Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Wikileaks Founder Julian Assange’s internet link cut off by “state actor”

Recent reports tell us that Wikileaks’ founder Julian Assange’s access to the internet has been severed. Assange has been in exile for almost four years in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. The Associated Press concludes that an “unidentified state actor” has cut off his internet access and not much information about the event can be obtained at the moment. Many hack-savvy Redditors have pointed to some legitimate clues as to what could be going on. Others seem to be coming to their own conclusions.

The fact that #julianasange has been cut off the Internet for #wikileaks is proof that we need to vote for TRUMP!!!!! #noHillary #trumptrain

— cbreezy (@carriebeez1) October 17, 2016

So John Kerry working so hard to stop #julianasange makes u wonder what’s coming that they are so scared of to come out ?

— KamieK #TOLG (@01Kamie) October 17, 2016

Regardless of what people might think of Assange, what he’s been doing is pretty risky, and that makes him an important political character.

via GIPHY

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: October 17, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

In November 2014, an article was published by Rolling Stone, titled “A Rape on Campus: A Brutal Assault and Struggle for Justice at UVA.” The author, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, reported about a supposed gang-rape that happened to a girl named “Jackie” at an on-campus fraternity at the University of Virginia.

The article quickly drew national attention and outcry, not only to the fraternity, but also to UVA, because of a named official who reportedly shunned “Jackie” from reporting the sexual assault.

Students protested, demonstrated, and some even vandalized the fraternity house. The Inter-Fraternity Council and the university’s president suspended fraternal activities until January 2015.

The first issue with the story that did not resonate well with readers was the lack of additional sources. The story was written from one point of view, which for the purpose of fairness and accuracy is not how a journalist should go about writing an article. In addition, a simple verification of facts would’ve lead to either more concrete evidence or a lack there of (which was later found to be the case).

The Washington Post published a piece detailing the discrepancies and doubts that they had found with the story, after doing small verifications. Police also conducted a thorough investigation and were unable to find evidence to support what “Jackie” said had happened.

There was no party that night. There was no boy named “Drew” who was a fellow lifeguard and Phi Kappa Psi fraternity member. None of it was true. So why would she lie?

Associate Dean Nicole P. Eramo is seeking roughly $8 million worth in damages in the case against Rolling Stone, its parent company, and Erdely. She argues that she was pegged as the villain and that she was targeted by not only Jackie, but by Rolling Stone as well.

On April 7, Jackie testified under oath, after being ordered by a judge to do so. Although, what she said is confidential and was sealed immediately.

What we do know from this case was that it was a grave disservice to not only the university and the fraternity, but also to the one in five women who will be sexually assaulted during their time in college. This article perpetuated the myth that many of those who report sexual assaults are just lying about what happened to them.

Every day on campuses around the country women and men are sexually assaulted, and many are choosing or are advised not to report their incidents. It is unfortunate that this story, of all of the stories about campus sexual assault to be published, was fabricated.

This also brought up the ethical dilemmas of adhering to a source’s desire to remain confidential and/or requests that other sources not be contacted regarding the incident. Jackie argued that she feared retaliation from her assailants if they were contacted, and Erdely agreed to keep them out of the discussion. However, as the Columbia Journalism Review found in a comprehensive investigation on the magazine, these errors could have been easily caught through simple verification without giving the details of the story away to another source.

Jackie’s lawyers had argued that her testifying would cause her to have to relive the pain and be re-victimized by the process. However, the judge denied the motion and ruled that she had to testify, hopefully to shed some light and understanding on what went wrong in late 2014.

Throughout this entire process many people have tried to figure out who “Jackie” really is. She is the main character in the story, and the person who created the haunting details that were later proved false…so shouldn’t her name be out there too? Some think yes and some think no. Somehow, she has been able to keep her anonymity, unlike the high profile names and organizations that were made public in the article.

The dean of the Columbia Journalism School, Steve Coll, told The Washington Post,

It’s an unusual situation, and I understand the argument on the other side, but I would not name her … She never solicited Rolling Stone to be written about. She’s not responsible for the journalism mistakes. To name her now just feels gratuitous, lacking sufficient public purpose. That could change depending on how the legal cases unfold, but that’s my sense now.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ‘A Rape on Campus’ Back in the Spotlight appeared first on Law Street.

