Wow. More power to her. That's really brave.

I can't imagine the guts this woman has to not only stand up for herself and report the rape (which should not be considered an act of bravery except for the fact that rape victims are so often treated like criminals themselves), but now to stand up for the judge and his bullshit ruling. What a total badass!

Oh man. She is so brave, and so strong. To be standing up to the court system and this horrible judge after everything she's already been through... Not every woman would be able to do that. I'm incredibly impressed.

From a legal standpoint this is incredibly stupid for her to do. She's going to get thrown in jail, possibly forbidden from testifying if she refuses to obey the judges order, and the guy is either going to get off or get a third trial, putting her through all this again.

I maintain that as crap as this sounds, you can't put a witness on the stand and have that witness say "Yes, I saw that person murder the victim." There are plenty of words which don't involve legal conclusions that are more than accurate, if not stilted, to describe what happened.

Yes, you can now yell at me.

Why the hell did he ban the word in the first place?

Bravo. I'm glad this woman decided to take a stand on this issue.

"Why the hell did he ban the word in the first place?"

According to the judge, using the word "rape" at a rape trial implies a crime was committed. How idiots like that can become judges is really beyond me.

I maintain that as crap as this sounds, you can't put a witness on the stand and have that witness say "Yes, I saw that person murder the victim." There are plenty of words which don't involve legal conclusions that are more than accurate, if not stilted, to describe what happened.

There's a significant difference between saying "I saw that person do X to that other person" and saying "That person did X to me."

You can't say that another person stole something from someone else- you can only say that you saw that person taking X. You don't know if that person had permission.

You can absolutely say that someone robbed you, beat you, stole from you, raped you, or attacked you, though. When you are the victim, you are in a unique position to know exactly what kinds of permissions you gave to someone else.

A rape victim ought to have every right to call the attack what it was, and attempts to say "Well, she's drawing a legal conclusion!" are bullshit- she knows if she gave permission or not. If she didn't consent, then she was raped. The jury can decide if they believe her, but attempts to force her to use language calling it something other than what it is? Bullshit.

I really wouldn't have a problem with the ban if the jury were informed of what was going on. As it stands, the ban is a travesty.

snitty does have a point about ignoring the ban might not be a good idea. While admittedly the words sex and intercourse carry at least an implied air of consent, I don't see why she can't explicitly say that she in no way consented. It seems to me that her best strategy isn't to actually say rape, but to make it painfully obvious that she can't.

Out of curiosity, and I wondered this about the original article, too, are there any lawyers reading who can comment? I mean, I'm sure the ban isn't blatantly illegal (crappy, yes, illegal, it wouldn't seem so), or someone would've called him on it, but are there rules about banning language in the courtroom, that sort of thing?

The way it's usually handled are motions "in limine" i.e. a preemptive order stating that certain things can't be mentioned or words used, or a mistrial would be likely to happen.

Maggie, I'm a lawyer, and when the story broke three weeks ago, I commented at length at Pandagon, complete with proposed direct testimony:
http://pandagon.net/2007/06/21/on-pigs-basketball-frames-and-music/#comment-421686

Long story short, I think the ruling is wrong and I admire her backbone. However, with the right prosecutor examining her, she ought to be able to tell her story just fine, in a way that will shock and sicken the jury, without either calling it "rape" or "sex."

Honestly, I just admire her strength. She was right and she didn't back down. Good for her!

Out of curiosity, why couldn't the Judge just change "rape" to "alleged rape" if he was so worried about the implications the word can have on the jury? I think with the Judge completely removing the word of the crime in question from the court is just pointless and I think rather insulting to the "alleged" victim.

What everyone else said about the victim's strength and courage!

Points, too, to the journalist who wrote "Pamir Safi raped Bowen" and not "Bowen was raped".

I'd like to see exactly how much public approval that judge receives if he puts a rape victim in jail for saying someone raped her. I mean, my god.

I wish there was a tangible way to show support for her. Going through something like a rape trial, especially this one, I can't help but think it'd be nice to get several hundred postcards saying "you rock".

roymacIII, you said that so well and I completely agree with you.

Expecting the victim to say "he had sex with me" makes her seem like an object that was used and its not HER decision if she was used in a criminal way and she looses her right to assert that she MUST consent for sex to take place and not that she was a car taken for a spin.

