Using rape victim's names

I know the rules but this one still baffles me and perhaps someone can explain why this has been an exception. Desiree Washington, the woman who said she was raped by Mike Tyson has had her named plastered in print, TV, radio, Internet, etc.
Why?

 

What grounds would she have to file suit? Invasion of privacy? But if you're named in a public record, then you can't sue on that.

I don't doubt you, Moddy, I'm just thinking aloud.

 

Tyson's getting ready to open a Spike Lee directed show on Broadway.
As for her name mentioned because of a civil lawsuit, should it hadve still been omitted because she is a victim?

 

Ah, gotcha. For some reason I read that wrong and thought you meant she sued a publication for naming her. Now your post makes more sense - newspapers thought it was fair game as she essentially volunteered for the publicity. Carry on.

 

I don't believe Desiree Washington had any interest in being "protected." She did interviews, and said she wanted to be an example to other rape victims that they didn't have to be ashamed or intimidated.

 

I had an ethics professor in college — a woman, if it matters — who staunchly advocated for the naming of rape victims. She pointed to statistics about false claims in rape cases and said it was unfair to drag an alleged rapists name through the mud but not the alleged victim when we would be so quick to name other crime victims.

Of course, those ideologies are interesting in an academic setting but impossible in a newsroom. Readers would, rightfully, be very upset if a newspaper named rape victims, though part of that may be because we haven't for so long.

 

I think one rationale used for naming rape victims in news stories is that doing so de-stigmatizes the crime by treating it like any other crime.

While there is something to be said for that, rape isn't like any other crime. It is such a violation of the most intimate and private part of a person's life that it has to be treated differently.

And, let's face it, despite the strides society has made in recent years, the stigma against rape is still attached and probably always will be.

If a rape victim chooses to reveal their name, then more power to them. But it is still a very courageous act to do so, and it MUST remain the victim's choice as to whether a news organization publicizes their name.

 

Here's a very courageous young lady.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/kentucky-teen-faces-charge-naming-attackers-16828307

 

The only time I've actually worked at a paper that named the victim of a sexual crime involved a football coach having an inappropriate relationship with a high school junior. In that case, she and her family came to the paper to give their side of the story. I believe in that case, there were rumors going around that she had made it up and wanted to share her part of it. Other than that, even if the accusations are made up, I don't feel it's right to name the accuser unless they want to be named. I think it's such a difficult thing to go through, there shouldn't be any discouragement for a victim to come forward.