With the lawsuit filed against God to protest Tory Bowen's "frivolous" lawsuit I'm seeing many people who are clearly assuming that what happened to her can only happen at rape trials and generally minimizing the potential impact of Judge Jeffre Cheuvront's ruling. But are their assumptions true?
If the witness to an alleged rape (the alleged victim is considered to be a witness) committed in Nebraska can be banned from using any words which make legal judgments about what happened that means that witnesses to a murder committed in Nebraska can be banned from using words like "killed" since that likewise makes a legal assumption that can prejudice the jury against the defendant.
Imagine that you are on the witness stand, after the person closest to you is murdered before your eyes, trying your best to fully answer questions about what you experienced firsthand and you are asked to describe what you saw but you cannot say that the defendant pulled out a gun and killed the victim because of that one banned word. Now imagine having to evaluate every sentence you speak against a list of banned words and phrases -- knowing that if you miss even one banned word or phrase, a murderer is likely to go free.
How frivolous is that?
If you say not at all, but you see the same result in a rape trial as being frivolous that tells us what you really see as frivolous is the prosecution of rape cases.
Now imagine a federal judge threatening to let a murderer go in response to the lawsuit about whether the restriction in a murder case is correct.
Are you really okay with that?