From Lori Drew To Dharun Ravi, Punishing People Based On Others' Suicides Is A Mistake
from the giving-the-wrong-message dept
A few years back, we covered the Lori Drew case, involving charges brought against a woman who stupidly set up a fake user account on MySpace to try to find out what was going on with a girl the woman's daughter had some issues with. The "fake account" was of a boy who the real 13-year-old girl became very friendly with. At some point, the "boy" turned on the girl, said some nasty things to her -- including "the world would be better off without" her -- and cut off communications. The girl committed suicide soon after. Lots and lots of people wanted Lori Drew brought up on charges for the girl's death. While we found Drew's actions to be incredibly immature and ridiculous, we were much more concerned with efforts to pin the suicide on her. Of course, the law wouldn't allow such a thing, so prosecutors trumped up some charges, involving a claim that she committed a felony by not following MySpace's terms of service. She was found guilty of a misdemeanor (not felony) charge -- which was then dropped by the judge, who wasn't comfortable with the ruling.Of course, this did lead to a flurry of attempts to pass "cyberbullying" laws -- which try to make it a crime of some sort to be a jerk online. This is problematic for a variety of reasons, especially since it raises significant First Amendment issues, in part because "being a jerk" is extremely subjective. But the worst part is that much of what is considered to be "jerky" behavior is determined after the other party commits suicide. This is extremely problematic -- because whether or not your actions are seen as criminal depends almost entirely on how someone else reacts to them. If they shake off your actions, then you're fine. If they commit suicide, you get punished. Thus, the incentive then is actually for kids to seriously hurt themselves, if someone acts in a mean way towards them, as that increases the likelihood of the bully getting punished. That doesn't sound like a good incentive system.
I'm thinking about all of this after hearing about the guilty verdict against Dharun Ravi -- the Rutgers student who surreptitiously filmed his roommate engaged in a sexual encounter with another male. That roommate, Tyler Clementi, later killed himself, once he found out about it being filmed. Like the Lori Drew case, much of the prosecution focused on the dead teenager -- and you can understand why. It's a horrible (and horrifying) story. But, again, the reaction is much more based on the end results, rather than the initial action. No doubt, what Ravi did was despicable, but is it really criminal? Law professor Paul Butler has an excellent opinion piece explaining why this is an overreaction. He notes that Ravi was clearly immature and did an obnoxious thing in invading his roommate's privacy, but the desire to see him locked up (and apparently there's a good chance he'll be deported to India, despite not having lived there since he was 2 years old) is almost entirely because of Clementi's tragic death:
Let's be honest. A lot of people want a pound of flesh from Ravi because they blame him for Clementi's death. Tyler's reaction was tragic, and it was idiosyncratic.... No judge in the country would have allowed a homicide prosecution, because, legally speaking, Ravi did not cause the death, nor was it reasonably foreseeable. Of the millions of people who are bullied or who suffer invasions of privacy, few kill themselves.As Butler notes, the rush to the criminal justice system, and the focus on blaming Ravi, takes us away from a more reasonable place in thinking about how to deal with these things:
[....]
For his stupidity, Ravi should be shamed by his fellow students and kicked out of his dorm, but he should not be sent to prison for years and then banished from the United States.
The problem with broad laws like New Jersey's is that they come too close to punishing people for what they think. Bigotry, including homophobia, is morally condemnable, but in a free country, it should not be a punishable offense....Indeed, as tragic as Clementi's death is, it did inspire thousands of people to act in a positive manner against homophobia by launching the It Gets Better project -- a very powerful way that tons of people have gathered to try to pass along the message to bullied teens (mainly from the LGBT community) that things do, in fact, get better. That response is a way of trying to deal with the actual problems. Going after Ravi with these charges just seems like a punitive action based on what Clementi did after Ravi's clearly childish and obnoxious actions. It certainly can be difficult to separate out what Ravi did from what Clementi did later, but in a society based on law, that's what we're supposed to do. Being a jerk should get you shunned, but not put in prison.
[....]
Ravi did not invent homophobia, but he is being scapegoated for it. Bias against gay people is, sadly, embedded in American culture. Until last year people were being kicked out of the military because they were homosexuals. None of the four leading presidential candidates -- President Obama, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich -- thinks that gay people should be allowed to get married. A better way to honor the life of Clementi would be for everyone to get off their high horse about a 20-year-old kid and instead think about how we can promote civil rights in our own lives.
