So glad the fraternity is suing RS. RS should pay the price for what they did. Their credibility will be tarnished through the lawsuit brought on by the frat.
UVA won’t be able to sue (at least, not for defamation). This is because UVA is a government entity.
@northwesty, the fraternity lost their residence and the members had to find new places to live. So those cost would be the easiest to quantify.
Minimally the fraternity deserves to be reimbursed for the vandalism that was caused. Some of the vandals are known so the colleges insurance company can go after those individuals should it come to some sort of civil suit. It would be a true travesty if the college did not punish the vandals through the honor code… these things happen when people leap to judgement without the benefit of fact checking.
For those in the know: Is falsely calling a man a rapist, libel per se? I would think so. But I don’t know how that works with a group like a fraternity. I imagine there are presumptive reputation damages for defamation per se.
Nobody knows who the guys are in the fraternity. Did the fraternity have any trouble getting new pledges. I don’t think so.
Very few people know what fraternity was mentioned in the RS story.
The fraternity will get a few bucks.
The frat guys are fine. Mike Tyson stars in a cartoon.
What’s interesting on that question is the main culprit, the instigator, is the fictitious Haven Monahan. No other participant was named. So, there is no real Phi Psi brother who was falsely accused of rape. I’m not sure that the participant from one of her classes was ever named - if he even exists. So it will be fascinating to see if Phi Psi can prevail.
I would also think that Ryan Duffin and the other 2 friends have legal avenues against RS. They were quoted in the article - quotes that were fictitious - as they were never contacted by RS. But I have not heard of them planning any action. I would also think that fabricating quotes would be grounds for being fired, but apparently not.
Agree, the frat as a group/entity was vandalized and for that they deserve reimbursement. They would not have been vandalized were it not for the story, but the vandals are still vandals regardless of the story.
i doubt Ryan and friends will do anything, they have been pretty much vindicated of being called stupid and self-centered.
This is a few months old, but explains some of the legal issues:
More on the legal issues:
http://www.cavalierdaily.com/article/2015/01/university-professor-urges-rolling-stone-lawsuit
And one more - on why Phi Psi should not sue:
First of all, the reporter didn’t fabricate the quote. She credulously believed “Jackie.” It’s not the same thing. Moreover, Ryan Duffin was never named in the article.
I’m not defending Erdely’s shoddy reporting or Rolling Stone’s incompetent editing. But I doubt that Duffin has a cause of action.
Here is an update on the Volokh article linked above:
"A just-released Columbia School of Journalism report details the errors in the Rolling Stone story describing an alleged gang rape. Can the original story lead to a libel lawsuit? I blogged about this question in December, and lots of people seemed interested, so I thought I’d update the analysis in light of the report. My basic conclusions are:
– The Columbia report provides powerful evidence that Rolling Stone was negligent in its investigation — and negligence is all that’s required for at least some kinds of damages to be recovered in some of the possible libel claims.
– It’s possible that the fraternity and perhaps its members might be able to sue, but the matter is complicated.
--UVA itself definitely can’t sue, because government agencies can’t sue for libel."
Now that the report is out, he seems to think that the fraternity may have a case based on negligence and possibly recklessness by RS if they can satisfy/prove certain things that he explains well but I can’t. 
Good article, rockvilkemom. It sounds like the fraternity’s suit has at least a chance of prevailing and is probably worth filing.
You are right - Erdely didn’t fabricate the quotes of the 3 friends herself - she took words Jackie told her they said - and put quotes around them - as if she had personally heard these statements. Seems like splitting hairs, but ok. The 3 friends have not expressed any plans to sue that I have read. I was just wondering aloud if they hava a cause of action. If you are quoted in an article, quotes that paint you in a very poor light and damage your reputation, and the quotes are fictitious - is that not libel? Even if your full name was not used? I’m not saying that it is - I’m just wondering.
I think if people can figure out who you are, then you probably have a case.
In Fraternity Misbehavior Of The Day, all fraternities and sororities at Rutgers are banned from having house parties for the rest of the year. A sophomore died last fall of alcohol poisoning at a fraternity house party last fall. But hey, that was only one student.
Ok, and as we have learned from the UVA incident, if a fraternity has been put on suspension, then it must be the fraternity’s fault.
Does anyone have a cached link to the original story?
Can “Jackie” be sued?
Regardless, she clearly has some issues and needs to get help. Perhaps something terrible happened to her at some point in her life that made this come up, or perhaps not. But she needs help.
Since Jackie provided the name of the fraternity and the false description of a gang rape that occurred there, then yes, she would appear to be liable for defamation. However, if I recall, soon after the article was published she capitulated on which house it actually took place in. This might absolve her. Plus, there is rarely a reason to sue a person for civil damages when the person has no money. And in this case, it also might make the fraternity look mean, given the subject matter.
A charge of criminal fraud seems appropriate punishment to me, but I believe that would require that she had given a false statement to the police, and to my knowledge she refused to talk to the police, so that won’t fly.