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)
Elaine M. 1, July 23, 2012 at 1:26 pm
Blouise,
I was doing research for a possible post about rape in the military when I came across the following story:
Criminal hazing: Raped by his fellow soldiers
‘Crazy Troop’ NCOs court-martialed after initiation ritual in Iraq went too far, Army victims say
By Michelle Tan – Staff writer
Posted : Wednesday Apr 25, 2012
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2012/04/army-criminal-hazing-raped-by-fellow-soldiers-042512/
Excerpt;
Warning: Some details of this story are graphic and may be disturbing.
FORT HOOD, Texas — Minutes after returning to his room after a long day of training Iraqi soldiers, Spc. Jarett Wright heard the door open.
Three of his fellow soldiers entered and pushed him down on the bed. Wright struggled, but the other soldiers were too strong.
Two of them — both sergeants — held him down by the shoulders. Another grabbed his legs.
The soldiers ripped off Wright’s belt and tore off his pants and underwear.
Taking turns, the sergeants grabbed Wright’s genitals while the third soldier repeatedly shoved a finger into his anus.
The attack lasted about a minute. But Wright was not the first, nor the last, soldier in C Troop, 1st Squadron, 9th Cavalry Regiment, to endure this kind of assault. The unit calls itself “Crazy Troop.”
Wright, who spoke to Army Times about what happened to him, said all the new guys in the troop experienced some sort of initiation. However, the initiations escalated with attacks on him and two other specialists, he said. The two other victims also described identical attacks in interviews with Army Times.
Army Times typically does not name victims of sexual assault, but Wright decided to speak publicly to try to prevent future attacks and insisted that he be named in the story.
“None of us wants this to happen to other people,” Wright said. “If there’s something good that can come out of this, [it] is prevention of that. I used to play football. I know what hazing is, I know what stupid stuff is. This is too far.”
========
This is a bit much. I was in the Navy for four years. Nothing anywhere near that happened when I was there. It wouldn’t have been allowed. Try that in the Navy, and you’ll get your wancker cut off.
Blouise 1, July 23, 2012 at 1:01 pm
Elaine,
Talk about rapes that don’t get reported because of social stigma … I’m always amazed at Judges and Magistrates who fail to understand that coddling a rapist endangers every male and female within the community. It isn’t the orifice that causes the rapist’s erection, it’s the power to invade the orifice.
===========
Blouise and Elaine,
How old are you? Do you think somebody wants your orifice?
Josephine, what Rafflaw said, Shame, shame on y ou. I just hope you do not have children or if you do that you are just writing assininity as a result of anonymity.
I was forced to take bupkis in a med mal case (I have mentioned it innumerable times) The agreement included the fact I could not say how much I got. I never do but I will tell you (and have written) a $ range without saying the specific amount.
Someone wrote about slander, etc, and in this case they have never come after me, they are very much aware, or at least were (the doctor’s lawyer wrote me a ‘cease and desist” or you are in trouble letter.) when I replied with proof of what I was writiing I never heard another word.
Sadly this girl should have been advised more carefully as to what she could and could not say. Her attorney was not clear enough with her.
Blouise,
I was doing research for a possible post about rape in the military when I came across the following story:
Criminal hazing: Raped by his fellow soldiers
‘Crazy Troop’ NCOs court-martialed after initiation ritual in Iraq went too far, Army victims say
By Michelle Tan – Staff writer
Posted : Wednesday Apr 25, 2012
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2012/04/army-criminal-hazing-raped-by-fellow-soldiers-042512/
Excerpt;
Warning: Some details of this story are graphic and may be disturbing.
FORT HOOD, Texas — Minutes after returning to his room after a long day of training Iraqi soldiers, Spc. Jarett Wright heard the door open.
Three of his fellow soldiers entered and pushed him down on the bed. Wright struggled, but the other soldiers were too strong.
Two of them — both sergeants — held him down by the shoulders. Another grabbed his legs.
The soldiers ripped off Wright’s belt and tore off his pants and underwear.
Taking turns, the sergeants grabbed Wright’s genitals while the third soldier repeatedly shoved a finger into his anus.
The attack lasted about a minute. But Wright was not the first, nor the last, soldier in C Troop, 1st Squadron, 9th Cavalry Regiment, to endure this kind of assault. The unit calls itself “Crazy Troop.”
Wright, who spoke to Army Times about what happened to him, said all the new guys in the troop experienced some sort of initiation. However, the initiations escalated with attacks on him and two other specialists, he said. The two other victims also described identical attacks in interviews with Army Times.
Army Times typically does not name victims of sexual assault, but Wright decided to speak publicly to try to prevent future attacks and insisted that he be named in the story.
