SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the don't-believe-everything-you-read dept.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37879151
Rolling Stone magazine and a journalist have been found guilty of defamation over a false article about a gang rape at the University of Virginia.
The $7.5m (£6m) lawsuit was brought by Nicole Eramo, an associate dean from the university, who said the article had cast her as the "chief villain".
The 2014 article, written by Sabrina Rubin Erdely, included the rape claim of an unidentified female student.
The magazine retracted the article in April 2015, citing inconsistencies.
[...] An investigation by the Charlottesville Police Department had found no evidence that "Jackie" had been gang raped.
[...] The amount [Nicole Eramo] is due in damages will be determined at a later date.
The 10-member federal jury in Charlottesville found that Erdely, the journalist, was responsible for libel with actual malice.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 06 2016, @05:42AM
Yeah, let's just amend the First Amendment to remove press freedom!
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Sunday November 06 2016, @06:21AM
A journalists' guild could do the same without any government intervention.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 06 2016, @06:51AM
Remember it's not really censorship if a private media conglomerate (Facebook, Fox news, etc.) is playing fast and loose with the facts.
Ideologues of several stripes love the letter of the law as it serves their interests.
(Score: 2) by BK on Sunday November 06 2016, @06:26AM
Rape-shield laws have already removed a piece of press freedom. The question here is what to do in cases like this where the combination of this law and "journalist ethics" combine to make a new class of victim.
I say name everyone or nobody.
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 06 2016, @06:50AM
It has not been determined that the woman was not raped. Only that specific aspects of her story were false. It would not be the first time that someone who was already mentally fragile was attacked and ended up with a full-blown mental breakdown making them delusional. Naming her has very little public value and if she is sick it would cause her significant harm.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by GungnirSniper on Sunday November 06 2016, @07:37AM
No, continuing to make being a victim a stigma perpetuates the concept of the woman having "fallen" or being disgraced. If the man can be named every step of the way from arrest onward so should the accuser.
This was particularly true with the scumbag kid in California where the shame and "dirtiness" the woman felt was worse than the act itself. He raped her but the cultural stigma harmed her even more.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 06 2016, @05:24PM
> No, continuing to make being a victim a stigma perpetuates the concept of the woman having "fallen" or being disgraced.
So, your solution for the problem is to out the victims and let society beat them up and just hope that we all collectively decide not to mistreat them?
Really? Are you some kind zero-empathy sociopath? Because anyone with an ounce of compassion would realize that you fix the problem first before throwing the weak to the lions.
I suppose you are also OK with the facebook model where nobody has any privacy at all? Or is privacy only important when it protects you?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by sjames on Sunday November 06 2016, @06:24PM
Sure, there shouldn't be a stigma, but it's not going to be removed by pretending there isn't one. Perhaps the names of accused rapists should be withheld until a conviction as well since that also carries a lot of stigma that a non-guilty finding or a decision not to prosecute doesn't seem to wash off.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday November 06 2016, @11:33AM
It has not been determined that the woman was not raped.
And without evidence, it doesn't need to be. Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It's worth noting here the alleged victim doesn't even have an assailant. That was fiction as well.
(Score: 3, Informative) by hemocyanin on Monday November 07 2016, @02:55AM
Jackie is a total hoaxer:
http://reason.com/blog/2016/11/04/nicole-eramo-wins-rolling-stone-committe [reason.com]