You can login if you already have an account or register by clicking the button below.
Registering is free and all you need is a username and password. We never ask you for your e-mail.
This is more about the magazine publishing things as fact when they were incorrect or made up. It hurts everyone involved, including the college, the frat, AND the victim. I'm not a lawyer, but this seems to be a perfect example of libel. Rolling Stone is in a position of influence and credibility (a point I'm sure people will dispute) and with that position, there is a responsibility to do the right thing. In this case, the responsible thing would have been doing the research, conducting interviews, basic fact checking, etc. before publishing what they had. What they did was damaging to everyone involved and they need to be held accountable.
[+]corsairio0 points0 points0 points
ago
(edited ago)
[–]corsairio0 points
0 points
0 points
(+0|-0)
ago
(edited ago)
I'm saying that the entire notion of libel as an action with legal recourse goes against the first amendment, and is used by the establishment to keep down dissenters. I don't think Rolling Stone sells itself as an organization with true journalistic integrity, either.
I don't think it does. Defamation is a crime and isn't what Rolling Stone did by publishing this story in that category?
Regarding Freedom of Speech:
" other limitations on free speech balance rights to free speech and other rights, such as rights for authors over their works (copyright), protection from imminent or potential violence against particular persons (restrictions on fighting words), or the use of untruths to harm others (slander). "
view the rest of the comments →
[–] hungryasabear 0 points 10 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago
This is more about the magazine publishing things as fact when they were incorrect or made up. It hurts everyone involved, including the college, the frat, AND the victim. I'm not a lawyer, but this seems to be a perfect example of libel. Rolling Stone is in a position of influence and credibility (a point I'm sure people will dispute) and with that position, there is a responsibility to do the right thing. In this case, the responsible thing would have been doing the research, conducting interviews, basic fact checking, etc. before publishing what they had. What they did was damaging to everyone involved and they need to be held accountable.
[–] ArchVile 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
It would be funny if Rolling Stone defended itself successfully by testifying under oath that no one should take the shit they publish seriously
[–] corsairio ago (edited ago)
I'm saying that the entire notion of libel as an action with legal recourse goes against the first amendment, and is used by the establishment to keep down dissenters. I don't think Rolling Stone sells itself as an organization with true journalistic integrity, either.
[–] hungryasabear 1 point 3 points 4 points (+4|-1) ago
I don't think it does. Defamation is a crime and isn't what Rolling Stone did by publishing this story in that category?
Regarding Freedom of Speech:
" other limitations on free speech balance rights to free speech and other rights, such as rights for authors over their works (copyright), protection from imminent or potential violence against particular persons (restrictions on fighting words), or the use of untruths to harm others (slander). "
Source