I love that she's doing this because if she succeeds, she'll make it a lot harder for other judges to pull this kind of crap in the future. So for that reason, besides how insulting it is to expect her to say "sex," I'm glad she's doing this instead of just accepting the situation.

I'm not very well-versed in law, but it seems obvious to me that a person testifying in a trial, especially when they are the complainant, is arguing that X is in fact what happened. Then the defendant argues that X did not happen or that it did happen but the defendant didn't do it. So it's lopsided and unfair to say that the alleged victim can't say "He raped me." The jury knows that just because someone says it doesn't mean it's true. That's the whole reason they're there, to figure out which person is telling the truth. If the judge referred to the defendant as "the rapist" then that would be different, then I would understand the need to ban words, but obviously nothing like that is happening here.

And remember, the jury was not to be informed that she was banned from saying rape. I think that must be some kind of obstruction of justice, because it seems like the judge is trying to influence the jury's thinking. I can just imagine someone going, "well, she never said the word rape, did you notice that? It's like she's not sure of her story...she must be lying."

Regarding the legal wisdom (or lack thereof) of Bowen's stance: I'm only speculating, but I would imagine that the possible consequences of flouting the judge's order, up to and including the rapist's potential acquittal, have been discussed with her. It seems to me that she is making an informed decision to take that risk, because his acquittal might be less emotionally damaging and humiliating to her than it would be to verbally categorize her assault as anything but. She seems to be seizing (deliberately or not) a unique opportunity to draw attention and publicity to an aspect of rape culture and misogyny, and perhaps that's more satisfying and empowering for her than doing something that she perceives as compromising to her integrity for the sole reason of obtaining a conviction. I would also note that she's drawn a lot of attention to her attacker, publicly labeled him a rapist, and I would be surprised if that doesn't impact him in very negative ways, whether he does time in prison or not. Again, I'm not sure if she's doing this consciously, but I admire her for utilizing her personal experience of trauma and frustration to open a dialogue on the macro-level. It's very brave, and very generous.

There is also the notion that some do not consider rape to even be sex. While it shares a similar appearance the two are distinct. For example sex and visiting the doctor both can involve hands on the genitals, but I would only classify the former as sex.

The victum should be able to use what ever words they want. If they considered it to be rape then they should have a right to tell the jury what happened to them.

On a somewhat related note I was following a trial (I'm a law student) involving the rape and forcible sodomy of a prostitute by four men. She was allowed to testify and used graphic "street" language to tell her story. While likely shocking to the mostly middle aged jury it was nevertheless her story about what happend to her.

Unfortunately one of the jurors refused to believe he becasue she was a prostitute and the trial ended in a mistrial as he would not even consider any other evidence.

This woman is totally my hero. Whoever suggested post cards, I LOVE this idea. Anyone know where we could send them?

However -- from the Lithwick article something isn't quite clear to me: is she simply FORBIDDEN from using certain words, or is she REQUIRED to say "sex"? Because I didn't see "fuck" on that list. If I were her, I would say something along the lines of, "I went to get some drinks with him and I don't remember leaving the bar. All I know is, at some point after I had a drink I passed out, and I woke up to him fucking me. Whatever you wanna call that, he was fucking me after I passed out, without ANY indication from me that it was okay to fuck me."

I bet the judge won't like "fuck" any better than "rape," and, yeah, it would piss him off, but she sounds like an awesome kinda gal who would violate the spirit of the law while keeping the letter (thus making him into even more of a maniac as he scrambles to find a thesaurus to rule out every possible word). Kinda like a new kind of civil disobedience... which is just fucking sad. I mean, women reclaiming their own voices and their own words is now at least civil disobedience, and possibly even contempt of court? Awesome. It's like, "women's rights? What are those?"

As for the legal aspect, I don't have experience in criminal court so I don't know how common this is. However, I've certainly never heard of VICTIMS (or "accusers," if that makes you less uncomfortable) being denied the option of describing the CRIME committed against them. ANY half-listening member of the jury KNOWS that the victim is going to be biased. Lik, DUH, this is the person who brought the charges in the first place! The idea that allowing the VICTIM to say "rape" -- even if you wanted to permit no one else to say it -- is going to confuse the jury indicates a profound lack of respect for the jury system. If a trial by a jury of one's peers means a trial by a jury of peers so stupid that they can't understand that the victim has a very obvious bias when it comes to her testimony, then we should really re-evaluate the Constitution.

