In a terrible Judd Nelson movie (with the exception of The Breakfast Club, is there any other kind?), From the Hip, Nelson’s character, Stormy Weathers argues with a judge regarding calling a witness “an asshole.” After a hilarious side bar, the judge allows the insult because no other word has quite the same subtle shadings of the word. The scene carried humor because it was happily divorced from reality. The scene might not be so funny today. In a surprising moment of candor, Ms. Lithwick admits that the politically correct crowd bears responsibility for the purging of ugly words from America’s lexicon without making any discernable change to the thinking behind them. Rape has clear denotations and connotations as do the words sex and intercourse. With all due respect to Ms. Dworkin and her ilk, most men have had sex and performed the act of intercourse, and only a small percentage of men have committed rape. Those who commit this sick and violent act are to be prosecuted to the full extent the law allows; if judges make the word rape the violence that dare not speak its name, the victim is victimized again -- she has had her sanctity violated by the rapist and her tongue removed by the court.

This post is silly, and wrong. No one is taking anyone's tongue. Courts have an obligation to ensure fair trials and this includes the obligation to bar evidence whose prejudicial effect outweighs it probative value.

If the impartial jury determines the defendant is guilty of the crime charged, she will get the satisfaction of hearing the word "rape" when they read their verdict. She will be able to go shout from the rooftops, "I was raped" with no fear of a slander suit.

The problem with your post is, it assumes the defendant is guilty.
I am curious if you even entertain the possibility that the complainant is lying, that she is pursuing the case out of vindictiveness or regret, and that the defendant is truly innocent. Any feeling for the defendant who has been falsely accused of this heinous crime? Or would we all be better off if we just took her word for it and threw him in jail without a fair trial, based on her accusation?

The court is, figuratively speaking, taking the accuser’s tongue. The accuser believes she (since most rape victims are female, I will use the feminine pronoun) has been raped. She is not lying when she states she has been raped; the probability of the factual nature of her claims are subject to the rules of evidence, but she is neither slandering or libeling the accused as long as she has brought charges in good faith. The presumption of innocence remains with the defendant; the defense lawyer can object to any terms that are so prejudicial as to unfairly sway the jury, but to censor the trial before it has begun may very well handicap the DA and reduce the victim’s change at justice.

You write, “If the impartial jury determines the defendant is guilty of the crime charged, she will get the satisfaction of hearing the word ‘rape’ when they read their verdict. She will be able to go shout from the rooftops, ‘I was raped" with no fear of a slander suit.’” This statement implies that the reason a woman brings charges of rape is vengeance. Do you not allow that the accuser is seeking justice for herself and protection of others who might be harmed if the accused was not prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law? A few women are willing to stand up and let the world know that they have been raped, but most would prefer the actions never happened and wish that no one else ever suffer similarly. Truth and lies are best observed when the lights are on. Let the judges allow for everyone involved to speak his truth, and then the jury can do its job.