lummy 4 #51 October 2, 2006 I'm curious, Why is the alleged victim's name being reported in the press? I thought it was illegal to disclose a minors identity in cases like this?I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #52 October 3, 2006 QuoteThe next phase has begun. (That's the 'blame the victim' phase.) From Matt Drudge: --------- And if anything, these kids are less innocent, these 16 and 17 year-old beasts. And I've seen what they're doing on youTube and I've seen what they're doing all over the internet, oh yeah. You just have to tune into any part of their pop culture. You're not going to tell me these are innocent babies. Have you read the transcripts that ABC posted going into the weekend of these instant messages, back and forth? The kids are egging the Congressman on! ------- Well I heard Drudge and he was pretty much taking his own line on this. His main point was the one I mentioned above that if they'd actually had sex in D.C. it would have been legal, but he text messaged him something suggestive and it's criminal, the thrust being that they're regulating the internet & digital communications in ways that make no sense in reality. He did make the point that there was a two way conversation with the victim talking about explicit stuff, but I don't think he was too out of line highlighting the raging hypocrisy here considering his remarks in total. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #53 October 3, 2006 QuoteCurious, Bill, as to who wrote that. It would be significantly horrific if it came from a republican or democrat elected leader...however, I don't think it has. Can you identify who wrote it? It wasn't written, it's a quote from Drudge's Sunday night radio show, and yes he said it as part of one of his cynical rants. P.S. the most memorable part of the show (and I only caught fragments of it driving & channel hopping) was some redneck from Ohio who called in to pretty much say that they should have known the guy was damaged goods because the candidate was gay! Drudge cut the guy off and wasn't having any of it but it was priceless, I guess he thought he'd get a sympathetic ear. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #54 October 3, 2006 QuoteI'm curious, Why is the alleged victim's name being reported in the press? I thought it was illegal to disclose a minors identity in cases like this? I'm unaware, offhand (w/o doing research), of any laws in the US that would make that illegal, especially if it's not a court case. It has, however, been an accepted self-imposed ethical restriction among the news media to be very hesitant to report a juvenile's name in many cases like this. Generally, in most states, juvenile court cases are sealed, and in some states it's illegal for someone who's authorized to have the juvenile-defendant's name to leak it. (Exception: when a juvenile is certified to be tried as an adult.) But it's generally not illegal for the reporter to whom it's leaked to report it. (Although this trend is beginning to reverse, as we know from "national security" cases.) That being said, I personally agree with what I think your post implies: as a matter of professional ethics, the news media probably should have restrained themselves from reporting this kid's name (unless the kid decided on his own to go public to the media with his own side of the story). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
