Should the media be allowed to name accused paedophiles before they're proven guilty?

There have a been a lot of stories in the media in the last couple of years where some celebrities have been named and shamed for abusing under age children in a sexual manor. Whilst I think it is important that those who are guilty of such acts are bought to justice I find it morally wrong that someones name is dragged through the mud before they have even been found guilty of what they have been accused of doing. One prime example is Freddie Starr who was named in the media soon after the Savile scandal came to light in November 2012. It wasn't until May 2014 that it was finally announced that all charges had been dropped against him. That was nearly two years that he had been wrongfully labeled as a paedophile.

With the most recent story to emerge involving Cliff Richard who has been allegedly accused of abusing a young boy during a concert, I again find myself asking whether it is right that he has been named before the case has even been looked at by a judge. Whilst I believe in a free press I also think it is wrong for the media to totally ruin someones life when we all know that once you are labeled as a paedophile no matter how many court cases say your innocent the way the public look at you will never be the same again.

What do you think?

no it ruins pplz lyfes it not fare on dem

Yeah, always said their names shouldn't come out until they're proven guilty.

It's not really fair on them and the courts etc can be wrong too. If the whole world knows then that's just going to ruin their life as they won't be looked at the same way + if they were wrongly accused, everyone would still hold it against them.

Yes they should, as terrible as accusations like this are then it should be out in the open and we should stay as far away from secret courts as possible. It is the same with courts regarding children/sexual cases in recent years, where by accusers have been able to accuse via video tape..... and I find that appalling. I can understand the arguments for protecting people, but at the end of the day if you are on trial for something so serious then you deserve and should have the right to look your accuser in the face.

And the same for secret courts with this, it's scary how people are willing to move away from an open traditionally English courts system to the more Europeanised courting system which is less free and has less protections.... bring in secret courts and trials for this, and you'll end up having it spread to other areas too: from terror charges to rape charges. The media are a key counter-weight to power of HM courts/Police.

I work in journalism so I can see both points of view. We publish a fair amount of court cases, including paedophilia, and it's hard - although it is absolutely not legal to refer to someone as a paedophile before they are found guilty, so headlines like "CLIFF 'THE PAEDO' RICHARD" breach media law at the moment.

It can be devastating for anyone accused of any crime to be named in any form of media, and I think it can impact your later life. However, it's not like the police randomly go through the census and pick a couple of names to investigate - you have to have sufficient suspicion before they begin investigating.

I do understand why people say they shouldn't be named until they either enter a guilty plea, or are found guilty. I honestly think all crime suspects should be treated the same, not a closed court system, but anonymity. So newspapers could still run court stories & reports, using similar laws to victims in some cases - wherein you can give factors (where they live OR age OR gender etc - there are usually guidelines and they are generally worked out cross-newspapers so you can't actually identify the victim when piecing bits from different stories together), but not the actual identity.

But then when it comes to it, in sexual assault - or any assault come to think of it - cases, if there are multiple victims (from the past etc), seeing them in the newspaper or on TV may make them come forwards and report their case as well.

So yes, I'm torn, and I'm not sure where I stand. I think I'm veering more to the allowing them to be named, because above all else I believe in the freedom of the press.

Yes if they're actually being investigated, obviously not a great idea to write an article titled IS MO FORAH A PAEDO TOO?!?? when there's no reason to think so but otherwise as long as proper conduct is followed it's the right of the press to publish whatever news they want. On the flipside, if people are making these claims and are later proven to be liars I believe that the press should absolutely name and shame false accusers, who ought also to be punished far more heavily than they currently are for wasting police resources and attempting to ruin someone's life with their lies

Worth remembering too that our current libel laws and press laws work perfectly fine, including with pedophilia claims.

Nope! It's a difficult situation to be in, and there must be a reason for the person to be in that situation; even if it is just by association to the victim in question. However, until they're actually proven guilty.. their name should not be publicly released. Think about it from an employer's perspective: you have the option of hiring a young, talented professional or another young, possibly more talented professional who had a paedophilia charge against him/her that was dropped. I think it's clear to see that it would be easy to discriminate against that person without ever admitting that he/she is being discriminated against.
That being said... there should be strict guidelines in place (as there already are..) to ensure that the person with the charges against them does not have the opportunity to victimize another innocent child in the unfortunate case that they are indeed guilty.

Just my $0.02 ;)

In an ideal world they shouldn't be named but realistically it is unavoidable - they will always be named. The courts are open to visitors (bar cases where the victim is a child and evidence/statements from the victim are made during a sitting). Journalists always watch court cases, be it for academic reasons to see what cases are going through the court or whatever.

However, in the case of Cliff Richard, it was incredibly premature to name him as he was not and is no where near being put through the court process - thus, the open court argument falls flat. He was under police investigations being accused of being a paedophile by ignorant journalists and those with some vendetta against him, possibly because he's old and not usually liked by our generation but by our grandparents or (older) parents generation. He shouldn't have been named until he, his manager, producers etc announced it or until he makes his first court appearance where eagle eyed journalists may notice he is in proceedings. The BBC naming him was nothing more than kindling a witch hunt.

This is the difference between William Roache and Michael Le Vell. They weren't suspected of the crime until ITV made a statement that the actors were being investigated and subsequently removed from the show for the meantime and until evidence appeared that they were under investigation when they appeared at court. Before this, police statements indicating that they are "investigating a man in his <years>" tend to be made but they're so vague you have to go through a list of "celebrities" in that age bracket. Which is what happened with Le Vell.

It depends what newspapers you read - ones which know its an ongoing investigation, or the ones which seem managed by hyperactive children trying to call it too early when, if they collectively put their brain cells together (which would still be below the average legally allowed to walk freely in public), they would know that predicting cases is almost impossible in this area as evidence is incredibly difficult to come by, not forgetting how easily a case can change.

So in short. It's unavoidable. The only time people should be named is when they make a statement or when they go through the court, to name a few. The situation when they should not be named is by the media before any evidence or procedure has been made. It's why you get witch hunts. So far, it's been relatively well managed, apart from occasions where name calling is made or they portray the accused as guilty or "likely to have done it, just look at him".