Rape Victim facing fine for naming victims

Tombi!

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

It's pretty obvious what I wrote. there are question marks after both for a reason.

You are the one who keeps goign back to it, I was trying to take you away to somethign moer relevant. Or do you accept that i'm not blaming the victim then and that the post quoted in the post above is wrong?

Listen very carefully: you posted to me in a PM you misread the topic and that the rest of the posts were based on the fact she was assaulted.

SO next fúcking time, stop your bullshítting and say what you mean and don't backtrack and admit you're wrong in private messages and then try to say you were right on the boards.

I'm done talking to you, you're a liar and I won't get brought back down to your level a second time.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Listen very carefully: you posted to me in a PM you misread the topic

Yes.

And that the rest of the posts were based on the fact she was assaulted.

Again yes. If you were right, and I denied assault, this statement could not be correct.

SO next fúcking time, stop your bullshítting and say what you mean and don't backtrack and admit you're wrong in private messages and then try to say you were right on the boards.

I'm done talking to you, you're a liar and I won't get brought back down to your level a second time.

Lying implies reading something correctly, but posting deliberaltly incorrectly. I did not do this. You did. You lied about me accusing the victim.

Chuck Stone

Ryuji_w wrote: »

I don't understand why nobody has mentioned how that girl has now, pretty much allowed those two lads to be judged by everybody who knows them without the trial being finished.

Her abusers plead guilty.

I'm guessing the girl became distressed at being told to not to tell anyone their names.

Dietrich's attorneys want her contempt hearing open to the media, arguing she has a First Amendment right to speak about her case and to a public hearing.

Gregg Leslie, interim executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said Dietrich should "not be legally barred from talking about what happened to her. That's a wide-ranging restraint on speech."

www.abcactionnews.com

It sounds to me that she has accepted the risk of going to jail herself for exposing the identity of those two sex offenders in spite of being told to stay quiet by a judge. Hopefully this will set a precedent that survivors of sexual assault should feel free to name and shame those who sexually assaulted them.

Brave girl. Her parents should be proud of her.

titan18

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Her abusers plead guilty.

I'm guessing the girl became distressed at being told to not to tell anyone their names.



It sounds to me that she has accepted the risk of going to jail herself for exposing the identity of those two sex offenders in spite of being told to stay quiet by a judge. Hopefully this will set a precedent that survivors of sexual assault should feel free to name and shame those who sexually assaulted them.

Brave girl. Her parents should be proud of her.

Hopefully not tbh. These guys havent been convicted yet, whilst they have pled guilty to sexual assault, they haven't been convicted of that or of rape. Fair enough if they're found guilty by law, but no one should take it into their own hands to name someone publicly. Considering, false allegations are made, it could destroy someone who's done nothing.

Chuck Stone

titan18 wrote: »

Hopefully not tbh. These guys havent been convicted yet, whilst they have pled guilty to sexual assault, they haven't been convicted of that or of rape.

They haven't been sentenced yet. It seems to me as if guilt has been established:

The teens are to be sentenced next month, and the judge could reject or modify the terms of the proposed agreement.

Pretty sure sentencing comes after conviction.

Was just digging around and they've dropped their seeking of having her held in contempt.

Defense attorneys for two teen-agers who pleaded guilty to assaulting 17-year-old Savannah Dietrich have withdrawn their motion that she be held in contempt for tweeting the names of her attackers in defiance of a court order.

Source

titan18

Chuck Stone wrote: »

They haven't been sentenced yet. It seems to me as if guilt has been established:



Pretty sure sentencing comes after conviction.

Aye, true. If they've been convicted, they'll have been convicted of sexual assault, and not rape then.

Another thing to consider in this case, is that as they were 16, and whilst I'm not excusing their actions, should that one night, hang over them for the rest of their lives and no allowance for rehabilitation be allowed. They deserve punishment, but chances are as they are juveniles, their names would never have been released, likewise that of the victim. The law should not be taken into one persons hand before the justice system has gone to work, especially in a case involving children

Tombi!

Lads I'm not to sure of the law but wouldn't she still get the names of the two guys spread around by having her friends mention it on Twitter or whatever she was using to tell her story?

titan18

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Lads I'm not to sure of the law but wouldn't she still get the names of the two guys spread around by having her friends mention it on Twitter or whatever she was using to tell her story?

She wasn't allowed talk about the case, so she couldn't talk about with it to her friends either tbf. At least as it was still ongoing anyway

Chuck Stone

titan18 wrote: »

.They deserve punishment, but chances are as they are juveniles, their names would never have been released

Is that fair though? Shouldn't their anonymity be the choice of the victim?

The law should not be taken into one persons hand before the justice system has gone to work, especially in a case involving children

I'm not well versed in US law but I think she has a right to free speech and if she's not slandering anyone (attackers convicted but not yet sentenced) then perhaps the judge is impinging upon her rights by telling her to keep her mouth shut.

Tombi!

