Kentucky teen faces charge for naming attackers in tweets

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Kentucky-teen-faces-charge-for-naming-attackers-3724973.php

by iProject • 14 years ago

78 96 14 years ago

sfgate.com

janaboruta• 14 years ago

Brave girl.

boboblong6• 14 years ago

No. Irresponsible, immature child.

tatsuke953• 14 years ago

If these guys wanted their reputations intact, maybe they shouldn't have sexually assaulted an incapacitated minor.

baddox• 14 years ago

Not mutually exclusive.

MisterMerkin• 14 years ago

I'm not sure why you're being downvoted. It's pretty much spot on.

adharmad2• 14 years ago

Do 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.

othermaciej2• 14 years ago

I 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• 14 years ago

I think the kids deserve some free pizza courtesy of 4chan...

jtreminio• 14 years ago

This is childish, stupid and hurts nobody but the pizza stores.

dlss• 14 years ago

To be fair, I'm sure like all costs the pizza stores ultimately pass them on to their customers.

patrickod• 14 years ago

What 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?

delinka3• 14 years ago

I'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• 14 years ago

This is my biggest problem with the legal system; it is centralized around the mechanics of the society, not the mechanics of being human.

ajross2• 14 years ago

It's a juvenile case. The courts have never allowed the public to the opportunity to see that justice is served.

delinka3• 14 years ago

But that's for the protection of victims.

ori_b2• 14 years ago

In 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.

heretohelp3• 14 years ago

Why 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.

overcyn2• 14 years ago

    someone who has a different opinion than you

"annoying, obvious, contributes nothing"

Danieru• 14 years ago

Naming people on the internet in regards to sexual crimes is dangerous. I understand the frustration of her and her family and I cannot say she was wrong to make the injustice public.

With that said, this is not a clear cut issue. I hope grace prevails and we do not attempt to ruin the boys lives in pursuit of vengeance. This is not something a mad internet does very well and would be a justifiable reason for the court to ban publication.

codex• 14 years ago

Legal fatalism is one of the few responsible comments one can make about a case like this. We don'k know much about the case--the facts are sealed, and we have no context--and I'm not willing to second guess a judge based on one sided, incomplete, inflammatory comments leaked by an angry first-party. But by all means, pass judgement and cast the first stone yourselves. It wouldn't be the first time vigilante justice has been performed.

mikescar6• 14 years ago

Victim's rights? More human policy-making? I wish.

Apparently not, guess the GP must be right and the victim got what was coming to her.

It's insane how detached we've become from the real world. Arguing about patents and iOS vs Android and open source. Two people pled guilty to a rape, within a court that we all pay for, and somehow there's a random smart-ass that wants to sound smart with the legal fatalism angle on this.

chris_wot2• 14 years ago

If it's violating her first amendment rights, then the court order is in violation of the first amendment!

boboblong6• 14 years ago

Courts issue gag orders all the time and have done so for centuries. They can be constitutional.

recursive3• 14 years ago

    this is a decision where the price was clear

I think people are talking about whether the price was appropriate and warranted.

ori_b2• 14 years ago

My point is that she knew what it was beforehand. She did a cost benefit analysis, and decided she was willing to pay it.

bradleyjg2• 14 years ago

I'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.

adharmad2• 14 years ago

This is the sort of thing that is ripe for the Streisand effect.

Dylan168074• 14 years ago

I had assumed it would be easy to find. But I went to her twitter and it's now private. I'm baffled.

bradleyjg2• 14 years ago

The 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

extension• 14 years ago

So, 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.

yock• 14 years ago

How 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.

ajross2• 14 years ago

Because it's not a contract, it's a court order.

recursive3• 14 years ago

The 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.

rdl• 14 years ago

https://twitter.com/savymarie_ is her twitter account, but it seems to be protected.

omgsean• 14 years ago

Why is this on Hacker News? Because Twitter is tangentially involved?

capitao2• 14 years ago

Yeah 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.

latch2• 14 years ago

I 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.

Dylan168074• 14 years ago

Yes, you have to carefully consider what is best, but I think public shaming is an appropriate part of punishing something like assault.

briandear2• 14 years ago

Regardless, 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.)

nl3• 14 years ago

My understanding is that constitutional rights of minors are not as absolute as adults.

latch2• 14 years ago

Quick googling and you seem to be right that this would likely not be enforceable (gag orders against reporters have not held up _during trial_...even for youths). If the media has the right to disclose the name of the accused, surely the victim has the right to disclose the name of the guilty.

I think my main point still stands. Her view on appropriate punishment is only a part (I'd argue a small part), of the overall consideration.

If we look beyond the gag order and her constitutional rights, I can play the devil's advocate and say that juvenile delinquents deserve special consideration. Should the poor/horrible decisions of a child/teen ruin their life for good? Or should they get a second chance? 10 years from now a potential employer might Google their names and decide not to hire them because of this. I'm not sure that's justice.

vacri6• 14 years ago

It's complex, yet easy to get caught up by emotion and suggest that they themselves should first be sexually assaulted, then executed.

People who advocate eye-for-an-eye (or in this case more-than-an-eye-for-an-eye) should be kept well away from the judicial process. The legal process should be about improving and protecting society, not simple visceral revenge.

The law institute in my state did a study where they found that when they polled the public and gave them details of the cases, the public actually suggested shorter sentences than were assigned. A far cry from the short-sighted 'hang-em-high' knee-jerking you see in tabloids.

Anyway, do we want a society that when you stumble, helps you back on track, or one that says 'fuck you' and kicks you in the face? People actually advocated those visceral punishments need to be called out on it, because they don't contribute anything useful and need to understand what it is they're actually saying.

FJim2• 14 years ago

While I agree with your larger point, that retribution (and worse) is not justice, I wouldn't put too much weight on the study you mention.

It's extraordinarily difficult to 'give details' in a completely neutral frame. Without knowing the details of the study, its hard to say more. It seems likely to me that they probably found what they were looking for.

rprasad• 14 years ago

It was a combination of the (1) court order and (2) the juvenile court proceedings combined that appear to give grounds for charging the victim with revealing her attackers' names.

Juvenile court proceedings are confidential in every state. Witnesses (including victims) who appear in juvenile proceedings are informed that the names of all juveniles party to the case must remain confidential. This is both to protect the juveniles involved (victim, defendants, and witnesses) and to prevent their immature acts of youth from haunting them as adults (assuming no recidivism as an adult).

mikescar6• 14 years ago

How 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• 14 years ago

I 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• 14 years ago

someone start a kickstarter for this girl.

tomp2• 14 years ago

What 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.

boboblong6• 14 years ago

The article didn't say that she was raped. The boys were charged with first degree sexual abuse.

tomp2• 14 years ago

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought that's just legal-speak for rape. What does it mean, really?

hermannj314• 14 years ago

The 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.

lotharbot2• 14 years 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.

boboblong6• 14 years ago

That 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.

othermaciej2• 14 years ago

One 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/

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.

Kentucky teen faces charge for naming attackers in tweets

Related Stories