MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Nicole Eramo v. Rolling Stone Is Going to Trial: Judge’s Decision a Partial Win for UVA Dean

Whether Jackie's lies and Sabrina Rubin Erdely's mistakes satisfy 'actual malice' is a question only a jury can answer, judge rules.

EramoScreenshot via WUVANicole Eramo, the University of Virginia dean maligned by Rolling Stone's debunked gang rape story, will get the chance to argue to a jury that she was maliciously defamed by the magazine.

That's according to Judge Glen Conrad's decision, released Friday afternoon, which weighed in on several factual disputes.

Eramo and Rolling Stone had both filed for summary judgment on key assertions. Conrad granted some of them and denied others. The bottom line, however, is this: in the judge's view, Eramo's case is strong enough to justify a jury trial.

That's a significant win for Eramo, albeit a partial one. Rolling Stone prevailed in a critically important aspect: the judge agreed with the magazine that Eramo is a public figure rather than a private figure. This distinction matters, because court precedent holds that defamatory statements against public figures should be held to a higher standard. Since Eramo is a public figure, she must prove that the statements made about her weren't just wrong, but were motivated by "actual malice"—that Rolling Stone knew, or really should have known, it was lying about Eramo when it published the article in question.

But in virtually every other respect, Eramo has reason to celebrate. That's because the judge found ample evidence that a reasonable jury could conclude Rolling Stone acted with actual malice.

"While ill will or intent to injure alone is insufficient to show actual malice, plaintiff has also advanced evidence indicating Erdely had a preconceived story line, did not adequately investigate in the face of contradictory information, and had a reasonable basis upon which she would likely understand that her portrayal of Eramo was inaccurate," wrote the judge. "The court believes that a reasonable jury could infer actual malice in light of this record."

To be clear: the judge did not say that Rolling Stone acted with actual malice—he said the idea cannot and should not be dismissed outright before a jury can consider it.

The judge also declined to issue a definitive opinion on whether Rolling Stone's December 5 Editor's Note—which was published two weeks after the initial article—made Eramo look better or worse. Eramo has argued that the Editor's Note represents actual malice: by December 5, the editors knew the story was false, but instead of retracting it, they re-published it with an insufficient disclaimer, her lawsuit claims. Rolling Stone has countered that the Editor's Note was "an effective retraction." This will be a matter for the jury to decide, according to the decision.

To my mind, this is one of the stronger aspects of Eramo's lawsuit: essentially, Eramo has claimed that Rolling Stone continued to expose new readers to false information about the dean, long after its editors admitted to realizing the story was false. And she will get to make this case to a jury.

Of course, the jury could well conclude that Rolling Stone's numerous failings aren't substantial enough to satisfy an actual malice test, and that the Editor's Note was a retraction rather than a re-publication. We'll find out in the months to come.

Related: Rolling Stone Believed Jackie Until the Bitter End, New Documents Show

Photo Credit: Screenshot via WUVA

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • The Fusionist||

    "Of course, the jury could well conclude that Rolling Stone's numerous failings aren't substantial enough to satisfy an actual malice test, and that the Editor's Note was a retraction rather than a re-publication."

    Yes, I *suppose* it's possible to get a jury that dumb, but even if the lawyers are actively selecting for stupidity, I'm not sure they'll be able to quite find a panel with that level of retardation.

  • The Fusionist||

    Just kidding, RS, you have a great case, I'm sure you'd have an excellent chance of prevailing before an impartial, intelligent jury.

  • Sir Digby Chicken Caesar||

    So, maybe this jury?

  • BYODB||

    "Since Eramo is a public figure, she must prove that the statements made about her weren't just wrong, but were motivated by "actual malice"—that Rolling Stone knew, or really should have known, it was lying about Eramo when it published the article in question."

    In other words, Eramo has already lost since actual malice won't be provable here. Ouch. It's possible a jury might find in their favor, but proving malice will be virtually impossible on this one. I'm pretty sure this one will into the 'negligence' category which won't do diddly. It's worth a shot though.

  • Guestus III||

    Actual malice includes reckless indifference, which might be provable here.

  • ||

    "In other words, Eramo has already lost since actual malice won't be provable here."

