Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

The Kobe Case

Kobe Bryant Rape

  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 31 July 2003 - 02:31 PM

I was watching MSNBC earlier today when they mentioned that the Judge in the case had warned the Media that if they printed, reported, or otherwise disclosed the name of the alledged victim, he wouldn't allow them in the court at trial...

Now, I'm not even going to get into how unconstitutional the Judges decree is...

My question is simply this: Why should the alledged victim be so protected, while at the same time, the alledged perp isn't? This man has NOT been convicted, yet the DA and the Judge don't seem to mind one iota if the media says his name and shows is picture. How biased is that?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying the alledged victim is lying. She might be telling the truth, altough I do hope they have more then just her word...

Still, IMO, it only seems right to protect both. Because of this case, Kobe's career will be taking a serious hit. Even if he's found not guilty. I just don't see how it's fair to protect one and not the other.

What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Edited by Certifiably Cait, 02 September 2012 - 03:42 PM.

"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#2 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 31 July 2003 - 02:33 PM

LORD of the SWORD, on Jul 30 2003, 08:21 PM, said:

Now, I'm not even going to get into how unconstitutional the Judges decree is...
Please do, actually. I'd like to know why that's unconstitutional. I think it's, at best, debatable.

Quote

My question is simply this: Why should the alledged victim be so protected, while at the same time, the alledged perp isn't? This man has NOT been convicted, yet the DA and the Judge don't seem to mind one iota if the media says his name and shows is picture. How biased is that?

That part I agree with. The door swings both ways.

Quote

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying the alledged victim is lying. She might be telling the truth, altough I do hope they have more then just her word...

Agreed.

Quote

Still, IMO, it only seems right to protect both. Because of this case, Kobe's career will be taking a serious hit. Even if he's found not guilty. I just don't see how it's fair to protect one and not the other.

Actually, sales of some of his merchandise is up. You never know. But in principle, yeah.

Quote

What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

In the court of public opinion, that doesn't apply for rape. Nothing new, sad to say.

Edited by Javert Rovinski, 31 July 2003 - 02:35 PM.

St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#3 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 31 July 2003 - 03:00 PM

Javert Rovinski, on Jul 30 2003, 11:23 PM, said:

LORD of the SWORD, on Jul 30 2003, 08:21 PM, said:

Now, I'm not even going to get into how unconstitutional the Judges decree is...
Please do, actually. I'd like to know why that's unconstitutional. I think it's, at best, debatable.

Simply because it impinges upon free speech, which makes it uncostitutional. The Judge has the power, and the right, to tell the DA what to do...he can even dictate what the defense lawyers can do...he can not, however, dictate what the press can and can not report, especially since it's an open court room.

If it's an open court room, it's a matter of public record. Which basicaly means the media is free to do what it wishes, in regards to reporting about it.

If you have an argument for why it isn't unsonstitutional, I'd love to hear it.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#4 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 31 July 2003 - 03:09 PM

Quote

Simply because it impinges upon free speech, which makes it uncostitutional.
Free speech is impinged upon all the time. Guarantees to free speech (and a free media) aren't absolute.

Quote

The Judge has the power, and the right, to tell the DA what to do...he can even dictate what the defense lawyers can do...he can not, however, dictate what the press can and can not report, especially since it's an open court room.

The idea here is, I believe, that revealing the alleged victim's identity would preclude a fair trial. Judges are allowed to juggle conflicting constitutional imperatives. <Hence 'gag orders'.>

Quote

If it's an open court room, it's a matter of public record. Which basicaly means the media is free to do what it wishes, in regards to reporting about it.

I'll have to dig for statutes. It's usually not that simple.

Quote

If you have an argument for why it isn't unsonstitutional, I'd love to hear it.

I'll get back to you.
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#5 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 31 July 2003 - 03:20 PM

My mistake. I've given up on following the Kobe's case, so I only heard about this in passing.

Upon further research:

http://www.nytimes.c...&partner=GOOGLE

Quote

"The privacy of the alleged victim is of significant importance to this court," the judge, Frederick W. Gannett of Eagle County Court in Colorado, wrote in an order filed yesterday. "Any media or other person who broadcasts, publishes or otherwise disseminates the image or name of such person may be subject to exclusion from certain proceedings and/or other legal sanctions."

He cited *privacy*, not due process. That makes it unconstitional.