I was in an airport in New York City when I first heard that Sean Penn wrote a 10,000 word piece on El Chapo for Rolling Stone, which may have led to El Chapo’s recapture. The place was significant to me because I had spent the last two weeks in the city that never sleeps, where some of the country’s best journalists live and write and report the news. My first thought was, So Sean Penn writes now? Huh.

In reading the article, I had a hard time getting past the line where he says he never learned how to use a laptop and wasn’t sure they were made anymore. The article was cheesy. It was poorly written. It did nothing for me. But it got me thinking about journalism as a whole–that’s when I started to pay attention.

When sensational things like this happen–where a famous person and an infamous person meet in secret for an article in Rolling Stone, for example–I find that it’s more important to pay attention to the aftermath than to the actual event. In the aftermath of this article being released, there were comments from all sides on every single news outlet that I watched. Many began by covering the recapture of El Chapo and the plan to extradite him to the United States so that he can’t escape from prison again (you really need to step up your prison game when you’re holding drug lords, Mexico). Inevitably, though, they always eventually started talking about Sean Penn and playing clips from an interview he did with Charlie Rose on “60 Minutes.” That is when things get interesting.

According to the interview, Sean Penn is sad about the state of journalism. He says, “’Journalists’ [the air quotes are his] who want to say I’m not a journalist, well, I want to see the license that says that they’re a journalist.” (The emphasis is also his.) He doesn’t seem to grasp where he’s sitting and who he’s talking to, and that’s what’s making people–especially other journalists–angry.

First of all, to those who say that Sean Penn has never written anything–he has. His IMDB page shows that he has six writing credits, including two screenplays. He has also used his fame and his political and social beliefs to have editorials published in The Washington Post and The New York Times, along with other publications. He has interviewed controversial world leaders such as Raul Castro and Hugo Chavez. He has never seemed to find his footing, however, amongst the journalistic community.

Second, consider who Sean Penn is talking to on “60 Minutes.” Charlie Rose holds a law degree from Duke University. He has won awards for his journalism, including an Emmy Award for his interview with Charles Manson and a Peabody Award for his interview with Jimmy Carter while he was president. Sean Penn was insulting journalism in front of a successful and revered journalist. He was asking to see Charlie Rose’s “journalism license” as he sat right in front of him.

Charlie Rose, for his part, remained calm and collected about the whole thing, never showing offense to the ridiculous things that Sean Penn said about journalism. The interview, as a whole, did not show Sean Penn in a great light. He seemed selfish, dismissive, and defensive. He said that no one understood him. He tried to make it into everyone else’s fault that his Rolling Stone article “failed.”

This, to me, is what makes it clear that Sean Penn isn’t a journalist, even though he wants to be. Journalism (in most cases) is about reporting facts in a way that makes a story enticing to read or watch. It isn’t about making a point–it’s about revealing something new that people at large are interested in. No, you don’t need a license, but you need generally need a college degree and an understanding of what the end goal is. An interview with El Chapo could have been a very interesting piece of journalism. It had the potential to become something big and important, like interviews with criminals that reveal some of their motivations and tendencies. What Sean Penn did was write an extremely long self-indulgent essay for a magazine that was as much about him as it was about his subject. In addition, he let El Chapo review the piece before it went to press. Sure, he wrote something for a magazine. I guess that makes him a journalist. But what he wrote wasn’t journalism. It was a bizarre memoir. That’s the difference.

Amanda Gernentz Hanson

Amanda Gernentz Hanson is a Minnesota native living in Austin, Texas. She holds a Bachelor’s degree in Chemistry from Hope College and a Master’s degree in Technical Communication from Minnesota State University, where her final project discussed intellectual property issues in freelancing and blogging. Amanda is an instructional designer full time, a freelance writer part time, and a nerd always. Contact Amanda at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is Sean Penn a Journalist? appeared first on Law Street.

