Privacy and Perversion, by Mike Gold – Brainiac On Banjo #190
October 4, 2010 Mike Gold 0 Comments
“Roommate asked for the room till midnight. I went into Molly’s room and turned on my webcam. I saw him making out with a dude. Yay.” That’s how it all started. With a Tweet. Three days later, 18-year-old Rutgers freshman Tyler Clementi jumped from the George Washington Bridge to his death. Make no mistake about it: this was suicide. Clementi’s final Facebook post was “Jumping off the gw bridge sorry.”
Clementi’s roommate, Dharun Ravi, and Molly Wei, have each been charged with two counts of invasion of privacy for using “the camera to view and transmit a live image” of Mr. Clementi making out with another guy.
That’s a pretty perverted act. Not the marking out part; that’s private and none of our business. It’s also not Ravi and Wei’s business, assuming they are guilty. We’ve got this whole presumption of innocence thing, and that’s a good thing, so I’m making these points in the abstract. Ravi and Wei should be allowed to mount their defense.
Nothing in this country goes unobserved. We’ve got security cameras everywhere, and damn near everybody, including my nearly-blind 94 year old mother, has a camera on his or her cell phone. At the very least, we should be able to control our own personal space, even if we’ve got a roommate.
So what sort of people would go to such lengths as to set up a webcam and netcast two people sharing an intimate moment? More to the point, what sort of people would do this when, in our uptight and discriminatory society, the video could cause ostracism and social exclusion at the very least, and perhaps impair that person’s future potential? Nothing goes away once it’s online; it’s always there somewhere. This video could easily prevent the victim from getting a job, advancing in his career, participating in religious activities, or being in the military. To name but a few.
I’ll tell you who. Perverts. Spineless, giggly, self-absorbed perverts who think they have the power to destroy a person’s life because they think it’s funny… if they bothered to think at all.
Some say this is a hate crime. I disagree. I believe the First Amendment tells us there are no hate crimes. There are real crimes, and you can’t have a hate crime without the real crime. Prosecute that and not what’s in a person’s heart, not what’s missing in a person’s head. Revenge, even righteous revenge, is not justice.
While I’m at it, “pervert” is a societal definition that changes frequently and defies the notion of privacy. Interfaith and interracial marriages were seen as perversions, and many still view these acts as such. But there’s the underlying concept of “between consenting adults.” Sex with children is outside of our ken, as is rape.
Given his subsequent suicide, I highly doubt anybody got Tyler Clementi’s consent to be videotaped that evening. There are exhibitionists out there, and that might make for an interesting defense if it can be established that Clementi gave his permission.
The overwhelming likelihood is that Tyler Clementi committed suicide because of somebody, or some people’s, perversion.
And that’s the part of the story that is so sickening.
Fellow-traveler, anarcho-syndicalist and www.ComicMix.com editor-in-Chief Mike Gold performs the weekly two-hour Weird Sounds Inside The Gold Mind ass-kicking bizarro music and blather radio show on The Point, www.getthepointradio.com, every Sunday at 7:00 PM Eastern, replayed three times during the week (check the website above for times). Likewise, his Weird Scenes Inside The Gold Mind political and cultural rants pop up each and every day at the same venue.
Vinnie Bartilucci
October 4, 2010 - 10:02 am
OK, here’s the problem.
This is not an act of perversion. This is a joke which went horribly sadly wrong. It’s a joke that we have all laughed at in the past. Did you see M*A*S*H? They did this to Frank and Hotlips, albeit with a microphone and the PA system. It’s the PLOT of The Virginity Hit, which, if someone notices that, may get it some unwanted but “no such thing as bad” publicity.
It’s a case of scale. Back in the day if you, say, pushed open the bathroom stall and snapped a pic of your friend giving his regards to Broadway (or possibly even remembering himself to Herald Square), you could make a few copies, show it to friends, and that’d be about it. Nowadays, you can post that picture or video and the whole world can see it, and thanks to the naturally occurring redundancy of the Internet, it will never go away, ever.
So similarly, if you experienced a moderate level of embarrassment from seeing a copy of the pic on the bulletin board in the student union, the level when it goes viral and the CBS Early Show is calling you wanting an interview has to be astounding. What was once harmless (an arguable term, depending or what side of the joke you’re on) fun can now ruin a person’s life.
But at it’s core, it’s still a joke. It’s just that now that little trigger is attached to a HUGE cannon, and not the party popper that popped in the night of our bright college days.
