Submitted by Elaine Magliaro, Guest Blogger
(Updated below.)
I think the following story out of Kentucky is an interesting one. Savannah Dietrich, a seventeen-year-old, is the victim of a sexual assault. Last August, she was assaulted by two boys she knew after she passed out at a party. It wasn’t until months later that Dietrich learned that pictures of her assault had been taken and shared with other people.
The victim told a newspaper that she cried herself to sleep for months. She added, “I couldn’t go out in public places. You just sit there and wonder, who saw (the pictures), who knows?”
According to the Courier-Journal, Dietrich felt frustrated by what she thought “was a lenient plea bargain for two teens who pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting her and circulating pictures of the incident.” She took to Twitter and named her attackers. She also tweeted, “There you go, lock me up. I’m not protecting anyone that made my life a living Hell” and “Protect rapist is more important than getting justice for the victim in Louisville.”
Dietrich is now facing a possible jail sentence. The attorneys for the boys who pleaded guilty to her assault have asked a Jefferson District Court judge to hold her in contempt for publicly naming her attackers. Dietrich stands accused of violating “the confidentiality of a juvenile hearing and the court’s order not to speak of it.” If charged with contempt, Dietrich could receive a “potential sentence of up to 180 days in jail and a $500 fine.”
Jason Riley of the Courier-Journal wrote: “Legal experts say such cases are becoming more common, in which people are communicating more frequently through social media and violating court orders not to speak.”
Greg Leslie, who is the interim executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press in Arlington, Virginia, said, “In the past, people would complain to anyone who would listen, but they didn’t have a way to publish their comments where there would be a permanent record, like on Facebook and Twitter, for people to see worldwide.” He continued, “It’s just going to happen more and more.”
“So many of my rights have been taken away by these boys,” Dietrich told the Courier Journal. “I’m at the point, that if I have to go to jail for my rights, I will do it. If they really feel it’s necessary to throw me in jail for talking about what happened to me … as opposed to throwing these boys in jail for what they did to me, then I don’t understand justice.”
Dietrich claims that she and her family “were unaware of the plea bargain and recommended sentence until just before it was announced in court — and were upset with what they felt was a slap on the wrist for the attackers.” Dietrich said. “They got off very easy … and they tell me to be quiet, just silencing me at the end.”
Emily Farrar-Crockett, one of Dietrich’s attorneys, said that her client had looked at the laws of confidentiality before she tweeted her comments. Crockett said that Dietrich “tried not to violate what she believed the law to be” by not tweeting about what happened in court or what was in court records.
Greg Leslie said he thinks that Dietrich should “not be legally barred from talking about what happened to her. That’s a wide-ranging restraint on speech. By going to court, you shouldn’t lose the legal right to talk about something.”
Not all legal experts agree with Leslie. Ohio media law specialist David Marburger said that even if the judge might be limiting freedom of speech with an order, “it doesn’t necessarily free you from that order. You have to respect the order and get the judge to vacate the order or get a higher court to restrain the judge from enforcing the order.” And Jo Ann Phillips, head of Kentuckians Voice for Crime Victims, said that she “doesn’t blame Dietrich for standing up for what she felt was an injustice, but said she should have gone about it another way.”
“This (assault) could affect her for the rest of her life and the fact that she said, ‘I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore,’ you have to applaud her,” Phillips said. “But you also have to respect authority.”
“ … She should have gone to a victims’ group or her local legislator and fought for the right to speak out.”
What do you think? Was Dietrich wrong to name her accusers publicly? Do you think Dietrich has the right to speak out about what happened to her?
UPDATE: The motion to hold 17-year-old Savannah Dietrich of Louisville in contempt was withdrawn on Monday.
SOURCES
Assault victim’s tweets prompt contempt case (Courier-Journal)
Savannah Dietrich, 17-Year-Old Sexual Assault Victim, Faces Charge For Naming Attackers (Huffington Post/AP)
os, It really feels good when women go after those who abuse them. All the best to your blog buddy in her attack on the system.
Good news OS!
bettykath, I was about to send an email to one of my blog buddies who devotes 100% of her efforts to crimes against women–on heavily trafficked blogs. I have an idea that by the time she is done, the hide will be flayed off both the DA and Judge Dee McDonald. Also, they will take a close look at the attorney for the boys who asked for the contempt citation. The ripples from this rock in the pond are just getting started.
OS, I think their initial target should be the DA who worked the deal. The judge did what is normally done in juvenile court to protect minors. Would she have been so upset if the DA hadn’t done a plea deal? Or if she had had an opportunity to be heard? Would she have been more willing to see if the court would mete out proper punishment?
This case was handled badly by the DA. What options did the judge have given that no evidence was presented? Did the boys have to describe their deed and so let the judge know the severity of their crime? Or did the DA let them skip parts of it? What’s the difference in sentence between rape and what they were charged with?
Ignorance is so frustrating.
I support the idea of juvenile records being sealed and the juveniles receiving some sort of protection that allows them to get their act together. I’m not sure that the two in this case deserve it, but there are plenty of kids that do.
OOPS, left a bracket of the close strong command. Lets see if this works.
There is a curious thing about social media and the power of the Internet. The judge is about to learn a very hard lesson. Judges have to run for reelection, and a decision like this can have some long term effects. Not to mention the short term effect of having ten thousand emails and angry letters in her inbox. And that does not even include having her name and picture smeared all over the front of blogs and news pages as the lede. This is a story that already has legs. Judge Dee McDonald may be about to learn a lesson about the power of the Intertoobz.
I know two major bloggers who may decide to make Judge Dee McDonald of Louisville, KY/strong> their hobby. They blog almost exclusively about sexual abuse and how the system often victimizes the victim. More on the story here:
http://www.examiner.com/article/why-most-americans-hope-savannah-dietrich-keeps-talking
If she had gone to court to challenge the gag order, one of the things that might happen to her is that she could…
(1) Lose her case.
