holtonfb: You need to read my comments again. I didn't use "sue her pants off". You choose that term. The supposed victim made the comment that "I remember waking up without my clothes on in a house I'd never been in, said Maddy, who didn't want her last name used." She doesn't say she was drugged so I'm left with the assumption that she was so drunk she passed out somewhere and woke up in a strange house. When I go out to drink, I don't drink so I don't know what is going on so some of the blame needs to be shared. Again I ask you, why wasn't the reapist charged and taken to trial? To put a persons' name on a t-shirt stating that he is a rapist is slander and I would sue.

winstry ..I think the metaphor "sue her pants off" is a poorly used expression here .. taking into account the crime involved here .. as for the assertion that the vics could have been drunk .. well, would the sdame be said if you were out with a few friends .. got a bit wasted and then robbed because you weren't thinking clearly .. and maybe the women should encourage their attackers .. (excuse me "alledged" attackers) to sue them ..in a civil case the burden of proof is less than a criminal .. plus a plaintiff in a slander/libel case is certainly obligated to testify .. as they have to assert harm to reputation .. and also .. past complaints can be used by the defense to show a "pattern of past performance" .... another thing ..if a person can be charged with a lack of judgement in operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated .. why can't the same standard be applied to the a woman raped while drunk .. besides .. we only have the perp's word that she consented .....

I would say the rapist is at fault. A woman who is drunk to the point of blacking out is NOT a free pass for sexual assault. Or she could have been at a party in another place and been slipped a roofie, this stuff does happen. I agree, after the mess caused by the liar in the Duke case, that advertising the alleged attacker's name before they've been convicted isn't the way to go. The convicted ones are those that deserve to have their names dragged through the mud. Keeping things quiet only gives other sad excuses the idea that if they do this stuff they will be protected by UMD.

This is a shame. A shame that these girls were violated. At least that's what we must assume from their demonstration. I think there needs to be better judgement exercised. Let's face it. There are a lot of "nice" guys out there, who are simply putting on an act. Some of them are not who they portray themselves to be. Women need to be careful not to put themselves in harm's way. The one girl who claimed she woke up in a strange home, was obvious drunk or something was slipped into her drink. Vigilence and self-control play a part in preventing these crimes. On the other hand, I would hope that these women did bring or will bring charges against these guys. And the University is over reacting. I don't think they are liable for the students' choice to be heard. I also think they are in violation of the 1st amendment of free speech.

I'm not standing up for rapists but if you put my name for all to see and I haven't been convicted of the crime, I would sue the pants off of the responsible party. If you have been raped, report it and have the police arrest the rapist. The one girl who states "I remember waking up without my clothes on in a house I'd never been in, said Maddy, who didn't want her last name used." Was she drugged or did she get drunk and doesn't remember going to this house? Could she have consented to sex while drunk and then didn't remember that? But despite all that, did she go to the police and report it? Doesn't look like it. So who is really at fault?