Boy, I don't get this one:
It's the only way Tory Bowen knows to honestly describe what happened to her.
She was raped.
But a judge prohibited her from uttering the word “rape” in front of a jury. The term “sexual assault” also was taboo, and Bowen could not refer to herself as a victim or use the word “assailant” to describe the man who allegedly raped her.
The defendant's presumption of innocence and right to a fair trial trumps Bowen's right of free speech, said the Lincoln, Neb., judge who issued the order.
[. . .]
Bowen's case is part of what some prosecutors and victim advocates see as a national trend in sexual assault cases.
“It's a topic that's coming up more and more,” said Joshua Marquis, an Oregon prosecutor and a vice president of the National District Attorneys Association. “You're moving away from what a criminal trial is really about.”
How can there be a trial for rape if the alleged victim of the rape isn't allowed to allege that she was, in fact, raped? Even in today's politically-correct thicket of legal idiocies, this makes no sense at all. Yes, Mr. Jones, I know the defendant is charged with robbing your bank, but you will not be able to use the term 'robbery' in front of the jury. It's much too inflammatory a word."