    Not necessarily so. In a civil case, the level of proof required is not "beyond a reasonable doubt," but rather "preponderance of the evidence," which is a much lower level of proof. Basically, a jury will have to find that it is more than 50 percent likely that actual malice was involved. A tough hurdle indeed, but certainly not impossible,

  • GILMORE™||

    But in virtually every other respect, Eramo has reason to celebrate

    Jesus Robby.... you're out of your element here.

    This is one huge, "Other than that, Mrs Lincoln, how was the play?"

    By granting that Eramo is a public figure (or in the language of the judge, a 'limited' public figure), the case is over before its started. Proving malice is neigh on impossible, as she's not even the target of the story - she was merely a character in Rolling Stone's otherwise 'good faith' reporting efforts of a serious national issue*

    *(save the laughter)

    Seriously = did you run this by anyone before you decided to call this a win? because the actual result is a gigantic loss; its a signal by the judge that he was unhappy with the parties inability to settle before trial, and that he never wanted the thing to go to court in the first place.

    By calling her a public figure (*and straining the concept to its most absurd limits; i doubt a poll would show more than a handful of UVA students even knowing *who she was* before the RS story broke), he's effectively decided the case before its been tried.

  • The Fusionist||

    Yeah, I may have spoken too soon.

  • BYODB||

    I should have read even slightly further down, but you're 100% correct. Eramo is screwed unless it turns out the Reporter had some as-of-yet unreported axe to grind against Eramo specifically. Something that I'm pretty positive isn't the case.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    I blame Stabler and Benson.

  • GILMORE™||

    But in virtually every other respect, Eramo has reason to celebrate

    ,"Other than that, Mrs Lincoln, how was the play?"

    By granting that Eramo is a public figure (or in the language of the judge, a 'limited-purpose' public figure), the case is over before its started.

    Proving malice is neigh on impossible, as she's not even the target of the story - she was merely a character in Rolling Stone's otherwise 'good faith' reporting efforts of a serious national issue*

    *(save the laughter)

    The actual result here isn't a "partial win" = its a mortal blow. Its like getting 2 pieces of mail: one says you just won a free cruise in the bahamas in 6 months... the other says you have cancer and will be dead in 5 months. Calling that sort of thing "mixed" suggests you don't understand the consequences of the news you're reporting on.

    From my own superficial read - it seems to me a signal by the judge that he was unhappy with the parties inability to settle before trial, and that he never wanted the thing to go to court in the first place. So he's killing the thing in the cradle. By calling her a public figure (*and straining the concept to its most absurd limits; i doubt a poll would show more than a handful of UVA students even knowing *who she was* before the RS story broke), he's trying to dissuade anyone from bothering with a trial.

  • GILMORE™||

    whoops.? i guess i hit submit instead of preview before...

  • GILMORE™||


    Actual Malice

    In a legal sense, "actual malice" has nothing to do with ill will or disliking someone and wishing him harm. Rather, courts have defined "actual malice" in the defamation context as publishing a statement while either

    knowing that it is false; or

    acting with reckless disregard for the statement's truth or falsity.

    It should be noted that the actual malice standard focuses on the defendant's actual state of mind at the time of publication... the actual malice standard is not measured by what a reasonable person would have published or investigated prior to publication. Instead, the plaintiff must produce clear and convincing evidence that the defendant actually knew the information was false or entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication. In making this determination, a court will look for evidence of the defendant's state of mind at the time of publication and will likely examine the steps he took in researching, editing, and fact checking his work. ...

    ...Not surprisingly, this is a very difficult standard for a plaintiff to establish. Indeed, in only a handful of cases over the last decades have plaintiffs been successful in establishing the requisite actual malice to prove defamation.
  • The Fusionist||

    Yeah, I may have been too hasty with my initial comments.

  • The Fusionist||

    The Supreme Court's idea is that public officials and public figures have enough influence that they are better able to fight back against smears.

    The idea is that Boss McFatcat the chemical plant owner has a horde of PR flacks by which he get out his side of the story when the media decide he's a polluter when he actually isn't - so by counterspeech Mr. McFatcat can counteract the media's falsehoods without using litigation with its chilling effect on speech.

    If Senator Claghorn is falsely accused of taking a bribe, he can call on his party's rapid-response team to put out a rebuttal. Again, no need to use the courts and chill the media's expression on public issues by slamming them for every nitpicky mistake, when the mistake can be corrected with the help of the accused person's allies and deep pockets.

