Censoring victims makes them victims again

The Most You Ever Knew

By: Kimberly Tsao

Posted: 11/4/08

Movie theaters cut out the racy scenes from the "Sex and the City" movie. Radio stations change James Blunt's "Beautiful" song lyrics from "I'm fucking high" to "I'm flying high." Theme parks blur pictures taken during rides because someone gave the camera the finger. Censorship has even infested courtrooms.

Nebraska Judge Jeffre Cheuvront prohibited prosecutors and witnesses from using the words, "rape," "sexual assault," "assailant" and "victim" during Tory Bowen's rape trial, according to 2008 People magazine and Associated Press articles.

Censorship isn't a power given to judges - it's an abuse of power in itself.

Bowen's alleged rapist got off on a mistrial - twice. Perhaps it was because juries at censored trials aren't notified of judges' restrictions.

Or perhaps it was because Bowen had to take long pauses so she didn't violate the judge's order, thus appearing unsure of herself during her 13-hour testimony. In the end, Bowen took her fight to the Supreme Court, but the justices refused to hear her case last week.

Unfortunately, Bowen's trial isn't an isolated case. According to the People magazine article, every state has similar legal principles. In California and Utah, prosecutors aren't allowed to say "victim" during criminal trials.

What else are they suppose to call them?

According to Merriam-Webster, a "victim" is "one that is subjected to oppression, hardship or mistreatment." People who've been raped undeniably fall under that definition.

Insert "alleged" here. Did those countless years at law school teach defense attorneys nothing? They can say "alleged victim." Duh.

Censorship is a slippery slope. If the prosecutors can't say "assailant," what about "aggressor," "assaulter," "goon" or "bushwhacker"? The aforementioned words are all synonyms, so shouldn't judges ban those terms as well?

If you're ever raped, forget the law - study the thesaurus. It'll be your best weapon if you decide to go to court.

In Bowen's case, Cheuvront permitted the accused and the defense attorneys to call the alleged rape "sex" and "intercourse."

Perhaps "sex" and "intercourse" aren't complete opposites of "rape" and "sexual assault," but they are definitely not synonymous with each other. So why are defense lawyers allowed to substitute the terminologies?

Say "alleged rape" if you want, but call it what it is and in most cases, that isn't "sex."

Besides, if we strictly adhere to the law's so-called rationale, then we could say that thieves only take what they need and that murderers send the dead to a better place. Murderers are population controllers and thieves are Goodwill employees - minus the tax write-offs.

Even if you could disregard the fact that this, like all censorship, is a First Amendment violation, it's a clearly unfair legal practice.

In a 2007 Slate magazine article, Dahlia Lithwick wrote, "It's precisely because language is so powerful in a courtroom that we treat it so reverently." Reverently, yes. Justly, no.

The question of fairness should apply to both the accused and the accuser in all criminal trials.

This could be on a Snapple bottle cap: Did you know that most societies still don't understand rapes?

If they did, they would deal with rapes the same way they deal with robberies and homicides. The fact that most courts don't even give the words equal treatment speaks volumes about modern societies' outdated perception of rapes.

However, the argument for censored trials is that words, such as "rape kit," are "unfairly prejudicial to a defendant," according to the same articles.

Following that reasoning, judges should censor the defendants from saying "sex" and "intercourse" because those words are unfairly prejudicial to the victim.

"Sex" and "intercourse" imply consent, which isn't always the case and is often tricky to determine, especially if the victim was intoxicated.

That's why we have jurors - all 12 of them. They're smart enough to be registered voters, so they can certainly sift through evidence. If the judge has trust issues, then a viable alternative to censorship would be jury instruction.

Censorship is blind. It has crossed the line without even realizing it.

To the enforcers of censorship, draw a line. It doesn't need to be straight.

On behalf of Tory Bowen and other women like her, I cry, "Rape."

To the judges who rape the victims all over again, take a good look at my middle finger.