super_eagle13 said:
So to prove libel the story had to be:
1. False... :lol: CHECK
2. Harmful...CHECK
3. Published without reasonable verification by the reporter...very, very CHECK
But is Eramo a public figure? Seems like that could be the heart of the case.
Imagine a subpoena commanding Erdely turn over her notes. Would that not give us a fascinating peek into the narrative-sausage factory? Would any of you be surprised to find references, contacts, maybe even correspondences with characters like Krakauer and Florio?
"Discovery" is not something that Rolling Stone would want to happen in this case. A Jury Trial is the last thing that Rolling Stone wants. The case will settle, quickly, with a confidential settlement.
It is unfortunate that it is not a likely alternative for JJ in this matter, although Krak is beginning to push the boundaries. The criminal proceeding makes JJ a "public figure."
America has returned to old Southern ways; when "rape" was a sacred charge against those disfavored by elite society, and it was considered a near sacrilege to dare to suggest that a woman might lie about it. See,
"To Kill a Mockingbird." An insult to their dignity and veracity. It was a crime itself.
Women did not lie about something like that, juries were told.
The battle for due process was hard fought against ingrained cultures of political narratives. Then, of course, the narrative was that strong, healthy young men had a propensity --
a propensity, mind you -- to commit rape against vulnerable and susceptible young women.
The political angle of the narrative was substantial. If you care to stir up the pot, the political affiliations were all-important. As it happened, the accused "rapists" were invariably Republican. The lynch mobs invariably Democrats. "Rape" became a standard charge against the politically disfavored; those who represented a political and social threat. After all, it was an easy charge to prove; the word of the woman was all that was -- as many argue today that it should be -- necessary to convict. It was a peculiarly political charge for that reason, requiring lower standards of proof --
as it should have, it was argued.
Don't think it's not political. The same tactic is used today. Lena Dunham's recent false charge in her "book" -- another novel designed to profit off of the social justice narrative -- attempted to claim that she had been raped in college "by a Republican." That was a key point to her false narrative. Sabrina Erdely went after "white privileged frat boys." It was her intended socio-political target. Democratic DA Mike Nifong was going to prove that white, privileged athletes were a threat to the community. He was running for re-election and pandered shamelessly for black votes. The LaCrosse players were not in a criminal justice system, Nifong made them socio-political targets. A faculty committee at Duke, consisting of its most liberal faculty, publicly called for the castration of the Duke LaCrosse team members. To them, that was the appropriate socio-political justice.
Today, lynch mobs are composed of people with PhDs and journalistic credentials. They are feted, and awarded by deans and college presidents. Back then, a rope sufficed.
Call them today, the "politically incorrect." They play football; they stand for competition cultures of merit and achievement. It is a bulls-eye if they are White and Christian as well. The Florios and Krakauers have their target. Modern lynchings occur in the media. That's exactly what they are undertaking, a modern lynching because the jury acquitted. That's how it worked then, that's how it works now.