In a particularly strange piece of news, Academy Award winning actor Sean Penn secretly met with fugitive Mexican drug kingpin Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán, and wrote an article about it for Rolling Stone. El Chapo has now been arrested, but the article went up on Rolling Stone’s website last night. The entire situation is incredibly odd, but the fun part is that some of the individual facts are even odder. Check out the top five weirdest things about Sean Penn’s interview with El Chapo:

5. El Chapo Doesn’t do Drugs

Despite the fact that El Chapo claims to supply “more heroin, methamphetamine, cocaine and marijuana than anybody else in the world,” he doesn’t do drugs personally. In fact, he hasn’t done any drugs in 20 years.

4. In Fact, He Does Hugs not Drugs

When Sean Penn first met “El Chapo,” the drug kingpin hugged him. Penn wrote that when they met, “he pulls me into a ‘compadre’ hug, looks me in the eyes and speaks a lengthy greeting in Spanish too fast for my ears.”

3. Yet, Sean Penn Still Farted in Front of El Chapo

Sean Penn bizarrely admitted to farting in front of El Chapo, and determined that the drug lord was very chivalrous for pretending not to notice, writing: “At this moment, I expel a minor traveler’s flatulence (sorry), and with it, I experience the same chivalry he’d offered when putting Kate to bed, as he pretends not to notice.”

2. Sean Penn Doesn’t Know How to use a Laptop

I’m going to leave this quote, from Sean Penn, without any context: “At 55 years old, I’ve never learned to use a laptop. Do they still make laptops? No fucking idea!”

Are we supposed to believe that Sean Penn hasn’t even seen a laptop recently?

1. But Somehow, They Still Use BBM

The strangest part of this, somehow, is the fact that part of the interview as well as part of the setup was conducted using BBM, or Blackberry Messenger. Given that Blackberries have become borderline obsolete, it’s a charmingly strange addition to the story. I, for one, am impressed that Sean Penn couldn’t figure out how to use a laptop, but could figure out a Blackberry.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Five Weirdest Parts of Sean Penn’s Interview with El Chapo appeared first on Law Street.

It was clear when the Charlottesville police department announced that it had found “no substantive proof” to support the UVA gang rape detailed in Rolling Stone’s “A Rape on Campus: A Brutal Assault and Struggle for Justice at UVA,” that the magazine had made some serious mistakes in its reporting. As a result, the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism was tasked with investigating the magazine’s story in order to figure out just where Rolling Stone went wrong. The report, which is being called “a piece of journalism about a failure of journalism,” outlines a list of fundamental journalistic failures on individual, procedural, and institutional levels. The controversy has forced Rolling Stone to issue a formal retraction.

Rolling Stone writer Sabrina Rubin Erdely began her article intending to showcase the pervasiveness of rape culture on college campuses using the story of an alleged gang rape survivor known as Jackie. Jackie’s horrific story of sexual assault and her campus administration’s lack of action resonated with readers and launched a national dialogue about rape. But just a few weeks after the story was published, details from Jackie’s story were called into question, leading to a formal police investigation into the alleged rape. While police found that they could not authenticate Jackie’s claims detailed in the article, they did not refute that something had potentially happened to her.

Columbia University followed suit with its own investigation in order to uncover what faulty journalistic practices led to such a scandal. The group summarized their findings writing:

Rolling Stone‘s repudiation of the main narrative in ‘A Rape on Campus’ is a story of journalistic failure that was avoidable. The failure encompassed reporting, editing, editorial supervision and fact-checking. The magazine set aside or rationalized as unnecessary essential practices of reporting that, if pursued, would likely have led the magazine’s editors to reconsider publishing Jackie’s narrative so prominently, if at all. The published story glossed over the gaps in the magazine’s reporting by using pseudonyms and by failing to state where important information had come from.

While a combination of failures including fact checking and corroboration attributed to the article’s inauthenticity, the takeaway is that Rolling Stone’s fundamental mistake was that they trusted Jackie way too much. The article’s editor Sean Woods claimed they were “too deferential” to their rape victim stating:

We honored too many of her requests in our reporting. We should have been much tougher, and in not doing that, we maybe did her a disservice.

