  Before i get into the nitty gritty of today's post, a few notes on apda draft 2: its happening WAY TOO SLOWLY. so would all the participants please email me your phone numbers so that when its your choice i can call you and get your choice asap (i'll postpone the phone calls until after business hours.
) three days into the draft and we're still in round 1. unacceptable. urlLink maggie gallagher seems to be a bit ambivelent towards 'rape shields,' she says that protecting the identity of a rape victem is 'fairly' paternalistic, even though she ends up thinking that its ok to be paternalistic in this case. what that seems to say is that she isn't convinced that a rape victim having his/her identity protected isn't a right--- paternalism isn't and can't be when the government protects a right. Is it paternalistic for the government to have to abide by the laws of free speech? is it paternalistic for the government to have to abide by the rules of fair governance? no, those are the government fulfilling its primary function and obligations. so in this case, is it really paternalistic for government to hide the identity of the rape victim to the public?
not really. her first argument (although she later rebuffs herself) is "To charge a person with a crime is a public act. The right of the accused to face his or her accuser is fundamental. Women (or men) who seek to use the power of the state to incarcerate a fellow citizen have to be prepared to do so publicly. It is simple fairness" but Kobe Bryant DOES know who accused him. the prosecutors and jurors do too.
The only 'person' who doesn't is the public at large: they do not have a need-to-know. This case isn't being tried on FoxNews (and thank god for that) its being tried in a court of law; and Bryant's celebrity status makes the distinction really important. Gallagher goes to say, "I do not believe it is true that rape victims are still deeply stigmatized.
I don't think Americans would refuse to do business with, or become friends with, or honor with community leadership, or marry a woman who had been raped" 1) this is patently untrue. there are many MANY places in this country in which people might look at a rape victim (especially if its a man, and it does happen) as someone who was involved in 'something shady' and someone to be avoided. 2) its not really the issue, the issue is whether or not THE VICTIM feels stigmatized by society, not whether or not society has stigmatized the victim.
its a victim's rights issue, not a freedom of information issue. ultimately rape is an invasion of one of the most private rights a person can have, and to subject someone to a second invasion of privacy isn't just cruel, its barbaric. stopping that isn't justified paternalism, its just justified. 