The thing is, that's not why the judge did this. The judge doesn't ACTUALLY think it will taint the jury (because it won't, unless, again, the jury is made up ENTIRELY of people with way-sub-par IQs). The judge just doesn't like trying rape cases. He's probably one of those asshats who thinks most women are making it up. Which is obviously a wholly inappropriate reason to bar words from being used in trial.

It is true that sometimes a witness will be instructed not to use certain inflammatory terms, but often this will come following a case where a witness has consistently "acted up," e.g., frequently referring to an opposing party by rude names, frequently using inflammatory or emotional terms, etc. I've never heard of anything this extreme taking place before a witness even opened her mouth, unless there's some big history that indicates that the very use of a WORD will harm the trial of the case (and even then, there's going to be some serious consideration and weighing that goes into deciding whether to allow the word in). I see no indication of such proportionality here.

Is it at all possible that the judge banned the word "rape" from the trial to protect the victim? Because so many people only see rape as some sort of dark-alley crime, and not something that could possibly happen between acquaintances, I've seen the argument that the term "sexual assault" is better for convincing juries that a crime occurred. People refuse to believe that date rape is actually rape--"she couldn't have been raped if she knew him/went on a date with him"--so perhaps using a different term without so many connotations can help.

In theory, couldn't she get around this without the risk of going to jail? I mean, should use a phrase like "unwanted vaginal invasion" or something.

Though I think the judge is completely horrible for making this ruling, especially without letting the jury know, but it also won't help her out if she goes to jail. I mean, that is the opposite of what should happen.

Wow. I can't watch the video, so I can't comment on it, but I wonder- can she still say "forced, unwanted sex" which does not appear to be banned words?

I hope she doesn't go to jail- though that would really draw attention to problem, and maybe that's what she wants?

Reminds me of an SVU episode where a man had raped three women and the stature of limitations was about to run out on the third case (the first two having run out) and the second victim got arrested because she knew who he was and refused to turn him in because he had converted to her religion afterwards, and also because he was now paralyzed. It was awful for the victim to go to jail, but it was just as bad for the third victim not to have justice.

The previous commenters have this right when they have come up with creative ways to get around the rape ban. In fact, the judge might have done her a huge favor by banning the word. Consider the power of saying "he FORCED his PENIS inside MY vagina WITHOUT MY CONSENT" while describing her struggle, her resistance, her unwillingness, her body sensations. If she just said "then he raped me," the jury would not have to truly picture the scene.

Further, the word rape is applied to so many things these days - "I got raped by that test" rather than saying the test was hard, for example - that I fear that it's losing its ability to, in shorthand, convey a truly heinous act of sexualized violence. Members of the jury might be people for whom this is true, and might take it less seriously...but I'd be very VERY interested to watch them - and this judge, and any other males in the courtroom - start to squirm as this brave woman recounts every excruciating detail of what this guy did to her.

No, La Fille Torpille, the judge banned the word sexual assault as well, and a few others.

I remember that SVU episode...it drove me up a damn WALL because the woman protecting the guy was Quaker, which I also am, and it made it look like all Quakers were naive Pollyanna types! Quakers developed the freaking penal system in this country, we're not a bunch of rapist-harboring nutbars.

I may be overreacting but man that episode drove me nuts.

I personally think this woman is gutsy as hell and that she's taking up a cause worth going to jail for if that's what it takes. This judge's ruling was SO wrong,and it's so refreshing to see someone taking a stand against someone clearly willing to abuse their position of power. If anyone figures out an address to send postcards to, please post it here - fabulous idea!

Ok, Merletto. Since that's the case, this is bullshit.

This story makes me proud to be a woman

Intense bravery, it is to be respected.

While I commend this woman for challenging the judge's decision, I still think it's bullshit that this guy would make such a ruling in the first place. Rape is evil, sex is beautiful. The two should never be confused with other, and she shouldn't have to use one to talk about the other. It is bullshit that she is risking going to prison because of some asshole judge--who knows, he might think that sending all rape victims to jail is the perfect thing to do. Maybe I'm putting thoughts into his head, but you never know with numbskulls like this.
I'm never moving to Nebraska, that's for sure.

Dude, here's what we need to do.