Working with rape victims can be understandably challenging, especially when there’s the potential to re-traumatize them by having them retell specific events. Despite this, there still needs to be a way to hold sources accountable while preserving journalistic integrity. Rolling Stone failed to provide a balanced account of the events by only featuring the victim’s side of the story. This misstep now opens the door for other articles’ authenticities to be questioned, especially those written by Erdely, or others involving anecdotal evidence.

Surprisingly Erdely and her editors will not lose their jobs even in light of the report’s findings–apparently Rolling Stone views the report’s public embarrassment as punishment enough. However, that decision may not stand with an impending lawsuit against the publication on behalf of the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity in the works. Publicly Rolling Stone needs to prove that its credibility remains after this massive disservice to journalistic integrity.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Rolling Stone Retracts Story About Alleged UVA Rape appeared first on Law Street.

The number one article at Law Street this week came from Marisa Mostek, our resident authority on the dumbest laws of the United States. And guess what? Alaska and Hawaii are no exception. The second most popular post of the week, from Alexis Evans, is decidedly more serious as the UVA rape allegations that ran last Fall in Rolling Stone were found baseless by the police. And the number three article of the week, from Ashley Shaw, details the case of a criminal who outed his own hiding spot by Snapchatting it to his friends. ICYMI, check out this week’s best of the week from Law Street.

#1 The Dumbest Laws of the United States: Alaska and Hawaii

The last two additions to the family of United States could not be any more different in some ways, for example their opposing climates. However, Hawaii and Alaska are similar in that both possess a unique set of strange and dumb laws. In Anchorage, Alaska, there is a law specifically banning tying a dog to the roof of a car. Perhaps this brings to mind a certain politician doing so a few years back cough Mitt Romney cough. Read full article here.

#2 Police Find No Evidence to Support UVA Gang Rape Story

Last November, Rolling Stone shocked the nation with its 9,000-word article entitled “A Rape on Campus.” The piece told the horrific story of a University of Virginia freshman known only as “Jackie.” She claimed to have been gang raped by seven Phi Kappa Psi frat members during a frat date party. The article accused UVA of a “cycle of sexual violence” and “institutional indifference” that preferred to silence girls like Jackie who reported rape instead of helping them. The piece started an impressive national dialogue about rape culture, particularly rape culture on college campuses. Now after four months of investigating and roughly 70 interviews, police have concluded that the gang rape that reignited a movement most likely never even happened. Read full article here.

#3 Peek-a-Boo! Cops Find Crook Who Snapchatted His Location

There are a lot of stories about idiots who are wanted for one crime or another who get caught through social media. This might be because the police post their searches on Facebook and people see them and report the fugitives’ whereabouts. It could be the girl who posted a video on YouTube talking about everything she had just stolen. Or the guy who posted a pic of himself siphoning gas from a police car. Basically what this shows us is that many crooks are stupid and arrogant, and the man in this week’s story is no exception. Read full article here.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Last November, Rolling Stone shocked the nation with its 9,000-word article entitled “A Rape on Campus.” The piece told the horrific story of a University of Virginia freshman known only as “Jackie.” She claimed to have been gang raped by seven Phi Kappa Psi frat members during a frat date party. The article accused UVA of a “cycle of sexual violence” and “institutional indifference” that preferred to silence girls like Jackie who reported rape instead of helping them. The piece started an impressive national dialogue about rape culture, particularly rape culture on college campuses. Now after four months of investigating and roughly 70 interviews, police have concluded that the gang rape that reignited a movement most likely never even happened.

Charlottesville police announced Monday that they have found “no substantive basis” to support the gang rape detailed in Rolling Stone’s article. Investigators also found “no evidence” that a Phi Kappa Psi frat party even took place on the night of Sept. 28, 2012, which was when the rape was reported to have occurred.

In the above video Chief Longo says,

We’re not able to conclude to any substantive degree that an incident occurred at the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity house, or any other fraternity house, for that matter. That doesn’t mean something terrible didn’t happen to Jackie on the evening of Sept. 28, 2012. We’re just not able to gather sufficient facts to determine what that is.

