Feminism - more of it

[Wee baby Shamus]

That's not how the 1st Amendment works. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to affirmatively prove that the statements were false. The magazine is in no danger of liability unless it published statements that can be proven to be untrue in court.

Rolling Stone admitting that the story was false is all the proof the plaintiff needs to win.

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

Rolling Stone admitting that the story was false is all the proof the plaintiff needs to win.

That's... not actually what that statement of theirs means.

[karaddin]

Karaddin - our slander/libel laws are not such that I would have thought that was a huge issue if the reporting was solid. There was already some discussion by other reporters about the reporting quality of the story. Slate has a summary here:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/12/05/rolling_stone_gang_rape_story_trust_in_alleged_victim_misplaced_mag_says.html

and

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/12/sabrina_rubin_erdely_uva_why_didn_t_a_rolling_stone_writer_talk_to_the_alleged.html

Oh I accept they have fallen down in their reporting, but that doesn't mean the account is a fabrication. And the standard to convince someone it's in their interest to retract something isn't as high/the same as actually winning in court.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

Oh I accept they have fallen down in their reporting, but that doesn't mean the account is a fabrication. And the standard to convince someone it's in their interest to retract something isn't as high/the same as actually winning in court.

Yes, all true. But what their shoddy reporting does is to change the conversation, and to change it in a very unhelpful way. I would have thought given how the Duke thing went down, they would have worked hard to cover those bases. Honestly, now the discussion may well be about the veracity of the subject of the story rather than on the much bigger issue of how the University handle(d)(s) rape allegations.

[ljkeane]

Or just very compelling lawyers pointing out these claims would be very hard to prove and absent proof would leave them vulnerable. I mean it's not like this fraternity would have a lot of people with money interested in preserving its reputation.

That strikes me as unlikely. You'd think they'd expect there's a good chance the people being accused of rape in the story would deny it and have a reasonable idea of the risks involved prior to publishing the story.

They've pretty much thrown someone they've published a story about being a rape victim under the bus with that statement. If it was some minor issues with the details you'd hope they'd be a bit more circumspect about any retraction than they were. So either they're terrible people or it seems likely there were major issues with the facts in the story.

It's a real shame that it seems they might have chosen to publish a dubious account though. There were some parts of the story about the rather worrying way the university authorities and student community were dealing with rape cases which weren't just confined to one particular case and it seems likely that might get lost in people concentrating on whether or not the story of this one victim was telling the truth or not.

[karaddin]

Yes, all true. But what their shoddy reporting does is to change the conversation, and to change it in a very unhelpful way. I would have thought given how the Duke thing went down, they would have worked hard to cover those bases. Honestly, now the discussion may well be about the veracity of the subject of the story rather than on the much bigger issue of how the University handle(d)(s) rape allegations.

No argument with any of that, I'm also quite bothered by the way it changes the conversation and the conclusions some will draw from it.

[Commodore]

Lena Dunham's rape allegations deserve as much skepticism, but the media is afraid to look too deep into her story.

[Commodore]

don't know why people are jumping all over this woman, she's just following Ezra's lead

[TrackerNeil]

don't know why people are jumping all over this woman, she's just following Ezra's lead

Oh, come on now, Commodore. I read Ezra Klein's original piece on affirmative consent, and he's not endorsing false rape convictions. He didn't state himself very clearly the first time, but then he came back and clarified. And let's be clear: affirmative consent does not change the definition of rape in the courtroom but in the classroom. Nobody is going to jail over this.

I've got my doubts about California's law, but they are focused mainly on my suspicion that the new standard won't change much; I suspect that those who rape will simply claim that affirmative consent was secured, leaving us with a different he-said/she-said situation. Hopefully, I'm wrong. In any case, affirmative consent will not result in a flood of innocent straight guys being packed off to prison.

Edited to add: This, to me, is the money part of Klein's piece:

Then there's the true nightmare scenario: completely false accusations of rape by someone who did offer consent, but now wants to take it back. I don't want to say these kinds of false accusations never happen, because they do happen, and they're awful. But they happen very, very rarely. Sexual assault on college campuses, by contrast, happens constantly. This is, in a way, the definition of what it means to be entitled: the rules are designed to protect you from dangers that barely exist at the expense of exposing others to constant threat.

Privilege is insidious; it surrounds us and suffuses our environment to such an extent that we take it for granted, like oxygen. It's that old joke about the fish who asks his friend, "How's the water?" and the other fish says, "What's water?"

[zelticgar]

Oh I accept they have fallen down in their reporting, but that doesn't mean the account is a fabrication. And the standard to convince someone it's in their interest to retract something isn't as high/the same as actually winning in court.

I think the issue with this case is that the inconsistencies have become glaring enough to show that it is likely a complete fabrication. There does not appear to be enough basic evidence to even consider this a simple he said/she said situation. She has apparently named one of the attackers and he has no connection to the fraternity and never interacted with her. In addition there appears to be enough compelling evidence showing that the Fraternity did not have a function on the evening in question. I'm assuming that there is a cost associated with an event so the fraternity would likely keep purchase records and email information about events that are happening. I know my fraternity had a weekly meeting where we logged expenses and events. We were complete neanderthals and knuckleheads but we kept basic records about expenses and events.

This case reminds me of another situation that occurred at Quinnipiac earlier this year. A student called in a bomb threat to avoid fessing up to her parents that she had flunked out.

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

I think the issue with this case is that the inconsistencies have become glaring enough to show that it is likely a complete fabrication.

I think we don't know that. That it didn't happen exactly as presented by RS, probably. That it never happened at all? That Jackie wasn't raped, and deliberately (and maliciously) made it all up for... attention? Revenge? Notoriety? I don't think we have proof of that.

Things that have come up in my limited experience since RS's retraction:

The effects of trauma and PTSD on memory, particularly around the event in question

The effects of time on memory

The no-win situation victims / witnesses tend to be in (it's note-perfect? it's rehearsed. it wavers? it's made up.)

The treatment of victims / people reporting crimes by police

On that last, someone linked me to this 2013 post from someone who's down as a false reporter. http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2013/08/23/i-am-a-false-rape-allegation-statistic/ (See not just the original poster's situation, but the comments by Ania Onion Bula -- accusing an innocent person, but for a reason -- and Renee Davis Pelt -- punishment for reporting -- and Ace of Sevens -- outright disbelief -- and emilybites -- not pursuable; she was drunk -- and Annam -- the bruising must have been consensual -- etc.)

Plus, well, most of the places now reporting that there's no story and she's a lying lair who lies are the ones who put her story and these details out in the first place. Why trust them this time?

[TerraPrime]

I am dismayed that RS put out a story without some basic fact-checking, like, for instance, checking the employee roster of the lifeguard against members of the fraternity, like the other reporter did. This wouldn't violate Edley's promise to Jackie, and it would provide one piece of corroboration.

It seems I put entirely too much faith on the RS brand name.

[Summah]

Other media outlets have now interviewed some of her friends and there is support for something traumatic happening to her around the time of the assault detailed in RS, this supports the possibility of PTSD having an effect on her memory.

[Crom Dubh]

Wouldn't the assault itself be traumatic enough to induce PTSD? Or is this second traumatic event unconnected to the report of sexual assault?