Mr. Abrams phrases it properly:

Quote

"The notion of conditioning access to the courtroom on the basis of a promise not to publish the alleged victim's name and picture is plainly unconstitutional," Floyd Abrams, the prominent First Amendment lawyer, said. "There is no legal basis consistent with the First Amendment to keep her identity secret. It's a major imposition on First Amendment rights to transform a shared sense among most journalists that the name of the alleged victim should not be published into a matter of legal compulsion."

Given the judge's justification, I'm not sure what his constitutional basis is...
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#6 Jid

Jid

    Mad Prophet of Funk

  • Islander
  • 12,554 posts

Posted 31 July 2003 - 03:39 PM

^Well, it may not be so much an issue of constitution as avoiding the possibility that this happens again.
cervisiam tene rem specta

#7 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 31 July 2003 - 03:40 PM

^

On the contrary Jid. If the name was public, the misidentification never would have happened.
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#8 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 01 August 2003 - 01:42 AM

I would just prefer that the media stayoutside of cases like Kobe and the Peterson cases till there is actual testimoney. I HATE the attempt to give out evidence beofre a jury as been drawn and sequestored.

In short stop the media trial and get back to fighting the cases before judges and juries.

Or lets change the system so media and handle criminal cases and get rid of the systemI am sure with reality TV we could make a great show around these cases and matters of guilt and innocents can be set aside by how well the person looks or behaves.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#9 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,149 posts

Posted 01 August 2003 - 06:37 AM

Quote

Simply because it impinges upon free speech, which makes it uncostitutional.

There are things you shouldn't do in the name of good taste, and releaseing rape victims names is one of them, although I agree that it's a bad deal for the accused, be it Bryant or anyone else.

Quote

In short stop the media trial and get back to fighting the cases before judges and juries.

That's twice we've agreed on something, just stop it!
Can't Touch This!!

#10 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 01 August 2003 - 07:01 AM

LOTS surely the idea of closed courtrooms and limitations on the press in criminal cases is not unfamiliar to you.

Edited by Una Salus Lillius, 01 August 2003 - 07:02 AM.

Posted Image

#11 prolog

prolog

    The Merry Programmer

  • Islander
  • 1,062 posts

Posted 01 August 2003 - 07:36 AM

By referring to him as "Kobe", you're giving in to the spin-doctoring that occurs in these sorts of cases.  Are you really buddy buddy with him?  Should you really be calling him by his first name?

#12 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 01 August 2003 - 07:43 AM

Huh???

I call Kevin Sorbo "Kevin".  Um....so?
Posted Image

#13 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 01 August 2003 - 09:07 AM

Una Salus Lillius, on Jul 31 2003, 03:51 PM, said:

LOTS surely the idea of closed courtrooms and limitations on the press in criminal cases is not unfamiliar to you.
No it isn't unfamiliar to me. And, if that was the case here, and the court room was closed I would have no problem with it. But, such isn't the case. The Judge has agreed to allow cameras into the courtroom, but, then "To guard the privacy of the alledged victim" has said that any reporter who released the alledged victims name wouldn't be allowed in court at the trial, and may face other penalities.

Surely even you, Lil, have to agree that the Judge has overstepped his bounds?
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#14 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 01 August 2003 - 09:21 AM

Yeah he overstepped his bounds but not for the reason you allege.

I don't think there's a free speech problem at all.  I have very strong feelings about just how much leeway the press is given to pry into whatever they want "because the people have a right to know".  I'm sick of the way the press abuses its freedom.  

But yes the judge is treating the defendant like he's already been convicted.

That  is a problem.
Posted Image

#15 eechick

eechick
  • Islander
  • 4,219 posts

Posted 02 August 2003 - 03:49 AM

http://courttv.com/p...bryant2_ap.html

Quote

Attorneys for media organizations -- including the Los Angeles Times, Denver Post and NBC -- have argued that many details have been publicized already, some by Bryant and the district attorney. They also contend the public should have the opportunity to determine the veracity of statements made by those involved in the case.

Gannett has already ordered a limit on public comment about the case by attorneys, authorities and others, including Bryant and any witnesses. He said the order was necessary to guarantee a fair trial.

Gannett also warned organizations not to publish or broadcast the name or photograph of any witness, juror, potential juror or the alleged victim and her family on the courthouse grounds. Any organization violating the order could be denied a seat in the courtroom.

So it isn't just info about the alleged victim that the judge doesn't want published.  It also includes witnesses, etc.  

And his order is a tad late since Mr. Bryant and many others have already made public comments about the case.

(Maybe the next time Bryant considers cheating on his wife he'll decide to keep it in his pants.)



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Kobe Bryant, Rape

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users