There were a number of unsubstantiated claims made by Jackie in the Rolling Stone article that investigators detailed debunking. For starters, police found no proof that a party even occurred at the frat house the night of the alleged rape, but instead proved the Phi Kappa Psi brothers were attending a formal at their sister sorority, Delta Gamma, that evening. Jackie also claimed to have been hit over the head with a glass bottle during the rape, and that her roommate at the time, a nursing student, later removed glass shards from her face. But when police interviewed the roommate, she denied removing any such glass and claimed the wound was more consistent with an abrasion from having fallen. The list of inconsistencies didn’t stop there. For the full text from the Charlottesville police statement detailing their findings in the UVA rape case click here.

According to Chief Longo, the case is not closed but rather suspended until police are able to gather more information or someone comes forward providing more information.

So, what does this mean for Rolling Stone and its journalistic integrity? The magazine, which operated under the assumption that everything Jackie told it was true, already released a statement taking responsibility for its mistakes in handling the article. It admitted to its failure to contact the accused in the story, known as “Drew,” and get his side of the story. Now it’s opening itself up for further review by allowing the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism to complete its own investigation into the magazine’s reporting, which will later be published in Rolling Stone in early April.

As for Phi Kappa Psi, the accused fraternity might be seeking legal action against Rolling Stone for “defamation”. UVA’s Phi Psi chapter said in a statement provided to Business Insider:

Phi Kappa Psi is now exploring its legal options to address the extensive damage caused by Rolling Stone — damage both to the chapter and its members and to the very cause upon which the magazine was focused.

From a legal perspective the frat has a pretty good case, due to the magazine’s gross lack of fact checking and failure to even contact the frat for its side of the story. However if the fraternity members plan to follow through with a suit, they must be willing to expose themselves yet again to scrutiny that could result in even more unwanted publicity.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Police Find No Evidence to Support UVA Gang Rape Story appeared first on Law Street.

Just a few short months ago there were some very serious rape allegations being thrown around based on a Rolling Stone article about a student at the University of Virginia. It was a very traumatic account of a young woman being raped by several young men at a frat party, and that she didn’t report it until telling the story to a Rolling Stone writer several years later. When the administrators at UVA found out about these allegations they shut down the greek community and launched a full investigation only to discover that the story was falsified. Aside from the false accusation, UVA’s response seemed to be a little too late–only after this story got massive amounts of media attention did the school attempt to do anything.

That is not the case in regard to a student at Stanford University. Every news report I have seen calls this accused rapist a “former student,” but that status came about after the school found out about what he had done. Brock Allen Turner was charged with five felony counts of suspicion of attempted rape and penetration with a foreign object.

According to prosecutors, the attack occurred on January 18 when two young men riding their bikes on campus came across the scene of the crime. Turner was seen on top of an unconscious young woman; when confronted by the bikers he tried to run away, but luckily these guys were able to catch him and hold him until the police arrived.

A spokeswoman for Stanford University, Lisa Lapin, stated that Turner voluntarily withdrew from the university and is never allowed to re-enroll. I have a feeling that the school gave him an option and he took it, maybe to save face especially since he pleaded not guilty to the charges just yesterday morning.

Stanford did the right thing by shutting down what could have been a massively negative mark against the school. The best part in my opinion? The school had a resolution before the news even broke and was able to release a statement to news outlets immediately, letting people know that it knew what was going on and already had a resolution from an academic standpoint. Universities everywhere, take note!

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Stanford Sets the Standard for How Colleges Should Handle Campus Rape appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

A couple of weeks I wrote about Rolling Stone’s report of a young woman being brutally raped on the University of Virginia campus. Last week Rolling Stone retracted the story, even apologizing to its readers. After the original report hit the news cycle people hung on to every word–even the administrators at UVA took action by banning all fraternities–but now it seems that the story may not have been true.

In my first article I was conflicted about the story of Jackie–the victim–and wondered why she would value her reputation at the school by keeping quiet for so long over her own well-being and justice. I get that being raped by five to seven guys is a traumatic event, one that no one would ever want to relive, but why would you allow your “friends” to talk you into keeping something like that quiet, as the report indicated? Why allow seven rapists to troll the campus for another possible victim?

