The Duggars: In the Media and TLC

[Zella]

I do wish the girls' ages had been blacked out on the report, to prevent anyone from identifying them definitively, but I agree this lawsuit isn't going anywhere. Names and addresses were redacted, to the point that the report was sometimes hard to follow. 

[BitterApple]

4 hours ago, GeeGolly said:

I'm actually one of the few posters behind this lawsuit. I just wish they would agree to donate any financial award to an appropriate cause.

I agree. I think I'm one of the few who thought that police report should never have been released, redacted or not. 

[kokapetl]

4 hours ago, GeeGolly said:

I'm actually one of the few posters behind this lawsuit. I just wish they would agree to donate any financial award to an appropriate cause.

I support the lawsuit. 

From the ruling 

“The content and circumstances of these disclosures do not just meet the standard of ‘shockingly degrading or egregiously humiliating,’ they illustrate them.” 

And

Guided by the considerations detailed in Peffer, Eagle, and Cooksey, we hold that the appellees have alleged a plausible claim for the violation of a constitutional right. The appellees allege City and County law enforcement obtained information about Josh’s abuse from the appellees and their family, promising them confidentiality. They allege the officials then released those law enforcement reports to the public. They allege they were minors at the time of the molestation and at the time the reports were created. They allege the reports contained graphic details of their incestuous sexual abuse. And, they allege the reports were insufficiently redacted, de facto revealing their names to the public. Finally, they allege the officials released the reports in an effort to promote the appearance of transparency. Therefore, the appellees have pleaded sufficient facts to meet Peffer’s “exacting standard.” See Eagle, 88 F.3d at 625.
The information released by the officials involved “highly personal matters representing the most intimate aspect of human affair,” Eagle, 88 F.3d at 625 (internal quotation removed), and the appellees had a legitimate expectation of privacy in that information. Not only did police promise the appellees that the information would remain private, but Arkansas law also supported this expectation of privacy. In sum, the information was inherently private and is therefore entitled

Arkansas Code provides that
[a] law enforcement agency shall not disclose to the public information directly or indirectly identifying the victim of a sex offense except to the extent that disclosure is:
(1) Of the site of the sex offense;
(2) Required by law;
(3) Necessary for law enforcement purposes; or (4) Permitted by the court for good cause.
Ark. Code Ann. § 16-90-1104(b).
Section 16-90-1104(b)(2) includes an exception for disclosures required by law, but the exception is clarified by Arkansas’s Child Maltreatment Act, which states that
[a]ny data, records, reports, or documents that are created, collected, or compiled by or on behalf of the Department of Human Services, the Department of Arkansas State Police, or other entity authorized under this chapter to perform investigations or provide services to children, individuals, or families shall not be subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act of 1967, § 25-19-101 et seq.

Edited July 13, 2019 by kokapetl

[Zella]

1 hour ago, kokapetl said:

I support the lawsuit. 

From the ruling 

“The content and circumstances of these disclosures do not just meet the standard of ‘shockingly degrading or egregiously humiliating,’ they illustrate them.” 

And

Guided by the considerations detailed in Peffer, Eagle, and Cooksey, we hold that the appellees have alleged a plausible claim for the violation of a constitutional right. The appellees allege City and County law enforcement obtained information about Josh’s abuse from the appellees and their family, promising them confidentiality. They allege the officials then released those law enforcement reports to the public. They allege they were minors at the time of the molestation and at the time the reports were created. They allege the reports contained graphic details of their incestuous sexual abuse. And, they allege the reports were insufficiently redacted, de facto revealing their names to the public. Finally, they allege the officials released the reports in an effort to promote the appearance of transparency. Therefore, the appellees have pleaded sufficient facts to meet Peffer’s “exacting standard.” See Eagle, 88 F.3d at 625.
The information released by the officials involved “highly personal matters representing the most intimate aspect of human affair,” Eagle, 88 F.3d at 625 (internal quotation removed), and the appellees had a legitimate expectation of privacy in that information. Not only did police promise the appellees that the information would remain private, but Arkansas law also supported this expectation of privacy. In sum, the information was inherently private and is therefore entitled

Arkansas Code provides that
[a] law enforcement agency shall not disclose to the public information directly or indirectly identifying the victim of a sex offense except to the extent that disclosure is:
(1) Of the site of the sex offense;
(2) Required by law;
(3) Necessary for law enforcement purposes; or (4) Permitted by the court for good cause.
Ark. Code Ann. § 16-90-1104(b).
Section 16-90-1104(b)(2) includes an exception for disclosures required by law, but the exception is clarified by Arkansas’s Child Maltreatment Act, which states that
[a]ny data, records, reports, or documents that are created, collected, or compiled by or on behalf of the Department of Human Services, the Department of Arkansas State Police, or other entity authorized under this chapter to perform investigations or provide services to children, individuals, or families shall not be subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act of 1967, § 25-19-101 et seq.

