Skip to main content

Group Libel (2)

Three former University of Virginia students are suing Rolling Stone magazine for its (now retracted) story about a supposed gang rape. Rolling Stone has already had to pay an associate dean who was named in the article, as well as the Fraternity, Phi Kappa Psi. Now three individual Phi Kappa Psi members are suing. They are basically arguing that because the story was defamation against the whole Phi Kappa Psi fraternity, and specific details from the article could be used to identify them, they deserve to paid damages. A district court dismissed the case (but they appealed, and the 2nd Circuit overturned the dismissal). If an individual, or multiple individuals, had been named as the rapists there would be no question as to whether Rolling Stone defamed the individuals: the minimum degree of fault is met in this situation as there was negligence—this was an instance of poor journalism practices (Tedford & Herbeck 95). However, what gets tricky is no single fraternity member is named and group libel becomes a necessary as part of their case.

Group libel is defamation that seeks to destroy the good name of a group (Tedford & Herbeck 84). Illinois had a law that made it illegal to communicate messages that “portrayed ‘depravity, criminality, unchastity or lack of virtue of citizens of any race, color, creed or religion’ or that exposed the ‘citizens of any race, color, creed or religion to contempt, derision, or obloquy or which is productive of breach of the peace or riots’” (Tedford & Herbeck 84). In 1952 a white supremacist circulated a flier that urged city officials to keep African Americans from moving into white neighborhoods, and asked people to join his white supremacist group. He was convicted of violating the group libel law, and the Supreme Court upheld the conviction basically saying that group libel is a punishable offense, and is not protected by the first amendment.

The Supreme Court decided that defamation (and group defamation) is not a protected form of speech. Meaning people can be punished for speech that defames someone, and harms their reputation (there are tests that need to be met for it to count as defamation/libel). This tightens the freedom of speech and limits what people can say. However, when thought about in the context of the cases involving Rolling Stone it becomes quite obvious why defamation should not be protected speech. It can seriously damage people’s reputations and cause them great amounts of pain and stress. It encourages better journalistic practices and holds those accountable when damage is done.


Tedford, Thomas L., and Dale A. Herbeck. Freedom of speech in the United States. 8th ed., State      College, PA, Strata Publishing, Inc., 2017.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Gamifying Citizenship

The historical context of freedom of speech is an extremely interesting one. Why is it that the concept of free speech has been an undying one and has span the history of human communication. Breaking free speech in to three traditional rationals makes the concept easier to understand and definitely makes sense. These three modes of freedom of speech are philosophical, political and individual. They are easy to distinct from one another and function in completely different ways. From a philosophical level, free speech is a device of truth. That if people are able to speak freely and let their ideas compete, "in the long run the truth will prevail" according to Tedford and Herbeck. I find this interesting, because in my mind, this is the most important facet of free speech. I say this, because I find free speech essential for any kind of societal advancements. If people are not allowed to speak their mind and share their ideas, or discredit others ideas, how is a society supp...
1 comment
Read more

Wedding Cake Court Case (make-up post)

Wedding cake court case involving a gay couple, Charlie Craig & David Mullins, and a cake baker, Jack Phillips, who refused to bake a wedding cake for the couple. Just all around, it's a tricky debate with many different angles due to the baker arguing on the grounds of the First Amendment---its protections for free speech and the free exercise of religion. In the end, I think it comes down to whether we consider baking a cake qualifies an exercise of freedom of expression. I would say that it depends on the situation/context of baking. If Mr. Phillips wants his cake baking to be categorized artistic expression that falls under free expression, he can just go bake a cake on his own. Only then when he's on his own private time does it qualify, but as soon as he offered his skills as a public service via his business, I'd argue he gave that right to expression up. Also, what's stopping other artisans/professional services to deny services? By Mr. Phillip's logic...
Post a Comment
Read more

Why is Freedom of Speech Important in a Democracy

While reading Chapter 15, I got the sense that the book was really coming full circle. In the first week of class, we established a meaning for freedom of speech and that shared meaning allowed us to navigate the classroom together as a classroom and a collective group. Creating a space that also involved mutual respect of opinons but encouraging difference in them as well. This brings me to an article I found about the importance of Freedom of Speech in a democracy. It is a basic human right to be able to express opinions and beliefs in our country. Although that is the main component, just like we established in class the first few weeks, in a government and democracy, Freedom of Speech also consists of the ability to listen to people with difference in opinions. In the article , editor Rachael  Jolly says, “ We are going through a time where people don’t want to be on a panel with people they disagree with. But we should feel comfortable being in a room with people who disagree ...
4 comments
Read more