So, you disagree with fact? Got it.

"...making it clear that any photos not posted with the consent of the subject will be removed." - This statement is highly inaccurate, as written.

Let's address this part you went back and edited out of your comment (Convenient!), shall we?:

..And here's the thing with journalism and news reporting: semantics are important. Crucial, even.

The Washington Post article is the one with the obvious inconsistencies to which I was referring, as I pointed out to you (with quotes) in my first response after you posted it as "proof" that there was penetration (which is required for an act to be considered rape, according to the definition that you use). Try to…

"If he didn't rape her, what did he do? "Sexually assaulted" her in every way possible BUT rape?" - As far as we know, he (sexually) assaulted her somehow - thus the assault charge - but has not been charged with rape. That you prefer to make assumptions (again, citing the definition of rape that you use and of which…

Dunno - are gerbils available in a spreadable form...?

"the Daily Fail" - I think we both know why you call it that. Also - that was posted today, so it was not available at the time when this story was posted.

It is referencing what he did, based on the accusation and his confession - which is committing sexual assault. Sexual assault is also what he has been charged with. The headline of the source article is "Prosecutors: UIC student charged with assault said he was re-enacting 'Fifty Shades of Grey'". "Sexual assault" is…

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…