Kids (okay, people) simply do not grasp the power of the Internet. It is that more than anything else that has caused problems like this. Terms like cyber-bullying get thrown around, but ultimately it’s just the same old issues scaled up and running on a better motherboard.
Doesn’t make it any sadder an ending, doesn’t mean anyone deserved what they did. It means they didn’t fully grasp the potential repercussions of what they did.
We are all moments away from becoming a viral phenomenon. The right person retweets your joke or plugs your blog, and you’re famous, or infamous, for the Warholian quarter-hour.
We have gone past losing an eye being the worst-case scenario of fun.
Mike Gold
October 4, 2010 - 10:46 am
Perhaps I need your definition of joke. Is it a joke to install webcams in women’s bathrooms, changing rooms and locker rooms? More than a few people have gone to jail for that. Is it a joke to surreptitiously video record any two (or more) people having sex in the privacy of their living quarters without their permission? Is Peeping Tomism — with or without technical enhancement — a joke?
Losing an eye (I got that line, too, when I wanted a B-B gun) is an accident. It’s an accident based upon something avoidable — the use of a B-B gun — but the purpose of having a B-B gun is rarely to put a person’s eye out. You betchum, Red Ryder. Yes, there are malicious jokes. Absolutely. I saw Carrie.
This one was malicious; Ravi outed Clementi on Twitter a month before this incident.
Martha Thomases
October 4, 2010 - 11:55 am
Mike, I hear you about hate crimes, but I disagree. A lynching, for example, is a murder, but it is also a threat to all other African-Americans. I think that makes it worse than an average, still-plenty-horrible murder.
I don’t know what to think about this case. These are stupid kids, who were friends before they went to college and decided to clique out at Rutgers. Awful, certainly, but I’m not sure they were being specifically homophobic. I note that my hedging does not in any way indicate I think they are guilt-free, because the stunt they pulled would be heinous no matter what kind of victim they chose.
Vinnie Bartilucci
October 4, 2010 - 11:55 am
I didn’t say it wasn’t malicious, or at least I didn’t mean it wasn’t. But it was still a joke / prank.
As I understand it, the webcam was not explicitly set up to catch the guy, the nefarious pair simply turned it on at an opportune time.
I don’t think comparing this to installing cams in locker rooms is valid. While this may well classify as voyeurism in the eyes of the law (Not sure if “Invasion of privacy” is a legal euphemism for peeping or if they’re two different things) but the purpose was not for salacious pleasure. As for the people who watched the live broadcast, I can’t say.
I saw footage of the memorial vigil held for the guy over the weekend, and I couldn’t stop myself from thinking, not a single ONE of the people at this vigil knew this guy. They couldn’t pick him out of a mugshot book. The only possible exception, outside of his family, was the other guy in that webcast. If a few of these people had said hi to him and made friends BEFORE all this happened, it might not have happened. Some were there to support the cause that he now represents, some were there because it was the thing to do, some were there because they watched the footage and feel guilty, but few if any were friends with him.
You wanna point to a reason this happened, that might be a good one as well.
Vinnie Bartilucci
October 4, 2010 - 12:05 pm
“A lynching, for example, is a murder, but it is also a threat to all other African-Americans.”
It’s also such an order of magnitude above and beyond the kind of things the man on the street calls (or wants to call) hate crimes that it almost can’t be covered in the same discussion. A lynching is almost a socio-political statement, absolutely intended to send a message about the kind of folks they don’t cotton to. It’s probably so many other crimes at once (vigilantism, conspiracy to commit murder, etc) that they likely don’t NEED to call it a hate crime.
There’s a lot of terms that you hear applied to so many things, it diminishes the importance of the word. It results in rolling of the eyes and a sigh of “here we go again” so that when a truly egregious event of violence or hatred comes along, it’s far too easy for some to wave it off as “more whining”.
Name the big stuff with big words, and name the little stuff with little words. Don’t try to equivocate them.
Mike Gold
October 4, 2010 - 12:06 pm
Martha, I don’t care if they were homophobic. Which isn’t a crime anyway. They were assholes whose arrogant and illegal behavior (again, assuming they are guilty, which I will not assume until after their trial ends) drove a fellow human being to suicide. I don’t care if they broadcast their victim fucking sheep; unless it was in public, it’s none of their business.
Although I would freely admit we have a double-standard: we don’t discriminate against sheep-fuckers the way we do homosexuals. They can teach, hold public office, visit their loved ones in hospitals, and donate blood.
