My local newspaper recently ran a story about the settlement of a five million dollar defamation suit brought by a male college student against a female student who attended the same college. The young lady had accused the young man of rape. Those charges turned out to be false, and therefore the lawsuit was brought.
Even though the young lady made a de facto admission of guilt by agreeing to the terms of the settlement, that newspaper would still not disclose her name, even though it continued to disclose the name of the young man who was falsely accused. How much sense does that make? It's totally ridiculous as well as unfair. I understand the need to protect the identities of those who make rape allegations. However, once an allegation like that is proved false, that protection should no longer apply. The alleged victim has forfeited her right to any such protection.
Now, here's a novel idea. When charges of rape are brought, the media should withhold the identities of both the alleged victim and the alleged rapist until due process has a chance to run its course. If the accused rapist is found guilty, his identity should be revealed. If he is found not guilty, both identities should be kept secret. However, if the alleged victim's accusation is somehow proved false (a verdict of not guilty for the accused is not sufficient), her identity should no longer be withheld. But that just makes too much sense, doesn't it?
Comments