Here's a question that tortures editors: When, if ever, is it appropriate to publish the name of the victim of a sex crime? And another: What if the "victim" turns out not to be a victim at all?

Forever, it seems, the media has not published the names of victims, confirmed or alleged, arguing that to do so would stigmatize the person and inhibit others from coming forward with their own accounts of abuse. Some advocates of women's rights think that should change.

What has stoked the controversy anew, ironically, is the case of a woman whose claim of rape was found to be false. I refer to the Duke University incident, in which three students were cleared last week of charges they attacked the woman.

Most media outlets still did not name the woman, but several did -- and ran her photograph. ("60 Minutes" not only named her but showed her in videotape Sunday night, April 15.) The "outing" was questioned by some respected media commentators, including Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post.

The issue has come up occasionally at Stars and Stripes, when a servicemember has been found not guilty of rape. The practice usually is to refrain from naming the person who brought the allegation, unless he or she steps forward into the public limelight. One such case involved a woman who accused a married military chaplain of lying and harassment. She sought out the publicity herself and thus was named in the newspaper.

There has been a movement to have the media name victims, or alleged victims, as a routine matter. The argument, recently enunciated by another Washington Post columnist, Jo-Ann Amrao, is that to refrain from using the name is tantamount to stigmatizing the woman. Such a person should not feel shame, the reasoning goes.

To me, that sounds like transferring one's point of view to another person (the victim's). Even when the alleged abuser is acquitted, one wonders if the verdict was just, or if the accuser has mental problems, as has been implied in regard to the woman in the Duke case.

What do you think? Publicize names of alleged victims -- regardless whether or not a crime has been proven? What about the woman who falsely accused the Duke students? Does she deserve public exposure?

This is your "corner." Comments welcome.