Though a national conversation about civility and respect would have been better, as usual for social problems, we looked to the criminal justice system. The United States incarcerates more of its citizens than any country in the world. We are an extraordinarily punitive people.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cyberbullying, dharun ravi, free speech, lori drew, suicide, tyler clementi
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As for the story, can you tell us exactly what invalid logic is being applied?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Frothy Mix
Rumor has it if Santorum gets elected he's going to allegedly use the obscenity laws and try to get porn off of the internet--mainly by putting average people in jail for looking at porn.
In my opinion, this is due to his repressed sexuality and unfulfilling home life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Frothy Mix
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Criminal, but not homicide
However, that doesn't mean that Dharun Ravi should be brought up for murder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Criminal, but not homicide
Cite the applicable criminal statute(s) and demonstrate their applicability to this case. If it's "obvious", as you say, you should have no problem doing so.
p.s. Be sure to cite relevant case law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Criminal, but not homicide
You also get into negligent behavior, where the person should have known that their actions (filming illegal and then streaming) might lead to what happened.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Criminal, but not homicide
None of those apply to this video.
As for having to predict exact behavior of another human being for every single one of your actions is impossible. If you have figured this out, please let me know.
(a) Whoever produces any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digital image, digitally- or computer-manipulated image of an actual human being, picture, or other matter which—
(1) contains one or more visual depictions made after November 1, 1990 of actual sexually explicit conduct; and
(2) is produced in whole or in part with materials which have been mailed or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce, or is shipped or transported or is intended for shipment or transportation in interstate or foreign commerce;
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Criminal, but not homicide
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Criminal, but not homicide
Why, yes...yes you could. But what I asked for was someone to finish, to actually make the case, not to indulge in vague hand-waving and nebulous suggestions. We have at least one poster who says it's "obvious" -- I expect that poster to write a rigorous, detailed explanation of sufficient depth to justify that assertion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Criminal, but not homicide
However, if he did tape his room-mate engaging in sex, then it is a clear breach of the law cited. I will say that it is not necessarily "obvious" per say, but you are harping on a single word, instead of the intent of the post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Criminal, but not homicide
By which I mean I don't have access to it, and he likely doesn't either, being as I'm not the prosecutor and he probably isn't either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Criminal, but not homicide
An actor commits a crime of the third degree if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he photographs, films, videotapes, records, or otherwise reproduces in any manner by any means, including but not limited to, a camera of any type, a camcorder, video camera, camera or picture cellular phone, digital imaging device or any other photographic or imaging technology, the image of another person whose intimate parts are exposed or who is engaged in an act of sexual penetration or sexual contact, without that person's consent and under circumstances in which a reasonable person would not expect to be observed.
First: would a "reasonable person" expect not to be observed in a shared dorm room?
Second: define "consent". A signed waiver form? Verbal assent? What?
Third -- and this is the overbroad part: "or who is engaged in an act of sexual penetration or sexual contact". "Sexual contact"? Really? So that includes, what, EXACTLY? If it includes kissing, which is certainly a form of sexual contact, than someone who takes a photo of a couple smooching in the woods (when they didn't think anyone was around) has just violated this law.
The problem is that "sexual contact" covers an awful lot of ground -- too much ground, in fact. (Ever lock eyes with someone across a crowded room and seduce each other?) The authors of this bill should have enumerated the list.
I don't think any of this is "obvious": I think that are numerous subtle issues here to be argued out, and it will be interesting to see how they're resolved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Criminal, but not homicide
If he asked his dorm mate for the room, as Clementi did, then yes he would.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Criminal, but not homicide
How about instead of that you stop moving the goalposts, get off your high horse, and do your own work to rebut the OP's prima facie contention?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Criminal, but not homicide
It seems pretty clear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cause and effect
I have not followed this case closely, but this portion of reasonableness seems open to some debate. Additionally this poor kid was made an example. If the president weighed in on your case even if completely innocent, I'm sure the outcome wouldn't be swayed....
