Rolling Stone magazine is seeking to limit what gets publicly disclosed during the ongoing defamation case brought forth by University of Virginia Associate Dean Nicole Eramo.
Eramo was the only named official blamed for improperly handling an accusation of a brutal gang rape by a student known as “Jackie.” The accusation was detailed in a now-discredited article that appeared in Rolling Stone. After the story fell apart, Eramo filed a defamation lawsuit against the magazine for its portrayal of her.
The Washington Post’s Erik Wemple noted late last week that even though a Columbia Journalism Review of the article revealed some additional details, there could still be more information out there — information that could be private (such as Jackie’s confidential report of the alleged gang rape). It doesn’t matter that she lied, what she said to Eramo could be protected information.
“The proposal would secure confidentiality for disclosures that fall into any one of several baskets, including information whose release is barred by statute, trade secrets or ‘commercially sensitive’ information, ‘unpublished newsgathering materials’ and ‘information of a personal or intimate nature regarding any individual,'” Wemple wrote.
Wemple, predictably yet amusingly, opposes the protection of “unpublished newsgathering materials.”
This protective order could mean we won’t learn anything new about the story that captivated the nation — first as a horrific tale of abuse, and then as a cautionary tale about confirming one’s biases for political gain. While it seems like we know everything about the story and ensuing debacle, there could always be new information.
And of course, we still don’t know what really happened to Jackie the night she says she was gang raped (or forced to perform oral sex on multiple men, depending on which version of her story you’ve heard). We’ll likely never know, and with this protective order, we may not learn anything else about the case.
