Kentucky teen faces charge for naming attackers in tweets | Hacker News Reader

Kentucky teen faces charge for naming attackers in tweets

sfgate.com

78 pointsiProject96 comments

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.

Yes, you have to carefully consider what is best, but I think public shaming is an appropriate part of punishing something like assault.

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.)

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

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.

> 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.

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.

Exactly.

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

But in general, citizens of the United States, regardless of age, have the same rights.

That's simply not true. It wasn't until the 26th amendment, in 1971 that the right to vote was set as 18 in the US. Before that even that right was dependant on state based laws. (Note that under 18's don't have the right to vote at all)

OTOH, Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District[1] holds that children DO have the right to freedom of expression.

http://people.howstuffworks.com/do-children-teenagers-have-c... is a pretty reasonable discussion

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independen...

Quick googling and you seem to be right that this would likely not be enforceable (gag orders against reporters have not held up _during trial_...even for youths). If the media has the right to disclose the name of the accused, surely the victim has the right to disclose the name of the guilty.

I think my main point still stands. Her view on appropriate punishment is only a part (I'd argue a small part), of the overall consideration.

If we look beyond the gag order and her constitutional rights, I can play the devil's advocate and say that juvenile delinquents deserve special consideration. Should the poor/horrible decisions of a child/teen ruin their life for good? Or should they get a second chance? 10 years from now a potential employer might Google their names and decide not to hire them because of this. I'm not sure that's justice.

It's complex, yet easy to get caught up by emotion and suggest that they themselves should first be sexually assaulted, then executed.

People who advocate eye-for-an-eye (or in this case more-than-an-eye-for-an-eye) should be kept well away from the judicial process. The legal process should be about improving and protecting society, not simple visceral revenge.

The law institute in my state did a study where they found that when they polled the public and gave them details of the cases, the public actually suggested shorter sentences than were assigned. A far cry from the short-sighted 'hang-em-high' knee-jerking you see in tabloids.

Anyway, do we want a society that when you stumble, helps you back on track, or one that says 'fuck you' and kicks you in the face? People actually advocated those visceral punishments need to be called out on it, because they don't contribute anything useful and need to understand what it is they're actually saying.

While I agree with your larger point, that retribution (and worse) is not justice, I wouldn't put too much weight on the study you mention.

It's extraordinarily difficult to 'give details' in a completely neutral frame. Without knowing the details of the study, its hard to say more. It seems likely to me that they probably found what they were looking for.

Given the complexity of legal issues, you can explain away every legal study ever the way you just have.

The point that the study was making is that the vociferous folks frothing from the tabloids aren't operating from an informed position, so their opinion shouldn't be held as the canonical one to base policy on.

My favourite example is this: Politicians love to say "it's the will of the people" on topics like this. "Hey, you industry professionals might not like it, but it's what the uninformed general public want". Strangely, they never seem to take the same attitude when it comes to their own pay packets - all of a sudden it becomes "what the public doesn't understand"...

It was a combination of the (1) court order and (2) the juvenile court proceedings combined that appear to give grounds for charging the victim with revealing her attackers' names.

Juvenile court proceedings are confidential in every state. Witnesses (including victims) who appear in juvenile proceedings are informed that the names of all juveniles party to the case must remain confidential. This is both to protect the juveniles involved (victim, defendants, and witnesses) and to prevent their immature acts of youth from haunting them as adults (assuming no recidivism as an adult).

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.

This is my biggest problem with the legal system; it is centralized around the mechanics of the society, not the mechanics of being human.

It's a juvenile case. The courts have never allowed the public to the opportunity to see that justice is served.

But that's for the protection of victims.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

It's a common idiom in the English language: http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/judge,+jury+and...

My point is exactly that they are convicted and sentenced by the court system, not the public. For this reason the public have no need to learn their names in very prejudicial cases.

That said, this would have to be very strictly applied as it does interact problematically with the first amendment. As I said, I'm not sure this specific case warrants it.

