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)
What about the boys in New York City Central Park who spent several years in prison, and were then proved innocent? The cops were able to get them to rat on each other and then admit something they didn’t do.
What is a gag order for. Only the jury gets to see the recordings.
Matt Johnson,
I had no idea what you were talking about. That’s why I asked you to be more specific.
The two young men pleaded guilty to assaulting Dietrich and to circulating pictures of the assault. I do not know if said pictures are in the “public domain.”
Matt J, the “recordings” are basically pornography of the victim; she does not want them circulated. What she DOES want is to publicize the names of the guys who not only did it, but admitted to the court that they did it (pled guilty) and got a slap on the wrist for it. The court sought to prevent the VICTIM from revealing what they had done to HER under the guise that since the proceedings were confidential, she would violate the court’s rules and be punished for contempt if SHE SAID WHAT THEY HAD DONE TO HER AND THEY DID NOT DENY DOING!
She doesn’t have to prove that her allegations are true any more; the boys pled guilty and did not dispute the truth of her allegations.
Elaine M.
I have no idea what you’re talking about. If they did it and put it in the public domain, it’s their fault. If they have it recorded, what’s the argument?
Just present the recordings. Is that complicated?
Matt Johnson,
To what accusation are you referring? Can you be more specific?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unmitigated
Is the accusation true or not? Where’s the proof? It isn’t like this hasn’t happened before.
Matt,
Could you please explain what you are disputing…..my understanding is as follows for unmitigated…..Not diminished or moderated in intensity or severity; unrelieved: unmitigated suffering.
Without qualification or exception; absolute: an unmitigated lie.
please explain yourself…
The idea of confidentiality of juvenile court proceedings is based on the protected privacy rights of the juveniles involved. IF YOU RAPE SOMEBODY, YOU’RE NOT DOING ANYTHING PRIVATE. If you want to do something private, go into the goddamn bathroom and jerk off, fool. If you rape somebody else, you crossed over the confidentiality line.
She might not be permitted to say that the boys got convicted and sentenced or that they pled guilty or something like that, but nobody can stop her from saying they raped her. Then she can simply say, “The court did something about it and I’m not allowed to say what the court did but there was no speedy public trial and they are not in prison.”
Other than that, if the judge thinks it’s contempt, she gets a speedy public trial before being convicted, because CONTEMPT is a CRIME. Definitely she should get a public defender and this should hit the press HARD.
The day going to court can grant secrecy to any criminal who chooses to do any crime, then people are better off not going to court, but dealing with stuff outside the secret havens of what passes for law.
What Mespo said. She should get the same lenient plea bargain that the “boys” received.
If they did it and put it in the public domain, it’s their fault. If they have it recorded, what’s the argument?
On the one hand I get it, juveniles get the benefit of the doubt by not having their names released. On the other, forget who said it first here but the ‘boys’ puted themselves. Seems since they did she did not violate any law of confidentiality.
I’d rather see “case dismissed” but that won’t happen. Authority rules.
Thanks, Elaine. Good show.
Giver her a fine of $10.00 and two hours of community service and dare the thugs to sue her civilly. Justice is served.
AY,
Where is the mitigation? Don’t make claims you can’t substantiate.
This is unmitigated bullshit…. She is a victim again….
Silence
The next sound you will hear will be silence.
Your hearing is gone. You are deaf. The SWAT squad bombed you. You can’t see either. Good luck with your friends. We know the addresses to them all. Their turn will come.
Big brother
When you privacy is violated by use of the social media how can your reaction add anything to these two creeps. Their tweeter record has been documented and spread. Please send me their names and I will pass it on to thousands of people to help shame them for taking pictures of an unconscious girl. And I will fight every step of the way including civil disobedience to any court that can’t keep up with technology. I’m sure I will have hundreds if not more folks that will agree. We must stand up to a system can’t figure out who is really the victim here.
“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.”
===========
Was there a gag order? I was accused of some stupid nonsense, and I’m not girl.
“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.”
=============================
What is this?