DARE Sued Rolling Stone

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1441/a06.html?45190

And in fact, everything seemed to be going DARE's way after it turned
out that two of the most critical exposes - the Rolling Stone and New
Republic stories - were written by the arch-falsifier Stephen Glass.
In letters to the editors, DARE supporters point to these as examples
of malicious press, and imply that all the negative coverage was
equally removed from reality. DARE sued Glass and Rolling Stone for
libel.

This spring, it lost its case as Federal Judge Virginia Phillips
found the charges against the program to be "substantially true."
Glass may have fictionalized many of his other stories, but the truth
about DARE is that there is no scientific data to support it and that
it has repeatedly strong-armed and tried to silence reporters and
researchers who try to point this out.

The decision received surprisingly little media attention - just a
200 word business section mention in the New York Times and a
similarly short piece in the Los Angeles Times ( both 4/18/2000 ).

And it didn't stop editorialists from trying to tar other DARE
critics with Glass' sins: an op-ed published in the Washington Times
( 9/14/00 ) mentioned Glass' apology to DARE, but, interestingly, not
the decision of the federal court that the charges were substantially
true.