I wasn't aware of this law but can definitely see why they're sueing. 

[PikaScrewChu]

This is an instance of law not catching up with privacy and/or policy makers not knowing how to adequately address situations because they are so rare. 

I just sent in a FOIA request for something. I've done this a dozen times in my line of work and am still surprised at how lax regulations are. I have gotten information I clearly shouldn't have access to on several occasions because of the fact there are such rigid times to reply and give out the information. 

Realistically this is a state/nation-wide issue and should be lobbying for changes in privacy law. This is just the remnants of the lawsuit that wasn't dismissed and I'm skeptical that it will lead to any major changes in how FOIA requests are handled. 

The problem is people submitting FOIA requests (especially of this nature) are so rare and putting limitations on when you have to respond to a FOIA request leads to massive mistakes. They do not have the time to get multiple opinions on how well redacting is done, etc. It's essentially crossing your fingers and hoping you did the best. Generally the experts in the exact letter of the law will take weeks to get back to you and oops, you've missed the deadline. What now? You just broke the law too.

Is it an excuse? No. But there are systemic problems that lead to the four Duggars being easily identified in the report and whatever comes out of this lawsuit is not going to address those systemic failures. That and I don't think JB and Michelle honestly care that their daughters' privacy was compromised. This part of the lawsuit always just struck me as a side piece. The lawsuit against InTouch was what they were really aiming for. 

Edited July 13, 2019 by PikaScrewChu

[kokapetl]

2 hours ago, PikaScrewChu said:

This is an instance of law not catching up with privacy and/or policy makers not knowing how to adequately address situations because they are so rare. 

I just sent in a FOIA request for something. I've done this a dozen times in my line of work and am still surprised at how lax regulations are. I have gotten information I clearly shouldn't have access to on several occasions because of the fact there are such rigid times to reply and give out the information. 

Realistically this is a state/nation-wide issue and should be lobbying for changes in privacy law. This is just the remnants of the lawsuit that wasn't dismissed and I'm skeptical that it will lead to any major changes in how FOIA requests are handled. 

The problem is people submitting FOIA requests (especially of this nature) are so rare and putting limitations on when you have to respond to a FOIA request leads to massive mistakes. They do not have the time to get multiple opinions on how well redacting is done, etc. It's essentially crossing your fingers and hoping you did the best. Generally the experts in the exact letter of the law will take weeks to get back to you and oops, you've missed the deadline. What now? You just broke the law too.

Is it an excuse? No. But there are systemic problems that lead to the four Duggars being easily identified in the report and whatever comes out of this lawsuit is not going to address those systemic failures. That and I don't think JB and Michelle honestly care that their daughters' privacy was compromised. This part of the lawsuit always just struck me as a side piece. The lawsuit against InTouch was what they were really aiming for. 

I used to work in FOI in Australia, we had like a week to just send out the initial “thank you for your application” letter. I think the actual time frame for supplying the actual information was like 45 or 90 days, and if it took longer, then it just did.

The people in the Duggar case did it all over a weekend or something 

[PikaScrewChu]

52 minutes ago, kokapetl said:

I used to work in FOI in Australia, we had like a week to just send out the initial “thank you for your application” letter. I think the actual time frame for supplying the actual information was like 45 or 90 days, and if it took longer, then it just did.

The people in the Duggar case did it all over a weekend or something 

I've worked with some jurisdictions where the turn-around is less than a week to respond and send out the requested information. No exceptions. I can't remember what it was with Arkansas but there was no way they could have properly consulted with several experts in order to make sure that the information was adequately redacted in that time frame.

I get why because FOIA requests generally aren't supposed to be for other people's information. Say you needed a police report to give your your insurance company and you need it in a timely manner. It prevents the departments from ignoring requests for several months and dragging out the process. That being said, the laws need to flexible to account for the differences between someone requesting something they need ASAP and what happened with the Duggars.

[floridamom]

Legalities aside about this case, I'm wondering why the Duggars' actions don't match up. After this news was made public and the 4 victims were easily identified, the Duggars' behavior went on as usual; continuing to put their lives out there for all to see without really missing a step. If the girls were so traumatized and embarrassed by this news coming out, why didn't they 'retire' from public life and go on privately? They seemed not to really be bothered by this. Their parents have some 'hard faces' to show their mugs on TV after the awful way they handled this matter. I believe that the parents hold some responsibility for this coming out and should have NEVER gone on TV with this secret they tried to hide. Like Michelle has stated on TV many times..."your sins will find you out". 

[GeeGolly]

21 minutes ago, floridamom said:

Legalities aside about this case, I'm wondering why the Duggars' actions don't match up. After this news was made public and the 4 victims were easily identified, the Duggars' behavior went on as usual; continuing to put their lives out there for all to see without really missing a step. If the girls were so traumatized and embarrassed by this news coming out, why didn't they 'retire' from public life and go on privately? They seemed not to really be bothered by this. Their parents have some 'hard faces' to show their mugs on TV after the awful way they handled this matter. I believe that the parents hold some responsibility for this coming out and should have NEVER gone on TV with this secret they tried to hide. Like Michelle has stated on TV many times..."your sins will find you out". 

I respectfully disagree. No one should have to hide away because they were molested. And being on TV doesn't give others the right to protected information.

I also don't agree that JB & M tried to hide a secret. It's nobody's business, outside of the authorities, that their son molested four of their daughters.

[ginger90]

35 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

I also don't agree that JB & M tried to hide a secret. It's nobody's business, outside of the authorities, that their son molested four of their daughters.

If it wasn’t for their hypocrisy , I’d probably agree.

[GeeGolly]

7 minutes ago, ginger90 said:

If it wasn’t for their hypocrisy , I’d probably agree.

I don't see the hypocrisy of staying public and wanting the molestations private.

[PikaScrewChu]

The scummy part is I suspect the bigwigs at TLC knew and carried on scripting the show as "family friendly".

Granted it seems everyone associated with the Duggars is problematic at this point. It came out recently that the officiant at Benessa's wedding was accused of sexual assault of at least one of his siblings.

[doodlebug]

3 hours ago, GeeGolly said:

I don't see the hypocrisy of staying public and wanting the molestations private.

I see hypocrisy in presenting one's family as completely wholesome and the kids as perfect role models for godly Christianity while knowing that one's son molested multiple children.  The Duggars' holier than thou attitude, their tacit assertion that their way of life was better and that their kids were better off for having followed their ways is hypocrisy at its finest, IMO.  No family is perfect, but JB and M tried to present theirs as darn near perfect even while knowing there were major problems with their kids.

That they sought the spotlight for their family all the while knowing that a lot of people were aware of Josh' crimes was ignorant at best, selfish at worst.  The girls had no choice in the molestation, but they also had no choice in becoming public figures.  We don't know that they would've chosen to continue living in the same home as their perverted brother, that they wanted teevee careers, that they were ok with their parents excusing their brother's actions.  They never got to choose.  They also didn't choose to stand in front of dozens of people at church, acknowledge what their brother did to them and then assert that he was forgiven.  That is, after all, where the story leaked out initially.  NONE of this was their doing.  I find it hard to believe that they weren't every bit as embarrassed and humiliated when their parents forced them to stand up in front of virtually everyone they knew and admit to their 'sin' which drove their brother to molest them.

Edited July 14, 2019 by doodlebug

[Oldernowiser]

Doodlebug, standing ovation. Perfectly said.

For me, it comes down to the family suing others for accidentally violating the girls’ privacy while simultaneously and deliberately exploiting them for decades.

They don’t get both.

[PikaScrewChu]

2 hours ago, doodlebug said:

I see hypocrisy in presenting one's family as completely wholesome and the kids as perfect role models for godly Christianity while knowing that one's son molested multiple children.  The Duggars' holier than thou attitude, their tacit assertion that their way of life was better and that their kids were better off for having followed their ways is hypocrisy at its finest, IMO.  No family is perfect, but JB and M tried to present theirs as darn near perfect even while knowing there were major problems with their kids.

They still continue to present their way as the godly model for Christianity. In their minds they "fixed" the issue. Meanwhile the family is more dysfunctional than the Kardashians.

Their fan base still laps it up and here we are.

[lascuba]

Quote

 They allege the reports contained graphic details of their incestuous sexual abuse.

I thought the abuse was no big deal and not at all traumatic and not even abuse, really, since it was just Josh being a little too curious about girls? But now the details of the non-abuse are graphic? Okay.

It burns be that they're making this suit about their civil rights when their entire reason for living is to deny civil rights to as many people as possible. 

I've always thought suing the state/county/city made more sense than suing In Touch, though in my decidedly non-expert opinion not by much and I hope they lose. Even trying to put my contempt for that family aside, would the redactions be considered insufficient if the Duggars weren't celebrities? If someone had submitted an FOIA request about a random family with similar redaction, the public wouldn't have been able to guess who the victims were. I can't blame someone for just following procedure without considering that someone's fame might make it impossible to effectively redact. 

It will always be funny to me that if they had reported Josh's actions when they happened none of this information would have ever been released. 

[GeeGolly]

The girls have a choice now and they're choosing to sue.

And as I said, I'm one of few posters that support this.

Edited July 14, 2019 by GeeGolly

[lascuba]

They had a choice when they did that Megyn Kelly interview. 

[sleepysuzy]

I don't think the parents being hypocrites precludes the daughters from getting restitution for an invasion of privacy. No matter how Jim and Michelle may have misrepresented the family on the show and in other public venues, the legal rights of rhe girls does not change. It smacks of victim blaming to me, especially since they were children at the time and its really their parents who made all of yhe hypocritical decisions. 

