A webpage's comments section.

And then UVa. The frat suspension further legitimized the slander.

Even though this case is what it is, do they really want people digging into what goes on in their organization? Unless they're squeaky clean - which is doubtful - they ought to milk Rolling Stone for some money and run.

so late at night (i.e., their letterman jackets)

No one was actually harmed by this article. So, they couldn't hold parties for awhile. Oh, boo hoo.

Frats have a bad reputation for some very good reasons. I don't think they shoulld open that can of worms.

Are they choir boys? Probably not, but that's not exclusive to fraternities. False accusations of rape were made against some of those men, and it tainted the entire fraternity.

Not harmed my ass.

Was any frat member named as a rapist?

If any of them was personally harmed, then that person may have a case. Otherwise, probably not so much.

It doesn't matter if they were named; other people know who the members of that fraternity are - do you really believe that being a known member of a fraternity accused of gang rape isn't harmful?

The name that should be widely publicized is the name of the woman that made the false accusations.

is obviously mentally ill. Or, maybe just really young. Maybe both.

What she did was horrible, but releasing her name would definitely ruin her life. Interfere with her ability to get a job. Lots and lots of consequences. I don't see the point in permanently embarassing her.

no last name, and no confirmation that her first name really is Jackie.

If so interested.

That's laughable. Her name should be in the first paragraph of every story being written about this.

I amazed at how many people are willing to defend a person who made false allegations of a gang rape. What she did made it that much harder for real rape victims, and she shouldn't be defended, IMO.

She should be embarrassed. Future employees should know what she's done. Her life should be made difficult.

She's even more than the magazine is.

Men should know to be leery of her.

The writer should have done her due diligence in fact checking the stories her sources were providing.

The source isn't to blame for the writer's negligence and sloppiness. IIRC the source also contacted the writer and requested to be dropped from the article.

This is all on the story's author and the magazine.

But the "source" is ultimately to blame for all of this, since she's the one that made false accusations of gang rape. Her name should absolutely be out there.

I predict a hefty settlement (at least seven figures) and a major written apology/mea culpa prominently featured in the magazine.

It also undermines efforts on campuses to address the very serious problem of sexual assault. And as the president of the frat said, it can make women more afraid to come forward because they worry that their story will be viewed with heightened suspicion.

Any publication that values a juicy story over facts and the lives of the story's subjects should bleed money until it's safe to assume that they'll NEVER do such a thing again.