Ky. teen facing jail for naming sexual assault attackers

How is this not a First Amendment issue as well? You're telling me Kentuckuy Juvie court has the power of prior restraint to restrict speech?

 

Yes, courts have that power.

 

I would like to see that challenged, but perhaps not until Scalia is on a permanent fishing vacation.

 

I realize I sound like a tool here as clearly courts can gag people, but this is a clear instance where the victim's rights are taking a backseat to the rights of the guilty.

 

There must be something to sue for ... Wouldn't surprise me to find that there's little in the way of net worth (or insurance) behind the assailants.

 

This whole thing is f—ing ridiculous.

Because I'm one of those young guys who like the Twitter, I've started a #freesavannah hashtag, if anyone's interested. Well, I actually don't know if I started it. I didn't check before I tweeted it out, so maybe someone already did. But anyway, that doesn't matter—point is, I'm just putting this out there as a way to help the poor girl. Hashtag #freesavannah with this link to the petition: http://www.change.org/petitions/judge-deana-dee-mcdonald-louisville-ky-drop-charges-against-savannah-dietrich?utm_campaign=petition_page&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=share_petition.

Here's a bit.ly version: chn.ge/Oi68vY

Or you can just retweet my original tweet, which includes the news story about it: https://twitter.com/brandonsneed/status/227185029560795136

I rarely feel this compelled to take some sort of action, but this has moved me.

Anyway, forgive the earnestness. Every once in awhile I just like to try to do my part to make the world a little better.

Carry on.

 

THIS ...
I have dealt with this situation before.
Juvey records are sealed. They can sue her and she can't prove anything, because it's all sealed.
Again, it sucks. But it is what it is.

 

No. She could still be sued. For slander or libel, depending on the medium. She would be accusing them of sexual assualt.

 

Then the boys would be able to sue her for slander. She'd be making an accusation without proof.

By it getting in the court system, as Smash pointed out, they can sue her for invasion of privacy. Which is ironic, in that she could sue them for the same thing, as well as for everything else they did to her. Which would then be a case of "Wah, wah, she invaded our privacy," vs. "These assholes raped me and photographed it."

 

The photos of her assault were put in the public domain by the boys sharing them with their friends.

How, in a civil case, could her lawyer not produce these photos and ask the boys, "So, guys, what were you doing here?" Without even referencing the arrest.

 

Then it would be libel/slander I would imagine, the same way newspapers can be sued for libel if they write that someone committed a crime they were never tried and found guilty for.

And as far as the victim's vs. assailants rights are concerned, it becomes a very, very different issue when you get into the juvenile system. For better or for worse, we have decided we don't want acts committed by people when they are not adults to travel with their legal record for the rest of their lives. If the crimes are serious enough that we think they should have to be connected with them forever, then they are tried as adults. That obviously didn't happen here for whatever reason.

 

I'll take that bet. Whose futures do prosecutors protect more often, poor kids or rich kids?