|
Caius -> RE: sexual assault victim could face charges for tweeting names of attackers (7/24/2012 6:13:24 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
I'm glad the judge realized he was a fucking idiot.
The judge really had nothing to do with it; the lawyers for the convicted requested that the judge find her in contempt but then withdrew the request before he could make a ruling. That being said, the judge might very well have held her in contempt if pressed for a decision and he felt he had no other choice that was consistent with the law. That being said, the fact that he has not cited her as being in contempt despite the withdrawal (he could, after-all), suggests something of his own perspective on whether such a charge would be appropriate to the context.
I'm inclined to agree with GotSteel's interpretation of their motives in withdrawing the request; they tried to get out in front of the exposure by getting the gag order enforced, but in doing so failed to understand the nature of twitter and the internet in general and (perhaps predictably) wound up exploding the exposure further. Mind you, they probably would have had a monumental uphill legal battle to keep her silent in any event, but under normal circumstances they would have stood a better chance of simply wearing the girl down, keeping the names relatively unknown. At this point they realize their position in this effort is tenuous -- notice the not-so subtle threat implied with "I think her behavior will dictate whether it's the end of it or not." and "If all the parties abide by the confidentiality of juvenile court, then I think that's the end of it.". Presented with a lose-lose scenario -- they can press forward with trying to get the gag order enforced, with dubious chances of success, but even if they do succeed, those names will almost certainly be household names by the end of the process -- they are instead now banking on the idea that she's gotten her protestation out of her system and that, having made this stand, she will not be willing to take further risk. Personally I hope she never lets her words, when and if she chooses to talk about these events, be the least bit influenced by that consideration. And honestly, let her attackers press forward if they really want -- ultimately I don't see a judgment in the higher courts ruling against her, which means that all they would accomplish is setting a precedent that would protect future victims from having to face the threats she has in order to speak the truth concerning their assaults.
|
|
|
|
