I don’t know the granular details of Virginia law on libel per se, but yes, specifically accusing someone of being a rapist would likely qualify. Whether it could apply here to the chapter or individual brothers requires more information then I have. Either way though, proving damages is not going to be the hard part of this case. There is plenty already in the public record to establish that harm occurred. The hard part will be proving recklessness if that is the standard applied.
I agree that it will be difficult to find a good jury pool. Both because of the press this story has received and also the larger cultural debate going on about the status and handling of sexual assault on campuses. That cuts both ways though. There are plenty of people who believe that things have gone too far when for example, a girl who has been drinking prior to sex can’t be said to have given informed consent, but a boy in the same situation can. Given that the facts here tend to support that particular view, voir dire will be very difficult from Rolling Stone’s perspective. Add that to the fact that a juror biased towards Rolling Stone not only has to believe that this particular frat is “bad”, but that this generalized poor treatment of women excuses labeling people rapists, and I think the problem is larger for Rolling Stone. If I were trying this case, I certainly would not bank on getting a favorable jury.
xiggi,
Like I think you do, I tend to expect Americans to react with more outrage than they actually do to well-publicized lurid events (like Lewinsky).
While in general I think Americans care a lot about the rape of women and deaths of young people in general, most of the bad press about fraternities doesn’t involve that. It involves underage drinking, drugs, vandalism and too much partying (that occasionally leads to things like death from balconies and alcohol poisoning). I am not so sure that the average American believes he or she is or was above that type of behavior when they were that age.
The average American was never in a residential college.
I know, I didn’t say they were. What does that have to do with anything?
It has to do with whether the average American would identify with a frat boy, and frat boy behavior. People who never went to a residential college, and who had to be productive adults after high school, or people who had to work their way through college, might not be sympathetic to what they view as immature behavior in people they think should have already grown up.
Here’s an article that pretty much tracks what I think about this: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/04/07/why-a-uva-frats-potential-lawsuit-against-rolling-stone-could-succeed
I wonder what court they’ll file this lawsuit in? I have been assuming it would be filed in state court in Virginia, but perhaps it could be filed in federal court.
I don’t disagree that some will feel as you described. But I wouldn’t be surprised if most Americans remember themselves or friends or offspring taking stupid risks and making bad decisions when they were that age.
Ditto, regarding the article quoted by Hunt.
It makes no sense to me that a defamation lawyer would recommend not bringing a suit against a globally-disseminated publication that defamed you, because doing so would bring unwanted publicity. To me that’s like saying don’t sue the guy who ran over you because your broken leg healed and your medical insurance paid for it.
Read Volokh’s article in the Washington Post for a little different take. After twenty five years trying complex cases, I just disagree with the lawyer quoted by U.S. News that the frat’s presumed damages are minimal because their reputation has been restored after the retraction.
Their reputation will henceforth always include that they were accused of gang-rape. People tend to forget the outcomes and details.
This is also a country where the Simpson’s, Family guy and South Park are still going strong. Not sure how mature a set of jury members will be.
Last time I checked, being immature wasn’t against the law.
I would like to see these guys win a huge award for pain and suffering because I think they deserve it, and an even huger punitive award because RS deserves it, that they donate to charity.
I think there is a lot of over thinking that this will be a long term detriment to the reputation of everyone involved. To demonstrate my point, with UVA as the example - How many people think of switched babies when they see UVA medical center? Not too long ago this was very real and all over the news.
There are some damages here. So settle up and move on.
I’m pretty sure that if you were falsely accused of gang-raping someone, DecideSomehow, it would have a detrimental effect on your entire life.
In the age of Google search, an old unflattering story about a person is never old.
I read that they can only collect for pain and suffering if individual plaintiffs sue. Organizations can’t get that kind of damage recovery.
Just as an aside, shouldn’t the damages to reputation be mitigated by the fact that there were so many people who were certain from the beginning that the story couldn’t possibly be true?
@hunt, yeah reputational damages are amorphous. It makes these cases hard to evaluate.
There are many unanswered “ifs” in this case. The best possible outcome is if the individual members can sue and the defamation is “per se” and RS had malice or was reckless. Take away any of those factors and the outcome for the men probably becomes less favorable.