Tough verdict

A federal jury on Friday found Rolling Stone magazine, its publisher and a reporter defamed a University of Virginia administrator who sued them for $7.5m over a discredited story about gang rape at a fraternity house.

The 10-member jury in Charlottesville sided with administrator Nicole Eramo, who claimed the article portrayed her as a villain. Jurors found that journalist Sabrina Rubin Erdely was responsible for libel, with actual malice, and that Rolling Stone and its publisher were also responsible for defaming Eramo.

And tough really, because it was the most appalling farrago of nonsense that piece.

14 thoughts on “Tough verdict”

  1. “In a statement on Friday, the magazine apologized to Eramo and anyone else affected by the story.

    “It is our deep hope that our failings do not deflect from the pervasive issues discussed in the piece, and that reporting on sexual assault cases ultimately results in campus policies that better protect our students. We will continue to publish stories that shine a light on the defining social, political and cultural issues of our times, and we will continue to seek the truth in every story we publish.””

    That sound you hear is the sound of lawyers high-fiving each other at the thought of never being out of work again…

  2. So Much For Subtlety

    Sabrina Rubin Erdely used to work with Charles Glass. Of New York Times fabrication fame. As long as Ms Erdely pursued her ancient ethnic hatred – and the pet whipping boy of the Left – by libelling the Catholic Church, everyone was on board. As soon as she smeared her fellow Leftists at a major university she was in trouble.

    Unfortunately this is not a Gawker-type settlement. But if it speeds a mainstream paper into bankruptcy, all for the good.

    I am looking forward to apologies for smearing the Church.

  3. “..do not deflect from the pervasive issues discussed in the piece..”

    I think they mean: ” do not deflect from our ongoing project to demonise all white men..”

    Meanwhile the lawsuit against UVa, launched by the fraternity smeared by Rolling Stone whose frat house was vandalised by SJW’s stirred up by campus feminist organisations and whose members were temporarily driven off campus, has been given the go ahead:

    http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/02/uva-rape-hoax-frats-lawsuit-against-rolling-stone-will-go-forward/

    Should be fun.

  4. Oh dear how sad never mind.

    Malicious libel – didn’t that use to have a jail sentence over here? Abolished some time ago, of course.

    Two week trial, so there are some serious costs too. Oh, well.

    Note also the Guardian doesn’t mention the men wrongly accused at all. Not once.

  5. Serves her right. It’s much safer to indulge in vulgar abuse than to try to pass off as real some mixture of fraud and fantasy.

  6. ‘We will continue to publish stories that shine a light on the defining social, political and cultural issues of our times, and we will continue to seek the truth in every story we publish.’

    They will continue to try to CREATE issues for our times. Even if they have to make them up.

  7. @Rob, she never actually accused anyone specifically, except for naming a character “Dane” (?not sure) who was a lifeguard at a pool, no such person fitted this description. She did say it was five (or seven, depends) of the new fraternity, it was supposed to be an initiation ceremony.

    It’s quite remarkable that anyone would think any group had gang rape as an initiation. You’d think at some point someone would object or notice or leak.

    It’s an interesting point whether the fraternity will have anything left to sue, or what it has will be owned by Eramo.

    Not that I have any sympathy.

  8. “It’s quite remarkable that anyone would think any group had gang rape as an initiation. ”

    Everything they think they know is bollocks. Their ability to delude themselves is unparalleled.

  9. The Left’s ability to invent gang rape where none exists, and to deny it where it does exist is amazing. They are seriously fucked in the head.

  10. Rolling Stone should be hit with a Gawker level fine – pour encourager l’autre. This kind of disgusting lying needs to be stamped on – it is clear that they do not actually regret their actions at all.

  11. Bloke in Costa Rica

    Paul, the fraternity is suing the university, not Rolling Stone. The optimum outcome in that case would be the regents of the university being personally liable to the level of personal bankruptcy, plus the confiscation of 20% of the university’s endowment. That really would send a message.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *