8 ms·
Kentucky teen faces charge for naming attackers in tweets
- janaboruta 14y agoBrave girl.
- boboblong 14y agoNo. Irresponsible, immature child.
- tatsuke95 14y agoIf these guys wanted their reputations intact, maybe they shouldn't have sexually assaulted an incapacitated minor.
- vacri 14y agoYou're implying that they're not minors themselves.
- RobotCaleb 14y agoOther than the part where we don't typically release the names of minors, what's your point?
- vacri 14y agoSo we're engaging in the double-standard where minors make superior victims for the tabloids due to their immature status, but as perpetrators we're willing to try them as adults? The fact that minors have greater legal protection isn't because they're cute little kiddies, but because it's generally accepted that their decision-making isn't as mature. You get a bit more leeway for bad decisions when you're young - hell, in my state, people under 10 years of age simply cannot be tried for murder. Given your combative 'screw them even if they're minors' tone, would you really support trying minors as adults?
- tatsuke95 14y agoI don't believe in an invisible line of maturity at 18 years old, no. If it were up to me, I'd decide it case by case, not by some blanket law. But that's pretty unmanageable. These were not kids. They were 17, committed a serious crime then bragged about it. Then they got their names mentioned in public by a victim who feels like this destroyed a part of her youth. I feel no pity that she may have found a way to return the favour.
- vacri 14y agoSo if 17 isn't a minor in your eyes, what's the point of referring to it as a crime against a minor, since the victim was also 17? The point I'm making is that the guy I was responding to was trying to have his cake and eat it too.
- recursive 14y agoHow so?
- vacri 14y agoIt's phrased such that the victim is painted as a minor, and therefore less able to make mature decisions, but no such leeway is given to the perpetrators - implying that they're not minors.
- chrischen 14y agoNo one said those guys weren't irresponsible and immature as well.
- baddox 14y agoNot mutually exclusive.
- MisterMerkin 14y agoI'm not sure why you're being downvoted. It's pretty much spot on.
- boboblong 14y agoI knew the comment would get downvoted. I just hope I don't get arrested. After all, I just comment-raped everyone who had to read what I wrote. Of course, I'd just get bailed out by my connects high up in the Patriarchy. There's nothing you haters can do to bring us down--long live Rape Culture! Muahahahaha.
- adharmad 14y agoDo you have any idea of the trauma and agony the poor child must be going through? Admittedly I do not know anything more about the case other than the link, but to call her irresponsible and immature is insensitive to say the least.
- boboblong 14y ago"Do you have any idea of the trauma and agony the poor child must be going through?" Probably not that much, really. She was "sexually assaulted" while she was passed out drunk at a party. She wasn't raped. She probably didn't experience anything during the assault and wasn't injured or infected with an STD. She probably didn't even know it happened until the pictures surfaced. If she's passed out in the pictures, then they shouldn't ruin her life or cause her much distress, because they only prove that she got drunk at a party and that some idiots groped her. If she doesn't appear to be passed out in the pictures, then she probably just regrets slutting it up. I'm quite serious: the "trauma and agony" that she "must" be going through is probably mostly a product of her overdramatic imagination. And before you accuse me of "minimizing" or "victim-blaming", I'm not blaming her for what happened, I'm just saying that it wasn't that big a deal. So I suppose I'm minimizing, but only relative to your dramatizing.
- othermaciej 14y agoI don't think anything about her actions here is irresponsible or immature. Resisting an unconstitutional prior restraint on free speech is a worthy and responsible action. As is publicly shaming the perpetrators of a crime who try to hide behind the legal system.
- ixacto 14y agoI think the kids deserve some free pizza courtesy of 4chan...
- jtreminio 14y agoThis is childish, stupid and hurts nobody but the pizza stores.
- patrickod 14y agoWhat did they boys gain from the plea agreement? Were they facing more severe charges? Did they managed to not have their names entered on the sex offenders register?
- delinka 14y agoI'd think it's safe to say the accused are guilty. If you're not going to allow the public the opportunity to see that justice is served... This gets me fuming mad! I say let the girl speak and if the judge insists she serve 180 days and pay a $500 fine, I'll send the money myself and offer her a job when she gets out. Hide the sentence from the public and protect their identities my ass. They were the attackers.