Joy was 5 when she was molested, and still a minor when it came out. The fact that no one - her parents or those who fulfilled the FOIA request or the media - protected her is reprehensible. Her older sisters may have been adults when the information came out,  but they still are innocent victims of childhood sexual abuse,  no matter how much anyone hates the family, religion, or show. Protection of minors and sex abuse victims trumps sticking it to Jim, Michelle, and Gothardism in my book.

[PikaScrewChu]

4 hours ago, lascuba said:

I thought the abuse was no big deal and not at all traumatic and not even abuse, really, since it was just Josh being a little too curious about girls? But now the details of the non-abuse are graphic? Okay.

It burns be that they're making this suit about their civil rights when their entire reason for living is to deny civil rights to as many people as possible. 

I've always thought suing the state/county/city made more sense than suing In Touch, though in my decidedly non-expert opinion not by much and I hope they lose. Even trying to put my contempt for that family aside, would the redactions be considered insufficient if the Duggars weren't celebrities? If someone had submitted an FOIA request about a random family with similar redaction, the public wouldn't have been able to guess who the victims were. I can't blame someone for just following procedure without considering that someone's fame might make it impossible to effectively redact. 

It will always be funny to me that if they had reported Josh's actions when they happened none of this information would have ever been released. 

They couldn't sue InTouch and their employees without sueing the City of Springdale and all the individuals involved with the redacting process. It would have looked reeeeally bad had they only gunned for InTouch/Bauer Media. There were several individuals involved and the City of Springdale before it was whittled down to these three. The case against Springdale as a city was always going to be dismissed. There is some clause in Arkansas law about that. It was then a case of who was involved in the redacting process that could be held responsible for not properly redacting the information. Now it is down to these three people.

Realistically I would have rather see them campaign for more strigent privacy laws and mandatory, comprehensive FOIA education for government employees. I will reiterate I am skeptical that there will be any meaningful change that comes out of the remainder of this lawsuit. It doesn't harm the city, county, or state in any shape or form. They have no initiative to change. Now it's just three meaningless individuals who were befuddled on how to handle such a request. No taxpayer money will be lost to the Duggars as a result. All the ones who had the power to change laws have had the lawsuits dismissed against them. 

It'll probably take happening to a bigger celebrity for such laws to actually change.

[lascuba]

49 minutes ago, PikaScrewChu said:

They couldn't sue InTouch and their employees without sueing the City of Springdale and all the individuals involved with the redacting process. It would have looked reeeeally bad had they only gunned for InTouch/Bauer Media. There were several individuals involved and the City of Springdale before it was whittled down to these three. The case against Springdale as a city was always going to be dismissed. There is some clause in Arkansas law about that. It was then a case of who was involved in the redacting process that could be held responsible for not properly redacting the information. Now it is down to these three people.

Realistically I would have rather see them campaign for more strigent privacy laws and mandatory, comprehensive FOIA education for government employees. I will reiterate I am skeptical that there will be any meaningful change that comes out of the remainder of this lawsuit. It doesn't harm the city, county, or state in any shape or form. They have no initiative to change. Now it's just three meaningless individuals who were befuddled on how to handle such a request. No taxpayer money will be lost to the Duggars as a result. All the ones who had the power to change laws have had the lawsuits dismissed against them. 

It'll probably take happening to a bigger celebrity for such laws to actually change.

That sums up one of my issues with the lawsuit...they're going after individuals who were, to their knowledge, following the letter of the law. And this brings me to a question...which law was violated/should be changed? And that's a serious question. IIRC, the reason the police records hadn't been sealed initially was because the investigation didn't lead to any charges, so this specific case seems to fall in this legal grey area that no one predicted. Redacted documents were legally allowed to be released, and the only reason that redaction was ineffective was because the Duggars are famous enough that many people could easily guess which daughters were abused. So...do we need a law that force officials to be aware of the levels of fame of people involved in FIOA requests? Should there be a law that says that any records detailing the sexual abuse of minors should be sealed, period? Because that one seems like a great way to protect predators. 

[PikaScrewChu]

I'm looking at the court filing. InTouch sent their FOIA request May 15th and the city was required by Arkansas law to fulfill it by May 20th. An extension could have been granted but it's never a given that the government will grant the extension or that you will get ahold of the proper person who will get the government to grant you the extension. That is a very unrealistic timeline. Why 5 business days? InTouch knew what they were doing to bamboozle the police department to get the reports.

There were some things that could have been redacted further. Joy's age is the one that stuck out. I'm not going back to the 34 pages to examine every single instance though.

Realistically any sort of record that details sexual assault should not be released to the public whatsoever. But it circles back to that the documents were available to the public by law (as long as they were properly redacted) because JB and Michelle did not take the proper route of dealing with the situation from the beginning. I do think it was morally wrong to release the documents now that I've really had time to think about it these days. But was it legally wrong? Well, there's three people left standing in this lawsuit after a long list of defendants had the lawsuit dismissed against them. Just because something is morally wrong doesn't mean it's legally wrong.