    Anyway, Senator Claghorn and Boss McFatcat both *chose* to be in the public eye, so if they're running around with short skirts...I mean if they're both in the public arena they have to take the rough with the smooth, the defamation with the celebration.

    In contrast, if Joe Sixpack is accused in the media of some crime or misconduct he didn't do, he has no army of flacks, and no party operatives, to turn to. He isn't a celebrity, nobody cares about what he has to say, the media just cares about a good story featuring Joe Sixpack and sheep. So suing for defamation is the only way poor Joe can fight back against the power of the media conglomerates.

    That's the theory.

  • The Fusionist||

    Of course, the problem is that sometimes it doesn't work like that.

    Even if the report about Senator Claghorn is a total lie, his party may decide to throw him under the bus anyway because the people are going to believe the worst and it's better to dump Claghorn in favor of another candidate.

    If Mr. Fatcat is lied about, maybe his Board of Directors will decide that it's too much trouble to convince the public he's innocent, so they'll just hang him out to dry.

    And no matter how much they put out their rebuttal message, it simply means that the headline is Claghorn Denies Bribery Charge or Fatcat Denies Pollution Allegations. To the public, Claghorn will be the bribe guy and Fatcat will be the pollution guy.

    And while it sucks to be in Mr. Sixpack's position, the public figures of the world are at greater risk of defamation than the Sixpacks. As for the short-skirt theory - publicizing your company's product or your legislative agenda doesn't mean you consent to be lied about. And people in public life are more likely to be attacked by their numerous enemies with their media collaborators.

    Why not have a single standard of defamation, with loser pays so that if the plaintiff loses (s)he has to compensate the reporters and editors for daring to sue them for accurate reporting?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Remember the guy that made the 3-D printable gun?

    They lost an appellate case yesterday.

    "A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday against Defense Distributed, the Texas organization that promotes 3D-printed guns, in a lawsuit that it brought last year against the State Department.

    In a 2-1 decision, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals was not persuaded that Defense Distributed's right to free speech under the First Amendment outweighs national security concerns."

    ---Ars Technica

    http://tinyurl.com/hd5ucr3

    If I'm reading it right, they're basically saying that if Defense Distributed uploads a CAD file to the internet, then the government can go after them for exporting firearms to terrorists, etc.

    Defense Distributed was saying that violated their First Amendment rights.

  • DOOMco||

    sad day.

  • ||

    But as expected. Libertarian moment still to arrive, Reason staff glass full to the brim.

  • Rhywun||

    Wut? Using that logic they can "go after" any gun manufacturer.

  • ||

    Clearly, the government doesn't want any competition in the "exporting firearms to terrorists" monopoly.

  • MikeT1986||

    Good ole ITAR.

  • BYODB||

    The only reason they decided the case that way is because they wanted to send a message that they don't appreciate the idea of 3D printing weapons. I only say this because if you fire a gun printed out a 3D Printer you just set off a hand grenade in your hand unless you also have the steel parts for the barrel etc. which would require the same setup that would enable you to build a gun without the 3D printer. The printer itself is just able to make all the fiddly bits that look pretty, not the entire gun.

    In other words, their finding has no legs to stand on.

  • Ken Shultz||

    What Defense Distributed should have done was make a donation to the Clinton Foundation.

    "In all, governments and corporations involved in the arms deals approved by Clinton's State Department have delivered between $54 million and $141 million to the Clinton Foundation as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments to the Clinton family, according to foundation and State Department records."

    ----Mother Jones

    http://tinyurl.com/o6x639e

    Make a donation to the Clinton Foundation, and you can sell anything you want to anybody you want!

    It's the best thing since the Catholic Church stopped selling indulgences.

  • ||

    No, but Hillary can still sell arms to terrorists, and she's damn well going to prove it.

  • Rhywun||

    Saw a blurb today that the US is selling billions in arms to Saudi Arabia. So... SSDD.

  • The Fusionist||

    "It's the best thing since the Catholic Church stopped selling indulgences."

    I should say, "cracked down on the corrupt priests, friars, etc. who committed these abuses," since the Church never taught the sale of indulgences.

    here

    Basically, if you repent of all your mortal (major) sins you'll be saved, but will still have to undergo purification through Purgatory or through purification during this life (likewise for venial (minor) sins).

    So the Church will provide certain circumstances in which, by performing some task, you can be excused from the tempral penalties of sin. This presupposes you've *already* repented of your mortal sins, including going to confession.

