Guilty until proven innocent

This was only a matter of time ... This is what stood out to me in the article:

I'd like more of an explanation as to why?
I am aware of the AP policy (which I oppose). And while this suit pertains to an alleged sexual assault, this man was never charged and he's suing - which could lead one to think the "victim," who is not being named is making it up.
This man's name is out there. I think he's one who's being publicly - and unfairly - harmed by this.

I guess, if the Examiner wanted to be fair, why not withhold Parisi's ID as well? After all, he was never charged with anything - aside from accusations. So he's innocent. Shouldn't his name be withheld as well - in all fairness?

I think the decision to not identify the woman reinforces the Guilty Until Innocent stigma. To me, it says the paper thinks Parisi has enough facts that his suit has merit, and is worth a story, but its not strong enough to convince the editorial board that the woman and her boyfriend are lying, so ... we are going to protect them instead of just reporting the facts. This is our judgement.

Getting off my soapbox now.

 

And I thought this was going to be another Tony Stewart thread...

 

Either that or Donald Sterling

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCHB4GCyufE

 

I thought it was going to be about accusations of PED use.