
Kentucky teen faces charge for naming attackers in tweets - iProject
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Kentucky-teen-faces-charge-for-naming-attackers-3724973.php
======
latch
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.

~~~
briandear
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.)

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

~~~
delinka
You are incorrect. When it comes to public school, students and parents sign
documents agreeing to be bound by a code of conduct and the like, effectively
modifying the students' asbolute rights or even signing some rights away. But
in general, citizens of the United States, regardless of age, have the same
rights.

~~~
yaks_hairbrush
> signing some rights away.

If a "right" can be signed away, it's not really a right. I recall reading
about a case where a woman agreed, in writing, to waive her right to maternity
leave under FMLA. She then changed her mind, and the employer sued and lost on
the grounds that rights cannot be signed away.

Looked at from that lens, you're arguing that a child's rights can be signed
away. My argument is that therefore they aren't rights.

~~~
FJim
Certain rights can be signed away. A right that cannot be given up, even
willingly, is called an 'inalienable' right.

Thus in most of the world today, you cannot willingly sell yourself into
slavery.

~~~
nl
Exactly.

But many of these rights (eg, the right to carry arms, the right to enter into
contracts, etc) are limited to adults.

------
delinka
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.

~~~
ajross
It's a juvenile case. The courts have _never_ allowed the public to the
opportunity to see that justice is served.

~~~
delinka
But that's for the protection of victims.

------
yock
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.

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

~~~
recursive
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.

~~~
Locke1689
In 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
Don'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?

~~~
taligent
You're not serious are you ?

Have you not seen the many cases of vigilantism when people's names/addresses
have been posted online.

There have been some terrible situations on Reddit and 4chan.

~~~
Dylan16807
That sort of mob vigilantism is loosely coupled with actual guilt. It's more
about tossing out a name and some kind of accusation, with people only
sometimes checking if it's true before acting. Naming people at all is a
problem, the additional factor of guilt is far less of one.

------
bradleyjg
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.

~~~
Dylan16807
I had assumed it would be easy to find. But I went to her twitter and it's now
private. I'm baffled.

~~~
bradleyjg
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>

------
ori_b
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.

~~~
heretohelp
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.

~~~
Danieru
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.

~~~
SoftwareMaven
So sexual assault is OK as long as they are kids? I have four kids and often
think courts are ridiculously stupid for trying them as adults.

However, two of my kids are daughters. As the victim, their rights should
trounce the rights of the attackers. That doesn't _necessarily_ mean naming
them, but if they aren't going to be named (which is usually the right thing
to do for juveniles), they must be appropriately punished.

Unfortunately, we are missing whether they were appropriately punished. From
her perspective, I'm sure the answer is No, but objectively, we don't know the
answer.

I can't imagine how much it would suck to be a judge.

~~~
lmm
>So sexual assault is OK as long as they are kids?

OK? of course not. But it shouldn't destroy their whole lives, the way being
publicly named would. As long as you're a kid you deserve another chance, even
after murdering someone. That's the whole point of trying juveniles
differently.

------
janaboruta
Brave girl.

~~~
boboblong
No. Irresponsible, immature child.

~~~
tatsuke95
If these guys wanted their reputations intact, maybe they shouldn't have
sexually assaulted an incapacitated minor.

~~~
vacri
You're implying that they're not minors themselves.

~~~
RobotCaleb
Other than the part where we don't typically release the names of minors,
what's your point?

~~~
vacri
So 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
I 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
So 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.

------
patrickod
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?

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

~~~
capitao
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.

------
hermannj314
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.

~~~
lotharbot
> _"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.

------
othermaciej
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.

------
extension
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.

------
mikescar
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
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.

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

------
tomp
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.

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

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

------
DrJ
someone start a kickstarter for this girl.

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

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

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

~~~
jlgreco
How would a franchise operation do that? If corporate sets the prices and the
franchise eats the bill for these pranks, then it sounds like the franchise
owner is losing out.

