Advertisement
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards
Mods please check the Moderators Group for an important update on Mod tools. If you do not have access to the group, please PM Niamh. Thanks!

Waiving right to anonymity

  • #1
    Registered Users Posts: 191 ✭✭ dclifford


    If somebody waives their right to anonymity do they have to be named in the media?
    I suppose some context might give something to help the question. When there are reports on rape and abuse cases where the victim has waived the right to anonymity to allow the perpetrator to be named, the victim also then gets named.
    Is there a rule that requires both to be named?
    Could the media not have some moral code that they agree to name the perpetrator but still keep the identity of victims to minimum?


Comments



  • dclifford wrote: »
    If somebody waives their right to anonymity do they have to be named in the media?
    I suppose some context might give something to help the question. When there are reports on rape and abuse cases where the victim has waived the right to anonymity to allow the perpetrator to be named, the victim also then gets named.
    Is there a rule that requires both to be named?
    Could the media not have some moral code that they agree to name the perpetrator but still keep the identity of victims to minimum?

    The media don’t care.... news sells afterall.




  • In at least some of the cases the reason that revealing the perpetrator's name is prohibited is because it is a family member/close family friend and to name one would potentially reveal the other.




  • miamee wrote: »
    In at least some of the cases the reason that revealing the perpetrator's name is prohibited is because it is a family member/close family friend and to name one would potentially reveal the other.

    I can understand not naming somebody in fear of revealing the identity of innocent people when they dont want to be identifird. But in the case of somebody waiving the right to anonymity, do they still have to be named?




  • dclifford wrote: »
    I can understand not naming somebody in fear of revealing the identity of innocent people when they dont want to be identifird. But in the case of somebody waiving the right to anonymity, do they still have to be named?
    why wouldn't they? they are Waiving right to anonymity for a purpose




  • I could be wrong, have they not waived the right to anonymity, in court, or the court process - therefore they are named in court - thus the media?


  • Advertisement


  • IRE60 wrote: »
    I could be wrong, have they not waived the right to anonymity, in court, or the court process - therefore they are named in court - thus the media?

    The point being made is that even though the victim has waived their right, there’s no requirement on the media’s part to actually name them.

    So why do the media name them?




  • Because it's not in camera any more

    Edit - the process is straightforward - if you 'waived the right to anonymity' it means that both are named. Its a given in the process. It's not up to the media to select which names they publish once they are named in court. Very hard to police.




  • amcalester wrote: »
    The point being made is that even though the victim has waived their right, there’s no requirement on the media’s part to actually name them.

    So why do the media name them?
    probably because they waived the right to anonymity in order to talk to the media.




  • From my experience, people can ask that their abuser be named after sentencing or conviction without necessarily being named themselves. I think I've covered a few cases where that has happened.
    But a lot of victims do decide to go public themselves because they want to talk. By its very nature, abuse is a hidden thing. They often want it to come out of the shadows and believe that talking publicly is a way of taking back control.


Advertisement