    Sometimes, back when Muslims were violent (unlike today) and were trying to conquer Christendom, the Church would offer indulgences to those who joined a Crusade. Or they would grant indulgences to those who undertook a pilgrimage to a particular place.

    On some occasions, you could get an indulgence by providing money aid to the Church - eg, subsidizing one of the aforesaid Crusades or contributing to a building project, etc.

    Here's a modern example of an indulgence

  • kevrob||

    The Church is always saying "The Church is the people" not the buildings or the organization.

    I think those were people selling indulgences.

  • The Fusionist||

    What a well-reasoned, point by point rebuttal of what I said!

  • The Fusionist||

    And the spittle-flecked obscenity certainly adds weight and credibility to your position and reflects well on your good judgment.

  • BYODB||

    Honestly I found your post interesting, kudos!

  • ||

    Give them a fucking break. They're just people. And on top of that they're a lot of sinners. You can't expect them to do everything right every fucking time just because they worship the three-in-one true god of armies. Go back in your synagog if you can't stand the light of your own shadow.

  • Derpetologist||

    OT: Army working on new grenade; will feature less-lethal mode, adjustable electronic fuse, and be easier for the left-handed.

    http://www.foxnews.com/tech/20.....enade.html

  • Ken Shultz||

    No word on costs, but I'm sure the price is reasonable.

    I should offer to sell them my design for an ambidextrous peanut butter and jelly sandwich.

    It's gonna cost them a lot of money to have me develop it, but I understand the Obama Administration has a lot of cash lying around, what with planes full of the stuff being sent to Iran.

    I mean, who would you rather send your $1.4 billion in taxpayer money to--Iran? Or me and my design for an ambidextrous peanut butter and jelly sandwich?

  • GILMORE™||

    I should offer to sell them my design for an ambidextrous peanut butter and jelly sandwich.

    lol, that was better than my reaction.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    You guys ever held a grenade? What side is the pin in?

  • Homple||

    Forget it Frank. It's Wiseass town.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Have you ever tried to eat a peanut butter and jelly sandwich with your left hand?

    There's nothing funny about getting peanut butter all over your uniform.

  • MarkLastname||

    Does it matter? Can't you just rotate it in your hand?

    Or is that my right hand privilege talking? If it helps, I do um, certain things with my left hand.

  • GILMORE™||

    easier for the left-handed.

    ....the fuck. ... what? JUST HOLD IT THE OTHER WAY?!

  • Derpetologist||

    If you throw with your left hand, you have to hold it upside down so the pin is facing your right hand. You can't just turn it around because if do, the pin will be on the other side of it and you can't pull it. Remember, no matter which hand you hold it with, the lever must be facing toward you so you can use your thumb keep pressure on it so it doesn't arm and blow up in your hand.

    Throwing real grenades is fun. And a little scary. I enjoyed it.

  • The Fusionist||

    Did the guys with whom you were playing "catch" enjoy it, too?

    /I'm only kidding

  • Derpetologist||

    True story: our class had some extra grenades left over, so a lucky few got to throw 3 grenades instead of 2. Unfortunately, one of them didn't explode, so they had to stop call in the EOD guys to take care of it.

  • The Fusionist||

    EOD = Explosions on Demand?

  • GILMORE™||

    "Egor, the Orphan Dunce", who is kept around to defuse explosives.

  • __Warren__||

    It's Eyegor.

  • MarkLastname||

    Fun fact: one of the New York pressure cooker bombs from a couple days ago was discovered and accidentally disarmed by thieves who disconnected it (probably unaware of what it was) so they could steal the briefcase it was in.

    The De Blasio counter terrorism squad works in mysterious ways.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    I assume they are carried/stored so as to be readily accessed by a right handed person so it's ready to be thrown when removed from the carrying strap, as well? (forgive my unfamiliarity with the terminology)

  • Derpetologist||

    They come in crates and each grenade is packed in a cardboard tube. There are special grenade pouches in the ammo vest worn over armor.

    But on grenade day, they just hand you the grenades. You carry one in each hand, go to the bunker, hand one to the instructor, prep and throw the first one, then do the same for the other. Oh yeah, they tell you about 100 times to put the pull ring in the instructor's hand after you pull it, so you get to experience the joy of holding a live grenade sans pin in your hand for the longest 5 seconds of your life before you throw it.

