From a Press Association headline:
Yeah. Raped-not-raped-11-year-old victim. What the fuck?
Is it me, or are these sort of misogynist outrages becoming more routine?
(Hat tip.)
------
Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.
Perhaps they used scare quotes b/c rape is scary?
No. They just wanted to save space, so in order to leave out the word “alleged” or “statutory” some brilliant mind decided to scare-quote “rape” so it didn’t look like anyone had actually been found guilty.
Assholes. An 11 y/o cannot consent, and they can get into “accused” and “alleged” in the body text.
“Reportedly” I can understand, but putting the word “raped” in quotes?!? Heinous f*ckery most foul! Then again, my expectations for solid copy editing are all but gone. I did a better job as a copy editor when I was a teenager.
It’s ass-covering in case of libel.
Still makes me mad every time I see this sort of thing (or my favorite “alleged rapist Joe Schmoe)”), but yeah, they have to do that anytime the situation in question is not one where the rapist has already been convicted.
I second the wtf, but to be nitpicky, if the uncle isn’t convicted of rape in a court of law and the headline flat-out said she was raped, it could possibly be libelous. Doesn’t help that UK libel laws are stricter than in the US, and iirc they have similar dismal rape conviction rates. Nonetheless there are plenty of other ways you could write that headline without being wildly offensive and making an 11-year-old girl look like a rape-cryer ... if I were an editor at the Press Association someone on the desk would be getting a good ass-chewing.
‘Raped’ girl, 11, can have abortion (35 characters)
OR:
Abortion Rights for Underage Victim (35 characters)
Mine has the same number of characters and affirms that the girl is a victim who can have an abortion without worrying about libel suits or making the girl out to seem a potential liar. At it took me all of 5 minutes. Someone give me the author’s paycheck.
If you look at the BBC site or other foreign outlets, they routinely use the single quote in order to denote that somebody else said it: for instance, the current headline on the BBC News site is ‘No decision’ on Madeleine case. Well, it’s hardly controversial that there’s no decision; after all, if there isn’t, there isn’t.
The headline editor’s paycheck, Faye, but, yes, you are more worthy.
The article writers don’t get to make their own headlines; there’s a specialist for that, usually someone very good at completely mangling the gist of the article while being sensationalist.
The first couple of news reports I saw, were saying “allegedly raped by uncle”. If I’d been the subeditor, I’d have put “raped, allegedly by uncle”. By the time the story mutated, it had turned into “allegedly” tied to the rape, not the uncle.
Age of consent in Romania is 15, so there’s no possible question but she was raped.
I’ve heard of “Oxford commas” but never “asshat quotation marks”.
I don’t think you’re liable for libel unless you accuse a specific person of something specific and you know for a fact that it’s not true. To say an 11-year-old that is pregnant was raped is not libel. By any reasonable standard, you’re speaking what you know to be true. You aren’t accusing a specific person of committing the rape. And even if you were, he’d have to prove that you didn’t actually believe it.
Norbizness, I had a similar thought, but I think it’s really bad style to put a single word in quotes unless that word is so outside of anything the newspaper would choose to say that you have to mark it as quotes. Like you wouldn’t say, “Barack Obama speaks of ‘patriotism’”, even though you could get away with saying that it’s a direct quote of a word he actually used. But I would see it for “Amanda Marcotte speaks of ‘wingnuttery’”, because that’s a word they wouldn’t use.
Samatha, I’ll yield to your explanation of the inner workings of newspapers, as I am woefully ignorant on the matter. 
*readjusts initial ire towards author into ire towards headline editor*
It’s not libelous if no suspect has been charged with the crime, and it’s not libelous if the jurisdiction has a statutory rape law and she’s under the age limit. She’s pregnant, therefore someone must have committed at least statutory rape.
I’ve noticed this a lot too. Is it just me or has rape cases lately gone from “did he rape her?” to “was she raped, or is she a dirty dirty whore?” For instance, it is questionable who raped this 11 year old girl, but not that she was raped. The situation with the woman in Missouri(?) who couldn’t use the word ‘rape’ in a courtroom should have been a question of who raped her, not whether or not she was raped.
Norbizness, I had a similar thought, but I think it’s really bad style to put a single word in quotes unless that word is so outside of anything the newspaper would choose to say that you have to mark it as quotes.
I’ll second Norb here. It looks like this story was scraped from a UK source, and I’ve seen this sort of headline at other UK sites. I don’t think it’s a judgment on the validity of the rape accusation. It’s just typographic convention.
I don’t think you’re liable for libel unless you accuse a specific person of something specific and you know for a fact that it’s not true.
Libel laws outside the US are far less strict, especially in the UK. And from what I understand, media outlets that publish internationally can be sued for libel in any of the countries they operate in.
