Yes, the media have not been consistent on reporting about rapists

I’ll admit I was quite thrown by being told last week that this publication would not be allowed to publish the name or otherwise identify the man accused of raping a six-year-old girl in a Dros restaurant.

What particularly confused me was that the 20-year-old in question had already appeared in open court and his face and name were splashed all over social media. A video of him covered in blood in the toilets at the Dros – completely naked – was also being widely shared on WhatsApp.

Some people have even been wearing T-shirts with his face on them. There are bumper stickers.

I had to phone our media lawyer on Thursday to get clarity on the matter. He told me he would nevertheless still advise us not to publish the man’s name or face, even though every man and his dog have already seen it.

So I was forced to run the video with the guy’s face blacked out.

When I mentioned to our lawyer that we normally don’t have to wait for other accused individuals to plead before naming them – as long as they’ve already been seen in public court – he agreed that was true, but it didn’t yet apply in cases involving sexual crimes.

“But why? We can name a mass murderer, but not a rapist, if said rapist has not yet entered a plea?”

“Exactly.”

Our lawyer then assured me that the law is open to being challenged and he and others are working to challenge it, but in the meantime we should play by the rules.

I understand that the law was originally intended to protect the victim in the case of a sexual crime, so that their identity doesn’t get exposed. But by naming the alleged perpetrator in this case there would have been no way of revealing this particular victim’s identity. She isn’t linked to her rapist in any obvious way. He was a stranger to her.

I agree with the stance taken by Rapport and City Press yesterday. They explained in an editorial why they named the accused, since they figured he’s already been widely identified and there is no chance that naming him compromises the case or reveals anything about the victim. There used to be a more innocent time, too, when mainstream media was the primary disseminator of information and therefore had to be governed carefully.

But that was before the internet and, particularly, social media made it almost impossible to keep any secret. The law is outdated and has basically been overtaken and rendered obsolete by modern forms of media.

Even more importantly, Rapport acknowledged yesterday that the mainstream media has been naming people – particularly famous people – accused of rape for years without any of these people pleading first.

I’m sure there are all sorts of details and complications here that people who know more than me about laws could point to in each case, but the reality is that the media hasn’t come across as consistent. Even a superficial perusal of Twitter makes it clear that people are aware of endless news articles where people accused of rape were named by every media title around, including this one, before pleas were entered. And Twitter is right to call us out on it.

Jacob Zuma was named as soon as he was accused of raping Khwezi, long before he pleaded. One of Nelson Mandela’s grandsons suffered the same fate. The list of such media infractions against the law is long, and yet all of a sudden last week, every journalist around was acting like a legal expert on why none of us was going to name the man dubbed the Dros Rapist.

I certainly hope the editors at Media24 don’t find themselves charged with contempt of court for deciding to just say, “F**k it, publish and be damned.”

They helped to save the rest of us from the growing chorus of protest that detected more than a hint of racism behind the sudden concerted effort to not publish this “alleged” rapist’s identity.

Because when I asked our lawyer why we had named Jacob Zuma and the many other black men who’ve been accused of rape in the past, he said: “Those were all legal infractions, and technically they shouldn’t have done that.”

And the law is still the law. There are also numerous examples of cases where the media always got it right from the start, and kept to it.

So when I told him about the column you’re currently reading and how I felt like naming the man myself in a show of solidarity with Media24, he said: “As your lawyer, I have to advise you that you’d be on the wrong side of the letter of the law if you do that.”

“So you’re saying I shouldn’t do it?”

“I’m saying you would be breaking the law and be exposing the company to legal jeopardy.”

All the Media24 titles have already or will be naming him, from Beeld to You, to Drum magazine and all the rest. I’d be surprised if Finweek puts him on their front page, but you never know.

No other media house has made the same bold move, as far as I know. So I’m grudgingly forced to accept that if I were to type out the name _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _  _ _ _ _ _ (insert alleged rapist’s name here in the world’s dumbest version of Hangman), I would be making myself instantly fire-able and possibly expose my employer to harm. So I’m not going to do it, because I have a mortgage, along with two cats and a gecko to feed.

If I’d had the courage to do it and was arrested, I’d probably have the good company of Waldimar Pelser and Mondli Makhanya to look forward to.

But there’s no one at home who’s willing to feed cockroaches to my gecko. My fiancée just can’t bring herself to look at the things.

So no, I’m playing it safe.

To be fair, I find it hard to believe the media refrained from treating the accused as He Who Must Not Be Named simply on the basis that he is white. But when so many black men have been named in relation to untested rape allegations, none of this has come across all that well.

All in all, the whole sordid mess has been a rather sickening and unfortunate affair, and it’s not set to get any better.

To think I may have to wait for as long as a year or more to write his name (because, yes, that’s how long we may be forced to wait before “Rapist Voldemort” will be asked to enter a plea at the start of his trial) is also not going to do much to improve my mood.

Citizen digital editor Charles Cilliers

For more news your way, download The Citizen’s app for iOS and Android.