Rape victim might go to jail for....

[HEMI6point1]

....Exposing the a-holes who attacked her.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/...53.html?_esi=1

If a jury actually convicts her then I have lost a lot of faith in human compassion.

[Greenday]

I feel like this is a big first amendment case. The plea deal was made without her input or knowledge and she has a right to express herself. It'd be pretty unconstitutional to put her in jail for this.

[BlaqueKatt]

I feel like this is a big first amendment case.

This is precisely a first amendment case, as the government is limiting what she can say, which is not allowed.

[Rageaholic]

And even after these bozos had photos of them raping her, they still get off easy and she's punished for speaking up.

If they're gonna get off easy for raping her, than she shouldn't face any charges for whatever bogus crime she can be charged with.

[Hyena Dandy]

This is precisely a first amendment case,

I think that what GD was saying wasn't "I feel like this is a first amendment case" but rather "I feel like this is an IMPORTANT first amendment case."

[insertNameHere]

that is beyond fucked up. It pisses me off when victims have no fucking rights compared to criminals.

[Greenday]

I think that what GD was saying wasn't "I feel like this is a first amendment case" but rather "I feel like this is an IMPORTANT first amendment case."

Well, what I meant by " I feel like etc. etc." was "This is a clear case of the first amendment." And it is very important. The only person who can remove your first amendment rights is yourself. She wasn't part of the plea bargain deal so she isn't accountable to it.

[Canarr]

But the First Amendment only prohibits *Congress* from passing laws that restrict Freedom of Speech, correct? Would it also apply to a judge, a member of the judicial branch, issuing a court order to someone?

Personally, I'm a bit unclear on the question how much authority a judge in the US actually has. He can order people around in his courtroom, sure. But can he really issue a court order prohibiting anybody from speaking about a certain topic, forever?

[Sarah Valentine]

I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

[Andara Bledin]

The First Amendment applies to The Government in pretty much any form. That would include the courts.

However, it's not uncommon for there to be a fairly blanket gag order on all parties while a case is still in the system. Since the sentencing portion of the trial has not gone through as of yet, it's still a live case.

^-.-^

[siead_lietrathua]

i almost have to side with the courts on this one. yes it sucks, but any news company that publishes the name of a minor convicted of a crime* would be filed with contempt charges too. the rules in place to protect a minor from being exposed in the news probably blanket out to social media as well, since that is treated like a news source in these times. the boys that attacked her were under 18, so they would fall into it.
so ya, it does suck, BUT letting people break those laws on blogging sites does break juvenile protection laws as a bottem line. at least if it's the same in that state as up here.

*in some cases a judge will rule that the names be published but it's usually only for things like murder.

[LexiaFira]

this pisses me off to no end, what happened to the rape victims being able to speak out? i remember when rape and what happens and what to do came out not just educating school students but kid/teen shows like Degrassi high the next generation doing something about it and all that.

and now we PUNISH the victim for exposing their attacker? WTF oh ok so the person who rapes can get away with it and the one they raped has to just deal with it? how about i violate the person that raped and the idiots who think its ok to let this happen and then ask how they feel
no i do not condone this type of action but what would it take to get people to understand being violated in that way is very much physically and emotionally damaging and changes you forever. not something to just "get over"

[Duelist925]

i almost have to side with the courts on this one. yes it sucks, but any news company that publishes the name of a minor convicted of a crime* would be filed with contempt charges too. the rules in place to protect a minor from being exposed in the news probably blanket out to social media as well, since that is treated like a news source in these times. the boys that attacked her were under 18, so they would fall into it.
so ya, it does suck, BUT letting people break those laws on blogging sites does break juvenile protection laws as a bottem line. at least if it's the same in that state as up here.

*in some cases a judge will rule that the names be published but it's usually only for things like murder.

I feel it should be pointed out that while the boys ages are not released on OP's link, it's probably a safe assumption that they are of comparable age to the victim.

And if they are, then there is precedent for peope of that age being tried as adults for henous crimes such as murder and sexual assault.

Wether or not they were, I don't know. But it may factor into any juvenile protection laws.

[siead_lietrathua]

if their names were not published anywhere else, including this article about their names being exposed, than it is safe to assume there is a blanket publication order, and that they are probably being tried as minors.
i do want to note she isn't being charged for speaking about it. she is being charged for publishing their names online/ in a written format. the boys also pleaded guilty and are awaiting sentancing, they knew what they did was wrong and are accepting punishment.
she also was informed by the courts to not mention their names, and she could have had an order put in that her name as a victim was not to be published as well.
so, she was warned something would happen, she did it (and even said to go ahead and lock her up for it) and is now fighting the consequences she was made aware of before.

sidenote: the laws that protect these boys are the same ones that protect other juveniles that may have jsut been in the wrong place at the wrong time, and while it sucks they fall under it's protection, the laws itself are not bad things.

[bainsidhe]

Last article I read said she *may* be charged, but that no decision has been made yet. As to keeping her identity a secret, she and her family has given the okay for media to publish her name and story, because she wants it out there. If not for her permission, media wouldn't be allowed to publish her identity.

And the way I see it, these a-holes posted pics online of the victim and their dirty deeds, yet now are crying foul when the victim posts their names online. Serves them right.

I realize these are all minors and therefore understand why a gag order might be in place, but I still side with the girl here. These jerks are pleading guilty, they don't deserve to be protected.