I went to a very liberal pro-sex university. They passed out condoms to us at orientation. Anyone trying to secretly photograph or videotape someone else having sex (heterosexual or homosexual) would have been viewed extremely negatively. I can’t believe anyone would consider it a joke. Peeping toms are considered to be creepy, regardless of their motivations.
No, of course we don’t. Americans are mostly outraged by the thought of secretly recording someone else in a sexual situation.
Are you joking? Do you actually associate with people who don’t think it’s a big deal to covertly take pictures of naked women without the consent of the women?
Not sure if trolling, or just stupid…
The answer to the first question is yes, absolutely. There’s such a thing as involuntary manslaughter, and recklessly creating a dangerous situation that ends up killing somebody is a textbook situation where it applies. Buttering a floor so it’s so slippery that someone could break his neck or whatever is definitely reckless. It’s akin to throwing something heavy out of a window or blowing through a red light – everybody knows there’s a clear risk of harm involved.
Note that in that case, though, the death is a direct result of the bad guy’s reckless act. I butter the floor –> victim slips and falls, and there are no steps in between. The Rutgers incident is a different ball of wax because the bad guy’s action didn’t directly bring about the death of the victim, even though obviously it had a great deal to do with it in practical terms. The distinction between an action that physically causes another person to die and an action that causes another person to feel bad, because of which feeling he takes his own life, makes the two situations not analogous, at least the way most manslaughter statutes I’m familiar with are written. Of course, that’s only the analysis of the technical legal comparison, and it isn’t to say they aren’t analogous in a different light.
I don’t reckon that has anything to do with Cat Fight’s point, though. Does it? I think the ultimate point was about shame, not about rights. The OP kept asking, essentially, what the difference is between this and the same situation happening to a straight person, and the answer to that is that being gay and being straight are not the same thing.
The diminished rights that attend being gay (and the reasons why they’re diminished) are a reason that getting outed is humiliating, not a consequence of being outed.
Well it would have been pretty normal where I went to school - expected even.
Hell, the school paper even published a list of the best on campus spots to hookup for some quiet nooky.
For “flatmates” (living off campus) it would also have been normal and expected.
For a different perspective, this case rather obviously takes on a more serious bent because the victim of the joke was gay. To try and sidestep that is silly. It shouldn’t matter, but putting a picture of him bumping uglies with another guy on the net is a little different to hetro sex as you can expect that it will cause him more than embarrassment.
On a different note, what if, the video had shown him, instead of having gay sex, cheating on his fiance? As a result the fiance broke off with him and he committed suicide? What if the perpetrator didn’t know he was in a long term relationship?
[QUOTE=Jimmy Chitwood]
The Rutgers incident is a different ball of wax because the bad guy’s action didn’t directly bring about the death of the victim, even though obviously it had a great deal to do with it in practical terms.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, while IANAL etc., I would be surprised if his lawyers didn’t argue that there’s no conclusive proof the two events (the webcast makeout) and the suicide are even connected. Clearly most people would not commit suicide over something that would blow over pretty quickly- it’s not like the makeout session was broadcast to everybody at Rutgers, and frankly even if it had been it only would have been big news until he either left or ‘whatever happens next’ replaced it; web sensations even on the international level are “history written on water”.
If Clementi’s parents had somehow been informed it would have been more serious, but there again not a day goes by without parents somewhere in the U.S. learning their kid is gay. Sometimes they do everything but pop a champagne bottle and update their facebook to “Proud parent of a homo!” to screaming and cursing and disowning them, most reacting somewhere in between, but rarely does the kid kill himself or herself.
Clementi clearly had other issues. He didn’t leave a suicide and in his final text he didn’t mention anything specific about his reasons. Something hasn’t come to light: did he have signs of a severe mental illness (clinical depression or otherwise), or was he flunking courses, or had there been a major change in his family dynamic? Whatever the case I’ve just thought since this story broke that the roommate was a jerk but no moreso than millions of other college boys, and from what I’ve read he didn’t constantly harass Clementi about being gay or anything, and barring other revelations I think the stress he’s been through, even if it hasn’t made him join PFLAG or whatever, is punishment enough.
I think he was being sarcastic. At least I hope so.
UPDATE: This case is about to go to trial, and as I suggested in the OP, finding the “HATE” in this crime is becoming more difficult for the prosecutors.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/21/us-crime-rutgers-idUSTRE81K1MQ20120221
The article linked by Omar Little really does present a very different viewpoint from the ones that were posted here.
I think some of you are minimizing the issue of Clementi’s being outed that way. I am as out as it’s possible to be; nobody in my life doesn’t know that I’m gay. Yet if someone recorded me having sex and posted it online, I’d be thoroughly mortified and humiliated. Not to drive me to suicide, but it still would be somewhat traumatic. I have a pretty good idea of how someone who is closeted would react, and it’s not pretty. I think it would be rare for someone to shrug it off, come out publicly, and proceed with his life. Outing someone - especially a young person struggling with gay issues - is serious business. Anyone who’s old enough to go to college should know that, especially if he’s the guy’s roommate, and knows about his struggle. This is way beyond a practical joke.
The article linked to mentions that his chat transcripts show Clementi was already out to his parents and friends. It is not clear that Ravi recorded his roommate having sex and posted it online. Only that he and Wei saw Clementi and another man make out and then tweeted about it. This just seems like an internet feeding frenzy. From the New Yorker
Although of course, like the initial feeding frenzy, I am only basing my current opinion on news reports which may again turn out to be false.
From the New Yorker article, it seems that Ravi and a friend used the camera on Ravi’s computer to look in on Clementi and his partner on one instance and then tried to repeat this act of voyerurism a second time. The second time, Ravi sent out tweets daring people to call his ichat line during the time when Clementi had a date lined up (Ravi’s camera was pointed towards Clementi’s bed and Ravi had set up is ichat so that it automatically answered in video, anyone calling in would turn on the camera and be able to watch Clementi), but Clementi was following Ravi’s tweets and unplugged Ravi’s computer before his date.
To me, Ravi’s actions don’t seem to be motivated by hatred for gays so much as he is just an all around insensitive douche. His actions setting up a camera to spy on his room-mate having sex are far beyond anything I’ve ever seen at an American university, but I’m not sure his behavior rises to a criminal level of misbehavior.