for cheating or buying a term paper. It's an interesting video. I wonder if it was not allowed as evidence
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
-
I like how actual malice was met by their continued publication (online) and profiting from the article despite a later retraction. It is a good thing her accused rapist was imaginary; you don't ever get to shake that accusation; no matter the facts.
-
I am surprised. I watched her interview with a student journalist and it was bad.real bad. Their "honor code" is such that no one has been put out for rape, and she,admits the rapes happened that the guys admitted to it. But they are expelled for cheating or buying a term paper. It's an interesting video. I wonder if it was not allowed as evidence
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
I have no idea what any of this means. I recognize them as words in English, but they are not in any coherent order to be able to discern any attempt at sense or meaning.
There was no party, there was no rape, there was no guy that's a rapist. The entire story was made up out of whole cloth. The entire episode was a complete and total lie, yet RS ran with it, and the dean was fired because of here skepticism as to what happened, because she couldn't piece the story together, because each time the alleged rapee told the story, it changed...
I hope RS gets nailed with a Gawker level award.
-
I have no idea what any of this means. I recognize them as words in English, but they are not in any coherent order to be able to discern any attempt at sense or meaning.
...snip...
Flashbacks maybe?
-
I have no idea what any of this means. I recognize them as words in English, but they are not in any coherent order to be able to discern any attempt at sense or meaning.
There was no party, there was no rape, there was no guy that's a rapist. The entire story was made up out of whole cloth. The entire episode was a complete and total lie, yet RS ran with it, and the dean was fired because of here skepticism as to what happened, because she couldn't piece the story together, because each time the alleged rapee told the story, it changed...
I hope RS gets nailed with a Gawker level award.
My understanding is that this was just eramo's suit. And rolling stones allegations about her. Her interview would seem to have not supported her case. It's available online and the kid who interviewed her is definitely a kid but it's an enlightening view at her offices policies. I haven't looked yet but am guessing the scope of this suit was only specific to the one case. I am surprised rolling stone did not use the broader actions in their defense. Perhaps we're not allowed to
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
My understanding is that this was just eramo's suit. And rolling stones allegations about her. Her interview would seem to have not supported her case. It's available online and the kid who interviewed her is definitely a kid but it's an enlightening view at her offices policies. I haven't looked yet but am guessing the scope of this suit was only specific to the one case. I am surprised rolling stone did not use the broader actions in their defense. Perhaps we're not allowed to
It was just Eramo's suit. And the article was about one purported rape, which turned out to be entirely fabricated. As in, it never happened. Yet the magazine reported it as fact, and despite obvious problems with the alleged victim's story they ran with the article without making much (or any) effort to investigate the blatant discrepancies in the story. Not sure what "broader actions" you're referring to, but if the suit was about one article, that discussed one alleged rape, that's all they can discuss in the courtroom.
-
Jury awared Eramo $3 million.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/university-virginia-dean-awarded-3m-rolling-stone-case-945057
-
This is where RS is really going to take it in the shorts:
Rolling Stone also faces a $25 million lawsuit from Phi Kappa Psi, the fraternity where Jackie claimed her assault took place. That case is schedule to go to trial late next year.