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.

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.

This gag order in question has no Constitutional basis. The idea of a gag order is to protect the 6th Amendment rights of defendants. The defendants pled guilty, therefor they're "Fair trial" rights are no longer subject to being violated. The girl has first amendment rights. There's plenty of case law on this issue -- it's just surprising to me that judges, especially in the lower, local courts seem to think that precedent doesn't apply to them.

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.

This is the sort of thing that is ripe for the Streisand effect.

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

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

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.

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.

    someone who has a different opinion than you

"annoying, obvious, contributes nothing"

It's annoying, obvious, and contributes nothing because:

1. Any state actions that promotes the current legal hegemony is inevitable, making a comment noting the fatalism inherent in taking an action (principled or not) that could trigger blowback from this legal hegemony is by definition obvious.

2. It's annoying because it doesn't say anything that isn't already evident from a passing understanding of the power dynamics of western society, especially as it relates to the courts. You don't need to say something emphasizing the power of the judicial system to ruin your life...we know that already.

3. And it contributes nothing because such comments rarely go beyond capitalizing on the opportunity to be snarky, doing nothing to describe the ethics of the situation or how the system could be improved.

I guess I read his comment differently. "regardless of whether she's right or wrong" about the crimes/identities of the attacker.

Rather than regardless of whether she's in the right/wrong for posting their names.

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.

>Naming people on the internet in regards to sexual crimes is dangerous

Yes, it is! And this is what I want people talking about!

I don't have a particular point to make here, except to say that the discourse could be better.

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.

>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.

As the victim, their rights should trounce the rights of the attackers.

Why? Assuming we're still talking about rights as citizens under the law, here.

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

Judges obviously don't think having gross amounts of almost completely unaccountable power sucks, or they wouldn't be judges.

We sometimes have a tendency to err on the side of whatever has the strongest emotional pull. It's important to protect your daughters from becoming victims, but don't forget that your sons can also be victimized by false accusations or even false convictions. Don't forget that what you think is "appropriate punishment" from hearing one side of the case may actually be far too much for the actual crime, or perhaps even a non-crime where someone plead guilty because the plea deal let them get on with their lives sooner and with less risk.

Criminals should be appropriately punished. But those decisions need to be made in light of all the facts, preferably within the legal system. Dumping the names out there on Twitter is, as an above post said, dangerous. Maybe these guys deserve it, but maybe "twitter justice" will give these guys -- or some innocent kid in a similar case -- punishment far beyond what they deserve.

Two people pled guilty to sexual assault, in a public courtroom that we all fund to some degree.

You "hope grace prevails"? Are you trolling?

Grace for the victim, or the attackers? Whom, if they were a couple years older would have their names publicly available.

Again, we all fund this, there's no reason we shouldn't be able to get the information other than "it's not allowed now".

Again, we all fund this, there's no reason we shouldn't be able to get the information other than "it's not allowed now".

This seems like a very strange and naïve way to look at government.

Think of government as the Rolling Stones: you can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you might find you get what you need.

What is your point, master philosopher?

Government accountability is a complete joke, but we should expect and demand better.

>"Naming people on the internet in regards to sexual crimes is dangerous."

Sexually assaulting people in real life is dangerous.

Why should the victim care one iota about what happens to these guys? Because of some arbitrary "moral-code", "justice" or "rule-of-law"? If this were me, I'd have done the same or worse. Which is why I can say, unabashedly, good for her. She witnessed first hand how the justice system works. They got their slap on the wrist, no she'll get hers.

Legal fatalism is one of the few responsible comments one can make about a case like this. We don'k know much about the case--the facts are sealed, and we have no context--and I'm not willing to second guess a judge based on one sided, incomplete, inflammatory comments leaked by an angry first-party. But by all means, pass judgement and cast the first stone yourselves. It wouldn't be the first time vigilante justice has been performed.

Well, we know that they both pled guilty. That's publicly available.

