Talk vs action

[Big RR]

Guin--while I agree with your conclusion re any public disclosure of what goes on in the court, can a court order her not to publicly disclose the identity of her attackers if she knew it independently of any such prceedings? Clearly they may have some recourse in the civil courts against her (such as for libel--of course truth is a defense), but under what theory could the court restrict her speech in such a case? I'm not saying it could not, but I will admit I am unaware of a lot of the intracacies of the juvenile justice system. My understanding is that gag orders can be imposed to either protect the court proceedings from the effect of publicity during the trial, and possibly to keep the proceedings confidential in extreme circumstances (such as in juvenile trials), but I would be surprised if someone could be enjoined from telling the truth of something they idnepndently learned.

[Beer Sponge]

And that is accomplished by recognizing that minors are not simply miniature adults, that their minds are not fully formed and so they lack an adult's ability to appreciate the full ramifications of their actions, and that consequently they should not be treated as if they were adults.

The ramifications of their actions will affect her for the rest of her life, so why shouldn't the consequences remain on the record for the rest of their lives as well?

[Jarlaxle]

Anyone old enough to be pissed at a party, and sexually molest a drunk girl, and then to put the videotaped incident and share it with their friends online, does not merit that protection.

Note: They are older than my uncle was when he enlisted!

I almost wonder if they bought off the judge.