I disagree. Above all, the legal system must be trasparent. If the names of all those charged with crimes were witheld by the government (rather than self restraint by the media), it could open the door for abuse. Imagine:
“I’m sorry, we can’t tell you where Joe Citizen is. See, we are not allowed to release the names of defendants. We can neither confirm nor deny whether or not we are holding him. No we can’t tell you what he’s been charged with … if he’s been charged at all. It’s for their own good, of course. Verdict? Well, you only get a verdict if you’ve been charged, and we can’t tell you that. Anyway, with the appeals proccess and all, a final verdict could take years. We’ll let you know when one is reached… if we are detaining him, which we might not be.”
[zen101**, the proceedings in a criminal trial are public record. The government is not allowed to have secret trials. How could you withhold the name of a defendant without violating the first amendment guarantee to freedom of the press?
All of you are more than forthcoming about things after the fact…Otto.
One would assume that a crime victim would have more compassion for another crime victim. Obviously, that is not so.
Ya know…i’ve been following this several places. And the “she deserved it for going to his room” comments have not been made here. And for that, I am amazed.
BTW…Feminazi?? It is to laugh, you limpwitted buffoon. Buy a new jokebook, the Rush model is SOOO 1998.
The gross ignorance of Tom Leykis is only mirrored by some of the sterling tripe you guys put out.
Let’s just call it a sad state of affairs that can’t be helped by rational thought. One sees so little evidence of it.
Actually, as I recall, he was all over CNN for at least a day or two before he was formally charged with anything.
And Tezmac how in the goddamn do you suppose anyone’s supposed to tell whether you’re being “over the top” or not? I mean, you were going tit-for-tat and arguing your side enough that it sure seemed to me like you were making a sincere point. Also, FWIW, using the word “feminazi” to describe someone doesn’t exactly bolster any claims to reasonableness you might be making.
Fascinating, ThatDDperson. Because I don’t say Kobe is guilty before all the evidence is in, I’m not compassionate. If this woman was raped I can’t imagine someone being more compassionate than me, CONSIDERING I WORKED AT A RAPE CRISIS HOTLINE. But if she wasn’t, she’s a liar, and Kobe shouldn’t be unfairly tarnished ahead of time. INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY…or are you someone who believes all men are inherently rapists?
THEN you accuse us of saying she deserved it, then you said we didn’t. But instead of saying, ‘you’re right, NONE OF YOU SAID THAT’ you simply said “i’m surprised you didn’t.”
I see you’ve been here since April, person, I’d think you’d know that hysterical, broad brush generalizations of our posters won’t get you very far.
What’s wrong with that logic? He’s rich and famous and hasn’t broken the law to get there. Isn’t that what you’re supposed to aspire to in this country?
You made that part up on your own and directly opposite of what I said. Post verdict I have no problem, as I said, with full disclosure. I believe they do it this way in Canada, or at least the media are not allowed to report until a verdict is reached.
There is a big difference between a sectet trial or “star chamber” than allowing the publicizing of allegations that do damage with or without a verdict.
Secret trials are ones that never go on record. Trials where after the fact the accused or accuser are not allowed a public voice. A closed trial, which takes place all the time, limits the media’s access to the process. This is not an infringement of the 1st ammendment at all. Extending the concept to protect both claimant and defendant is no more a violation of the 1st ammendment. The accused or accuser I suppose could be allowed to speak to the media should they so wish. The first ammendment does not guarantee you the right to information of any sort, it guarantees you the right to voice your own opinion, not get dirt on others.
This would do nothing to harm the legal process. If anything it may help in securing untainted jury pooles.
Sorry, I don’t do all my reading on the Straight Dope Boards.
Several legal boards are VERY up in the air over this. (I’ve given a link here to one of them.) The actual threats being made on some of the sportsfan boards are causing a legal mess, and there is a serious question as to the safety of the victim.
