http://www.poynter.org/news/mediawire/333073/virginia-fraternity-will-hit-rolling-stone-with-all-available-legal-action/

http://www.poynter.org/news/mediawire/333073/virginia-fraternity-will-hit-rolling-stone-with-all-available-legal-action/

 

Go get 'em, Phi Psi.

Ooops...............

2 questions.

 

Does this travesty now have negative effects on legitimate sexual assault cases in that it will cause people to now look at reported cases more skeptically? Add this to the very well publicized Duke travesty and it really makes me wonder just how widespread sexual assault on campus really is. The talk show host that I mentioned earlier said that a woman was more likely to be a victim of sexual assault outside the college setting.

 

I would say yes. And that's a real crime, because true victims of rape already often don't report it because of the trauma associated with getting justice. They have to re-live it over and over for lawyers, the jury, etc. Often in a rape trial, the victim's past is exposed and even what is considered "normal" sexual activity in society today is then presented as evidence that (to put it in broad terms) she "asked for it".

 

Why is the so-called victim still able to remain anonymous?

I haven't had the chance to read the follow ups. Has it been determined that there was no rape at all? If there WAS a rape, even if the author embellished or exaggerated, then I can see why anonymity is still in play.

Total hoax and total hatchet job by the reporter at Rolling Stone and NOBODY at Rolling Stone (writer, editor, fact checkers, etc) caught it. Obviously, they WANTED the story to be true. Amazingly, nobody at Rolling Stone was canned over this. How can the writer not be canned over this? Rolling Stone has no credibility now...not that it had much before anyway.

I would say yes. And that's a real crime, because true victims of rape already often don't report it because of the trauma associated with getting justice. They have to re-live it over and over for lawyers, the jury, etc. Often in a rape trial, the victim's past is exposed and even what is considered "normal" sexual activity in society today is then presented as evidence that (to put it in broad terms) she "asked for it".

 

I haven't had the chance to read the follow ups. Has it been determined that there was no rape at all? If there WAS a rape, even if the author embellished or exaggerated, then I can see why anonymity is still in play.

 

A police investigation found no evidence that a rape happened. The "victim" refused to cooperate.

The victims were the members of the fraternity whose reps were damaged by (1) the false accuser, (2) the horrible writer and (3) the University President who decided everyone in the frat system was guilty based on the story.

I assume charges will or have been filed against the supposed "victim"?

University of Virginia associate dean sues Rolling Stone over gang-rape story

RICHMOND, Va. — A University of Virginia associate dean sued Rolling Stone magazine on Tuesday for more than $7.5 million, saying a debunked account of an alleged gang rape on campus cast her as the "chief villain."

 

Nicole Eramo, U.Va.'s top administrator dealing with sexual assaults, said the lengthy and graphic magazine piece about a student identified only as "Jackie" portrayed her as more concerned about protecting the elite university's reputation than helping victims of sexual assault.

 

"I am filing this defamation lawsuit to set the record straight — and to hold the magazine and the author of the article accountable for their actions in a way they have refused to do themselves," Eramo said in a statement.

Rolling Stone has some deep pockets....that would have been my target as well.