Post file Denver Post Editor Gregory L. Moore.

A Note to Our Readers

The Denver Post will withhold the name of the accuser in the Kobe Bryant civil case as it moves through federal court, in accordance with our long-standing practice of not naming alleged victims of rape or sexual assault. After careful deliberation, we see no public benefit in naming the alleged victim or publishing her photograph. Indeed, we can see harm.

The argument that she has chosen a civil venue for pursuing her allegation of rape is not alone reason to disregard her desire to keep her identity private or to discard our past practice. For us, there is little difference between the criminal and civil courts in rape or sexual assault cases.

There are legitimate arguments that continuing to shield the identities of alleged victims of rape or sexual assault only perpetuates the stigma of these crimes. But it is clear from the Bryant case - and from similar cases - that a stigma remains and that rape provokes a unique set of questions and blame that does not apply to victims of other crimes. And naming them often discourages the reporting of rape. We accept that there is a special recovery period that rape victims go through. In some cases, these alleged victims recover enough to endure public scrutiny and talk about their experiences. When they do, they agree to be identified. Until then, we will respect their wishes.

This policy applies to both women and men. While women are the primary victims of rape and sexual assault, men can also be victims and their anonymity, if requested, would also be granted. There were ample examples in the recent scandals involving sexual abuse by Roman Catholic priests. Most of those victims were male and were abused as children; newspapers and other media across the country granted those now adult victims anonymity during their civil proceedings and negotiations, unless they waived it.

Had we decided to name the woman in the Kobe Bryant case, it might have necessitated a broader change in practice that would require us to name, for instance, one of the three women in the civil case against the University of Colorado, who up to now has requested anonymity. In that civil suit, two other alleged rape victims, Lisa Simpson and Monique Gillaspie, have agreed to be named publicly. It would have also signaled to individuals in all civil cases alleging rape that they, too, would be named publicly. While federal courts routinely require that the names of litigants in civil suits be public, the media are not bound by those requirements.

It is our hope that societal attitudes toward alleged rape victims would mirror the treatment afforded alleged victims of other violent crimes. But judging from the reaction to the accuser in the Kobe Bryant case, whose life has been threatened, we don't believe that to be the case just yet. Though her identity will be available to anyone who attends the federal trial or reads court documents, and many in her community know her name, it is not the same as publishing her name and photograph day after day in hundreds of thousands of newspapers.

While some people believe these policies treat Bryant and other criminal defendants or civil plaintiffs unfairly, it is still the case that alleged victims of rape or sexual abuse are far more likely to be stigmatized. State rape shield laws are an acknowledgment of that.

There could be circumstances under which we would reconsider this decision - a finding of perjury, for instance. But we will not discard our practices or policies based on what outside or competing interests do.

We will thoroughly report the proceedings while identifying the woman as the alleged victim or the accuser.

- Gregory L. Moore, Editor