This person:
Cheated on her current Boyfriend
Got pregnant
Had an abortion
Falsely accuses Greg Kelly of rape.
His name is being dragged through the dirt, she gets to remain anonymous. She is apparently the daughter of a prominent lawyer.
This is wrong.
I hope someone finds out who she is leaks the information.
The law provides no recourse for this injustice but there are other ways.
One of the biggest reasons anonymity is granted is because assholes think that the first three items on your list are relevant.
This. Even prostitutes get raped. It’s still a crime.
I agree with you on the second half of that statement. But it is still unfair. If the alleged victim’s name is kept secret, than so should the alleged perpetrator’s name. This is especially highlighted in this case because the only evidence of rape is a claim by the alleged victim.
I’d have no objection to that. There’s really no reason for an accusation of rape to be news, anyway.
I don’t get this. Did I miss a meme somewhere?
In a court of law, someone is innocent until proven guilty. In rape cases, it’s usually the accuser that is ‘lying’ right off the bat - in the eyes of the public and (too often) the police force and friends and family. You protect their name so that they don’t become victim to death threats, bad journalism, harassment, etc.
Also, it’s a privacy issue. If someone assraped me, I’d be less likely to report it to the police if I knew it would be all over the news that I did.
Common sense. We also protect whistleblowers and reporters of child abuse.
Whether a woman has ever cheated on her boyfriend, been pregnant, or had an abortion is irrelevant to whether or not she may have been raped.
Indeed.
Link? Who is Greg Kelly?
Common sense says that the identity of an innocent person would be protected, not the identify of the accuser.
BTW: Does anyone know if there is a legal basis for this? I understood this practice was established by the press to protect the reputations of alleged rape victims. The news accounts indicate the media know exactly who this alleged victim is.
So the accuser has to be proven innocent first before we protect his/her privacy? How backwards is that?
Give this a go:
Put Greg Kelly into Google, and see what the first page gives you. All the news links, and the first 6 regular links all relate to this particular case.
Why does this thing continue to be fed? Since joining this board in September, he has started such misogynistic threads as:
Having sex with fat ugly women, it’s easy but harmful…
Should Kim Kardashian be stoned for mocking the institution of marriage and also for…
Her face grosses me out, how do I block her? (Computer help)
Does Madonna (the singer) look more and more like an old whore?
Not enough rolleyes on all the message boards of the world.
I remembered that abortion of a thread, but didn’t realize that it was the same OP. He definitely has a certain je ne sais quoi when it comes to talking about women.
I thought the expectation for polite discourse on the SDMB was to link to obscure topics when starting a discussion.
The OP isn’t especially interested in polite discourse.
It is, and the OP should have provided a link.
But that doesn’t change the fact that it would have actually required less effort for you to look on Google than to ask the question here.
True, and I did both. Just in the wrong order
No, both of them should be protected, or no one.