Sabrina Ederly worked as a reporter and contributing editor for Rolling Stone magazine. Ederly intended to write an article for the magazine that focused on the alleged rape of a University of Virginia Student (UVA) referred to as “Jackie.” Following Jackie’s assault, Jackie was put in touch with Nicole Eramo, the Associate Dean of Students at UVA. Throughout Ederly’s investigation, she interviewed Jackie about the incident and her interactions with Eramo. Ederly also interviewed a number of students about sexual assault at UVA; several students expressed their admiration of Eramo during these interviews. Ederly did not, however, interview any of the alleged perpetrators or Eramo. Similarly, Ederly did not corroborate Jackie’s story with documents Jackie claimed to have access to. Ederly relied almost entirely on Jackie’s account of the incident. The article Ederly would go on to publish castigated Eramo for her alleged indifference and inaction towards Jackie’s case.

Soon after the article’s publication, investigations led by independent entities found that the article and key components of Jackie’s story could not be substantiated. Ederly was criticized for failing to exercise diligence in corroborating the story and not reaching out to anyone besides Jackie and some unrelated students. Rolling Stone eventually retracted the story, but the damage to Eramo was already done.

Eramo’s reputation as an advocate and supporter of victims of sexual assault was ruined, and Eramo received hundreds of threats from the public. Eramo sued Rolling Stone for defamation. Rolling Stone moved to dismiss, arguing that Eramo is a public figure and the article was published without actual malice. How do you think the court ruled?