    Pretty sure I threw that grenade farther than anything else I've thrown in my life.

    I almost forgot the best part. About an hour before you throw the real ones, you throw 4 simulated ones. During one of my trial runs, one of the instructors decided to play prank on me. While I was throwing, he prepped another simulated one and dropped it on the ground behind me. When I turned around, he yelled "GRENADE!" and for a second I was thinking "how the fuck did my grenade land *behind* me?" before I rushed into the safety position. Unfortunately, I left my arm exposed and the instructor said it would have been blown off in real life. It jangled my nerves a bit.

  • GILMORE™||

    I left my arm exposed and the instructor said it would have been blown off in real life

    This guy has a funny summary of his experience w/ hand-grenades in the military.

  • GILMORE™||

    no matter which hand you hold it with, the lever must be facing toward you

    "must"-schmust. Exercise their fingers, i say. This over-reliance on thumbs is a serious national security-gap. And what if you lose a thumb!? Happens all the time. The chinese pinch-grenade is an obvious technological leap forward. Our troops should be required to eat solely with chopsticks as an initial strengthening measure.

  • Derpetologist||

    Mr President we cannot allow a grip strength gap!

  • (VERY VIP), Jr.||

  • ||

    Akk and since when can't a left-handed person (assuming such actually exist) throw accurately with his right hand? If you're that retarted, then you shouldn't be juggling grenades. I don't understand people who get really fucking right or left handed to the point that their other hand is almost totally useless. Make a fucking effort. It's not hard. It's just a matter of actually using the other hand whenever needed rather than featherfucking yourself and carrying on about how "I can't!" and giving up till Mama come to DO IT FOR YOU. Try to find somebody grown up working for a living who can't use his other hand with adequate competence. They don't exist. The only real limitation seems to be on writing. For whatever reason, most people can't write much with the hand other than the hand they learnt to write with. This is institutionised stupidity gone mad.

  • PapayaSF||

    Cool. One would think that engineering and developing a new grenade should not cost much or go wrong. They're small and don't need a long life, like a rifle or an aircraft.

    Reminds me of the special low-radius grenades in The Forever War.

  • Derpetologist||

    I'm a bit disappointed the new grenade does not feature the single easiest way to improve accuracy and range, which would be to put in on a stick. But I guess that's a no-go because that's what the evil Nazis and Commies did.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_24_grenade

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RGD-33_grenade

  • Sevo||

    I read a critique of WWII weapons which made the claim that US grenades were too powerful; if a US soldier tossed one, he ran the other way.
    Conversely Kraut (I is one) and Jap soldiers ran toward it, as it was presumed to kill those within a small radius and the attacking soldier could then kill those disabled in a larger radius.
    'Fighting the (well before) last war?

  • Derpetologist||

    The really amusing part in the history of grenades is that the British learned the hard way during WWI that a 4 second delay gives Jerry just enough time to pick up your grenade and throw it back at you.

  • The Fusionist||

    Well, they found that you're supposed to pull the pin out first.

    /old joke

  • Sevo||

    "Well, they found that you're supposed to pull the pin out first."

    According to a couple of reports from the battle of Okinawa, the US soldier pool and the training regimen was running below acceptable standards by that time. After Shuri was captured and the US/Allies advanced to the Kiyan line, the recruits sent in to bolster the Marine lines un-sleeved the grenades and tossed them. The Japs pulled the pins and tossed them back.
    An immediate 'training' memo went out.

  • The Fusionist||

    Wait, I was bracing for an insult.

  • Sevo||

    That depends on how long YOU held it and the transit time...

  • The Fusionist||

    Please pay attention to what it says on the bottom of your can of beer: Open Other End.

  • ||

    Next thing you know they'll be making grenade for transsexuals.

  • Wasteland Wanderer||

    Mixing lethal and non-lethal weapon systems is a bad idea. It's too easy to fuck up and get "lethal" when you don't want it, and get "non-lethal" when you absolutely need "lethal".

  • Derpetologist||

    In retrospect, I'm surprised there was never a Star Trek episode where someone set the phaser to kill instead of stun by mistake. There was always a dramatic moment where someone would shout "set phasers to kill!" or some such.

  • ||

    Stick to lethal and cut your loss.

  • Rhywun||

    Is it really that complicated that a lefty couldn't just use their right hand?

