Why are liberals so g-d d-mn st00pid sometimes?

Post Reply New Topic

All of which is correct--but entirely beside the point.

The problem of rapes not getting reported, or not getting addressed properly when they are reported is not going to be solved by allowing this young woman to violate a court order.

Most victims and perpetrators of rape are adults, and victims of rape are free to shame their assailants loud and long over whatever communication channels are available to them. But their freedom to do so has not affected these circumstances that you complain of--so why should we suppose that this young woman's doing so should be in any way ifferent.

It goes some way to giving her revenge, but it does precisely nothing to make other victims of rape any safer.



How do you know? Where is your evidence for this. What is the governing statute and what does it say?

You do this woman no service by lying in her defence.

I dont think thats always true but funny as hell none the less.

AS IF I of all people would lie in defense of this woman! That's gotta be the most ret*d thing you've ever posted on WP, visagrunt.

This is not about a victim getting revenge. That's yet another strawman quite often used by trial lawyers to vilify someone who compromises the interests of their client. Besides, you're CANADIAN! You don't understand the US constitution and I can clearly see this by you dodging the post where I pointed out that this woman's constitutional rights had been violated.


As far as rapists are concerned, I see no reason other than naive old-fashioned ideas about the "innocence of children" to provide protection to sexual predators simply because they happen to be under an arbitrarily defined age. By trying underage rapists as adults, we send the message to would-be offenders and aspiring juvenile delinquents that this is something that they will not get away with. If you want to curb teen violence, this is the way to do it because that is the mindset of teens. I know this since unlike you, I WAS a teenager once.

How would that make sense? Obviously they should be punished, but the frontal lobe of the brain is still being developed so cognitive function of teens is impaired in comparison to adults.

So what? Teenagers are not infants and clearly CAN control their impulses. The point is that they haven't fully developed the capacity for empathizing with other people and thus deterrence, as opposed to persuasion, is the more effective way to get them to control their aggression. Power is what teenage boys tend to respect and respond to.

But ultimately it isn't so much the severity of the punishment, it is the certainty.

But it is precisely the behaviour that you are engaging in. You are posting statements, asserting them to be fact where you cannot know the truth of those statements. You were not present when decisions were made about these proceedings, nor were you present in court for the proceedings themselves, yet you claim to know the motivations of the prosecutors and the judge.

That is--in words of one syllable--a lie.



I seem to know it a damn site better than you do. Her constitutional right to free expression is a limited right. There are all manner of restrictions on free expression, not the least of which is court ordered confidentiality.

If she believes that the order of the court violated the first amendment, her proper remedy is to appeal the order and seek its vacation on that basis--not to blithely ignore the order.



That may well be good public policy--but again, that is entirely beside the point.

The issue that I am addressing is not the treatment of young offenders in the court process. The issue I am addressing is a victim choosing to ignore a court order that prohibits the identification of her assailants. The two are clearly related, but I take the firm view that no amount of egregious policy in the former can serve as a justification for the latter.

Actually, according to law professor Eugene Volokh at UCLA, her 1st and 14th amendment rights were violated . She was not charged with any crime nor did she willingly enter a legal agreement that suspended her right to free speech. And that is my point, you seems to think that judges should be allowed to impose court orders that restrict the rights of someone without due process just because they feel like it.....Which IS against the constitution of the United States. Beat around the bush all you like, but you clearly won't admit to being wrong even though you most certainly are.

Juvenile confidentiality laws serve to prevent the availability of juvenile criminal records to third parties and do not require such offenders to disclose their records upon request if they do not wish to do so. However, they do not legally prevent any victims from speaking publicly about the crimes against them perpetrated by these offenders! Keep in mind that such confidentiality laws are at the sate level whereas constitutional laws are federal.

Here is Volokh's take on it:

http://www.volokh.com/2012/07/22/the-da ... f-privacy/

Here is what AspieRogue is arguing and I agree:
from Volokh's link

there is this caveat...




but then this...




All in all it looks like she was justified in tweeting their names but that quirk in the law is what got her in trouble. I am glad to see that there is so much public outcry in her favor. She is the crime victim and as such the confidentiality should not apply to her. It looks like there is a legal quirk that made it temporarily apply to her...maybe. Volokh makes the case that she qualifies as an exception. Given that the attackers took naked pictures of her during the attack and showed them to people in school (per the article) I think she is completely justified in naming them, given that they already named themselves by showing the pictures to classmates.

I still maintain that violent and sex offenders should be exempt from juvenile confidentiality laws. But ONLY after they have either pleaded guilty or been found guilty in a court of law(and yes, even a juvenile court). Public disclosure of juvenile rapists might be seen by some bleeding hearts as "unfair", but it does have a rational basis to it: To alert women that this is a guy who's dangerous to them and not to be trusted. You see, now that the word is out who these boys are, well, if girls don't wanna date them or if they get banned from attending drunken parties with hot chicks, that's their TOUGH s**t. They should be protected from any kind of legal discrimination, but if certain people want nothing to do with them because of what they did and don't forgive them that's really their problem.

And if that is, indeed, the state of the law, then she has a remedy in the form of appealing for vacation of the order. She has not undertaken that remedy, so the order remains valid and her violation of it remains unprivileged.

Let's look briefly at the law of Kentucky--the state where all of this took place.

Let's start with KRS 610.340(1)(a)



and we should also consider 610.340(6)



It looks to me like the Legislature of Kentucky has been clear on this question. Juvenile records are confidential, and no one shall disclose any content of a confidential record (and that includes the name of the accused) unless they are specifically permitted to do so, or unless the record ceases to be confidential by some specific action of Chaptes 600 to 645 of the KRS, inclusive.

The order was made with full statutory authority--indeed, I think the order is merely a restatement of applicable law enacted by the legislature. The statute is presumed to be constitutional until it is declared otherwise, and I cannot find any decision of a court of competent jurisdiction declaring it to be unconstitutional. You, and I and law professors can opine until the sun goes down, but there is only one opinion that matters: the opinion of the highest court that has ruled on a matter. And we both know what that decision has been. Like it or not--the order remains valid and her breach of it remains illegal.



That's too plainly stupid on three levels.

First, Kentucky law very clearly prohibits victims from disclosing confidential record information. They are free to speak about the crimes--but they are not free to reveal the names of their juvenile assailants. Period.

Second, permitting victims to breach confidentiality orders makes confidentiality laws a nullity. Confidentiality orders apply to everyone, courts, victims, accused (whether convicted or not), media and strangers to the proceedings, alike. If you were to mention the names of the offenders in this website, you would expose Alex to prosecution for violation of the Kentucky statute, and the court order. Allowing one breach in confidentiality makes the whole premise unworkable.

Thirdly, constitutional laws are not federal laws--they are constitutional laws, a category unto themselves. They stand as the supreme laws of all 52 jurisdictions within the United States--the federal jurisdiction, the several states, and the District of Columbia, alike. Now, if freedom of expression was absolute, then you would have a case to make. But as you well know, (or as you should know), free expression is not absolute.

I think I'm right in saying that they haven't been found guilty of raping her, and therefore in the eyes of the law haven't raped her. They've sexually assaulted her or whatever they've pleaded.

In that case visagrunt, as I've said before, this law needs to be changed at once. And fortunately, the process of reform has already begun whether YOU like it or not.



Also, the Kentucky State Law section that you quoted refers to COURT RECORDS Mizz Dietrich did NOT disclose any court records; for the umpteenth f*cking time what she did was NAME her attackers which violated a court order which you stupidly don't realize is not the same thing as a Statute.

Last edited by AspieRogue on 20 Sep 2012, 5:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

They pleaded guilty to rape(which is referred to as "sexual assault" in legalese). That means that as far as the law is concerned the ARE guilty by their own admission. That's what entering a guilty plea is about.

Wrong again, visagrunt!


Thanks to social media, as well as the coverage in mainstream media, the case got the attention of a District Court Judge who dismissed the gag order and granted a motion by Dietrich and her attorney to re-open the court records. The punks names are already out there for the world to know.

I have never suggested that I dislike the process of law reform. If the legislature wants to amend the KSR, then they are free to do so.

As for what this woman did--the identity of an offender is contained with the court records. The name of the accused is right there in the style of cause. Dislosing the name is disclosing, "information contained therein," to which the Kentucky statute specifically refers. Even you should be able to understand that.



Yet again you demonstrate yourself to be long on passion and opinion, but short on scholarship.

Let's see what did the Chief District Judge actually said. "It seems that the antispetic of the truth and openness would benefit all of the parties to this matter." Now, let's read the Kentucky statute again. Specifically the last eight words of paragraph 610.340(1)(a): "unless ordered by the court for good cause."

The District court judge granted a motion to reopen the court records--not because the original order was invalid, but because she decided that the motion to open the records had good cause. Nothing that I have read demonstrates to me that the original gag order was in any way non-compliant with relevant statute.

We shall see, of course, what happens to this latest order on appeal.

And, of course, if she had waited until this motion, and its appeals had been done with, she would not have laboured under the threat of contempt. But she chose to jump the gun. That was her error--not her belief that her attackers were treated leniently, nor her wish to see them named, but her decision to put the cart before the horse.

I am what most would regard as "leftist", and I say that they need to be tortured to death for their actions. I don't even care about their age. Well, I suppose that after a point of being too young, a rapist should merely be put to death through a lethal injection or gas chamber or such, instead of torture, as well... but those that can be proven to be guilty of rape (not "statutory rape", however) would be best to be permanently removed from society, and execution is a cheap and effective alternative (although agreed, not if you perform the process towards the execution like it is done in the U.S.). I do indeed hope that some just, good individual will make sure to take care of these pieces of filth...... some of the problems that arise from executing garbage of this sort are the relatives they leave behind, though, but I'm sure that can be handled rather gracefully, somehow, through free therapy for life, and such.

As for leftists and Christianity.... Jesus may have been a socialist, more or less, but that seems to be pretty much forgotten among most Christians, nowadays, so I see no strong connection there. It does, however, seem to be true that leftists generally are against revenge - at least when you listen to what they say. It is very much the same here in Sweden. However, it is a bit funny how the word "liberals" is used in connection to "leftists", in the U.S. - in Sweden, the highly non-leftist party Folkpartiet also is known as 'Liberalerna', or 'the liberals'. They are liberal regarding free speech, but overall, they are indeed very far from being to the left... for instance, they are very "liberal" regarding market freedom, instead of what the word often is connected to, politically, in the U.S.