I believe in the theory that there are three sides to every story, and in this case those sides belong to the victim, the unnamed rapists, and the truth somewhere between the two. One person’s perspective on an event can be totally different from someone else’s, so combining both stories usually brings out a more accurate truth, in my opinion. What Rolling Stone  did was allow Jackie to tell her side of a story without sufficient due diligence on the part of the publication by contacting the men she accused and fact checking the story. Granted, I don’t know how much fact checking you can do when a young woman states she was raped two years ago. Yes, you can check to see if such a party took place at the frat house, but there isn’t much more access someone can get without starting to raise flags. Rolling Stone‘s journalism in this case was abysmal.

My biggest question is would UVA administrators have taken the time to do a thorough investigation if this were privately handled? I would like to think so, but the cynic in me knows that sometimes administrators put the reputation of a school above the well-being of its students.

I’m ashamed of Rolling Stone, not just because of this article but because of several missteps over the last couple of years. The cover where it got the facts wrong on who signed the Constitution–a staple of being an American. The RIDICULOUS decision to put a terrorist on the cover of its magazine where he looked more like a rockstar than an enemy of the state! Fact checking and respecting Americans is clearly not on the agenda over at Rolling Stone. Maybe you guys should stick with what you know–entertainment. But really, you shouldn’t even do that because those reviews are usually wrong, too.

Fellow Law Streeter Anneliese Mahoney wrote about how Rolling Stone’s retraction affects rape victims in America. I agree with her, the original Rolling Stone article and later retraction are going to make real victims of rape shy away even more from reporting their experiences. UVA administrators and investigators disproved certain facts that Jackie reported to Rolling Stone. Why couldn’t this publication have taken a little more time and done the right thing? Why did it not take a step back and try to get a full story? Look at the big picture? Yes, it was probably trying to do a good thing in telling this story. So many women feel like they were not alone and were encouraged to tell their story because somehow Jackie found the strength to do it. But now that “strength and courage” have been squashed by reality.

It’s Go Ask Alice all over again. The diary of a young girl that was in fact fictional but presented as truth. There is a certain level of betrayal from the publishers of Go Ask Alice and the people over at Rolling Stone. You want to help rape victims? Try doing your job and not ruining what victims have worked so hard for. That 5.9 percent of false accusations that Anneliese mentions are the ones that are heard the loudest and hung on to the longest. Those who cry wolf are the ones doing the most damage to real victims and Rolling Stone may have just let someone cry wolf on the main stage with a loud speaker.

I’ve shamed Rolling Stone. I’ve shamed UVA. I’ve even shamed Jackie. But now it’s time to reiterate that even though her story as published in Rolling Stone may not be true, anyone who is a victim of rape–or any crime–should find the strength in themselves to speak up. Be what Jackie was supposed to be–a role model who is taking charge of what happened to her and standing up for herself and victims alike.

Don’t let Rolling Stone take away your power.

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Rolling Stone, Bad Journalism, and the Future of Rape Victims appeared first on Law Street.

Early this afternoon, Rolling Stone released a post entitled “A Note to Our Readers.” It was a follow-up to a story published last month that took an extensive look at rape culture on the campus of the University of Virginia. Although the story was far-reaching, it focused particularly on a young woman named Jackie who allegedly was gang-raped at a fraternity party. I use the word allegedly because even though I believed Jackie’s story wholeheartedly, Rolling Stone has now retracted the article.

“A Note to Our Readers” was spectacularly vague, and in my opinion, put more blame on Jackie than a nationally known and respected news publication, but that’s almost beside the point. You can read the full retraction here, but here’s the part that stuck out to me. For context, it’s important to understand that Rolling Stone never interviewed or spoke with the men Jackie accused, out of an attempt to respect the fact that she was fearful of them. This is the what Rolling Stone included in its note today:

In the face of new information, there now appear to be discrepancies in Jackie’s account, and we have come to the conclusion that our trust in her was misplaced. We were trying to be sensitive to the unfair shame and humiliation many women feel after a sexual assault and now regret the decision to not contact the alleged assaulters to get their account. We are taking this seriously and apologize to anyone who was affected by the story.

