judas forking priest teddy — this is a forking travesty. thank you for reporting in it. tweeted

Teddy!

I say, “You go, girl! We stand behind you.” This is beyond a travesty, it is an outrage against all that is decent and civilized, and I am not talking about what the boys did, but what the court did to her afterward.

Probably before you weighed in definitively you’d want to know whether the girl was knowingly and expressly defying the ban. We don’t want to leap to the conclusion that she is GOING to be punished for her action, either; it is some law or regulation that she has broken in performing it.

Hopefully, there is some slap on the wrist or stern warning the judge can administer. These kids are juveniles who also have a right to serve their punishment and move on to better things. . .

She’s very brave to stand up and do this.
It says a lot about who she is.

good evening, Suzanne!

Pretty amazing that these “boys” will have their records expunged while their victim might end up in jail. That’s not justice.

Yeah, I don’t have all the facts — but I can’t understand how she can be held in contempt if she wasn’t a party to the plea deal. Sounds like overreach to me, what hold has the judge over her? She’s not tweeting about what happened in court, she’s tweeted about what happened to her — and who did it.

They’ll move on to raping other women; rapists don’t stop until they are stopped.

Boys will be boys, though, right?

After raising 3 girls and a granddaughter, I say it’s about time!

Stand your ground, Savannah.

It’s great she has wonderful parents who stand up with her, too.

That can’t be easy. I don’t know who these rapists are, but I wouldn’t be surprised, based on the easy-off they got with the DA, if they are offspring of community leaders who could bring some pressure to bear.

Good for her for fighting back, since the court wouldn’t. I mean, why were these “boys” tried as juveniles, anyway?

A slap on the wrist for sexual assault combined with posting it on the internet is not even remotely justice. While I do not think they should be locked up for life, I have zero tolerance for sexual assault and they should pay a significant penalty.

Depends on how old they are. If they are 15 or younger, then juvie is truly appropriate. Older than that, it would depend on the details of the case. Either way, they should spend some time inside to contemplate the error of their ways.

Even with increased awareness and education of personal safety and personal rights (ha), I’ve heard that victims usually have a hard time naming names. My mister served on a jury this year which tried a serial child molester. Tough stuff. And, so I agree with you that it is so important that her parents are standing up with her and likely have raised her to be this strong and honest.
I also agree that the “boys” deserve more than a slap on the wrist. I don’t know enough if any about what constitutes juvenile vs. adult in terms of trying this sort of case.
I’d say more, but I might get myself into trouble.

Thanks for the post, Teddy. We can’t let up on sharing the stories, even when they are tough to handle, just because our nerves are already frazzeled.
Keep up the great reporting. Hugs.

The Internet now makes it possible for these boys to be infamous indefinitely. Maybe they should be.

Not to worry,the U.S.Supreme Court ruled in 1977 that the 1st amendment protected a newspaper when they published a juvenile offenders name in violation of Oklahoma law. If a newspaper is protected,surely the victim is protected.

While not knowing all the facts, I can’t imagine the defense lawyer(s) having any daughters. If they do, they should be even more ashamed of themselves. I suspect the boy have some money behind them and their families have influence in the community.

As for Savannah, as a mom of a daughter . . . I am PROUD of you. You took your victimhood back from those slimy b@$t@&ds!!

ONLY in America . . .

The assault did not take place in a confidential, juvenile proceeding. Therefore, she has a first amendment right to speak truthfully about what happened to her and name who is responsible. No plea deal can strip her of her constitutional protections–unless the constitution is meaningless.

Her rights are not bargaining chips for the court to use in securing a plea. She already had her rights and dignity trampled on by the boys, and now the court wants to do the same. It should be that one of the possible consequences of bad behavior is public shaming. They did that to her, now it is payback time.

I read about this elsewhere. The boys were not convicted of rape, but plead guilty to sexual abuse and voyeurism. Now, since it was a plea deal, I don’t know if the charges were reduced. If what they pleaded to was the original charges and they were merely offered leniency in exchange for their pleas, then that would likely mean that they groped and undressed her while she was passed out.

Good to know. That makes sense.

Even under that scenario it still deserves at least a little time in lockup to contemplate the error of their ways.

I think it’s important that everyone’s stories get heard, especially when there’s a wall-to-wall story like Aurora. Things get lost, you know?

They ought have freakin’ Rs tatooed on their foreheads.

Frankly, I hope the prosecutor plea bargains her out. I sure as hell know if I were on her jury I wouldn’t find her guilty of anything.

I don’t know what sentences they received.

I can understand why prosecutors would be willing to cut a deal though. Even though there was photographic proof of the assault, you just don’t know how a jury is going to react. The girl was drinking alcohol (she’s only 17 now) and passed out. I don’t know if she was drugged or just over-drank that much. Anyway, she was doing something she should not have been doing. To a rational person, that still does not excuse the boys’ behavior, but jurors are not always rational.

It is especially important to share stories like this of the relatively powerless standing up to injustice.

They haven’t been sentenced yet, the juvie assaulters.

the boys were “connected”. they got cut a special deal. wouldn’t surprise me if the d.a. got some cash in a paper bag left in some friendly person’s garage.

because that is how it works. and it gets shared. and, in my experience, the price is astonishingly low. for possession of marijuana, about $7,500. for rape, i suppose it might go as high as $20,000.

but, you know, a friendly banker. a friendly pastor. no telling how small town amerikan corruption works.

but i can assure you, it does function.

Highly unlikely a contempt charge would be tried by a jury.

Most likely to be heard by a judge, perhaps the same judge who issued the gag order. That’s what makes it important that the media be allowed in her hearing.

Teddy:
Isn’t Louisville also where two teen lesbians(or gay teens at any rate)were recently beat up outside a local church no less?

