It's one thing for the woman to CHOOSE to speak to an audience of 200 people. It's quite another for a reporter to perform an investigation of her and then to PUBLISH this information to a multitude. If the woman in question doesn't want to be known like that, I don't see how the editor can in all decency justify this except by hiding under the protection of journalism. "I just wanted to give her a wider audience" said the editor. Who is she trying to be Pontius Pilate..... I wash my hands of my sins.

The editor of the paper should have simply asked the rape victim if it was okay to identify her by name. Not doing that was a major misstep. The paper should edit the woman's name from the online version and issue an official apology.

I find it disgusting that the this woman would go out of her way to not only identify but seek out the details of this speakers case. As a woman, I find her lack of empathy and morals appalling. Guess you bring the children to college but you can't force them to learn anything.

The paper was reporting a public event. The person named publicly identified herself and openly discussed the details of her ordeal. There was no more permission needed, by journalism standards, than asking permission of a politician to report details of a stump speech. A one on one interview would have been a different matter. I'm sure the editors were as surprised as I was to find out reporting on a public event would be controversial. As an alumnus of Bridgewater State and a former editor of "The Comment" I fully support the editorial staff's decisions. Part of good journalism means reporting the truth and standing by it.