- namank 14y agoThis is my biggest problem with the legal system; it is centralized around the mechanics of the society, not the mechanics of being human.
- ajross 14y agoIt's a juvenile case. The courts have never allowed the public to the opportunity to see that justice is served.
- delinka 14y agoBut that's for the protection of victims.
- ori_b 14y agoIn violation of a court order. This shouldn't come as a surprise. Regardless of whether she's right or wrong, this is a decision where the price was clear. It was her choice to pay it.
- heretohelp 14y agoWhy is there always a comment from the legal fatalism gallery in every HN thread like this? Can we not strive for victim's rights or for more human policy-making? Beyond that, it's annoying, obvious, and contributes nothing.
- overcyn 14y agosomeone who has a different opinion than you "annoying, obvious, contributes nothing"
- heretohelp 14y agoIt's annoying, obvious, and contributes nothing because: 1. Any state actions that promotes the current legal hegemony is inevitable, making a comment noting the fatalism inherent in taking an action (principled or not) that could trigger blowback from this legal hegemony is by definition obvious. 2. It's annoying because it doesn't say anything that isn't already evident from a passing understanding of the power dynamics of western society, especially as it relates to the courts. You don't need to say something emphasizing the power of the judicial system to ruin your life...we know that already. 3. And it contributes nothing because such comments rarely go beyond capitalizing on the opportunity to be snarky, doing nothing to describe the ethics of the situation or how the system could be improved.
- overcyn 14y agoI guess I read his comment differently. "regardless of whether she's right or wrong" about the crimes/identities of the attacker. Rather than regardless of whether she's in the right/wrong for posting their names.
- bradleyjg 14y agoI'm annoyed that no one is reprinting the names. If she's going to do the time she at least deserves that satisfaction, and the gag order doesn't apply to anyone not a party to the case.
- adharmad 14y agoThis is the sort of thing that is ripe for the Streisand effect.
- Dylan16807 14y agoI had assumed it would be easy to find. But I went to her twitter and it's now private. I'm baffled.
- bradleyjg 14y agoThe attackers names are apparently Will Frey III and Austin Zehnder, Sophmore lacrosse players attending the Trinity High School in Lexington, KY. Pics here: http://www.bluegrassbats.com/5715.html http://www.bluegrassbats.com/5715.html
- extension 14y agoSo, if you want to cover up something bad you've done, just make sure you get charged with a crime, and the court will protect you? Strange system.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- yock 14y agoHow is it that a victim, who had no involvement in the agreement reached, be bound by said agreement? This seems a significant failing of the justice system.
- ajross 14y agoBecause it's not a contract, it's a court order.
- recursive 14y agoThe thing that's bothering people is that it's a court order that limits the rights of the victim. If I lose my wallet and someone finds and returns it to me, I am free to publicly name and thank them. It seems wrong that if I am sexually assaulted instead, there is a court order preventing from doing the same thing, gagging me about my own (unwilling) experience. I'm sure there's plenty of legal precedence for this kind of thing. I don't know much about law. But I'm not talking about the legal basis for the argument. I'm talking about how wrong the conclusion seems based on the human factors.
- Locke1689 14y agoIn what civilized society are criminals tried, convicted, and executed on the basis of public opinion? I'm not saying that this particular case is worthy of a gag order, but the theoretical justification seems completely sound to me. I also find your appeal to "human factors" to be rather vague. Human factors often include things like blind rage and thirst for vengeance. These are not things to build a legal system (or really, a society) on.
- Dylan16807 14y agoDon't be so hyperbolic. We're talking about blame, not execution, not any kind of punishment. And aren't they already convicted by the court system?
- 14y ago
- rdl 14y agohttps://twitter.com/savymarie_ https://twitter.com/savymarie_ is her twitter account, but it seems to be protected.
- omgsean 14y agoWhy is this on Hacker News? Because Twitter is tangentially involved?
