Six women accuse University of Tennessee of enabling student athlete rape culture

[Endus]

In my opinion the correct way is to NOT release any name before there is a clear verdict and after that release ALL names and not just the accused only, again.

I agree that this would be the ideal thing to do, it's just that trying to enforce that steps onto restricting the freedoms of the press in ways that I don't like. It should come from the journalists themselves, IMO.

[Dextroden]

I agree that this would be the ideal thing to do, it's just that trying to enforce that steps onto restricting the freedoms of the press in ways that I don't like. It should come from the journalists themselves, IMO.

Then next time, someone needs to name the accuser(s) at the same time and cite freedom of technology press for doing it.

That will be a fun thing to watch.

[gyrados]

ppl who make false accusations should go to jail imo

[Magical Mudcrab]

I don't think knowingly falsely accusing someone is the same as accusing someone without basis. I am fine with the idea of punishing people you can prove knowingly fabricated an accusation, but what he said leaves some very troubling room for convictions and would likely serve to discourage even legitimate reports.

I agree that what Sydänyö suggested is not an appropriate solution, but it's not for your cited reason; we shouldn't be deterred for penalizing an individual for intentionally accusing another individual with malicious intent, in the case that it may discourage legitimate reports. Doing so is a bad precedent to set, and implies that we're fully willing to absolve an individual of their crime due solely to what the crime is, regardless of severity or impact.

The reason we should be against it is because Sydänyö's suggestion leaves a substantial amount of room for reasonable doubt regarding whether the (former) accuser is actually guilty of a false accusation.

[Deleted]

I agree that this would be the ideal thing to do, it's just that trying to enforce that steps onto restricting the freedoms of the press in ways that I don't like. It should come from the journalists themselves, IMO.

The problem with that is that journalists have proven time and time again that they have close to no ethic in that matter and they should not be trusted with keeping peoples lives in their fingertips because more often they will sacrifice them than not sell a story for money.
As someone earlier said the police should do what is suppose to do, protect people (from other people in this case), with the one tool they have that does NOT violate free speech, "We cannot disclose any information on an ongoing investigation".

[Katie N]

I don't know any culture that is positive about rape?

[May90]

The title and the start of the article talks about "rape culture", while in the article itself there is only a mention of a few sexual assaults and no mention of rape. Does the author not know the difference between the two?

[Magical Mudcrab]

The problem with this argument is that it fundamentally requires restricting the freedom of the press, and freedom of speech in general.

If you're okay with that, fine, but I'm pointing out that it's not without consequence.

As a matter of courtesy, many news outlets and stations voluntarily elect to not name the supposed victim of a rape; however, they're willing to name the accused. I agree that signing that media outlets aren't allowed to name the accused and accuser in law is a less-than-favourable road to travel, but I think it would be a good idea if media outlets were consistent in their extension of courtesy and should elect to name neither the accused and accuser, or name them both.

[Austilias]

The problem with this argument is that it fundamentally requires restricting the freedom of the press, and freedom of speech in general.

If you're okay with that, fine, but I'm pointing out that it's not without consequence.

Er, what?

The public is already not privy to a great deal of what happens in courtrooms; individuals involved in certain cases have their anonymity maintained all the time. This can apply to both accusee and accuser; a rape victim here recently waived his right to anonymity in order to speak about the matter. Likewise, many who were responsible for Troubles-related terrorist offences had their identities kept secret due to various allegedly rehabilitative arrangements (the Good Friday Agreement being one of them).

Perhaps things are different in America and Canada; does the public have the right, and indeed have access, to everything that happens in any given courtroom?

Whether they do or not, neither their freedom of speech or press is infringed by merit of courts withholding information from the general public; such as the names of those involved in their cases. Sure, you could argue that's censorship; but as far as I can tell, there is always an element of this when it comes to the courts.

Going by technical definitions, people are still free to express themselves without fear of governmental consequence; and likewise print what they please, regardless of whether or not they every detail of X court case. Unless there's a 'Freedom of Information' Amendment that I've missed.

[Dextroden]

I can't fathom why any university would name the accused still. After what happened at Yale with those dudes on the lacrosse team. That said anytime I hear " rape culture" i always assume it's a greasy, fat, feminist.

You can thank Pavlov for that.

Easy answer: They don't give a shit about the accused.

Not so easy answer: They toss them to the hounds in hope that, even if they aren't guilty, the pack will be appeased by the blood they spill.

[Rennadrel]

Er, what?

The public is already not privy to a great deal of what happens in courtrooms; individuals involved in certain cases have their anonymity maintained all the time. This can apply to both accusee and accuser; a rape victim here recently waived his right to anonymity in order to speak about the matter. Likewise, many who were responsible for Troubles-related terrorist offences had their identities kept secret due to various allegedly rehabilitative arrangements (the Good Friday Agreement being one of them).

Perhaps things are different in America and Canada; does the public have the right, and indeed have access, to everything that happens in any given courtroom?

Whether they do or not, neither their freedom of speech or press is infringed by merit of courts withholding information from the general public; such as the names of those involved in their cases. Sure, you could argue that's censorship; but as far as I can tell, there is always an element of this when it comes to the courts.

Going by technical definitions, people are still free to express themselves without fear of governmental consequence; and likewise print what they please, regardless of whether or not they every detail of X court case. Unless there's a 'Freedom of Information' Amendment that I've missed.

In Canadian law, citizens are legally allowed to enter a court and view the proceedings if they wish, and many do because it is informative and keeps people in the know of what really is going on in major criminal cases. Can't always trust the media to give the full story or even a truthful report. Either way, in most cases, victims are not named because they get protection, but if you are the accused, your sorry ass is plastered all over the idiot box.

[THE Bigzoman]

Normally i'd cast doubt on claims like this..

But Tennennsee is an Southeastern Conference (SEC) school. SEC schools are notorious are kissing the assess of their athletes, especially football players.

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if these accusations were absolutely true.