The Latest Fallout from 'Rolling Stone' Magazine's Disastrous Campus Rape Story

On Wednesday, three former Phi Kappa Psi frat brothers at the University of Virginia sued Rolling Stone, its parent company Wenner Media, and journalist Sabrina Rubin Erdely over the magazine's famously discredited "A Rape on Campus" feature. According to the complaint, which was filed in US District Court in New York, George Elias IV, Stephen Hadford, and Ross Fowler were "interrogated," "humiliated," and "scolded" after Erdely wrote that members of their fraternity brutally gang-raped a freshman the magazine referred to only as "Jackie."

The lawsuit is just the latest chapter in a saga that has roiled the journalism and rape awareness communities alike. And the debacle is sure to color future discussions about campus sexual assault, as well as how the public views an iconic magazine that is now permanently associated with one of the biggest journalistic errors in recent years.

But even if "A Rape on Campus" has been disproven and scrubbed from the Rolling Stone website, it's unclear if the three frat brothers have a legit defamation case. For instance, the complaint says that the plaintiffs were identified on a message board called FairfaxUnderground.com, which caused them to be inundated with emails and messages. However, a review of the thread there about the UVA article shows that they were only identified once —in a list of 19 members of the fraternity. Although specific brothers are discussed by the thread's participants, no one discusses any of the three plaintiffs as possible rapists.

What's more, George Elias IV says he was identified as one of the gang rapists because his bedroom fit the description of the one Erdely described in her report. But the piece—still visible thanks to online archives—never says Jackie's date took her into "his room"— only "a room" on the second floor. The piece also makes no mention explicit mention of the room's actual occupant being present.

Meanwhile, the other two plaintiffs don't make any specific claims about how they were picked out of the group. For instance, the complaint notes that Hardford "wore his Phi Kappa Psi shirts almost daily" and that Fowler was a member of the fraternity—but offers no other explanation as to how they could possibly be identified.

The men are suing on three counts each, including defamation and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and are seeking $75,000 apiece for each count.

After "A Rape on Campus" first went blockbuster last fall, a blogger named Richard Bradley started questioning the veracity of its explosive opening scene, in which members of the frat brutally gang-rape a woman referred to only as "Jackie." Soon after, a reporter at the Washington Post determined that key parts of the piece were false, which led to an apology from Rolling Stone and an investigation by the Charlottesville Police Department, which couldn't prove a rape occurred.

In May, a 13,000-world a Columbia Journalism Review interrogation of the article found the magazine didn't do its due diligence in either the reporting or editing processes. After Erdley's report was completely eviscerated, a University of Virginia Dean sued her magazine for nearly $8 million and Phi Kappa Psi announced plans to pursue legal action as well. That suit hasn't emerged just yet, and it's not clear that it will, with three of its members having just filed their own claim.

"The rather remarkable thing about bringing this lawsuit is that if the frat member doesn't win his case, then he took his name and permanently associated it with this mess," said Stuart Karle, adjunct professor of media law at Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and New York University Law School. "The Rolling Stone story was deeply flawed, as the Columbia report explained, but it's hard to imagine putting your name in the middle of it forever, which he has because he is now in court records, when your name actually never appeared in the article. If he doesn't hit the jackpot with a verdict or settlement, and perhaps even if he does, that will seem a very unfortunate choice."

For their part, the complainants argue that their names are already public—and, indeed, they could be found online at a handful of websites prior to media outlets reporting on their claims.

As word of the suit was still making the rounds on Wednesday evening, the New York Times reported that Rolling Stone managing editor Will Dana is leaving the magazine on August 7. His departure comes after publisher Jann Wenner took considerable flack for leaving everyone involved on staff. In a statement Wednesday, Dana said, "After 19 years at Rolling Stone, I have decided that it is time to move on." Erdely could not be immediately reached for comment.

Somehow we suspect this isn't the last we'll hear of this saga, which has been bad for pretty much everyone except the lawyers filing all these lawsuits.

Follow Allie Conti on Twitter.

Rolling Stone lawsuit