- capitao 14y agoYeah we should get back to more important stuff like, why vim is so much better than textmate :p I feel like hn articles are more an expression of the community's interests than centered around a specific set of topics. Kinda the vibe I've always got anyways.
- latch 14y agoI have very strong feelings both ways about this. On the one hand, I believe in severe punishment for violent crimes and generally dislike juvenile protection for teenagers. Additionally, it isn't clear to me how broad the gag order was, but she should certainly be allowed to talk about what happened to her (though, if you agree with juvenile protection, I could see a gag order on anything which identifies them). On the other hand, justice isn't only meant to serve the interest of the victim - which is something easily forgotten (which is why victims don't dictate the punishment!). What sentence best serves their rehabilitation? What best protects the public? What is an appropriate deterrent (gag order seems to kill that side of it). It's complex, yet easy to get caught up by emotion and suggest that they themselves should first be sexually assaulted, then executed. I guess I'm trying to say that we don't know nearly enough about the case to have a valid objective opinion and even if we knew enough, most of us (myself included), don't know nearly enough about law, psychology and sociology to have an objective opinion.
- Dylan16807 14y agoYes, you have to carefully consider what is best, but I think public shaming is an appropriate part of punishing something like assault.
- briandear 14y agoRegardless, the victim has a Constitutionally protected right to speech. The purpose of gag orders is to protect the 6th Amendment rights of defendants. However, if those defendants are already convicted (which, in this case they are,) and an appeal is unlikely (they pled guilty) then the 6th Amendment purpose of the order is nullified. As a result, a post-trial gag order is going to be exceptionally hard to justify because of 1st Amendment grounds. Nebraska Press v. Stuart (1976) overturned a judge's gag order against the press. The entire point of a gag order or "protective order" is to protect the 6th Amendment rights of the defendant. The Supreme Court and Appeals Courts are clear in this regard. The point is, this girl should take this case to Federal Appeals Court -- she'd win because the judge has no Constitutional leg to stand on, especially since this is post trial/conviction. She should have a right to speak about her experiences wherever and to whomever she pleases. Her right to speak cannot be infringed if there is no underlying Constitutional conflict (i.e. right to a fair trial, etc.)
- mikescar 14y agoHow is it that only the girl's name is released and published in the article? Seems like if the two guys pleaded guilty, we should know all of the parties involved.
- ars 14y agoI quote from the article: "The Associated Press does not normally report the names of sexual assault victims, but Dietrich and her parents say they do not want to shield her identity and want her case to be public." The the AP is still bound the court order and probably can not name the perpetrators.
- DrJ 14y agosomeone start a kickstarter for this girl.
- tomp 14y agoWhat an ironic case... They fucked (raped) her, took photos, and shared them with other people. She can't talk about any of this with other people. The justice system baffles me.
- hermannj314 14y agoThe girl should have the power to ruin the lives of these boys. If they get a job, she should be able to send a letter to the all their coworkers describing what they did to her. When they enroll in college, she ought to be able to take an ad out in their college newspaper. If they are on Facebook, she ought to be able to take out ads targeting women in the cities where these men live. She is in possession of the truth and nothing should hinder her right to communicate that truth, up to the point of publicly shaming these men into suicide. I'm not saying she has these rights, I'm just saying she ought to. The truth is not something that should be silenced, even if that means that a few upper-class rapists from the South might not get the life their parents tried to buy.
- lotharbot 14y ago> "The girl should have the power to ruin the lives of these boys." The danger with granting such power is that you also risk granting it in situations where it isn't deserved.
- boboblong 14y agoThat would be harassment and stalking. One of the purposes of the justice system is to prevent people like you from taking revenge and holding grudges forever. Yes, the boys probably got off light. No, we shouldn't promote vigilantism every time the justice system leads to a questionable outcome.
- othermaciej 14y agoOne of the nation's top First Amendment scholars thinks the court order is unconstitutional, likely to the point of being "transparently invalid": http://www.volokh.com/2012/07/22/the-dark-side-of-privacy/ http://www.volokh.com/2012/07/22/the-dark-side-of-privacy/ While it would have been better for her to appeal the order first instead of just violating it, it's almost certain this judge will be benchslapped on appeal.