(2) Hear the judge declare her suit “frivolous.”
(3) Be ordered to pay thousands of dollars in court costs.
That’s what happened to Hillarie Soignet when she tried to sue her high school for violating her free speech right to remain silent, rather than cheer for the basketball playing boy (Rakheem Bolton) who had raped her at a party some days earlier.
Rakheem had also gotten off lightly, and Hillarie was upset about it. All she wanted to do was remain silent while other cheerleaders were chanting for Bolton to make a free throw. For that, she was thrown off the cheerleading team. She thought she was in the right, so she went to court. Where she met disaster.
So those of you who believe that it would have been practical for Savannah Dietrich to find her remedy for an unjust court order inside a courtroom should rethink that opinion. The courts have become so biased in favor of injustice that it is quite likely that you couldn’t even BRIBE a judge to see things your way, if you should happen to bear the stigma of having justice on your side.
She was ambushed by the Court.
Once pictures had gone out on the Social Media network, whether before or after the plea bargain, gag orders are no longer an avenue any lawyer has the right to request or a court to grant. Courts need to get up to speed on technology in order to recognize the injustice of such a ruling.
I’m glad this young woman is willing to fight this particular battle as it is worth the energy, effort, and sacrifice.
Raff, I’m not an attorney, but aren’t juvenile proceedings always sealed? It would seem that if they were juveniles, they wouldn’t have the same punishment meted out to adults and, therefore, wouldn’t be listed on a public sexual predator listing. Both parties broke the rule and both should be handled the same (although I agree with asiago…there probably WAS a class divide.).
Great job Elaine. This victim should have the right to name her assailants. I think asiago has a good point. The video of this crime was already put in the public forum. Does she have less rights than the felons? As sexual criminals, don’t they have to go on a public sexual predator listing?
It seems to me that since the “boys” chose to broadcast the images of the assault already, THEY made the choice to go public. They were so proud of what they did that they broadcast it far and wide, so why would they object to being named? The victim has every right to publicly identify them as they already did to her.
Furthermore, the “boys” should have been charged with dissemination of child pornography, and should have faced all charges as adults.
My guess is that there is a vast class divide between the “boys” and their victim, along with an ethos of ‘boys will be boys’ and who cares who they hurt along the way.
It seems to me that the confidentiality rule was broken by the boys first by showing the pictures around with, I assume, commentary. I can’t imagine that the ban on discussion would only be a one-sided ban, especially since all parties involved were/are juveniles. The story isn’t clear about one point: Were the pictures shown areound before the juvenile hearing or after? I am assuming from the context that the pictures were shared after the proceedings, in which case the boys involved would be guilty of the same charge that she is facing (unless there was no confidentiality rule affixed to whatever punishment they received; again, we don’t know what that punishment was as it was never mentioned). Aren’t juvenile proceedings in most jurisdictions sealed? I know they are in Arizona. If so, it seems to me that BOTH parties are guilty of breaking the confidentiality rule.
You argument makes no sense logically, or in the face of history. You advise that ‘you must respect authority’ in this case. Really? The only way to enact change to a corrupt system is by forceful action to openly challenge it! Should Rosa Parks have ‘respected authority’ and left her seat? Should Washington, Revere, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe ‘respected authority’? the SO-CALLED judge in this case, Jo Ann Phillips, is obviously wrong and the system in her court is protecting PERPETRATORS rights over victims. The rapists ADVERTISED their crimes at the victims expense and yet, their names are shielded?!?!? The system arranged a plea bargain WITHOUT advising her or seeking her opinion? Sound like a good ole’ boy network at its worst. KUDOS TO SAVANNAH FOR HAVING THE COURAGE TO STAND UP TO A WRONG INFLICTED ON HER BY A BROKEN SYSTEM!!!!!!! If she gets fined I would gladly pay it.
Good for her. Those lowlife scum bags raped her. In my not so humble opinion & as a victim of rape I have no sympathy for anyone who commits that crime. Their faces should be put on billboards along with their name. How dare anyone continue to abuse this young woman after what she went through. How old were the rapists? Will their names be on the sex offenders list? What kind of plea bargain were they allowed? Sometimes the so called justice in this country stinks to high heavens.
Let’s hope she gets probation or community service and they get jail, not the other way around.
If read the article correctly, the boys were charged with a felony and and a misdemeanor. They pleaded guilty, thus she does not have to testify. Although it sounds as if she was willing to testify, most of her testimony would be most useful at the sentencing hearing. They have not been sentenced yet. There is no information on the sentencing options. Would her outrage be so strong if they went to jail? Otoh, ff they got probation or community service because they are really such upstanding young men with great futures ahead of them [sarcasm] she might explode from the injustice. I think she was premature in her tweeting.
Elaine,
I read about this story this morning before I started playing catch up on lawn and house work and I was hoping one of the other GB’s would pick up the ball and run with it. Excellent job as usual. I think that she was right to speak out given the circumstances. Had she been informed of the sentencing agreement in a timely manner, she should have sought to have the gag order vacated, but given that they basically ambushed her with the plea deal according to the article I read? I say “you go girl”.
John, How does it nullify her chances of a civil case? Or how did she have one in the first place if she wasn’t to speak of the assault?
I think she had the right, but she also had a civil suit that would have made these guys pay for years for showing pix of her. But now since she has done this, it pretty well nullifies that.
There are two ways to challenge an order – appeal it in court, or violate it and force the system to enforce it. Either way, you compel a review.
In this case she obviously took the more risky path, but I think she did the right thing and hope in the end she would do it again. The government should not be able to bar a victim from talking about the crime committed against her.