As for “hate speech,” we absolutely disagree. Murder is no more severe because the perpetrator hated his or her victim. In fact, I’m kinda concerned about the murderer who kills routinely and dispassionately. You know, sociopaths. The rest of the murderers kill because they really, really, really dislike their victims.
Mike Gold
October 4, 2010 - 12:08 pm
Vinnie, the folks who showed up at the memorial did so out of sympathetic passion. That’s good enough for me.
As for joke/prank: either implies “the funny.” Show me the funny.
Martha Thomases
October 4, 2010 - 12:56 pm
@Vinnie: Far from being an extreme example, I think lynching epitomizes a hate crime. It’s right up there with burning a cross on someone’s lawn and rape.
However, a hate crime is not the same as hate speech. One is an action intended to put down an entire people through a criminal act, and the other is bad manners. I object to people who use the N-word, not because they’re criminals, but because they are rude assholes.
(By the way, I remember when some militant gay rights activists tried to persuade me that “asshole” was a homophobic insult. Interesting analysis, but not worth giving up a satisfying insult.)
Vinnie Bartilucci
October 4, 2010 - 1:22 pm
“As for joke/prank: either implies ‘the funny.’ Show me the funny.”
Funny is the desired result of a joke or prank. If no one laughs, it’s still a joke, just one that failed.
If you put a bucket of water over a door and the person gets wet and everyone laughs, it’s a prank. If the person gets a deep cut from the bucket and needs stitches, it’s still a prank, just one that went wrong.
They absolutely did not think through the potential outcome of their prank. It went calamitously wrong. Not under argument. There was (I hope) no intent to see the the guy take his life. I don’t think suicide is a common enough result of such activities as to include it in the list of possibilities, but there’s loads of less extreme results that were reasonable as to have suggested this might not be a good idea. It doesn’t make them murders or perverts, just boobs.
Mike Gold
October 4, 2010 - 1:27 pm
“Funny is the desired result of a joke or prank. If no one laughs, it’s still a joke, just one that failed.”
Hmmm… Absent of a comedy venue or environment, by your analysis everything’s a joke.
I think I really like that.
MOTU
October 4, 2010 - 2:28 pm
I think it did start out as a joke, the problem as I see it is the two idiots who thought it was funny gave NO thought to the viciousness of the act or what it would do to the two guys being videotaped.
I bet they don’t think it’s funny now.
In fact with the outcry going on I bet those assholes are crying a whole lot now. Crying not because they caused a death but because they are about to go to jail and become the poster children in the new wave of anti-bullying sentiment sweeping the country because of this.
Clearly they are going to jail-I mean LOOK at them. The last thing you want to do in this country is become infamous for something this stupid and NOT be white. That spells JAIL TIME. The only saving grace for them is the victim was GAY. So the sentence won’t be that bad, but they are going to jail. As Mike said they have not been proven guilty yet, but LOOK AT THEM. They will be.
To me that’s not funny either.
Marc Fishman
October 5, 2010 - 11:07 am
One thing to consider… if the guy was making out with a girl, and it was placed on YouTube (like the plot of that upcoming movie, etc.) it’s still a social norm… to a degree. But obviously, the young man who killed himself felt shame for his actions, and felt that the impending embarrassment and “coming out”, which was his right to do on HIS terms, if EVER he chose to do so… that was violated.
Was this a joke? Perhaps to the idiots who switched on the webcam. But common sense (which they didn’t have) would have said that they shouldn’t have posted it for the world to see.
It’s a sad situation, made sadder to me, because we still live in a buttoned up society where someone’s sexual preference can cause them such humiliation that it could lead them to commit suicide. The pranksters as it were, should absolutely be punished, and this should be an opportunity to do more to make homosexuality less a cartoon, and more a socially acceptable lifestyle… such that future generations not suffer from unneeded embarrassment over and issue that isn’t embarrassing.
John Tebbel
October 6, 2010 - 6:16 am
I’m surprised you journalists don’t know that it’s flat out illegal to do any kind of spying on anyone who is in a place where they have a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” You can take pictures of movie stars on the street, you can’t stand on the sidewalk and shoot telephoto through the window. Turning on that webcam was against the law. Doesn’t matter what you did or didn’t plan to do with the products of said invasion of privacy.
And to the sophist “Aren’t all crimes hate crimes?” I must say no, Virginia, greed is not hate, lust is not hate, to name two non-hate crimes. You might as well say there is no terrorism along the same lines.
Mike Gold
October 6, 2010 - 1:58 pm
Ah, but is terrorism a hate crime?
Not necessarily. But, like all other crimes, it’s bad enough.