A woman barred from using the words “rape,” “victim” and other terms in court says her lawsuit is a groundbreaking case needed to stop a growing national trend of muzzling victims.

The accuser and her attorneys also said in a court filing Tuesday they simply want what they say Nebraska courts haven’t given: a proper review of whether Tory Bowen’s free-speech rights have been violated.

“This case stands in the eye of a perfect legal storm in terms of offering a unique opportunity to resolve an important … legal controversy,” according to the filing.

Bowen, 24, filed a complaint Sept. 6 against Lancaster County District Judge Jeffre Cheuvront, saying he violated her free speech rights by barring words including “rape,” “victim” and “assailant” from the trial of Pamir Safi.

Safi, 34, was charged with first-degree sexual assault. Safi says he and Bowen had consensual sex in October 2004. Bowen, a former student at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln who lives in Washington, D.C., says she was too intoxicated to give consent and that Safi knew it.

Cheuvront refused to comment on Bowen’s complaint Tuesday through his bailiff.

Safi’s case has twice ended in a mistrial, the last time this summer. Cheuvront said pretrial publicity he blamed on Bowen made it impossible to impanel an impartial jury.

Another trial is expected, possibly late this year.

Bowen’s filing Tuesday is a response to a federal judge who expressed doubts about whether the lawsuit “has any legal basis whatsoever.”

U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf said sanctions were possible if Bowen failed to show why her lawsuit against Cheuvront isn’t frivolous.

The Associated Press usually does not identify accusers in sex-assault cases, but Bowen has allowed her name to be used publicly because of the issue over the judge’s language restrictions.

Kopf said in his order earlier this month that he was concerned that the purpose of Bowen’s lawsuit against Cheuvront was to force him to recuse himself from her case. And, he said, “there is something profoundly disturbing about the notion that a federal judge has the power to tell a state judge how to do his job.”

Bowen and her attorneys responded that they aren’t trying to remove Cheuvront from the case, nor are they trying to harass him.

“Instead, the case history reveals that the plaintiff has twice previously sought appropriate review of her constitutional claims not only without success but also without any meaningful review of her federal constitutional rights,” the filing says.

Her attorneys say similar language bans are a growing problem and aren’t being reviewed by state courts, making federal guidance necessary.