Notable from oral argument, Elias v. Rolling Stone, Second Circuit Court of Appeals, April 2017
Defense counsel’s argument that ‘the article was so false most would agree it is inherently implausible’ starts about mark 28:00.
Earlier she made an argument that expected the public to engage in boolean reasoning. For example, the alleged rape was in 2012 as part of an initiation and a guy who rode his bike was involved. So it could’ve been that guy PhiPsi who rides his bike, BUT he was a junior, not an initiate at the time, so couldn’t be him. Also, the plaintiffs’ “of and concerning” argument fails even though they were hounded by news media within 24 hours of the story running because they fit the details. That they were actually identified is not relevant to the analysis, even at the 12(b)6 dismissal phase. What matters is how vague the details were. Really, it is all there.