So, then you are confirming, it is something with which they are concerned (to whatever extent).

You are missing the entire point, every single step of the way; he was not charged with rape - he was charged with sexual assault. True, rape is rape - but not all sexual assault is rape, based on your own definition of rape (that you have cited from the FBI multiple times, even though I see no indication of any FBI…

Probably because the plague isn't spreading gerbils.

All reputable news outlets are concerned with accuracy and the legalities involved - which is (a big part of) why they have fact-checkers. Legal concerns are always a part of accurate reporting for reputable news outlets.

The guy is being charged with sexual assault, not rape. That is why they use the term "sexual assault" and not "rape". He was not, as you claim, arrested for "rape".

A person is responsible for their own actions. A book is not responsible for the actions of the reader.

It could if he is not alleged to have raped her, which is the case here. He is being charged with sexual assault, not rape. If the paper said that he "allegedly" raped her, they would be making things up - which would open them to lawsuits.

The fact is that the guy is being charged with sexual assault, not rape. The newspaper is reporting the facts. They don't want to say "rape" because he is not being charged with rape.

No, they are reporting on the crime with which he has actually been charged - which is sexual assault. He has not been charged with rape.

He is not (as of the reporting of this story) alleged to have raped her - he is alleged to have sexually assaulted her.

The sole metric for this is the crime with which he is being charged, which is sexual assault - not rape. Why would a newspaper report that someone committed / is being charged with a crime that they are not being charged with? You are literally arguing in support of news outlets making things up and / or embellishing…

IS the FBI involved in this case?

The first Amendment doesn't protect one against claims of defamation, libel, or slander.

As AHindsight explained to you, it comes down to accuracy. The guy is being charged with sexual assault. The accurate term to use would be "sexual assault".

This isn't the issue here at all. The guy is being charged with sexual assault. That is why it is being reported as sexual assault. Isn't accuracy the issue you are so concerned with?

I am not arguing the definition of the word "rape". He is currently being charged with sexual assault. I really don't understand the confusion. "Sexual assault" is not a euphemism for the act with which he is being charged, which is sexual assault.

Criminal charges are typically referred to with the appropriate legal terminology - or at least they should be. Proper legal terminology is not euphemistic when discussing the events that brought about the specific legal charges.

Perfect. Thank you.

As I said, thank you for repeatedly proving my points, over and over again. Care to do so one more time? You are entirely welcome to stop proving them any time you choose to do so.

As I said, thank you for repeatedly proving my points, over and over again. You are entirely welcome to stop proving them any time you choose to do so.