Vigilante Instagram

Only if a court determines that they are liable.

 

And note that it's not actionable defamation if it was true. That you were exposed for a prior unreported rape doesn't mean that you can prevail with regard to the grief it causes you. Since the site appears to take some editorial behavior in deciding to publish the complaints, they are potentially liable if they publish a false statement either knowing it is false or acting with reckless disregard to its veracity.

 

Since it sounds like the alleged victim can't be identified I don't see how the "publishers" would have any way to defend against a defamation suit.

 

Well...for starters, an "Instagram account" is not a legal entity that can be liable for anything. The people who run the account could be liable if they post something defamatory. Since the process you described has the persons who run the account being actively involved in the screening, editing, selection and actual publishing of the stories, there would not appear to be any question that they could be liable for any defamatory content. Of course, liability for defamation requires more than a mere accusation. And damages may not be required because a false allegation of criminal conduct is typically actionable without actual damages.

Unless the folks who run this account go to great lengths either to verify the truth of what is being posted or ensure that no one is identifiable, they are utter and complete morons.

 

My guess is that the publishers would reveal the identity of the victim and bring the victim to court to testify as to the truth of the publications.

 

That's true if the publishers know the identity of the victims. According to what the OP wrote I don't know that they do.

 

You've stated the standard for defamation of a public figure — that the defamer must have acted with malice (knowing that the statement is false or acting with reckless disregard to its truth) . But when suing a private person, malice is not required. For example, in NY state, the courts state that the general elements for a defamation claim are as follows:

“The elements of a cause of action for defamation are (a) a false statement that tends to expose a person to public contempt, hatred, ridicule, aversion, or disgrace, (b) published without privilege or authorization to a third party, (c) amounting to fault as judged by, at a minimum, a negligence standard, and (d) either causing special harm or constituting defamation per se” (Greenberg v. Spitzer, 155 A.D.3d 27, 41, 62 N.Y.S.3d 372).​

Gugliotta v. Wilson, 168 A.D.3d 817, 818, 92 N.Y.S.3d 309, 311 (2019). As you can see, the minimum fault, i.e. what would be required when the person defamed is not a public person, is ordinary negligence. Thus, it is not required in all cases that there be malice. So I agree that:

 

spammer reported