The Social Media Mob Came for Everyone in the Cornell Case This New York Times article, like much of the media coverage surrounding the Cornell sexual assault allegations, focuses primarily on Jane Doe and the harassment she's experienced. But she's not the only person caught in the social media firestorm. I don't think anyone involved in a high-profile case should be threatened, swatted, doxxed, or harassed. These are allegations that have not been proven in a court of law, and no one has been convicted. I also don't think it should surprise anyone that some people question the fairness of one side remaining anonymous while the other is publicly identified, particularly given the stigma that follows a rape allegation. And in today's world of internet sleuths and social media, protecting someone's anonymity becomes increasingly difficult once a case attracts national attention. I understand there are legal reasons for allowing plaintiffs to proceed anonymously in certain circumstances while requiring defendants to be identified. Public identification of defendants can help other potential witnesses or alleged victims come forward with relevant information. But doesn't that raise an interesting question? Wouldn't identifying an accuser potentially serve a similar purpose for the defense? What if someone has information about the accuser's prior interactions with the defendants? What if a witness knows something relevant to the allegations, the timeline, or the credibility of a particular account? Of course, there are legitimate privacy and safety considerations, especially in sexual assault cases. And protecting an accuser's identity from the public doesn't necessarily prevent the defense from investigating or identifying relevant witnesses. But I think the competing interests deserve discussion. Ultimately, though, the bigger issue isn't whose identity becomes public. It's why so many people believe they're entitled to threaten, harass, or punish someone based on allegations before the evidence has even been tested in court. We've become far too comfortable turning high-profile cases into public trials on social media. And the mob doesn't seem particularly concerned with which side it's attacking.