However, i’m considering the source on all of this, and having said that, I will reiterate this. Rape is a henious crime. Sexual abuse of a child is a henious crime. Your level of victimhood does not negate the experience of any other crime victim.
Pit away, gang. I’ll find a different level of discourse to discuss the legal and FCC ramifications of this occurence.
Tezmar, there’s a difference between over the top and assholism above and beyond the call of stupidity. Try to figure it out.
Sorry to have been unable to finish what I was trying to say. I’m in the middle of a health crisis, and it’s a little chaotic around here.
(Back to dialysis AGAIN. This is getting old.)
No, nobody here said it. For that, I am thankful. I am participating in discussions on two other sites about this subject
I count several wives of sports figures among my “friends”, my customers at the shop. They are all aware of the whole sports groupie scene, and of the stuff that goes on. Kobe Bryant had a rep as a real good guy that THEY don’t think he quite deserved.
I find it sad that the whole thing happened, but he had a couple of days headstart on “making it up to the fans”, and his wife. Wife just got a great big honkin’ $4mil ring. (Wife has no prenup agreement, so he’s gotta be running scared.)
It will be interesting to watch it play out. I’m glad we’re beyond the place where the team owner writes a check and makes it go away.
Incorrect. The press cannot be shut out of any trial proceeding. The judge can limit cameras but he must allow at least some press to observe and report on the proceedings.
I’d like to clarify what I meant by that. His show is not carried in Canada because we have broadcast standards with regard to fomenting racism and sexism. Part of Leykis’ self-serving schtick is projecting an image of outrageous chauvignism while getting right in the faces of real, live people. “Look at me go! I’m out of control! Haw haw haw!”
He should be allowed to, and get paid to yell “Show us your tits!” at women in public, like a drunken fratboy, because some people find it entertaining?
Sorry, that’s just intolerable. Do you think his show would fly if it were racist instead of misogynist? Why is one tolerable and the other not?
If someone is willing to pay him, what’s the issue? I find it disturbing we’ll pay people millions to play baseball. It’s hardly intolerable.
His show would never fly if he used the same format from a racist point of view. The trick to this however, is that he doesn’t use a racist point of view. He uses a misogynist point of view. Which, if you look at his ratings, certainly seems to work.
And while I may not agree with his decision to get involved in the Kobe fiasco, I do have to admit I agree with him on just about every other major issue.
why is asking women to show their tits mysogynist rather than just plain obnoxious?
Is it the word “tits”? Would show us your breasts be better?
Is it expressing a desire to see tits mysogynist? or just honest lack of a verbal filter? What about Mardi Gras?
I fail to see what elevates this act to mysogyny as opposed to just being rude in general.
Any women reading this who disagree, please explain what specifically makes this mysogyny. And show me your tits.
p.s. I am not a Lykis fan of any sort. In fact I can’t tell the difference between him or that other radio guy just like him.
OK, let’s talk First Amendment. Note that there is just the one “m.” I don’t usually rag on spelling but the double-m error really grates on me.
Anyway, one of the pillars of the First Amendment is freedom of the press. Forbidding the media from disseminating information from the public record is a violation of that freedom. Violations of constitutional rights are only permissible under extraordinary circumstances. Protecting the feelings or reputation or identity of an alleged rape victim or an alleged rapist doesn’t come anywhere near that threshold. Preserving an untainted jury pool might reach that threshold since the right to trial by jury is also a constitutional right, but even then the judge can’t issue a blanket media blackout on the case in its entirety. He or she may issue gag orders on the parties and their attorneys but he can’t stop the local paper from printing public record information.
Nitpick: the first amendment has nothing to do with press access to the trial process. There are any number of functions that the government performs from which the press may be constitutionally excluded. The reason that the press must be allowed access to criminal trials is instead found in the 7th amendment, which guarantees a “speedy and public trial” to the accused in a criminal prosecution.
To Leykis, Hannity and all the people here who are OK with this woman being named…
I sincerely hope that your mother/wife/girlfriend/daughter gets raped. Then we’ll see what your opinions are on this subject.