Why are the names of the young men being spread all about the world via press releases and news media, but the name of the “Victim” hidden?

Don’t those men have the right to privacy until convicted?  The presumption of innocence until tried?

Second question: When a woman gives consent (and apparently, she did, at the time) then can she revoke that consent days or weeks later? She apparently texted and said she “had a great time” the day after, which kinda breaks the whole “I didn’t consent” bit don’t it? Hard to make that go away.

Regret later of an encounter does not mean a rape happened.

I don’t know, and you don’t know, what happened that night. But to trash the reputations (and futures) of a bunch of young men before they are convicted of anything is, in my opinion, just plain wrong. If they are gonna shield her identity, they should shield the accused as well.

Give ’em a fair trial first, then, hang ’em…if the charges can be proven. And if it is found that a rape didn’t occur, then she should face charges. As should every single entity spreading the names of the accused.

Again: None of us know for sure what exactly happened. We don’t know whose story is true…. But her report, weeks later, apparently didn’t meet the standards for charges. It appears that her friends told her she Must Have Been raped after having some wild fun (’cause no decent girl would consent to such behavior) , and that changed her mind from a wild night to something she regretted. Her reputation as a “Good Girl” is gone and her friends and female acquaintances think poorly of her for her behavior, so now it becomes “rape”. Funny (strange) is the culture of, and the minds of, women, innit?

I dunno either way though. My question is though, do these men whose reputation is now trashed, by both the college, the police, and the media, have recourse if they are found to be not guilty?