Edited July 15, 2019 by PikaScrewChu

[Ohiopirate02]

51 minutes ago, PikaScrewChu said:

I'm looking at the court filing. InTouch sent their FOIA request May 15th and the city was required by Arkansas law to fulfill it by May 20th. An extension could have been granted but it's never a given that the government will grant the extension or that you will get ahold of the proper person who will get the government to grant you the extension. That is a very unrealistic timeline. Why 5 business days? InTouch knew what they were doing to bamboozle the police department to get the reports.

There were some things that could have been redacted further. Joy's age is the one that stuck out. I'm not going back to the 34 pages to examine every single instance though.

Realistically any sort of record that details sexual assault should not be released to the public whatsoever. But it circles back to that the documents were available to the public by law (as long as they were properly redacted) because JB and Michelle did not take the proper route of dealing with the situation from the beginning. I do think it was morally wrong to release the documents now that I've really had time to think about it these days. But was it legally wrong? Well, there's three people left standing in this lawsuit after a long list of defendants had the lawsuit dismissed against them. Just because something is morally wrong doesn't mean it's legally wrong.

And really, it is only morally wrong to out victims of sexual assault,  and not the molester.  I don't think there was any way for the info about Josh to become public without exposing his sisters in the process.  The document could have been redacted better, but we would all know at least one Duggar girl was involved.   If JB and Michelle never wanted this story to come to light, they should never have allowed TV cameras into their home.  

[Oldernowiser]

If in fact they trotted out the victims and their molester to their church congregation, I’m pretty flabbergasted it took as long as it did to become publicized. That’s one big fat scandalous secret about local “celebrities” told to what is essential a village within a small town. It had to be all over the county within a week.

[Zella]

8 minutes ago, Oldernowiser said:

If in fact they trotted out the victims and their molester to their church congregation, I’m pretty flabbergasted it took as long as it did to become publicized. That’s one big fat scandalous secret about local “celebrities” told to what is essential a village within a small town. It had to be all over the county within a week.

Not really. It's an insular church in actually a pretty impersonal metro area, filled with a lot of people who are not native to the area. (I was raised in rural Arkansas and found the NWA area really chilly when I lived there for grad school. People I lived next to for a year didn't talk to each other, which I found baffling when people where I was raised wave at you whether or not they know you.) I think the members of the church had a vested interest in keeping it quiet because it made all of them look bad with the way it was handled, and it's not necessarily like a small town where everyone knows everybody and nobody can blink without it being reported to everyone's second cousin. 

Edited July 15, 2019 by Zella

[jcbrown]

2 hours ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

 If JB and Michelle never wanted this story to come to light, they should never have allowed TV cameras into their home.  

If they really wanted this story never to come to light, they should have had second thoughts about raising a herd of feral children in a patriarchal cult with throwback misogynist repressive beliefs about gender and sexuality and then maybe it would not have happened.

[GeeGolly]

Maybe the reason it never became national news prior to In Touch, is because even those who hate Josh, JB and M knew there'd be collateral damage and didn't want to expose the daughters.

[kokapetl]

9 hours ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

And really, it is only morally wrong to out victims of sexual assault,  and not the molester.  I don't think there was any way for the info about Josh to become public without exposing his sisters in the process.  The document could have been redacted better, but we would all know at least one Duggar girl was involved.   If JB and Michelle never wanted this story to come to light, they should never have allowed TV cameras into their home.  

I think that if the documents can’t be sufficiently redacted to not identify the victims, the documents should not have been released. 

[Annabel11]

I think this is a good example of karma and how effects are widespread. If JB and Michelle had handled things correctly and not let Josh get to be 18 without doing the right thing this info would not have been released. I for one am glad he was because as hard as it is for the victims the perpetrators need to be known in order to protect others. 

Edited July 15, 2019 by Annabel11

[GeeGolly]

1 hour ago, Annabel11 said:

I think this is a good example of karma and how effects are widespread. If JB and Michelle had handled things correctly and not let Josh get to be 18 without doing the right thing this info would not have been released. I for one am glad he was because as hard as it is for the victims the perpetrators need to be known in order to protect others. 

It was made public 12 years after the last offense and nine years after the police investigation.

Edited July 15, 2019 by GeeGolly

[kokapetl]

2 hours ago, Annabel11 said:

I think this is a good example of karma and how effects are widespread. If JB and Michelle had handled things correctly and not let Josh get to be 18 without doing the right thing this info would not have been released. I for one am glad he was because as hard as it is for the victims the perpetrators need to be known in order to protect others. 

I don’t think there’s anything Karmic about children being exposed by a tabloid as having been victims of incestuous child sexual abuse. 

Edited July 15, 2019 by kokapetl

[Annabel11]

55 minutes ago, kokapetl said:

I don’t think there’s anything Karmic about children being exposed by a tabloid as having been victims of incestuous child sexual abuse. 

Karma for the parents putting their children on display for money. And then not protecting them. 