It’s also possible that if details are revealed that can identify the uncle, it could still be considered libelous in . Especially in connection with other stories on this subject.. Another possibility is that statutes of limitation might be different in different jurisdictions (and might open up if the same publication does a “look back” story 10 years from now), and if this guy is later charged and acquitted then they really would have been guilty of libel the whole time. It’s ridiculous, but there you go. Libel laws are pretty fucking ridiculous, especially in the UK.
Though everyone is right that the easy answer is to construct the headline so that it doesn’t require waffling.
FWIW, I don’t say any of this in support of rapists and their right not to be fucked with, but because I’ve been though it before. You would be SHOCKED at the lack of specificity and/or intent needed to be sued for libel.
MORE strict! They are MORE strict! gah, I should not post at work, really.
As several have pointed out, it’s a convention of journalism in the U.K, where it’s a lot harder to get out of a libel charge than it is in the U.S.
As several have pointed out, it’s a convention of journalism in the U.K, where it’s a lot harder to get out of a libel charge than it is in the U.S.
Not trying to thread-jack, but I could have sworn that I already demonstrated that it’s possible to construct a title that is informative, non-libelious, and without scare quotes.
Can someone explain why a lazy headline editor deserves more consideration than the raped 11-year-old?
I second the wtf, but to be nitpicky, if the uncle isn’t convicted of rape in a court of law and the headline flat-out said she was raped, it could possibly be libelous.
Jesurgilac is correct, EHNY.
Unless you’re postulating the Second Coming and some joker with a flaming sword being involved in the pregnancy, the girl was well under the age of consent, and thus demonstratably raped simply on the evidence of being pregnant. If she was around 14 or 15 and the alleged rapist a peer, I might understand reluctance, but that isn’t the case here.
The uncle may be alleged as responsible, but the event itself is not in question.
Quaker, if it’s a stylistic convention, then why aren’t words like “girl” or “11-year-old” also in quotation marks? After all, someone has spoken those words as well, and so they can be attributed to a quote instead of just being statements of fact.
if it’s a stylistic convention, then why aren’t words like “girl” or “11-year-old” also in quotation marks?
I couldn’t say. If this was a headline from a U.S. source, I’d agree with you completely. I’m not claiming expertise in the many nuances of the British style book. I’m only saying that it seems to be coming into play in this case. Their headlines often look strange to me.
In the extremely unlikely event of the father turning out to be 11 or 12, the headline writer may have some legal room against the uncle. Unlikely I know, especially after she said it was the 19-yr-old uncle who has since disappeared, but it’s not as if stranger things have happened.
Still, why not, for the headline, emphasize some other thing and avoid the quotes/no quotes issue altogether? It’s not as if the story lacks enough to get an eye-catching headline.
Anyway, I have a feeling I’ll soon not only know the age of consent in Romania (thanks, Jesurgislac,) but more than I ever wanted to about their rape statutes.
Hey—that’s more than four words.
SEE YOU IN COURT!
Fundies have long wanted to change the laws and having a trial as precedent where the victim can not claim rape is a much-desired outcome. You see, only virgins can be raped. Those women who have consented to sex at any time do not have the standing to file.
Yell all you want. I worked in PA government for a boss who told me this very ‘truth’. He also determined enforcement penalties based on how many times the perp went to church. And hired according to how evangelical/fundamentalist the applicants were. One enterprising lesbian spoke in tongues for the interview. Once vetted, she dropped the pretense like a stone and let him know what would happen should she be discriminated against. Loved it.
Fundies have long wanted to change the laws and having a trial as precedent where the victim can not claim rape is a much-desired outcome. You see, only virgins can be raped. Those women who have consented to sex at any time do not have the standing to file.
Yell all you want.
This isn’t news, not in these blog circles….
And don’t you know, it isn’t rape when there’s a fucking contract.
The court heard the man and his wife, the girl’s mother, struck a deal with the then-15-year-old that she would bear them a child because their two other biological children had been born with genetic defects.
As he was being arrested, the man indignantly declared: “Did you not see the fucking contract?”
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4603943a12.html
“Fundies have long wanted to change the laws and having a trial as precedent where the victim can not claim rape is a much-desired outcome. You see, only virgins can be raped. Those women who have consented to sex at any time do not have the standing to file. “
The basic hypocrisy here (yes, I know, I’m getting into dog-bites-man territory) is, of course, that according to the values fundies claim to believe in, the men in such cases did something wrong anyway- if they aren’t rapists, they’re at least fornicators, so why get so defensive on their behalf? But, of course, the real moral code of many fundies (even if they aren’t aware of it themselves), is simply that women are alway morally in the wrong.
Wow, I’m not sure what I was thinking. I meant the blog of “unnecessary” quotation marks. Please hit me the next time I say something so completely stupid.
I guess because she was “reportedly raped by her uncle”. Okay, no need to say she was for sure raped by her uncle, but she was clearly raped by somebody, you know, because she’s 11 years old and pregnant. I guess, what, she might have fallen on some sperm?