6 ms·
> “Um, I’m at a house,” [NAME] said, with hesitation, giving a [STREET NAME] address in [CITY]. This should NOT have been publicized. There is enough informati
by dheera 5y ago
> “Um, I’m at a house,” [NAME] said, with hesitation, giving a [STREET NAME] address in [CITY].
This should NOT have been publicized. There is enough information in the above sentence that I was able to Google for her exact address. This is a gross danger to violence victims.
- imglorp 5y agoThis was an ok amount of anonymity under Old School journalism with paper phonebooks but not after the internet. Seems they need to update their standards.
- jdavis703 5y agoThe other solution seems to be endangering the general public by opening the courts in a pandemic or to start having secret courts. Neither are particularly compelling. Far less people were assaulted in the US than died of coronavirus, and even fewer were assaulted for witness intimidation. And a secret court is obviously bad for a rules based democracy.
- dheera 5y agoIt needn't be one or the other. You can have remote trials but just don't put personal information in records, and prohibit unauthorized recording. Have one official recording that redacts personal addresses and contact information.
- djbebs 5y agoNo parr of the justice system should be hidden from view. If its too dangerous to be made public, its not important enough to be used.
- dheera 5y agoI disagree. I strongly think the justice system should be first and foremost protecting victims and not exposing them to more harm. That would encourage victims to not bring wrongdoings to trial in fear of their personal info being exposed. If someone is convicted, then yeah, go ahead and put them on a sex offender registry with their address. Loss of privacy is a consequence of their actions. That's justice. But goddamn no don't put the victim's address in public view.
- jdavis703 5y agoEveryone should be treated equally in the court. A court that prioritizes the victim is barely batter than having a system based on vigilante justice.
- dheera 5y agoWell yes, so you start out by not publishing either party's address. If and when someone is convicted as a sex offender, it's reasonable to publish their address at that point, and continue to protect the victim's identity.
- Hackwar 5y agoYou can censor live events for nuisances like strong language or nudity, but you can't protect the privacy of victims? You would be absolutely astonished, how many women are intimidated/assaulted each year. The infection rates of covid pale against that.
- jdavis703 5y agoRoughly 300,000 people were assaulted in 2019 (last year of uniform crime stats from the FBI). The annualized amount of COVID-19 death is about 400,000.
- wjko21 5y agoI'm not sure why is it that you only mention "women" here, are you implying men are never assaulted?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- leephillips 5y agoTranscripts are already public information. The accused obviously already knows where she lives. How does this affect her security? Even if we could keep the identity of witnesses secret, we don’t want to. We have the right to confront our accusers, and we don’t want secret trials.
- dheera 5y agoIt allows more people to go and attack her, and opens the door to much more violence in the future. Now instead of 1 predator knowing where she lives there are a million. Is that good? Transcripts should redact addresses and contact information.
- jaywalk 5y agoYour thought process is wild. I honestly cannot see where you're coming from.
- Isthatablackgsd 5y agoI am not sure if you are that sheltered. It is within the realm of possibility, it would be possible to believe that humankind are collected and knowing their boundaries. Until recently (last year or pre-pandemic) it become transparent that we are, in fact, stupid. The thought process is valid because it is possible for that to happen. This thought process will be very outlandish 10 years ago which I can agree with you. But now... it is not impossible to think it can happens.
- dylan604 5y agoDid you see where a GitHub project was forked, and the maintainer of the fork had people at his place of residence threatening physical violence? This shit sounds made up, but craycray is rampant on the internet.
- leephillips 5y agoI’m baffled, myself. Everyone lives somewhere. I don’t see how knowing someone’s address creates a hazard from random people. If a lunatic wants to assault someone he can kick in a random door. In the case of someone, say, testifying against the mob or against a violent person who doesn’t already know where she lives, sure.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- radu_floricica 5y agoThere's always a price when you censor something. There's also always a price when you regulate something, too. In this particular case, the likely attacker was literally in the same house, so there's not a lot of argument to be made that the extra burden of censoring would add a similar or greater gain.