[Ohiopirate02]

1 minute ago, Annabel11 said:

Karma for the parents putting their children on display for money. And then not protecting them. 

Except JB and Michelle have really suffered no ill-effects of this story.  They were able to get TLC to create Counting On to keep the TV dollars coming in.  They might not have had as prominent of a role in this show than the original, but JB has always been smart enough to make sure he gets paid.  They still get invitations to speak at events because the fundy community has never shunned them.  As far as the community where they worship is concerned, JB and Michelle were right in how they handled the "unfortunate" situation with Josh by not getting too many outsiders involved.  Josh asked for forgiveness publicly, so this should not be an issue anymore.  This is not a community known for supporting the victims of abuse.  

[DrSparkles]

11 hours ago, jcbrown said:

If they really wanted this story never to come to light, they should have had second thoughts about raising a herd of feral children in a patriarchal cult with throwback misogynist repressive beliefs about gender and sexuality and then maybe it would not have happened.

WELP!!! 💯

[WalrusGirl]

On 7/13/2019 at 11:16 AM, BitterApple said:

I agree. I think I'm one of the few who thought that police report should never have been released, redacted or not. 

I’ve always felt the same - it was still a report about a then-minor perpetrator, which has a different public interest standard. Where the perpetrator was concerned, my outrage on that front was at least mitigated because of what *Josh* was hypocritically doing as an adult, but I  think a minor’s records being released to the public or tabloids is pretty dicey, and had charges actually been filed, those records would have been sealed due to his minor status.

23 hours ago, Oldernowiser said:

For me, it comes down to the family suing others for accidentally violating the girls’ privacy while simultaneously and deliberately exploiting them for decades.

They don’t get both.

Well, yeah, they do. Because everything about this harmed the victims, not JB&M. It’s not about JB&M and what they deserved or had coming. None of that trumps the interests and legal protections of minor victims.

21 hours ago, lascuba said:

Even trying to put my contempt for that family aside, would the redactions be considered insufficient if the Duggars weren't celebrities? If someone had submitted an FOIA request about a random family with similar redaction, the public wouldn't have been able to guess who the victims were. I can't blame someone for just following procedure without considering that someone's fame might make it impossible to effectively redact. 

I think they would have been. I’m an only child; if my victim statement is linked to my parents names and/or address, boom, that’s me, even with my own age redacted. Same with a smaller family with just a few female offspring. If they weren’t a public family, everyone in NW Arkansas and their broader Gothard orbit would have still *easily* deduced that all but one of the five oldest girls were part of that file (adding Jana to the directly harmed, in a way), though not having it be solid exactly who matched with what still would have been an improvement.

When in doubt and without the time (under the law) to get legal advice, over-redact and let that get sorted out later. Victims, minor or otherwise, should have their names, parents’ names, address, DOB, ages, and all other identifying ages redacted. I don’t feel like that’s rocket science for the release of public abuse/family services records. I’ll easily grant that those who screwed up the redactions and release may very well have been acting in good faith, but I’d be suing in their place over that release and redaction job and I’m not a public or known figure. If it’s wrong if it’s me, it’s wrong if it’s them.

18 hours ago, sleepysuzy said:

I don't think the parents being hypocrites precludes the daughters from getting restitution for an invasion of privacy. No matter how Jim and Michelle may have misrepresented the family on the show and in other public venues, the legal rights of rhe girls does not change. It smacks of victim blaming to me, especially since they were children at the time and its really their parents who made all of yhe hypocritical decisions. 

Joy was 5 when she was molested, and still a minor when it came out. The fact that no one - her parents or those who fulfilled the FOIA request or the media - protected her is reprehensible. Her older sisters may have been adults when the information came out,  but they still are innocent victims of childhood sexual abuse,  no matter how much anyone hates the family, religion, or show. Protection of minors and sex abuse victims trumps sticking it to Jim, Michelle, and Gothardism in my book.

ITA. Exactly.

And I think our legal system - which (in theory, anyway) says it’s better for guilty individuals to go free rather than one innocent individual to be wrongly punished - reflects the same.

13 hours ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

And really, it is only morally wrong to out victims of sexual assault,  and not the molester.  I don't think there was any way for the info about Josh to become public without exposing his sisters in the process.  The document could have been redacted better, but we would all know at least one Duggar girl was involved.   If JB and Michelle never wanted this story to come to light, they should never have allowed TV cameras into their home.  

Agreed re the last sentence, but even if it weren’t murky to out the perpetrator because he was a minor at the time, which it is, it’s still morally wrong to “out” the victims. If that’s required to out the perpetrator, then tough; they win.

