You may have a point in general, but here one depends on the other.
Because the ethics of violating the judge’s order are very related to whether there was another way to accomplish the same purpose without violating that order.
I know what you mean. I can’t understand why plain language isn’t used so us mere mortals can’t understand what has gone on.
I’m pretty sure by now that something disgusting has happened here, in which case I don’t understand why the rapists are not in confinement. But equally I could see something basically innocuous being described the same way, and that isn’t right.
Contempt motion has been withdrawn.
Contempt motion withdrawn for sexual-assault victim… who tweeted attackers’ names
ninja’d Took too long reading the thread.
The judge can still hold her in contempt sua sponte (though he probably won’t).
Okay, I’ll buy that.
In what sense does it go beyond regular sealed-record policies? What do you think the normal penalty is for disclosing confidential information in violation of a juvenile sealed-record policy?
I have no doubt that part of the reason is a deliberate attempt to reinforce the talking point that teh queez is just like kiddy-diddlers.
I’m not sure what was done to the victim, but apparently these lowlifes also took pictures of her and distributed them. I think she was entirely correct in broadcasting their names. They certainly didn’t protect her privacy; why should she protect theirs? If I was a teenager in that town I would want to know what kind of guys they are so I could make sure to stay a long way away from them.
I’m glad the contempt order has been withdrawn. I don’t see how they could justify it; she didn’t say what their sentence was, just what they had done to her.
Juveniles. It is pretty rare that a juvenile will be tried as an adult. Punishments for juveniles are a lot less severe than adults.
Secret courts and secret sentences? I do not like the way that trend is going.
Illegal to let people know of the machinery of government and its action? That is not a good idea.
Well, they are going to prison (okay, a juvenile detention facility) and she isn’t. So there’s that.
I’m just wildly speculating here. But the perps plead guilty to First Degree Sexual Abuse. If that’s accurate, then there was no penetration of the victim. So I’m speculating they undressed her when she was passed out and took pictures of her.
???
Why isn’t there a child-porn thing attached to this?
I read an article on Slate about the girl. Good for her. Good for freaking her. And if the boys bring civil suit, I feel like she has enough supporters to help her financially. I hope so.
Just because that’s what they were allowed to plead to, it doesn’t mean that’s all they actually did.
There may not be a state statute in effect in Kentucky that would make what they did prosecutable as child porn.
IANAL, though, and definitely not one in Kentucky, so I can’t say for sure.
I’m curious why they were allowed a plea bargain in the first place?
I have no clue about the particulars of this case but it would seem they were caught red-handed (they shared photos they took of the incident). If the case was as open and shut as it is made out to be why not drop the hammer on them as far as the law allows rather than offering them a plea bargain?
Two options suggest themselves to me.
-
The boys’ parents are well connected/have money.
-
Their guilt was in some serious doubt and the DA didn’t feel there was a strong case.
I’ve posted the info about the two boys on my FB page. If the girl needs financial help I’m sure she’ll get it.
Perhaps, but only if you view the mere violation of law, (rather than the act itself or without consideration of the circumstances involved), as ethically suspect. I can’t do that personally. We have good laws, bad laws, stupid laws, and rarely unethical laws. What’s more, we can and do change our laws to reflect current thought on the issues concerned. The law is not an independent arbiter of ethics, it is the bottom of the barrel for enforcement of basic decency. Hence my opinion on the OP: It is both contempt and free speech. The court cannot fully strip you of your right to talk, but it can fine you if you use your right to talk about stuff it has ordered you not to. The reasoning of the court may or may not be legal, and as you noted, there may be legal channels that would be better pursued if one wanted to avoid the charge of contempt. OTHOH, this young lady has chosen to transgress the court’s order and force the issue into the light, rather than keeping it all nice and quiet with legal documents. Legally, that may not be the wisest or best choice, but Ethically, I cannot find fault with her for doing so.
Then you should probably stop right there.