Some argue that the benefits of protecting rape victims’ identities from the public far outweigh the arguments for the media’s revealing their identities. Rape victims whose names have been made public by the media report embarrassment, concerns about their safety, and a sense of revictimization. They also indicate that if they had known their identity as a rape victim would become public knowledge, they would have been less likely to report their rape to the police. Defenders of rape victims’ privacy also argue that rape is a distinctive type of criminal victimization in which the victim is at high risk of feeling degraded, with attendant psychological feelings of low self-esteem, stigmatization, and the urge to withdraw from social interaction. One counterargument for the media’s publishing of rape victims’ names is that it treats rape victims as any other crime victim, which has the effect of removing the distinctive stigma associated with rape, forcing society to deal with it openly. Included in this argument is the belief that by dealing with rape openly and reporting it as a crime, the public will be less likely to blame the victim for the rape; whereas, treating rape as a distinctive crime whose victims must be hidden from the public implies that it brings shame on the victim. A second argument in support of the media’s revealing of the names of rape victims is that it deters false accusations of rape. The assumption is that if the names of victims are published as a general rule, women would be less likely to expose their accusations to public scrutiny. 32 references