“None of us wants this to happen to other people,” Wright said. “If there’s something good that can come out of this, [it] is prevention of that. I used to play football. I know what hazing is, I know what stupid stuff is. This is too far.”
Another look at sexual assault and a woman speaking out:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/07/17/george_zimmerman_molestation_accusations_relevant_testimony_in_trial.html?wpisrc=obinsite
Also: A lot of the prosecution’s case depends on establishing whether or not Zimmerman is a glib liar who is capable of viciously attacking people and then playing the innocent “who me?” card while insinuating that the victim was asking for it. Pretty much all men who sexually assault women have developed an ability to do this; part of the routine of a rapist is terrifying and hurting someone only to convince the community to embrace him after the fact and write off the victim as hysterical, a liar, or a slut trying to cover her tracks. We know that most sexual assailants are repeat offenders—indeed, this is what the accuser in this case is claiming of Zimmerman—which means they have a lot of opportunities to practice playing innocent and blaming the victim after they’ve committed the crime. If the prosecution wants to establish that Zimmerman is the kind of guy who is capable of assaulting and even murdering someone and then playing innocent victim, a history of cutting his teeth as a sexual assailant helps establish that narrative.
Elaine,
Talk about rapes that don’t get reported because of social stigma … I’m always amazed at Judges and Magistrates who fail to understand that coddling a rapist endangers every male and female within the community. It isn’t the orifice that causes the rapist’s erection, it’s the power to invade the orifice.
rafflaw 1, July 23, 2012 at 12:42 am
Josephine,
Where do you get your facts that this victim was making it up or crying foul? I have seen no such facts. You also may want to double check your latin translation.
=============
Josephine’s commentary is appropriate. What do the pictures indicate? Maybe they just took inappropriate pictures of her while she was passed out. That’s clearly wrong, but if that’s all they did, it isn’t rape.
=================================================
The teenager said had been drinking at the gathering and had passed out, and she was not aware that the assault had taken place until months later when someone informed her that the boys had not only assaulted her but they had taken pictures of the crime and were sharing them with others.
Blouise,
You’re right. I’ve read a number of articles about rape in the military. Not all of the victims are women.
Rape is all about power and any orifice will do. Court-Coddled rapists are as much a threat to other males as they are to females.
I think that these types do not look for loose girls, there’s no kick (perhaps) in that.
They look for innocence. A demonstration object of their ruthless superiority. Drugged drinks probably play a role too.
I say do whatever it takes to reach critical mass.
And why are men here silent? Weird to me.
If we lent our weight, then it would help.
The fifty percent rule is so here in Sweden on rape charges due to same problems, tho perhaps less of a problem here. Nobody loses here except the rapist.
But can’t really judge, I am not in the know in tweet and facebook circles where such may be discussed.
Girls don’t think it is worth the long routine to getting justice however, is my impression.
There is always a factor of reaching a certain “critical mass” before things begin to turn around. If women have to use publicity and the civil courts to add weight until that critical mass is reached, then that’s what it will take.
“ …ruining the reputations of ‘boys’ who have made ‘mistakes.’”
Rape is not a mistake, it is an intentional act, in this case complete with rapist-produced photo documentation. Boys who commit rape are sexual predators who pose a danger to all females within their community. Since the Courts refused to protect the females within the community, technology made it possible for the community to protect itself.
Can Twitter Help Rape Victims Find Justice?
By Amanda Hess
7/23/12
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/07/23/savannah_dietrich_outs_her_rapists_on_twitter_and_facebook.html
Excerpt:
Last summer, 16-year-old Savannah Dietrich went to a party, had some drinks, and passed out. Then, two acquaintances sexually assaulted her, took pictures, and forwarded them to their friends. News of the public assault tore through Dietrich’s Louisville high school. Dietrich was forced to “just sit there and wonder, who saw, who knows?” The public humiliation culminated this June, when her assailants struck a plea deal on charges of felony sexual abuse and misdemeanor voyeurism that Dietrich felt amounted to a “slap on the wrist.” And the court had an order for Dietrich, too: Don’t talk about it, or risk 180 days in prison and a $500 fine.
First, Dietrich cried. Then, she logged online. “There you go, lock me up,” she tweeted to a couple hundred Twitter followers, outing her assailants by name. “I’m not protecting anyone that made my life a living Hell.” These men had made their assault on her public. Now, they had convinced a court to keep it all under wraps. “If reporting a rape only got me to the point that I’m not allowed to talk about it, then I regret it,” she wrote in a note on her Facebook wall. “I regret reporting it.”