15 hours ago, lascuba said:

That sums up one of my issues with the lawsuit...they're going after individuals who were, to their knowledge, following the letter of the law. And this brings me to a question...which law was violated/should be changed? And that's a serious question. IIRC, the reason the police records hadn't been sealed initially was because the investigation didn't lead to any charges, so this specific case seems to fall in this legal grey area that no one predicted. Redacted documents were legally allowed to be released, and the only reason that redaction was ineffective was because the Duggars are famous enough that many people could easily guess which daughters were abused. So...do we need a law that force officials to be aware of the levels of fame of people involved in FIOA requests? Should there be a law that says that any records detailing the sexual abuse of minors should be sealed, period? Because that one seems like a great way to protect predators. 

The level of victim section redaction was grossly insufficient for non-public figures as well. Name, parent names, addresses, DOB, address, etc ALL should have been redacted. I, or other only-female children, are also very easily identified by the mention of “victim’s skirt” when my address and/or parents’ names are listed. Redact all identifying victim information, period.

4 hours ago, kokapetl said:

I think that if the documents can’t be sufficiently redacted to not identify the victims, the documents should not have been released. 

Totally agreed.

[Natalie68]

On 7/14/2019 at 4:54 AM, GeeGolly said:

I respectfully disagree. No one should have to hide away because they were molested. And being on TV doesn't give others the right to protected information.

I also don't agree that JB & M tried to hide a secret. It's nobody's business, outside of the authorities, that their son molested four of their daughters.

I am of two minds about this.  I agree the daughters SHOULD have been protected. However, I do feel that any young woman who was in the vicinity of Josh Duggar had a right to know his history.  He was NOT a safe individual to be around.  If I were a parent and he had access to my child I would be FURIOUS to not be told this information.  Take all the chances you want with your own kids but you do not have the right to put others in danger.

[Zella]

3 minutes ago, Natalie68 said:

I am of two minds about this.  I agree the daughters SHOULD have been protected. However, I do feel that any young woman who was in the vicinity of Josh Duggar had a right to know his history.  He was NOT a safe individual to be around.  If I were a parent and he had access to my child I would be FURIOUS to not be told this information.  Take all the chances you want with your own kids but you do not have the right to put others in danger.

Especially considering one of his victims was, in fact, outside the family. 😞

Edited July 15, 2019 by Zella

[Natalie68]

1 minute ago, Zella said:

Especially considering one of his victims was, in fact, outside the family. 😞

AND, how is anyone to know if there were others?  They let a known threat around young girls.  That is a total shit maneuver and makes them almost an accessory.  There were instances after the initial discovery.  THAT is on JB/M.

[Zella]

4 minutes ago, Natalie68 said:

AND, how is anyone to know if there were others?  They let a known threat around young girls.  That is a total shit maneuver and makes them almost an accessory.  There were instances after the initial discovery.  THAT is on JB/M.

Agreed. I was alarmed at how much his behavior escalated. He started going after younger victims and became much more blatant about it. 😞

Edited July 15, 2019 by Zella

[lascuba]

On 7/14/2019 at 7:54 AM, GeeGolly said:

I respectfully disagree. No one should have to hide away because they were molested. And being on TV doesn't give others the right to protected information.

I also don't agree that JB & M tried to hide a secret. It's nobody's business, outside of the authorities, that their son molested four of their daughters.

It's nobody's business if a closeted gay man is secretly having sex with men, but if he's routinely making it his platform to deny rights to LGBTQ individuals, I can't see the moral issue with outing him.

[FizzyPuff]

On 7/15/2019 at 6:46 PM, Natalie68 said:

I am of two minds about this.  I agree the daughters SHOULD have been protected. However, I do feel that any young woman who was in the vicinity of Josh Duggar had a right to know his history.  He was NOT a safe individual to be around.  If I were a parent and he had access to my child I would be FURIOUS to not be told this information.  Take all the chances you want with your own kids but you do not have the right to put others in danger.

This always makes me think about Amy she is one person who should’ve been told about Josh, that her family never thought they had to tell her really disturbs me. I mean not even grandma thought she should know? Did Amy’s mom know? I know she was a kid but isn’t she a few years older than Josh? if Josh started molesting his sisters at 14 she was at least 16 or older (I’m guessing),Anyway I think 16 is old enough to know about Josh and to be on her guard around him. I think that’s the real reason Amy couldn’t just come around whenever she wanted too, JB & M always wanted to be there when she was around (not necessarily because they thought she was a bad influence) but because someone had to watch Josh around her and any females. 

[Albanyguy]

11 minutes ago, Puffin said:

This always makes me think about Amy she is one person who should’ve been told about Josh, that her family never thought they had to tell her really disturbs me. I mean not even grandma thought she should know? Did Amy’s mom know? I know she was a kid but isn’t she a few years older than Josh? if Josh started molesting his sisters at 14 she was at least 16 or older (I’m guessing),Anyway I think 16 is old enough to know about Josh and to be on her guard around him. I think that’s the real reason Amy couldn’t just come around whenever she wanted too, JB & M always wanted to be there when she was around (not necessarily because they thought she was a bad influence) but because someone had to watch Josh around her and any females. 

