Posted on 07/24/2012 1:44:57 PM PDT by AtlasStalled
The 17-year-old Kentucky girl who had been facing contempt of court charges after she tweeted the names of her juvenile attackers, will not be charged.
Late Monday, lawyers for Dietrich's attackers withdrew their motion to have her held in contempt, after the story about the possible charges sparked outrage online.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Don't report crimes to the authorities.
If she had simply twitted the accusation of rape with their pictures. printed up a couple of thousand flyers and stuck them up all over town she would have been free of court penalties.
Oh they might have sued her if they wanted even more publicity'
1. We don’t know whether the girl passed out drunk or was drugged, just that the boys raped her while she was unconscious after she passed out.
2. The boys are rapists, not just creeps (by their own admission, when they plead guilty to rape).
3. The criminal justice system in combination with her Facebook page and a few brave media sources have publicly marked these rapists as rapists, which may help to protect the next girl who would otherwise drink a beer, half a beer, or a soda provided by one of these predators.
4. Justice has taught her that the government will not take care of her, but that she can act on her own and make the outcome a little better (perhaps a lot better) than if she left it in an incompetent judge’s hands.
5. There are a lot of things that courts cannot do, but acting for yourself can fix many of them. In general, going by experience with close friends who have been victims, a rape victim is much more fragile than another girl. If the victim is able to defend herself, injure or kill the rapist even after the fact, or publicly strike back in a manner that helps to restore her faith in her own ability to protect herself, that fragility will be MUCH less of a problem. I don’t know how fresh/spoiled this victim is in your eyes, but to me she looks like a girl who will come out of a nightmare stronger than she went in.
You're right - and that's not just a guess. They were already going to walk under the plea deal. The victim had nothing to lose. I'm cheering for her - any girl who let a pair of rapists get away like that despite photographic evidence would never recover. She got a whole lot closer to justice with her actions, and I am happy that she was able to do that much.
That would have been a felony, carrying more jail time than she was threatened with and accomplishing no more than trying to follow the law. She was 17. Their pictures that they shared so proudly with friends were illegal child pornography. There are other options, but I'll leave those to the imagination of responsible parents and siblings of rape victims.
A Restraining Order was issued by the Court and the Order was probably unlawful as it tried to deny the victims Constitutional right of free speech.
We grew up in an America that had a taboo structure. That taboo structure varied from reagion to region, but it acted as unspoken agreement of what would be tolerated and not tolerated. Of course such a taboo structure is a prime target for the progressives who use tolerance and political correctness to cow a culture, so they must corrode and destroy the taboo structure in order to insert their twisted godless ‘correctness’.
411.045 Defenses allowed in action for libel or slanderShe doesn;t have a such clear defence against violalting a court orderIn the actions for libel or slander, the defendant may state the truth of the alleged libel or slander, and any mitigating circumstances; and, whether he prove the justification or not, he may prove the mitigating circumstances to reduce the amount of damages.
I rather like her defense for violating a court order. "The law is an ass"
- Charles Dickens: Oliver Twist, spoken by Mr. Bumble
They are taught if the have connections then it’s okay.
Every society has taboos. Political correctness is simply a different set of taboos.
Every restraining order restricts free speech, yet they're issued all the time. (Which is not to say that this particular order was the best decision.)
Yes, to parties. The victim is not a party to the litigation.
The order against her is no different than if the Judge ordered you not to talk about the case.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.