Florida’s Rape Victim Identity Protection Law Is Unconstitutional! | State Attorney Willie Meggs Would Lose On Any Appealed Prosecution Or Legal Challenge For Such Use!

The Tallahassee O will not identify the “alleged rape victim’s name” in the Jameis Winston Case as a matter of courtesy and because it’s already all over the internet.  Our interest has always been publishing the information of corrupt government officials and not that of citizens.  It’s the crooks working in local government that should be exposed with our time and resources dedicated.  We are a First Amendment Website and listened to State Attorney Willie Meggs Speech yesterday stating that media couldn’t publish the alleged victim’s name from the Jameis Winston case and anyone would be arrested for such doing.

We have a First Amendment in America that gives us every right to publish the news as a citizen or media group with no difference between the two for anyone that exercises the First Amendment

The Florida Law That Willie Meggs referred to yesterday refers to a law that prohibits the publication of the identity of an “alleged rape victim”.

It’s unfortunate that we have an unconstitutional crook like State Attorney Willie Meggs that doesn’t follow constitutional law as we live in America today.  Any reasonable legal challenge of this law in federal court outside of the good ol’ boy network that does things different down here in Tallahassee, Florida would have the unconstitutional law struck down.  When you’re Willie Meggs and went to law school about 50 years ago — you probably don’t know the new law to reasonably justify any prosecution based on statements at the press conference yesterday.  Also, when your about 70 and suffering dementia – when can you remember anything? 

The information found below is reposted from Wikipedia!

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Identification of alleged rape victims by media outlets

As a matter of courtesy, most newspapers and broadcast media in the United States do not disclose the name of an alleged rape victim during the trial, and if the alleged rapist is convicted, most will continue to not identify the victim. If the case is dropped or the alleged rapist is acquitted, most media will no longer shield the name of the alleged victim.[dubiousdiscuss] This practice was probably related to laws in some states which made it a crime to publicly reveal the name of the victim in a rape case. When such laws were challenged in court, they were routinely struck down as unconstitutional.[6]

  • in Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn 420 U.S. 469 (1975), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional a Georgia statute that imposed civil liability on media for publishing a rape victim’s name. The news station had obtained the victim’s name from public court records—a factor the Supreme Court held to be important, noting that “the First and Fourteenth Amendments command nothing less than that the States may not impose sanctions on the publication of truthful information contained in official court records open to public inspection.”
  • in Florida Star v. B. J. F., 491 U.S. 524 (1989), the U.S. Supreme Court found a Florida statute which provided penalties for media outlets that publicized the name of an alleged rape victim unconstitutional.
  • in State of Florida v. Globe Communications Corp., 648 So.2d 110 (Fla. 1994), the Florida Supreme Court held that a Florida criminal statute that prohibited the media from identifying the names of sexual assault victims violated the First Amendment. In that case, Globe Communications Corp. twice published the name and identifying information of a sexual assault victim, violating the Florida statute. The paper had lawfully learned the victim’s name through investigation. The Florida Supreme Court relied on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Florida Star v. B.J.F., finding that the Florida statute barring any media publication of a rape victim’s name was unconstitutional because it was “overbroad”; that is, it punished the media even if, for example, the name of the victim was already known in the community. It also found that the statute was “underinclusive” in that it punished only media publication and not acts by a private person.
About these ads
, ,

Subscribe

Subscribe to our RSS feed and social profiles to receive updates.

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 77 other followers

%d bloggers like this: