Radio blowhard Tom Leykis has taken it upon himself to reveal the name of the alleged victim in the Kobe Bryant case.
He says there no shame in being a victim but he also accuses her (with no evidence) of being a liar and a gold-digger.
Now, I don’t know if Kobe’s guilty or not but I think it’s extremely sleazy, misogynist and vicious not only to smear a teenaged possible rape victim but to publicize her name and subject her and her family to death threats.
If this girl really was raped then all this asshole has done is not only further traumatize her but put her fucking life in fucking jeopardy.
Fuck you, Leykis, you nutless fucking scumbag. Imagine if your own daughter was raped by a celebrity (just hypothetically, I’m not saying Kobe is guilty). How would you feel about some raving fuckhat calling her a liar on the radio and telling listeners where to find her? How funny would that be?
I’m familiar with Tom Leykis, though I haven’t listened to him for years, because he’s such a jerk (too early in the morning for me to use the words I really feel like using).
Let’s just say this surprises me not at all.
But I can’t freaking believe he actually did it. Surely this is grounds for legal action?
Calm down Diogenes, you’ll blow a gasket. If you remember Tom Dumbass a few years ago, he revealed the name of the woman who accused…Marv Albert?.. of sexual assault. And was all high and mighty about it at the time, too. Yes, he is a misogynist of the grandest order, but he’s a slime for reasons above and beyond the call of nature.
“Tom Leykis is the first to have the balls to announce the name of Marv Albert’s accuser!”
and
“Has Leykis reached his limits? Seattle listeners thought so in 2001 when, defying standards of conduct in journalism, Leykis revealed the name of a woman who had committed suicide by jumping off a bridge. Now, Leykis has reportedly signed a movie deal.”
This must be a new record! A wish for rape on someone in three posts!
But as to the OP: Tom L is a dickwad. I am not only of the belief that her name and life should not be up for public scrutiny, but I would like media speculation on Kobe to be kept to a minimum as well. (I’d also like a pony, but we see where we’re headed here).
ESPN last week already had the “tarnished” superstar listed along with Mike Tyson and O.J. Simpson, never mind that the trial won’t be until November.
It’s going to be a LOOOOONG autumn for people like me who like to listen to sports talk radio.
Why is it Tom Leykis’ or anyone else’s fault that this woman is getting death threats? Did anyone who divulged her identity tell people to contact her and threaten her?
My mother was mugged several years ago. She was badly injured and I don’t know to this day that she is fully psychologically recovered from that violation. Her name was in the paper in the police blotter. If my psychologically-traumatized mother had to be subjected to public naming for being a crime victim, where is the rational excuse for being pissed off that this woman’s name was divulged?
And if the best answer you have to that question is “rape is different” then try again.
Leykis’s show was carried briefly by a Vancouver station, but got dropped after the affiliate decided it wasn’t worth the time it took to edit the show down to conform to Canadian broadcast standards. This prompted Leykis to opine:
For the record, we let people with reprehensible views air them on panel shows, too. The Klu Klux Klan Satanic Power Hour isn’t likely to get a dedicated block of airtime, though.
Hopefully, after this admirable stunt, the dozy FCC will smarten up and send Mr. Leykis back to hassling broads on the corner without the amplification of broadcasting networks.
Could you perhaps address the Leykis argument that “he felt it unfair to name Bryant but not his accuser”? This seems like a very powerful argument to me. Assume we agree (& I do) that it can be very embarrassing to be named as a rape victim. It is a LOT more embarrassing still to be named as a rapist. And if we at this point don’t know what happened, why should we allow one potentially innocent person to suffer enormous humiliation, while sparing another potentially innocent person less humiliation?
My understanding is that the basis for the rape shield laws is not that from a moral perspective the (alleged) victim must be shielded, but rather the larger theory that if we don’t shield them, victims will not be willing to come forward. So that there’s no travesty in any individual situation of revealing the name, but only that if done as a policy it will have undesirable effects.
(Even as such, I think it is possible that this goes too far in the wrong direction, as it makes it a lot easier to file false accusations against people. This is a particular factor in the case of celebrities, who are inviting targets for this type of accusation.)
Hell ya it is. The victim is often tarred as a slut, whore or gold-digger. That’s embarrasing of course, but the accused is tarred as an evil, violent, perverted predating animal who can not be trusted in any way shape or form. Many people automatically assume that if someone has been charged, they must have done the crime. Even if acquited, Kobe’s endorsement career is over. People will think he should feel shame for being such a sick and violent bastard, even if he actually isn’t. It seems to me that being thought of as an evil, violent, pervert is more embarrasing than being thought of someone who is sexually promiscuous and a liar.
That said, the victim’s name should not have been aired.
I couldnt have said it any better. Except I’m glad they aired her name. If youre going to ruin one person’s life by labling them a rapist, you might as well make the illegitmate accusations even round the table and call her a gold-digging, money grubbing whore.
Glad they aired her name? As far as I can tell, the presumption of innocence is too precious to toss out in such a cavalier way.
Until it’s decided in court, I’m unwilling to paint Mr. Bryant as a monstrous rapist, and equally unwilling to declare his accuser as a false accuser.
An important thing to consider is that Kobe Bryant, being a celebrity, already has an elaborate firewall of paid flappers between him and the public.
A regular Joanne who is suddenly in the center of a media circus does not have that protection. You’ve got her name, you can be on her doorstep in an hour. All it takes is one TrueFan who simply knows that Kobe couldn’t or wouldn’t do such a thing and decide to express their anger in person. Statistically, there are, no doubt, thousands of people who wouldn’t hesitate to do such a thing.
Is there a chance that the allegations are true? If so, does this young woman deserve to have her phone ringing off the hook, a crowd outside her door, doubts about whether it’s safe to open her mail, etc?
Publicizing her name is ridiculously irresponsible.
Leykis also revealed the name of Mary Kay Letourneau’s victim, Vili Fualaau, while it was still being withheld by the media. Fualaau came forward publicly shortly thereafter and now his name is freely used by the media.
As for those who suggest the FCC should take Leykis off the air or he should be sued… What law is there against naming the victim? There is none. Otherwise action would have been taken against him one of the many other times he’s done this.
Leykis freely admits he’ll do whatever it takes to get ratings. That is, to get people to listen. So who’s really at fault here? He’s merely repsonding to the desires of his audience. Apparently many people disagree with the media’s policy of withholding victims’ names. What gives the media the moral authority to make this decision for everyone? They certainly have no compunctions about exploiting people when it suits them.
Let’s also not forget that Bryant is the only one who is charged with a crime. It isn’t just a public accusation it’s a formal criminal charge made by the government. The name of the alleged victim is irrelevant and in this case publicizing her name opens her up to public smears and death threats.
Lykis might have more credibility if he wasn’t also calling this girl a liar and whore and a gold-digger. He knows nothing of the facts yet he is willing to hurl these allegations at a 19 year old girl without a shred of doubt or conscience.
Victims have to be protected. I can’t even understand the hatred being directed at this girl just because she doesn’t want to be slimed in public and threatened with murder for pressing charges.
If she is indeed a rape victim doesn’t she deserve some privacy?
Yeah, and there probably arent any rape victims out there who * know* Kobe did it and are pissed off enough to go and exact the same revenge. Since you just throw out that stastically there are thousands of Laker fans willing to do this, I just throw out there that there are probably more rape victims than Laker fans, so Kobe’s odds are just as bleak.
That’s exactly why I wouldn’t air her name … yet. At this point we don’t know which accusations are legitimate and which ones aren’t.
Rape shield laws serve a necessary purpose. Though it is certainly tragic when an innocent man is defamed by an unfounded accusation of rape, a far more common tragedy occurs when a woman is raped and does not report it. I feel that the benefit of providing an environment where actual rape victims will feel safe outweighs the risk of false accusers hiding behind the shield law.
There should be limits to the law, however. To me, the best thing would be for the accuser to retain her annonymity until the conclusion of the trial. If the verdict is guilty, end of story. If the defendant is found innocent, he could turn around and sue her for defamation of character and her name would be published at that point.