Court Opinion

ID: 9596387
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:49:04.263177+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:57.967592
License: Public Domain

McANULTY, Judge,
dissenting.
While the goal of protecting the privacy of a victim of a sexual offense is laudable, the corresponding danger of allowing government to operate secretly outweighs any possible benefit, in my humble opinion. Our Constitution provides for a presumption of innocence for all individuals accused of a crime. Today, we have created a presumption that a unilateral report is true.
The underpinning of the majority’s decision appears to be a need to insulate victims from potentially tasteless journalists who would appear at the doorstep of a sexual abuse victim. The same rationale would apply to protect the family of a homicide victim. Unfortunately, the legislature cannot legislate good taste and we cannot insulate the world from all that is harmful and undesirable. This is especially true in the context of protecting liberty interests.
Section 8 of our Constitution provides: Printing presses shall be free to every person who undertakes to examine the proceedings of the General Assembly or any branch of government, and no law shall ever be made to restrain the right thereof. Every person may freely and fully speak, write and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty.
(Emphasis supplied.)
As I believe this policy we authorize today allows the City to conduct its business in contravention of our Constitution, I respectfully dissent.