There were discrepancies to Jackie’s account–for example, the fact that she may have gotten the date of the party wrong, and so on. I don’t have the information that Rolling Stone does, and they were clearly being purposefully vague–but “discrepancies” does not render the entire story null and void.

Discrepancies are part of reporting, part of crime, and part of life. Jackie was telling this story after the fact and was relaying a traumatized experience. If she didn’t have discrepancies, I’d be more surprised.

And what people want is tidy little narratives from victims. They want perfect and total recall from shocking situations.

— roxane gay (@rgay) December 5, 2014

Our legal system doesn’t demand that every little question be answered and correct–I’m going to make an entirely unfair comparison here, but a grand jury in Ferguson, Missouri proved just a few weeks ago that discrepancies in stories apparently mean jack squat. So why would the existence of discrepancies make Rolling Stone pull their story?

There are a couple of explanations. One is that they’re protecting their asses. They don’t want to get sued. They are businesspeople and they are choosing to protect their business, regardless if it means invalidating a quite possibly real and shocking story.

Another explanation is that Jackie lied, and Rolling Stone didn’t catch it. I don’t want to believe this is true. False accusations are rare–exceedingly rare–but they do exist. A study out of Northeastern University estimates them at about 5.9 percent. That’s of course only out of rapes that are reported–there are far more that aren’t, which means that the people who report false rape vs. people who are actually sexually assaulted are really rare. I highly doubt that this was fabricated, but it’s not impossible. There could be half truths too–Jackie could be telling someone else’s story who was too afraid to come out with it. Either way, I can’t say with certainty but I don’t think this was a lie. And honestly if it was, that’s on Rolling Stone too for screwing up their fact checking.

Because at the end of the day, it should be Rolling Stone we’re mad at. This whole thing is going to encourage rape victims to hide, not come forward and tell their story, unless they can remember every damn detail and prove it. It’s going to shift the conversation from the legitimate problem we have with sexual assault in this country to conversations about journalism. This incident is going to be cited by rape apologists and those who claim false rape accusations until those idiots are blue in the face. It’s going to set us back, there’s no way it’s not going to.

Rolling Stone: you didn’t do your job, and now rape victims are going to pay the price.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Rolling Stone Just Set Back Rape Victims’ Progress in America appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

You might have missed it with all the huge news events within the last week, but there was a Rolling Stone article published last week about a young woman who was the victim of a heinous crime. Seven (yes, SEVEN) young men at a fraternity party raped the woman over a three-hour period. The rape took place two years ago, but now that the story is out UVA President Teresa A. Sullivan has decided to shut down all fraternities until at least January 9, 2015. There will be an investigation conducted during the suspension.

I read the Rolling Stone article and the details are mind boggling. Not just of the before and after but of the rape itself. It was horrifying. After the victim, Jackie, was raped she was able to locate her “closest” friends and tell them about the incident, which resulted in a decision I do not understand. One friend wanted to take her to the hospital immediately while the other two were more concerned about her reputation at the school. I’m sorry but those two kids were NOT your friend, Jackie. When your friends are more concerned about your reputation than your wellbeing, you need to take a good hard look at those relationship. I realize Jackie was in a horrible state but the friend who said she needed to go to the hospital should have put her foot down and taken her. According to the report her dress was drenched in blood and she needed to see a doctor.

I understand that life on a college campus can sometimes be difficult but what is more difficult–having people talk about you for a few weeks because you were raped and reported it or walking around on campus knowing that at some point you will run into your rapists, knowing what they did to you and that they are just living their lives like nothing happened?

I respect the school’s decision to shut down the fraternities and investigate but all of the evidence that was needed to prosecute these scumbags is gone. All that is left is eye witness accounts that aren’t really that reliable, especially after so much time has gone by. I worry about students on any college campus who are more focused on their reputations than justice when a crime is committed.

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post University of Virginia Suspends All Fraternities After Rape Allegations appeared first on Law Street.