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

It's pretty obvious what I wrote. there are question marks after both for a reason.

You are the one who keeps goign back to it, I was trying to take you away to somethign moer relevant. Or do you accept that i'm not blaming the victim then and that this

is wrong?

titan18 wrote: »

She wasn't allowed talk about the case, so she couldn't talk about with it to her friends either tbf. At least as it was still ongoing anyway

Well, no, I get that part. But there were photos and obviously other people where at the party. So that's the dodgy part to me.

What's stop them from spreading "rumours" about who did it to her? (assuming they did actually do things)

titan18

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Is that fair though? Shouldn't their anonymity be the choice of the victim?



I'm not well versed in US law but I think she has a right to free speech and if she's not slandering anyone (attackers convicted but not yet sentenced) then perhaps the judge is impinging upon her rights by telling her not to keep her mouth shut.

Juvenile offenders are protected in the US as far as I'm aware of. Mostly, to allow of a chance at rehabilitation.

Biggins

Chuck Stone wrote: »

...Was just digging around and they've dropped their seeking of having her held in contempt.

The boys lawyers might have assessed that if the girl was persecuted more, she would become an even bigger national figure - and thus they too would get more national (or world?) exposure!

No wonder they might have wanted her not to be penalised more - even if it grudgingly killed them!

Chuck Stone

titan18 wrote: »

Juvenile offenders are protected in the US as far as I'm aware of. Mostly, to allow of a chance at rehabilitation.

I don't see how their being exposed will hinder rehabilitation. The girl's anonymity has been sacrificed by them so they don't deserve it either.

There's the added benefit that this going worldwide will send a message out to other people who might be thinking of sexually assaulting a drunk person i.e. prison and being outed.

Biggins wrote: »

No wonder they might have wanted her not to be penalised more - even if it grudgingly killed them!

Definitely smells like it was motivated by public relations rather than 'charity'.

Nulty

Was it rape or sexual assault ("SE"). By that I'm implying that SE is a lesser form of rape which to my knowledge means penetration. Afaik theres a big difference isn't there, at least from a legal standpoint

Chuck Stone

Nulty wrote: »

Was it rape or sexual assault.

Seems as if it was rape.

Terry O'Neill, president of the National Organization for Women, said the motion to withdraw the contempt of court charge was "a huge victory not only for Ms. Dietrich, but for women all over the country."

"These boys shared the picture of her being raped with their friends and she can't share their names with her Twitter community? That's just crazy," O'Neill said.

huffingtonpost.com

Chris Klein, an attorney for one of the boys, said publicizing their names may create problems for them in the future.

"There's always that possibility and in any type of scenario like this you run that risk," he said. "Now whether both these boys can overcome those hurdles, it's too early to determine that."

huffingtonpost.com

Boo ****ing hoo.

im invisible

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Listen very carefully....

thanked because, well i don't know...

Namlub

Deleted User wrote: »

But we don't know if she was.. They posted the pictures for everyone to see which tells me it was likely stupid drunken behaviour.

I said it sounds like they were stupid. You'd rather call them rapists while we know nothing.. If the judge put a gagging order on it and didn't put them on the sex offenders list, I'm gonna assume it was wasn't rape.

And wtf. Men are never ever excused. One allegation and their life's over.

Yeah, there's never been one not guilty verdict in any rape case that has ever taken place...

MagicSean

Namlub wrote: »

Yeah, there's never been one not guilty verdict in any rape case that has ever taken place...

Not guilty is not the same as innocent.

billybudd

Alot of morans in this thread, fact is even if one drinks too much they still have a right not to be raped or sexually assaulted or for anything to be done to them that harms them mentaly or physically.

She spoke out about two low lifes who have been convicted in a court of law, a court of law that tried to protect them on the basis of age and the potential to rehabilitate, the message that should be sent out is that if you rape/sexually assault another person and are found guilty regardless of age or circumstances these actions will be highlighted and have far and endless consequences to those individuals who have been found guilty.

Far too often a victim of SA/Rape is the one left to feel abandoned.

allibastor

its mad, they not only pled guilty to rape of her, taking photos of her, but also circulating pictures of someone under 18 in un-dress. i know if this happened anywhere except the highly intelligent states the guys would be down in a cell with big black bubba asking them to pick up the soap. Just shows what stupidity there is out there in the law.

I say we should revert to some form of biblical justice.

Duggy747

Chris Klein, an attorney for one of the boys, said publicizing their names may create problems for them in the future.

Hmmmm, yes, and the thought of doing this to the girl and sharing pictures of her was never going to have an impact on their lives.................that is, if they didn't get caught / their names weren't revealed.

Sharing a person's name based on an allegation can be damaging if it's open to abuse, especially if it turns out the person is not guilty.

But, considering these fùckers were guilty, that girl had every right to name and shame them. Regardless of what the judge said.

smash

She was 16... and they took pics and sent them to people. So apart from rape, they should get done for distribution of child pornography.