"SAVE TORY" t-shirts, with all proceeds going to her legal fund. I'll buy a dozen and hand them out to my friends.

Who's with me?

I'm amazed, impressed, and happier knowing that there are people like her in the world. The judge did this to exactly the RIGHT person: the person with the guts to make it into an issue and face perjury for speaking the truth.

As a legal matter, I do wonder whether or not she can be thrown in jail for this - or prohibited from testifying. If the defendant wants to cross-examine her, he has a constitutional right to do so. She is required to, under oath, tell the whole truth. Adding this to giffy's comment,

There is also the notion that some do not consider rape to even be sex. While it shares a similar appearance the two are distinct. For example sex and visiting the doctor both can involve hands on the genitals, but I would only classify the former as sex.

and I think there's a colourable (as in, you could make it with a straight face, not that it would win) claim that she cannot fulfill her testimentary oath under the conditions imposed by the judge.

"I went to get some drinks with him and I don't remember leaving the bar. All I know is, at some point after I had a drink I passed out, and I woke up to him fucking me. Whatever you wanna call that, he was fucking me after I passed out, without ANY indication from me that it was okay to fuck me."

This is why this order has always struck me as not only wrong, but just plain stupid. The terms the judge has excluded are clinical terms and statutory language. There is a whole universe of graphic language that more than gets the point across and could never be excluded in advance.

To me, the ruling is inherently capable of backfiring precisely because it requires the victim to avoid abstractions like "rape" and "sexual assault" and instead to provide a detailed, concrete description of what this guy did. I think that the public has, to some extent, been nmbed to terms like "rape" due to the extensive propaganda efforts to discredit the entire notion of rape. To me "I regained consciousness to find him inside me" (a phrase it wold be damn near impossible to sppress in limine) is much more effective in painting a picture for the jury than any of the banned words could ever be.

The thing about conclusory language is that it's often much less effective anyway. Compare: "The officer in question unlawfully and unreasonably effected a seizure of my person by indicating that I was not free to go" and "I was walking my dog when the officer came out of nowhere and smacked me across the face with the butt of his revolver, kicking me repeatedly once I was on the ground, all the while yelling 'STAY THE FUCK DOWN OR I'LL BLOW YOUR HEAD OFF'." Evidentiary issues aside, one is bloodless and clinical, and the other is vivid, graphic, and not easily forgotten.

I would buy and proudly wear a SAVE TORY shirt.

I'm ready to buy a SAVE TORY shirt too. Best part would be people asking me about it, so I could explain why I was wearing it. Hell, I'd even carry around little cards referring them to the website where they could learn more and buy a shirt themselves.

umm... whaddaya all think about something other than "save tory"?

i don't know what else, but it seems to me like she doesn't need anyone "saving" her, more like supporting her, but "support tory" sounds kinda stupid (and vaguely like a british political statement).

any other ideas?

also, does anyone know of a way to contact ms. bowen to get a sense of what kind of support she specifically needs?

puckalish, the idea was more to "save" her from facing jail time by raising money to help her legal team (through the selling of the shirts). Plus, it makes it sound like "Save Ferris" or something, which is just cool for us 80s babies :)

How about "Let Tory Talk"?

or

"It's Tory's Story: Let Her Tell It"?

I agree that banning the word "rape" can backfire for the defense, not only because people have become so inured to it. I think many jurors opt to acquit because they just can't believe that that nice young man would rape someone. In most people's minds, rapists are scary, scummy sociopaths jumping out from behind bushes. Rapists are not clean-cut college students, professionals, family men. By describing the specific events and actions of the accused (I was so drunk I passed out. He penetrated me without my consent.), jurors have no choice but to conclude that the defendant broke the law, even if they don't want to believe that he's a rapist.

Although I do like "let Tory Talk," I think that using the word "rape" on the shirts would be an act of solidarity.

How about "Tory was raped?"

Or

"Don't rape Tory again?"

Or

"Prevent Judicial Rape?"

Maybe

"'Rape' is not 'sex'"

While I like "Let Tory talk," I think that using the word "rape" would definitely be a sign of solidarity.

What about:

"Tory was raped"

Or

"Rape is NOT 'sex'"

Or

"Don't rape Tory in court"

Or

"Stop Judicial Rape"?

Sorry for the double post. I got an error message after the first one and it didn't show up until after I posted the second.