Posted on 06/22/2004 7:29:32 AM PDT by esryle
I disagree. It was NONE of the public's business to know about their divorce. Its an intimately personal matter. And for the morons in the media, I'd like to ask how they feel about THEIR divorce proceedings being made public? No human being could survive that kind of scrutiny. My sympathy is with the Ryans as a couple and their privacy has been violated for something completely specious and unrelated to the matter at hand. How Ryan's sex life with his wife affects his character as a person, I'd love to know. In a way, this disgraceful voyeurism is funny coming from the same people who told us Clinton's sex life was a private matter. When it comes to Republicans, there's an ugly double standard at work. That makes me outraged even though I don't like Ryan's handling of the situation.
Wow! Nice boilers...
Short version: Obama wins the Senate election, which that judge decided was in the public interest.
*shrugs*
I thought that was obvious...
Yep, the idiot judge should have said no to the media, this is private stuff and I'm keeping it sealed. If you want to look at the files, get the State Legislature to change the law.
"Both of them opposed opening the files to the press. It was the judge who overruled them. Jeri Ryan still thinks the world of her husband and that's gracious of her, considering how bitter the couple's divorce has been. My belief is a divorce proceeding is no one else's business."
I would qualify that there are some specific circumstances where a divorce proceeding is the business of third parties, but it should never be used by the media in this fashion.
For example, a single woman considering a marriage proposal from a divorced man. If I were the woman, I would check the divorce proceedings to see if any violence was mentioned.
I think this is more about political partisanship, with "sex sells" as a rationalization by the media over a cup of coffee.
You are correct, I just don't think thats at the heart of why this one was leaked.
There may be legitimate reasons for an interested party to look at divorce files, like the one you mentioned, but the media interest was pure sensationalism - it was all about sex. If there wasn't any of this stuff they could use against hubby Ryan in the files, I bet you my last dollar none of this would be on the front pages today.
This wasn't leaked to the press. The press filed a FOI suit when they couldn't get the divorce court records released.
Uhmmmm, uhhhhmm, what were we talking about.
If true, why did this guy needs to go to strip clubs?
It wasn't leaked; the files were released by the judge to the media over the combined objections of both husband and wife. They didn't want to put their son through it. Apparently the judge was more afraid of the media's wrath than he was soliticious of protecting the Ryans' marital privacy.
Of course you're right.
That didn't stop the LA Times and a liberal judge from their mission. That was to damage a Republican running for senate in Ill.
It's OUTRAGEOUS and were the circumstances reversed you can imagine how the Times would be treating the outlandish efforts of the evil Republicans to PRY into private matters.
Isn't that what they always say about Clintoon'S sexual harrassment of subordinates and the perjury that went with it?
I don't agree with his judgment but a couple's marital business shouldn't be fodder for the media.
Has anyone ever messed with a beautiful actress and not had this happen to them?
As Ronald Reagan might say: "One actress is enough."
Well, Mr. Ryan must be one gargantuan knucklehead. If his name were William Jefferson Clinton, he'd have a mortal lock on the general election! "I DID have sexual relations with that woman...Miss Ryan."
And while we're at it, how does a sex club get a license to operate?
I agree with that as well. Why did the judge allow it, Titillation? Excuse the pun.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.