Monday, January 29, 2018
Q. OF THE WEEK NO. 3
When reporting on allegations of sexual assault against women, most news organizations will identify the alleged perpetrator, but will not identify the name of the alleged victim without express permission from the victim. Some argue this policy is unfair to the accused and allows women to make false accusations without any accountability. Others argue that identifying the victim is too privacy-invasive, will essentially victimize a woman a second time and will discourage women from coming forward. Do you agree with the above stated policy?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Normally I would agree with the policy but lately sexual allegations have been a big thing on the news. It seems like more and more women are coming forward with these allegations so saying It is too privacy invasive seems irrelevant. Of course these are just the big stories with celebrities so what about the hometown girl that no one nationally knows. I think that knowing the victim and being able to see them changes the case. If you can see how distressed someone actually is its easy to see if something really happened. If someone is anonymous in a court case you don't get to see her actual reactions and see whether she really is guilty or not. So I do believe the policy is unfair. I think that whoever is sexually assaulted should have the strength enough to pursue without hiding. They never look bad, its the assaulter that looks bad so realistically there is nothing to be afraid of.
ReplyDeleteI'm curious what your take would be on, say, the Roy Moore allegations during the Alabama special senate elections last year. The Washington Post put all of Moore's accusers through STRICT scrutiny to make sure their stories were valid, and even prevented a few false accusers planted by pro-Moore sites. People still threatened, attacked, slandered, and insulted the women who accused Moore. Does that not demonstrate the possible fear a victim may have in coming forward in the public eye?
Delete"They never look bad, its the assaulter that looks bad so realistically there is nothing to be afraid of"
DeleteI disagree with you on this point. In a perfect society without victim blaming, anonymity wouldn't be an issue. However, the perpetrator often has societal power over the victim (think teachers, coaches, church leaders, or even being more "popular" than the victim). Especially with these high profile cases associated with the "me too" movement, many victims are afraid of reprisal. Until law enforcement is properly set up to protect victims that come forward from things like unlawful termination, it often isn't safe to report without a pseudonym.
I also take issue with your argument, and am in agreement with Ethan here in that victim blaming often distorts the reality of a sexual assault. The victim was robbed of their control over their body when they were assaulted, no matter what the circumstances, such as being under the influence of alcohol. Dealing with the trauma of an assault can take a great deal of strength and time, and facing the perpetrator in court can be difficult enough for a victim, especially because they bear the burden of proof. So, in my opinion, maintaining their anonymity is one way that the victim can retain control of their identity while processing the loss of control over their body.
DeleteI would also like to point out that from an outsider's perspective seeing how distressed a victim is is not a useful meter of deciding whether or not they are telling the truth, because everyone responds to difficult situations differently. Some people laugh when they are uncomfortable, some are emotionless, and some show signs of distress, like crying, but their visible emotions are not always a direct reflection of their internal emotions, and so are not relevant in deciding if a sexual assault happened.
This is a difficult question for me because I believe anyone who is accused of anything has a right to know who their accuser is and what they are being accused of. If any allegations of sexual misconduct surface and are dealt with in the Courts, it is likely that an accused will have the chance to face their accuser. If the allegations appear only in media reports, allegations of misconduct may never have an identified source. That being said, the public can be a nasty place to reveal anything personal and if an individual asks a reporter to keep their identification private I think I would generally say the publication ought to respect that.
ReplyDeleteI have a really hard time this question. I understand the desire for anonymity from the position of the accuser, but I also view the immediate vilification of the accused as problematic. The press often portrays the accused as guilty before any trial or other actual proceeding; this can lead to the loss of occupation, friends and acquaintances, and reputation for the accused regardless of the validity of the accusations. I feel that either both the accused and the accuser should have a right to anonymity (until actually proven guilty) or they should both be exposed to the media and the world.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the current policy in that it allows the victim a choice on whether or not they are named, because, following a sexual assault in which the victim's power to choose what happens to their body is taken away from them, giving the victim as much choice as possible should be the priority. However, I do think it is the responsibility of a news organization to ensure the validity of the claims before reporting them. Regarding whether or not the perpetrator is named, I think that is more situational. Ideally, the reporter would also have the permission of the perpetrator or would gather the information from court records available to the public. However, if the perpetrator is an elected official or holds some other sort of powerful position, then I am more inclined to say that they should be named with or without permission, so long as the allegations are true.
ReplyDeleteYes. I did a bit of research and found that although it's difficult to figure out just how many false accusations of rape or sexual assault there are, its generally agreed that they are false between 2 to 10% of the time. So while there are false accusations, it is extremely uncommon. Anyway, to me it seems that the entire point of the media reporting on sexual assault allegations is to inform the public about what has occurred. In any case of sexual assault or rape, it does not matter in the slightest who the victim is. There is no reason for anybody to know the identity of a victim of a sexual assault, unless that victim wishes to release that information. However, there are many reasons for people to know who the alleged perpetrator of a sexual assault is: it greatly reduces the likelihood they will sexually assault again, it gives justice to the victim, it informs the public of a potential predator, and the list goes on. While I don't believe that those who are alleged of sexual assault should be able to choose whether or not their names are publicized (they will always say no, of course), they should be given adequate time to prepare and deliver a response to allegations, unless it is believed they pose an immediate risk to the public.
ReplyDeleteI’m very on the fence about this one. I do see how it could prevent women from coming forward due to privacy concerns, and if someone is truly a victim there should be as few obstacles to justice as possible. However, I know people in my life who were falsely accused of sexual assault because their accusers had a personal vendetta and wanted to get back at them. Thankfully, the accusers dropped the accusations when they realized they were caught in a lie. I think that because of cases like this if the victim is going to be anonymous to the media there should be an effort to protect the accused’s privacy as well, at least until there’s a verdict.