Time for me to toddle off. Have to torment my students in the morning.

Did you mean this 1979 unanimous decision, perhaps?

In a unanimous 1979 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Smith v. Daily Mail that the First Amendment protects the right of journalists to use the names of minors in newsworthy stories as long as the information is “lawfully obtained” and “truthfully” reported.[1] In that case, the Court struck down a West Virginia law that had been used to prosecute two West Virginia newspapers that printed the name of a 14-year- old junior high school student alleged to have shot and killed a 15-year-old classmate.

http://www.splc.org/knowyourrights/legalresearch.asp?id=107

Seems to me, Savannah is speaking of her personal experience not of anything she learned in this secret Kentucky court.

Savannah can bring a civil tort action against her rapists and name them in the complaint for all to see. Her rapists can sue for libel if they feel wronged.

Of course, a civil tort action for assault against your rapists may be considered a frivolous lawsuit in Kentucky – better check with Mitch Mcconnell before filing.

I hope there is an outcry. Rape shouldn’t have to be this poor girl’s dirty little secret.

These boys weren’t so darn concerned about privacy when they posted her assault on the internet.

Shame on these attorneys for even considering charging her after getting the boys a sweet plea deal.

That I do not know.

Excellent ideas, all.

I agree. I’m proud of her too. She is forcing THEM to live with the consequences of their actions rather than making this solely about HER living with the consequences of their actions. Good for her.

Uh, Savannah will have to live with her assault for the rest of her life.

As far as I’m concerned they ought to have it hung around their necks for the rest of their lives.

Perhaps if rapists had to live with the consequences of their actions as long as their victims live with those consequences we’d have less rape victims.

It just goes to show you that what is legal is not necessarily justice. This young woman may be victimized twice. First by her attackers and second by the courts. And we think that laws in the Middle East are strange? Go figure.

npl,
” Anyway, she was doing something she should not have been doing.”
SO WHAT! What does that have to do with anything?
Why do you even say a thing like that? Your freudian slip is exposed for all to see. What if “she wasn’t doing something she shouldn’t have been doing?” Would that have made some kind of difference? What’s your point?
You sound so blaze about it. ” Anyway, she was doing something she should not have been doing.”
You make me want to puke.

where’s the defense fund to contribute to.

Nothing about my response was intended to diminish the awfulness of what happened to the young woman. But there’s a strain of vengeance and vigilantism among American liberals just as strong as that among conservatives–one that, as so often, suggests there’s just not that much difference between, and that IMO is quite different from a thirst for real restorative justice, let alone redemption for criminal behavior.

Conservatives are pro-rape.

Actually I was referring to Oklahoma Publishing Co v.District Court which was decided in 1977 but the 1979 case from West Virginia only reinforces the principle that the 1st amendment overides state juvenile confidentially laws.The vast majority of newspapers will not publish the names of juvenile offenders out of respect for the law in their state,not out of fear of actual prosecution.

However with the internet,bloggers usually have no regard for these confidentially laws and this goes doubly for tweeters.

Have to agree about the vengeance and vigilante-ism of liberals as well as conservatives. I actually COMPLETELY sympathize with nonpartisanliberal as far as I don’t understand how she can lose the right to say what happened to her and to name names, juveniles or no juveniles. And yes far too often people get off either because of overt bribes (albertchampion is not wrong) or simply because of their connections. And I support what she’s doing in reaction, BUT I do not at ALL sympathize with those who say they should have this offense hung around their necks for the rest of their lives.

Many MANY people have done things they regret earlier and it’s better to help people become rehabilitated. A famous female mystery writer was a participant in a brutal murder when she was 15. Fortunately, she was not in the US but in New Zealand in 1954. She was released 5 years later having been given a new identity (because of the notoriety of the case).

Should she have instead been punished for the rest of her life? I think not.

Feel free to explain to me what “justice” is for someone who has the life robbed from them?

Our “justice” system is a joke. Furthrmore, the reality is incarcerating someone does not “rehabilitate” someone. Rehabilitation is a choice and *surprise, surprise* many of the selfish and violent people who enter the system end up leaving just as selfish and violent as when they entered.

Who the heck says I want your sympathy?

These boys took something that wasn’t theirs to take and SHE will live with that for the rest of her life, it’ll impact her life and relationships. You’ll forgive me if I don’t think that THEY shouldn’t be forced to live with it for the rest of their lives. As far as I’m concerned they ought to get an anniversary card every year that reminds them they screwed up another human beings life with their disgusting and thoughtless behavior. Let them live with the consequences of their actions the way this young women will. Furthermore, perhaps if the system weren’t so gung ho on coddling rapists we wouldn’t have a rape occuring every six seconds. Rehabilitation? bahahahahahahaha. Yeah THAT is going swimmingly.

Update:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/contempt-motion-dropped-against-kentucky-teenage-girl-who-tweeted-names-of-her-assailants/2012/07/23/gJQAHl2z4W_story.html

The young girl will not be charged.

Ah, yes, the old “eye for an eye” and “tooth for a tooth” theory. That’s not “justice” in my book — it’s vengeance.

Things differ, someone who has lost their life has yes irrevocably lost it and there is no fixing that; but to throw away the life of the person responsible (whether a drunk driver or an angry killer) is often not the best reaction. [Now, when you have an utter and irredeemable psychopath, say Ted Bundy, I don't care if they are executed, but the question is NOT the irrevocable nature of what they did but whether in fact they are an eternal danger to themselves or others, or whether they are fairly normal human beings -- and fairly normal human beings have committed many horrors throughout history -- who in the right circumstances can go on to live decent lives."]

I have less in common with you than a very conservative person who is not so darn hostile.

Excellent, good for her and good for those who stood up for her!