Public officials and victim’s advocates have long grappled with the question of why more than one-half of rape victims do not report the crime to police. Rape trials can be long, grueling, humiliating, stigmatizing, alienating, and ultimately difficult to prove. But as Dietrich’s case shows, the criminal justice process can also rob the victim of control over her own narrative. Reporting to official channels often means keeping quiet in social ones. Even when the story hits the press—as is the case of the local Louisville report on Dietrich, now 17—the accused rapists’ names often remain unpublished.
Now, young victims like Dietrich are “reporting” the assault directly to the people who need the information most—other women living in these rapists’ communities. And they’re risking their own names and reputations in order to bring their assailants out into the open. In 2010, 19-year-old American University student Chloe Rubenstein took to Facebook and Twitter to out two men on campus she said had victimized several of her friends (“ATTENTION WOMEN,” she wrote. “They are predators and will show no remorse for anyone.”) In 2007, a group of women at Portland’s Lewis & Clark College, led by sophomore Helen Hunter, created a Facebook group calling one of their classmates a “Piece of Shit Rapist.” When the administration caught wind, it suspended the man for just a semester. But five years later? Google his name, and the online rape allegations still register as the fourth hit.
The tactic has its risks. Women who report rapes through unofficial channels can be shamed for making public claims that have not been proven in a court of law—or else for ruining the reputations of “boys” who have made “mistakes.” Dietrich faces jail time. Rubenstein fielded late-night threatening phone calls from her rapists’ friends. Victims with even less social clout—Dietrich is white and middle-class, and is speaking out with the help of her family and legal counsel—can expect even less support. But the costs of staying silent are high. In her Facebook note, Dietrich said that her attackers gave “people the impression that it’s okay to do that to me … making me look like a whore and increasing my chances of getting raped again.” We know that the majority of acquaintance rapists are repeat offenders. When campus and criminal processes fail to catch these predators, social media can provide a powerful patch.
Barkin’,
I support your suggestion of incraased emphasis of the First Amendment.
Why? Because it seem to be while well-known, it is the one most obviously not used by us citizens.
I mean, who dares. Lose your job, lose your standing, lose your credence. You probably have better reasons
Ruff Ruff Ruff…Dont let the dogs out on Ronald, George. Or Bill
Mespo,
I like the dismissal on constitutional grounds idea.
We have this thing in America called the United States Constitution. The First Amendment has a prong in that thing which is described in many U.S. Supreme Court cases as the “right” to “Petition” the government for redress of grievances. The right of a citizen to read or employ a free press is another right. By using Twitter and the newspaper this person has attempted to petition the government for redress of grievances. Now all of the people in Kentucky have a right to redress a grievance against the Fascist Judge who had threatened this rape victim for exercising her First Amendment rights. Will the people of Kentucky stand up for her and seek to have this Faschist Judge fired ASAP?
From the comments above this dog suggests that the First Amendment get more attention on this law and society blog. If someone has a way of communicating to this kid, then tell her to get a First Amendment lawyer who is not afraid of this nazi court system in Louisville. Or is it Leoville?
Just a dog Barkin, no harm done if you are readin this blog judge. Twitter This!
idealist,
Information on the Juvenile Court Process from the Kentucky Department of Juvenile Justice:
http://djj.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/D3C349A3-1792-478B-A9E6-2A26501CD427/0/TheJuvenileCourtProcessFINAL012110.pdf
Let us not forget the jocks be jocks behavior
of Ronald and Selene Walters….George and
Margie Shoedinger….And Bill and Juanita
Broddereck….and other upper eschelon types
… http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/chatterbox/1999/03/gipper_the_ripper.html …
I wonder if Elaine does not have something, not about legality, but the societal effects.
These young men were perhaps beginning their next step in becoming abusers (to use a general term)
The girls actions may have a beneficial societal effect. Changing the characters of young men on the other hand is nigh impossible IMHO.
Jocks will be jocks, and abusers will be abusers. And the latter type should fine opposition rather than protection from other’s use of the first amendment.
Josephine
shows how she can show that the others are poorly informed on the detailed nature of JC proceedings—-or at least claim to do so.
Next, she is dissed for presenting biased info favoring the boys. In what way was not disclosed.
Thirdly, Josehphine is “shamed”, cause for shame ungiven.
Comment sequences are very interesting. Legal conclusions often impossible to make on the basis of comments.
Messpo’s
comment: ““Legal” has had centuries of experience to develop its principles and yes they work pretty well if you see it in action and know what you’re seeing.”—-would see unassailable. A good piece of information to our lay readers.
But the principles are often abused, as current and other comments attest to having occurred.
And I thought that that was what we were discussing.
But reminding us laymen, in a pleasant tone of voice, that legal is one thing but fair is subjectively applied by the viewer, is a good but misleading deed.