Other than that major point, we don't have context. Yes, I would like everything to be public so we know what we're paying for.

I'm going to 'pass judgement', and leave you to responsible commenting.

Here are two cases where rape defendants chose to plead guilty to a crimes they did not commit:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/readme/2002/...

http://ratiojuris.blogspot.com/2012/05/when-innocent-clients...

I presume that such cases are a minority, that those who plead guilty generally are. But I don't know what the actual odds are. What makes you certain? Or are you comfortable passing judgement regardless?

Yeaaaah this isn't one of those cases, I'm pretty comfortable judging on this one

Yes, it has happened.

I'm comfortable forming an opinion based on the facts available. As I said in my comment, I'd like more info since it's ostensibly a public function to run a government court.

Otherwise we can all just run around with our hands in the air crying about how we just can't make a decision on anything in which we weren't directly a party.

Victim's rights? More human policy-making? I wish.

Apparently not, guess the GP must be right and the victim got what was coming to her.

It's insane how detached we've become from the real world. Arguing about patents and iOS vs Android and open source. Two people pled guilty to a rape, within a court that we all pay for, and somehow there's a random smart-ass that wants to sound smart with the legal fatalism angle on this.

If it's violating her first amendment rights, then the court order is in violation of the first amendment!

Courts issue gag orders all the time and have done so for centuries. They can be constitutional.

Not normally against the plaintiff when the accused if found guilty!

These are children we are talking about.

It IS normal for their names not to be released. Do you not watch the news ?

    this is a decision where the price was clear

I think people are talking about whether the price was appropriate and warranted.

My point is that she knew what it was beforehand. She did a cost benefit analysis, and decided she was willing to pay it.

She's a juvenile. Maybe her sentence will be as lenient as the rapists... I doubt it.

Brave girl.

No. Irresponsible, immature child.

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

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

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

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?

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.

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.

How so?

It's phrased such that the victim is painted as a minor, and therefore less able to make mature decisions, but no such leeway is given to the perpetrators - implying that they're not minors.

No one said those guys weren't irresponsible and immature as well.

Not mutually exclusive.

I'm not sure why you're being downvoted. It's pretty much spot on.

I knew the comment would get downvoted. I just hope I don't get arrested. After all, I just comment-raped everyone who had to read what I wrote. Of course, I'd just get bailed out by my connects high up in the Patriarchy. There's nothing you haters can do to bring us down--long live Rape Culture! Muahahahaha.

Do you have any idea of the trauma and agony the poor child must be going through? Admittedly I do not know anything more about the case other than the link, but to call her irresponsible and immature is insensitive to say the least.

"Do you have any idea of the trauma and agony the poor child must be going through?"

Probably not that much, really. She was "sexually assaulted" while she was passed out drunk at a party. She wasn't raped. She probably didn't experience anything during the assault and wasn't injured or infected with an STD. She probably didn't even know it happened until the pictures surfaced. If she's passed out in the pictures, then they shouldn't ruin her life or cause her much distress, because they only prove that she got drunk at a party and that some idiots groped her. If she doesn't appear to be passed out in the pictures, then she probably just regrets slutting it up.

I'm quite serious: the "trauma and agony" that she "must" be going through is probably mostly a product of her overdramatic imagination. And before you accuse me of "minimizing" or "victim-blaming", I'm not blaming her for what happened, I'm just saying that it wasn't that big a deal. So I suppose I'm minimizing, but only relative to your dramatizing.

I don't think anything about her actions here is irresponsible or immature. Resisting an unconstitutional prior restraint on free speech is a worthy and responsible action. As is publicly shaming the perpetrators of a crime who try to hide behind the legal system.

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?

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

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.

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.

> "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.

That would be harassment and stalking. One of the purposes of the justice system is to prevent people like you from taking revenge and holding grudges forever. Yes, the boys probably got off light. No, we shouldn't promote vigilantism every time the justice system leads to a questionable outcome.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

someone start a kickstarter for this girl.

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

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

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

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com