Others are correct in noting that HIPAA would not apply as that law only applies to certain entities, mothers (and certainly the patient herself) not being one of them. I’m not an expert on every state’s laws, but I am not aware of any law that makes it illegal for a private individual who isn’t obligated under confidentiality rules (eg- attorney/client, doctor/patient, counselor/client) to disclose whether someone has been raped. For instance, in the case of HIV/AIDS, Illinois has a law that makes it illegal for even private individuals to disclose someone’s HIV+ status. I know of no law like that with respect to rape.

I suspect that whoever told the mother that talking about her daughter’s rape would infringe the daughter’s “privacy rights” actually meant “it’s not illegal, but you should respect your daughter’s privacy.”

Emma, thanks for your comments about language. Sungold, I’m just disturbed by the erasure of the law that the term “accuser” implies. After all, Kobe Bryant was charged by the D.A. with sexual assault–it wasn’t a civil case with the victim making the “accusation” all alone. The D.A. had decided that a crime had been committed, and that Bryant was the perpetrator, therefore it was D.A. Mark Hurlbert and the people of the state of Colorado who were the “accusers.”

“Nineteenth Century Judicial Attitudes Toward Child Custody, Rape and Prostitution” in Sheilah L. Martin and Kathleen E. Mahoney, eds., Equality and Judicial Neutrality (Toronto: Carswell, 1987) 271-281

and:

“Nineteenth-Century Canadian Rape Law 1800-1892″ in David H. Flaherty, ed. Essays in the History of Canadian Law v.2, (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1983) 200-247

No linkies, sorry.

Not exactly. The media can use “rape victim” or “crime victim” without worry. They can also say rape or assault without putting alleged in front of it. They shouldn’t, however, call someone a rapist, and will say “alleged rapist” or “accused rapist”, unless they don’t care if they’re sued for defamation. Because if you call someone a rapist and he’s later acquitted of the crime, he’ll probably sue you for defamation.

Relatedly, the refusal to identify a rape victim is a media convention, and is not required by law.

One point, though, on the use of “accuser” and “accused”: The media have to use this language, along with terms like “alleged assault,” until a crime has been proven in court. Otherwise they could be sued for libel. I did the same thing a while back on a post dealing with the humiliation of a rape victim in a local court – I referred to them as accuser or accused, even though I was quite certain that he was guilty. However, he’d been acquitted in court, and I didn’t want to be dragged into court myself.

I get your point about how this totally plays into the discourse on women falsely crying rape. Legally, though, I don’t see any alternative for the media.

This legal quandary, by the way, explains why Z found that only the police were able to refer to her – privately – as a victim. If they’d been speaking with the media, the police would’ve had to qualify that as “alleged victim.”

The only significant experience I’ve had with rape is when a friend falsely claimed to have been attacked and almost raped. We didn’t find out for a few years that she’d made false claims; it was devastating to find out and it’s lucky for everyone involved that nobody had ever been arrested or jailed for the “crime.” But despite that being my only significant experience, I will believe a woman until given solid evidence otherwise. Rape is perhaps the only crime where the evidence of that crime can so easily be explained away, especially since it usually is not committed by a stranger in the bushes. So somebody has to take it seriously.

[Also about anonymous, Historiann, you have more data than I do but it is possible that said person was using legitimate proxy servers/VPNs.]