Not now, certainly. Several readers have said the withdrawal last month of rape charges against the three players removed the need for protection of the accuser that the paper has provided so far. But serious charges of sexual offense and kidnapping remain, and until those charges are tried or dismissed The N&O's policy on sex crimes -- that it does not identify complainants without their consent -- pertains.

But the readers' inquiries do raise several interesting questions. What happens if the Duke case is dismissed or the players are judged innocent? Then would the paper name the accuser?

And a more fundamental question: Why does the paper even have a policy against naming sex crime complainants? Is it fair to name the accused and not the accuser?

The Duke case has thrown a spotlight on these issues, and the N&O newsroom is revisiting its policy in that light. Editors said they don't want to let a highly controversial case drive their decision-making, but they also don't want to be caught flat-footed when it ends. "We are going to talk about our policy after this concludes, but we're not going to change our policy in the midst of an ongoing story," said Melanie Sill, executive editor.

Let's start with the broader question of the no-naming policy. Most newspapers have similar approaches, and they exist generally for two reasons:

1) To spare an assaulted person from the stigma and shame associated with sex crimes. To not further compound the assault by subjecting a victim to wider public awareness.

2) To encourage victims to report sex crimes. Sexual assaults are among the most underreported crimes, in part because of victims' concerns about public shame.

Those are valid reasons that I believe most folks in a community would support. But there are counterbalancing arguments for publishing the names. One is the matter of fairness in treating accused and accuser equally. Another is that, by withholding names, the media are contributing to the mistaken notion that a sex crime is indeed an act about which a victim should feel ashamed.

And a very compelling argument, especially to those of us in the journalistic trade, is that we are in business to make information public, not keep it secret. By withholding names of felony victims, we contribute to the same government secrecy that we often accuse public officials of committing.

"You're selling out the public's interest in honesty and openness in government," said Mark Prak, a Raleigh First Amendment lawyer who represents newspapers and broadcast stations. "What's the biggest threat to open government? It's the notion that an individual's privacy should be empowered to limit public debate about issues."

Prak pointed to a recent story in The N&O about a man charged with raping and assaulting his stepdaughter over a period of two years. The story withheld not only the name of the alleged victim, but also that of the accused, because naming the stepfather might identify the child. I have to agree with him: Why bother to run the story?

One answer comes from Kelly McBride, ethics specialist with the Poynter Institute, a professional development center for journalists in St. Petersburg, Fla. She says papers need to find ways to educate the public about a widespread but underreported societal issue. To tell those stories, she said, newspapers should seek out victims willing to have their names used.

But papers should not publish names without the accuser's consent, she said. "The effect of naming that one person could be the five other people who believe they have been sexually assaulted not reporting it to police," said McBride, who has compiled a model policy for newspapers on how to handle sex crimes.

Back to the Duke case. What does The N&O do about naming the accuser when the case concludes?

Scenario one: The case is tried and the students are found guilty. No issue: the accuser remains unidentified.

Scenario two: The accused are exonerated, either because the case is dropped or the students are found not guilty after a trial.

That's a tougher issue, but my call would be to keep the accuser's name confidential. That's consistent with the purpose of assuring potential future victims that they can report a crime without worrying about wider exposure, even if the case goes against them. The justification at that point for naming the accuser is punitive, which is not the business of newspapers.

Is there a scenario in which the accuser should be named? Yes. If a prosecutor brings charges against her for making a false report, in which case she's gone from being accuser to accused. And that's in the public's interest to know. There might be other scenarios as well.

I'm aware there will be disagreement with me on this issue. I welcome your views. Should newspapers as a policy publish names of complainants in sexual assault cases? Should the Duke accuser's name be published, and if so, under what conditions?

Get $150+ in coupons in every Sunday N&O. Click here for convenient home delivery.