Quote:
Originally Posted by navane
IF she is found to have lied, then I will struggle to understand why she deserves to receive protection for her identity. The only reason I'm reading here so far is that real rape victims may not want to report their cases due to fear of being outed. Ok, I get that.
|
We are still not sure she lied.
Quote:
Originally Posted by navane
Here's the thing - I'm going to look at it from the man's perspective. Is it fair for a woman to falsely accuse a man of rape only to have his name and organization publicly smeared and have people conduct protests against him? Then, when his accuser is found to be a liar, be told, "Oh well, sorry. We're not going to release the name of the person who ruined your reputation and life to protect the unnamed, hypothetical, future rape victims that may or may not be telling the truth as well". That would be BS.
|
The guys who supposedly participated in this were not named so anything you say about naming perpetrators is out of place.
Yes the organization was named. But her organization was named too (UVa anti-rape org...whatever, forgot the name). If she was lying then that organization will be publicly smeared. That's Jackie's equivalent to a fraternity because it's her source of support in the community. And the community can blame it and protest for encouraging making up reports, whatever they feel.
But there's still a big difference in having a name released and having an organization's name released.
Threaded Mode