ReplyDeleteThis is a difficult situation. But I stand that this policy is not unfair. Victims should be allowed to maintain their identity anonymous if that what they wish.
ReplyDeleteFor many sexual assault victims, they are placed in a difficult and vulnerable situation which they must come forward about the assault. If they do decide to bring their case to court they may file a criminal case or civil litigation. This experience can be traumatizing, even when the outcomes for sexual assault victims are dismissed. Or even invasive and maintain a sense of violation as victims who do choose to report may have to go under deep scrutiny.
For example, a couple of years ago, People of the State of California v. Brock Allen Turner (2015), where Turner was found assaulting an unconscious 22-year-old woman, who went under the alias “Emily Doe” during this case. One of the reasons was that was highly publicized, and it allowed her to maintain her privacy. Turner was found guilty, convicted of the three charges of felony sexual assault. His sentence carried the potential sentence of 14 years was sentenced to six months at Santa Clara County jail. The details of the case of People v. Turner story were being publicized everywhere, the details of the assault were everywhere, by remaining Emily Doe, the victim was safeguarded to any unwarranted attention into her private life, and is allowed to proceed in her life without her identity being linked to this terrible instance in her life.
While I do believe accusers should be held accountable, I don’t believe their identity should be disclosed to the public. Anonymity can help protect victims. It should also be noted that the National Center of Prosecution of Violence Against Women found that, “estimates for the percentage of false reports begin to converge around 2-8%” This percentage is small, but I don’t want to dismiss that fact that these cases do exist. Though I do believe victims should have the right to anonymity if they choose.
I agree with keeping it the way that it currently is. If we really want social change then victims of sexual assaults need to feel safe to come forward and tell people about the attacks. If this means that they need to be anonymous in order to speak out against the aggressors. The main arguments against the anonymity are that it allows people to make false accusations and that people can't argue against an accusation from an anonymous person, but I believe that this is uncommon enough that it is worth the few times that it does happen. Additionally, if you are being accused of rape or sexual assault there had to have been something you did to make the accuser angry. I believe that allowing the victims to remain anonymous and hopefully changing the social culture to allow the victim to feel more comfortable in reporting the crime is worth the small chances of false allegations.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFor me to agree with this policy I have a point that needs clarification. Its worded as “sexual assault against women”, but that disregards the population of men that are affected by the issue; Is this policy specific to woman or is the phrasing of the question incomplete? For instance, would you include Kevin Spacey’s allegations under the umbrella of this topic or is that a separate issue? This is really an issue of general anonymity standards in media. Regardless of topic or subject matter if you have something to share with the news its up to you to decide if you have anonymity or not. When you do choose to be anonymous when sharing with news stations there are implications of your credibility of the statement.
ReplyDeleteThe vast majority of sexual assaults are against women, but sexual assaults against men do occur. Your Kevin Spacey reference is a case in point. The underlying question...should the news media identify the alleged perpetrator, but identify the alleged victim only if she/he gives permission...is applicable regardless of gender.
DeleteI do agree that news organizations should only name the victims after receiving express permission. There are countless examples of individuals who were attacked by others and would not have the strength to speak up if they couldn't guarantee their privacy. In Hollywood, for example, the victims may have been assaulted by Harvey Weinstein, who holds a ton of power. If the accuser's allegations did not gain any traction, Weinstein could easily ruin the victim's career. This would convince many people to remain silent about his crimes. A victim of sexual assault has already suffered once, so they should not have to reveal their name to the world just to be able to tell the truth. The only downside is that this means a person can accuse someone of sexual assault, and even if the accused is innocent, the media attention will ruin their reputation. These cases are not overly common. While steps should be made to defend against false accusations, the victims identity should not be revealed by the news organizations.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with the statement. I believe that both the person being accused of sexual assault and the accuser should have a right to privacy. If the alleged perpetrator is found guilty of sexual assault then I feel at that point news organizations should be allowed to reveal the perpetrators identity. I also think that in the interest of fairness news sources should report the identity of the accuser if the allegations are determined to be false. As the policy currently stands it seems too easy to easy to make false accusations with the intention of disrupting someone's life without any accountability.
ReplyDeleteIn the case that the victim, male or female, goes to law enforcement with a report of sexual assault and the news agency picks up on the story from the law enforcement agency or some other 3rd party, then the victim should have the right to remain anonymous as it can be assumed that the law enforcement agency will verify the victims allegations. If the victim reports the sexual assault directly to the news agency, forgoing law enforcement, then I do not think the victim should remain anonymous as there is not the extra verification. Ideally the victim could remain anonymous but be held accountable if the accusations turn out to be false; for this to be the case the news agency reporting the story would need to know the victim's identity but not report on it unless the accusations turned out to be false.
ReplyDelete(Sorry, I missed class yesterday because I was sick. Hope I don't repeat anything that's already been discussed!)
ReplyDeleteI believe that the victim has the right to remain anonymous, always. The rate of false reporting is somewhere between 2-10%, depending on who you ask, and as shown in the Steubenville High School case from 2012, the media is often highly sympathetic of the perpetrator, even if they are relatively unknown. Currently, one of the steps the US courts use to determine whether a plaintiff's anonymity is relevant is "If revealing the plaintiff’s name would violate their privacy in a personal matter", and I believe that because of how intimate and violating sexual assault is, it would be a violation of the victim's privacy to force them to name themselves. Also, according to various surveys, around 60-70% of sexual assault cases go unreported, and I believe that it is law enforcement's duty to facilitate an environment where victims of sexual assault feel comfortable reporting a serious crime.