A former college student in Colorado who alleged he was “cancelled” after fellow students heard allegations that he sexually abused a romantic partner may not shield his identity from the public as he sues his accuser for defamation, a federal judge ruled last month.

“John Doe,” who filed suit in May, sought anonymity in order to prevent “reputational harm” from being associated with the defendant’s alleged lies about his treatment of her. The defendant, “Jane Roe,” opposed Doe’s request, saying she wanted the parties’ names public to draw attention to the plight of sex assault survivors.

On July 17, U.S. District Court Judge Nina Y. Wang agreed that anonymity is permitted in rare circumstances, but Doe’s defamation lawsuit was not one of those.

“Judges have a responsibility to avoid secrecy in court proceedings because ‘secret court proceedings are anathema to a free society,'” she wrote. To that end, “libel cases concerning sexual assault are routinely brought in plaintiffs’ own names.”

In his lawsuit, Doe alleged he and Roe were students at Tulane University in Louisiana in 2020-2021. They dated and had sexual contact throughout that time. When they broke up, Roe requested a restraining order from the local courts, and both parties became subject to no-contact directives from Tulane.

Doe transferred to Front Range Community College, with the intention of enrolling at the University of Colorado in Boulder.

After he applied to become a member of a CU fraternity and paid his dues, Roe allegedly sent text messages to the fraternity’s leaders. She falsely claimed Doe was “kicked out of Tulane,” that he “sexually assaulted and raped” her, and he was “a threat to every woman’s safety” at CU.

“The college friends he had made over the previous six weeks ‘cancelled him’ – disallowing him from spending any time with them or at the fraternity. They refused to return his deposit paid a couple of days earlier,” wrote Laura Menninger, an attorney for Doe.

Doe sued Roe for defamation, alleging her claims that Doe raped her and Roe’s misrepresentation of why he left Tulane were untrue and damaging.

Doe requested that Wang continue to shield the parties’ identities, alleging there was “not a strong public interest” in knowing who they are. Roe disagreed.

“Whatever the ultimate disposition of this case, the public has a keen interest in its subject matter, including in examining the use of litigation by perpetrators of sexual assault to curtail the #MeToo movement and to silence speech about sexual misconduct that has proven so critical in changing norms that have for far too long allowed sexual abuse to continue unabated,” her lawyers wrote.

In an unusual move, UCLA School of Law Professor Eugene Volokh inserted himself into the debate, filing an objection to Doe’s request. Volokh, who writes about First Amendment issues and is currently suing New York over a hate speech law, argued he should have access to information about the parties. Criminal defendants would doubtless desire anonymity in their own cases, he added, but they must appear publicly.

“Jane Roe’s speech may be punished if it is knowingly or recklessly false – but the public is entitled to supervise the proceedings so it can be confident that the correct result has been reached,” he wrote.

Wang sided against Doe. She noted Doe “appears to overstate the likelihood of physical harm” if his name were made public. Even if students at CU Boulder bullied him after they heard the allegations, Doe no longer attends school in Colorado.

If Doe were to win his lawsuit, Wang continued, he would “likely want to publicize his own name.” Therefore, it would be unfair for Doe to receive anonymity during the proceedings, only to broadcast his victory at the end of the case.

Wang ordered the parties to file documents with Doe and Roe’s real names, which she will release at an unspecified time.

The case is Doe v. Roe.