Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by janaboruta | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

janaboruta

Brave girl.

View on HN

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com