Mon Jul 23, 2012, 05:42 PM

Contempt motion dropped against Ky. teenager

Source: Associated Press

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) -- A 17-year-old Kentucky girl who defied a court order by tweeting the names of two teenagers who pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting her won't face a contempt charge.

David Mejia (meh-HEE'-yah), an attorney for one of the accused boys, says the motion to hold 17-year-old Savannah Dietrich of Louisville in contempt was withdrawn Monday.

Mejia says the decision had nothing to do with public sentiment in the case, although an online petition campaign had garnered more than 62,000 signatures. He said there's no need for the motion now that Dietrich spread word about the case over the Internet.

Read more: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TWITTER_TEEN_ASSAULTED?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

11 replies, 2297 views

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

11 replies	Author	Time	Post
Contempt motion dropped against Ky. teenager (Original post)	Comrade_McKenzie	Jul 2012	OP
What would have happened to her, 20 years ago?	AtheistCrusader	Jul 2012	#1
Yep, I don't believe that lawyer for a second...	Comrade_McKenzie	Jul 2012	#2
I can understand the request for a gag order	ChairmanAgnostic	Jul 2012	#3
Regardless, there never should have been a gag order that pertained to the victim.	1monster	Jul 2012	#7
I'm with you on this	ChairmanAgnostic	Jul 2012	#10
Good to hear.	AnotherMcIntosh	Jul 2012	#4
This message was self-deleted by its author	Gman	Jul 2012	#5
This is good news	Gothmog	Jul 2012	#6
Good	4th law of robotics	Jul 2012	#8
No sense at all. Part of the reason for publishing the names of the guilty	A Simple Game	Jul 2012	#9
excellent!	Liberal_in_LA	Jul 2012	#11

Response to Comrade_McKenzie (Original post)

Mon Jul 23, 2012, 05:44 PM

AtheistCrusader (14,238 posts)

1. What would have happened to her, 20 years ago?

What would have happened if this hadn't gone viral, and outrage marshalled against it?

Sad, really.

Reply to this post

Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #1)

Mon Jul 23, 2012, 05:47 PM

Comrade_McKenzie (2,526 posts)

2. Yep, I don't believe that lawyer for a second...

When he says that the public outrage had nothing to do with the decision.

Reply to this post

Response to Comrade_McKenzie (Reply #2)

Mon Jul 23, 2012, 06:01 PM

ChairmanAgnostic (24,001 posts)

3. I can understand the request for a gag order

I can understand trying to cover up a crime against a 17 yr old.
I can understand it, but unless the boys were minors, in many cases, courts do protect the ID of yutes. If they were 18 or older, fuck em.

But, to seek sanctions AFTER the release of their IDs, now, someone was not thinking very hard ahead.

Reply to this post

Response to ChairmanAgnostic (Reply #3)

Mon Jul 23, 2012, 07:07 PM

1monster (8,738 posts)