3 ms·

No, they were lies to the point where named people supposedly involved ("Haven Monahan") don't exist. It was a hoax. Sabrina Erdeley has herself written that s

by blfr 10y ago

No, they were lies to the point where named people supposedly involved ("Haven Monahan") don't exist. It was a hoax. Sabrina Erdeley has herself written that she went out looking for a particular story. This is among the reasons why she is liable. In the US the standard for that is much, much higher than just failing to hold up in court. It takes actual malice.

hga 10y ago
"Actual malice" is the high bar required for lawsuits made by "public figures" after NYT v. Sullivan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan), which the Dean was inexplicitly declared to be by the trial judge. Which make the resulting verdict all the more impressive.
erikpukinskis 10y ago
Just because she gave a wrong name, you can't deduce that the entirety of her story is false. That doesn't follow logically. It can be littered with inconsistencies, that doesn't prove the absence of a rape. She could be (and probably is) a pathological liar. That doesn't mean she is incapable of being raped. It only means her accounts shouldn't be published and she's not a reliable criminal witness.
- blfr 10y ago
  No, the story is false because it consists of fictional events. Nothing in it adds up: not the people (Haven Monahan, the frat), not the timeline. The events (sex on broken glass) are prima facie unbelievable. It was torn to pieces by WaPo, CJR, and the Charlottesville police. There is no doubt that it was a hoax. If she has ever been raped, it was a completely different event from the one described by the Rolling Stone. On the other hand, I don't think that Jackie is a pathological liar. She tried to catfish a guy[1] and get a little sympathy from college admins. She started off like a fairly reasonable liar (for a teenager) and got caught up in the whole thing. She's definitely at fault but much less than the Rolling Stone which went on a rampage defaming people left and right and instigating a mob[2]. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/01/08/catfishing-over-love-interest-might-have-spurred-u-va-gang-rape-debacle/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/01/0... [2] http://www.nbc29.com/story/27439468/uva-fraternity-house-vandalized http://www.nbc29.com/story/27439468/uva-fraternity-house-van...
  - ptaipale 10y ago
    The comments to [2] are quite sad.
  - erikpukinskis 10y ago
    Why does the presence of fictional events mean that there are zero factual events? Couldn't it be a mixture of both?

by blfr 10y ago

hga 10y ago

"Actual malice" is the high bar required for lawsuits made by "public figures" after NYT v. Sullivan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan), which the Dean was inexplicitly declared to be by the trial judge. Which make the resulting verdict all the more impressive.

erikpukinskis 10y ago

Just because she gave a wrong name, you can't deduce that the entirety of her story is false. That doesn't follow logically. It can be littered with inconsistencies, that doesn't prove the absence of a rape. She could be (and probably is) a pathological liar. That doesn't mean she is incapable of being raped. It only means her accounts shouldn't be published and she's not a reliable criminal witness.

blfr 10y ago
No, the story is false because it consists of fictional events. Nothing in it adds up: not the people (Haven Monahan, the frat), not the timeline. The events (sex on broken glass) are prima facie unbelievable. It was torn to pieces by WaPo, CJR, and the Charlottesville police. There is no doubt that it was a hoax. If she has ever been raped, it was a completely different event from the one described by the Rolling Stone. On the other hand, I don't think that Jackie is a pathological liar. She tried to catfish a guy[1] and get a little sympathy from college admins. She started off like a fairly reasonable liar (for a teenager) and got caught up in the whole thing. She's definitely at fault but much less than the Rolling Stone which went on a rampage defaming people left and right and instigating a mob[2]. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/01/08/catfishing-over-love-interest-might-have-spurred-u-va-gang-rape-debacle/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/01/0... [2] http://www.nbc29.com/story/27439468/uva-fraternity-house-vandalized http://www.nbc29.com/story/27439468/uva-fraternity-house-van...
- ptaipale 10y ago
  The comments to [2] are quite sad.
- erikpukinskis 10y ago
  Why does the presence of fictional events mean that there are zero factual events? Couldn't it be a mixture of both?