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