That's a good observation, but I doubt that Josh would have tried anything with Amy, even if he had been given the opportunity. She was never as passive and vulnerable as his sisters (no Gothard brainwashing) and I could seen him always being a little afraid of her.

Edited July 17, 2019 by Albanyguy

[Natalie68]

12 hours ago, Puffin said:

This always makes me think about Amy she is one person who should’ve been told about Josh, that her family never thought they had to tell her really disturbs me. I mean not even grandma thought she should know? Did Amy’s mom know? I know she was a kid but isn’t she a few years older than Josh? if Josh started molesting his sisters at 14 she was at least 16 or older (I’m guessing),Anyway I think 16 is old enough to know about Josh and to be on her guard around him. I think that’s the real reason Amy couldn’t just come around whenever she wanted too, JB & M always wanted to be there when she was around (not necessarily because they thought she was a bad influence) but because someone had to watch Josh around her and any females. 

Amy would have also been a good person to keep her eyes out for how he was treating his sisters and others.  She also deserved to be safe.  He is so smug and entitled I would bet my years salary there are others.  I mean jeez, you let someone know if your dog is a biter so of course you need to let others know your child has acted inappropriately around young girls.

[doodlebug]

15 minutes ago, Natalie68 said:

Amy would have also been a good person to keep her eyes out for how he was treating his sisters and others.  She also deserved to be safe.  He is so smug and entitled I would bet my years salary there are others.  I mean jeez, you let someone know if your dog is a biter so of course you need to let others know your child has acted inappropriately around young girls.

I agree, Amy would probably not have been a target for Josh; she was older and has a pretty strong personality; Josh wanted vulnerable victims, hence the molestation of his sleeping sisters and a 5 year old.  However, Amy should've at the very least been warned to keep an eye on Josh and to report any inappropriate behavior immediately.  16 years old is plenty old enough to help protect any younger kids who might be around.  And, even though she seems pretty assertive, at 16, Amy might've been likely to dismiss or ignore any misbehavior on Josh's part if she didn't know the history.

I also have absolutely no doubt that there are others and also steadfastly believe that it was virtually impossible that the older daughters slept through the molestation and had no idea what had happened.  They may have pretended to be asleep, but there's no way they stayed asleep while he fondled them.

Edited July 17, 2019 by doodlebug

[Tasya]

I've always thought that Josh likely molested Jana more fully than he did any of the others. It doesn't make sense that he would have gone after a 5 year old and not the most "womanly" of his sisters. I've speculated that it's why they've kept Jana from courting is because they consider her damaged. It would also explain JD's overwhelming anger at Josh when it was all going down and his absolute distance from him now. You NEVER see Josh and JD together really and that's strange for the two eldest boys of a family like they have to never interact. 

I hope for Jana's sake that it didn't happen, but with this family...

[Rabbittron]

31 minutes ago, Natalie68 said:

of course you need to let others know your child has acted inappropriately around young girls.

Why do you think to let other familys know? According to the Shithole Clown Car it happens in all families so we should expect something. 

[lascuba]

2 minutes ago, Tasya said:

I've always thought that Josh likely molested Jana more fully than he did any of the others. It doesn't make sense that he would have gone after a 5 year old and not the most "womanly" of his sisters. I've speculated that it's why they've kept Jana from courting is because they consider her damaged. It would also explain JD's overwhelming anger at Josh when it was all going down and his absolute distance from him now. You NEVER see Josh and JD together really and that's strange for the two eldest boys of a family like they have to never interact. 

I hope for Jana's sake that it didn't happen, but with this family...

JD was angry at Josh over Ashley Madison, not the sex abuse, which he had known about for years and hadn't stopped him from wanting to be just like Josh.

Considering everything else they detailed to police, I don't think they'd keep Jana's abuse secret.

[Scarlett45]

6 minutes ago, Tasya said:

I've always thought that Josh likely molested Jana more fully than he did any of the others. It doesn't make sense that he would have gone after a 5 year old and not the most "womanly" of his sisters. I've speculated that it's why they've kept Jana from courting is because they consider her damaged. It would also explain JD's overwhelming anger at Josh when it was all going down and his absolute distance from him now. You NEVER see Josh and JD together really and that's strange for the two eldest boys of a family like they have to never interact. 

I hope for Jana's sake that it didn't happen, but with this family...

I don’t think Josh touched Jana. He’s a coward- they only go after the weakest people they can. This was not about hormones and close in age siblings violating social boundaries- Josh was a predator. As an authority figure in the household (as the eldest girl), I think she would’ve broken his hand. 

[Rabbittron]

I don't think that he  molested Jana because she would of told someone. 

[BitterApple]

I've always suspected Jana may have been the victim of abuse, not necessarily by Josh, but by someone in the Gothard cult. When you consider the number of Duggar associates accused of improper behavior (Bill Gothard, Tim Robertson, Caleb Williams, Mike Schadt, etc.) It's not outside the realm of possibility. I hope it isn't the case, but it's a gut feeling.