  • Derpetologist||

    Try throwing a ball with each hand and see what the difference in distance is. Most people cannot throw equally well with both hands. That's why baseball pitchers often mess up the throwing arms from overuse.

  • Rhywun||

    OK, I was thinking more of the fiddling with the pin bit, not the throwing.

    I'm sort of ambidextrous so I find it amusing that people are completely unable to do even the simplest of tasks with the "wrong" hand.

  • Derpetologist||

    The hand you throw with is the hand you must use to hold down the lever, and the pin must face your other hand. Since the pin is on the left side when the lever is facing you (it's designed for righties, who pull the pin with their left hands), the only way to pull the pin with your right hand is to turn the grenade upside down. If lefties tried to do it the "right" way, they would have to switch the grenade to their left hand and risk releasing the the lever and arming the grenade.

    It's the lever that arms the grenade, not the pin. The pin just stops the spring from pushing off the lever and arming the grenade.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    I thought real men pulled the pin with their teeth?

  • Derpetologist||

    Sadly, that's just another cool movie myth. They told us not to do that and even if you tried, you'd probably just break a tooth. It would be very hard to actually do it because the pin is kinked in a diamond shape and you have to pull really hard to get it out. The current M67 replaced the M26 which had a straight pin which could fall out by accident. And that's how Max Cleland became a triple amputee.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Cleland

    The M67 also has a safety clip which must be removed as the first step to arm the grenade.

  • Rhywun||

    None of that sounds too difficult* - but when you mentioned the throwing, yeah I agree that almost everybody is better with one hand than the other (including me). I'm a bit messed up because I am much better at some things with my left hand (drawing) and other things with my right hand (throwing).

    *I'm picturing "left-handed scissors" or "left-handed can opener" - meh, just use the one for norms!

  • Wasteland Wanderer||

    I'm a bit messed up because I am much better at some things with my left hand (drawing) and other things with my right hand (throwing).

    I'm the same way. It's called "cross dominance".

  • ||

    Who uses their left hand? Some genetic abomination?

  • Derpetologist||

    All the left-handed people get a big L written in chalk on their helmets on live grenade day so the instructors don't freak out.

  • straffinrun||

    Big "L" on your helmet as you run around with grenades. Beck should make the video.

  • Derpetologist||

    I got a W on my helmet as I judged to have a weak throw. Oh well. Should have played more baseball when I was younger I guess.

    The other codes are SA for sidearm throw and X for needs extra training.

  • MarkLastname||

    Are you sure 'w' didn't stand for 'throws like a woman?'

  • Derpetologist||

    Amusing: CNN anchor struggles in debate against 11-year old Trump supporter

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsScqWydD-w

  • The Fusionist||

  • The Fusionist||

  • The Fusionist||

  • The Fusionist||

  • The Fusionist||

  • PapayaSF||

    OT: The new "Why aren't I 50 points ahead?!?" video is bizarre. She's trying for "forceful," but comes off as desperate, grating, and creepy. It makes me imagine her raging at subordinates. It's like a fixed-camera, one-woman version of that scene in Downfall, except we're the people being yelled at.

    "I've called tens of millions of you racists! Why aren't you supporting me? What more do you idiots want?? I demand that you like me!"

    Scott Adams keeps joking that there's a Trump mole close to Hillary, writing slogans and tweets that are actually pro-Trump messages. It looks like he scored again.

  • Hunthjof||

    File this under f-in duh. Rolling stone should have settled but they are so committed to go down with the ship that they don't care. they are hoping that maybe enough SJW will stand up with them to win.

  • Seamus||

    That's according to Judge Glen Conrad's decision, released Friday afternoon, which weighed in on several factual disputes.

    Robby Soave is such a great reporter, he can write about this in an article posted *Thursday* at 9:40 p.m.

  • Uncle Jay||

    Nicole Eramo v. Rolling Stone Is Going to Trial: Judge's Decision a Partial Win for UVA Dean
    Whether Jackie's lies and Sabrina Rubin Erdely's mistakes satisfy 'actual malice' is a question only a jury can answer, judge rules.

    This is a terrible decision because the little people sit on juries.
    Since when do the unenlightened masses be allowed to participate in the judicial process?
    Stalin must be rolling over in his grave.

  • Jake Stone||

    Wouldn't it be beautiful of RS ran into a Gawker-like fate? It couldn't happen to a more deserving rag....

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online