Celebrity trials don&8217;t often get my attention for the legal ramifications involved. Like everyone else, I might get caught up in the Bronco-chase-style hype, but I probably won&8217;t notice if any precedents are set.

But two rulings in the Kobe Bryant case in Colorado are disturbing because of the rights on which they trample. Those rights, though, are at odds in my head.

A few weeks ago, a court employee accidentally e-mailed transcripts of a closed-door hearing to members of the media. Following on the heels of other such &8220;accidental&8221; releases, it seems hard to believe this was a mistake.

Still, in an extraordinary exercise of prior restraint, the judge in the case forbade newspapers and TV stations from publishing or airing the information.

&8220;Prior restraint&8221; means the government can prevent an action &8212; in this case, publication of information the judge deemed would damage the judicial process.

The private hearing concerned the alleged victim&8217;s sexual activities during the week of the incident in which she says Kobe Bryant, a star player for the Lakers, raped her.

Normally, such evidence is not allowed in a rape case. In fact, Colorado has a rape shield law so that this very information is not used to incriminate a victim and put her on trial rather than the actual accused.

And yet the judge allowed it, albeit behind closed doors. Little that privacy mattered though, when a court employee e-mailed the information to the media.

This came after the woman&8217;s name was accidentally released to the media as well. Most newspapers and TV stations have a policy not to reveal the names of rape victims, so stigmatizing is the crime.

I want to be on the side of the media in that case. I want to the First Amendment upheld.

And yet I&8217;m conflicted &8212; because the rights of the victim are being trampled much more than those of the media.

Because even after the release of information, even after the judge ruled the media could not use it &8212; and the state Supreme Court backed him up &8212; the judge has decided to allow the defense in the case to use the woman&8217;s sexual activity during the week in question anyway.

So that evidence will apparently be allowed in court, despite what the Colorado rape shield laws say, despite the years of work of advocates trying to make people realize how serious a crime rape really is. No one ever asks for it, no matter what she&8217;s wearing, no matter how she&8217;s acting, no matter what she&8217;s done in the past.

How many women now will be afraid to come forward and report a rape if they believe they themselves will wind up on trial?

This ruling sets Colorado back years in its treatment of rape victims and rape cases, and I am fearful that it will have ramifications on other trials and other states.

So I&8217;m not as worried about the prior restraint. The media will always have powerful attorneys on our side. We will always be able to point to the First Amendment for protection. That ruling won&8217;t likely cause as much damage.

But who is going to be on the side of this young woman? Who will be on the side of the countless young women in the future bullied by a legal system that doesn&8217;t always protect the victims?

Kerry Whipple

is editor of The Democrat. She can be reached at 445-3541 or by e-mail at

kerry.whipple@natchezdemocrat.com

.