Overall the cause must pertain to a predictable reaction as well. I'm not sure that it is clear that a bit of joking around with a webcam would cause a predictable reaction to be suicide. As a reasonable conclusion to many- it seems that the cause did not have a predictable effect. Also, this ruling is a bit concerning for businesses that are based in webcam connections.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cause and effect
Heck, if he had to quit school because it became unbearable for him to deal with the stares and the comments, it would be a pretty good basis for a lawsuit.
The guy who filmed and then chose to share the video should have realized that his act wouldn't happen without some consequences.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Cause and effect
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Criminal, but not homicide
and what is 'negligent behavior'? that is not a crime. negligent manslaughter, negligent homicide etc. but the law does not generally define whatever crime you think 'negligent behavior' is.
without the ;hate crime' statutes, the worst this kid did was invasion of privacy, which is a misdemeanor in NJ. and his scapegoating by this 'justice' system and the media is blatant. people get less time in jail for rape. justify that in your tiny brain.
you should actually understand the law before you comment on it coward.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Criminal, but not homicide
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Criminal, but not homicide
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Criminal, but not homicide
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Criminal, but not homicide
I do agree that it was wrong and an invasion of Clementi's personal space, but it is not invasion of privacy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Criminal, but not homicide
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Criminal, but not homicide
No. Clementi asked Ravi for the room so he could spend some time with his boyfriend, and Ravi agreed. How much more reasonable an expectation of privacy do you want?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Criminal, but not homicide
"Hey, can I have some privacy?" and having the other person turn around while putting on clothes does not result in legally being entitled to privacy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Criminal, but not homicide
The jury disagrees with you, and so would many judges.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Criminal, but not homicide
The second time, he may possibly have attempted to view sex. But the only people who would have viewed it were a handful of his friends.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Criminal, but not homicide
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Motives
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No sex, just a kiss!!!!
I don't know about you, but the fact that someone can go to prison for 10 years and be deported for a kiss means this country has just crossed a very scary line.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No sex, just a kiss!!!!
The 2nd time it was turned on they were shirtless.
There was an invitation made to others to watch the 2nd date.
That viewing party was stopped when Tyler say it was setup to record him again and turned it off.
Some people go to prison for a longer time for drug convictions.
The deportation is not something the court decided, it comes from him not being a citizen. He came and broke the law, and the law says if you do that you can be deported.
He tried to get witnesses to change their statements and "destroyed" evidence in an attempt to cover up what he had done.
This was not just all charges for being a jerk, this is about a calculated attempt to cover up his involvement in a situation that went well out of his control. But he put it into motion, and was found guilty of that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No sex, just a kiss!!!!
I stand by what I said. A 2-second kiss watched by 4 or 5 kids.
This trial was about getting a pound of flesh. I spoke to a friend of mine who is a judge this weekend. She didn't know much about the case, but she told me -- twice -- this would never have been prosecuted had Tyler Clementi not killed himself.
People have done far worse and not faced this type of sentence. In fact, had Ravi committed manslaughter, the sentence would be less.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No sex, just a kiss!!!!
She and Ravi watched it, and then it was reactivated and shown to more people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Being a jerk should get you shunned, but not put in prison."
is a ridiculous oversimplification. He isn't going to jail for being a jerk, he is going to jail for invasion of privacy and intimidation (the "hate" crime part is what I have a problem with). In this era of cheap web-cams, cheap bandwidth, and cheap storage I think we need to see more laws against secretly recording other peoples actions and broadcasting them over the internet.
If you found out that someone was recording you at home (in your bedroom) and streaming it to your neighbors would you honestly not see a problem with that? Say what you will about "thought crimes", but streaming live video of someone in their bedroom is an action not a thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The hate crime part is also something I have a problem with. Increasing penalties due to an arbitrary judgement of someone's state of mind rather than just the act itself is hugely problematic. "Hate crime" should not even be a thing. Crime is crime and should be punished as such. Mindset has no place in this, other than proving intent, which can increase the severity of the penalty in many crimes. But just because someone hates [choose race/gender/religion] shouldn't increase their penalty for a crime against said group. It just doesn't make sense.
"""Say what you will about "thought crimes", but streaming live video of someone in their bedroom is an action not a thought."""
On this we are agreed, an action was performed, but by no stretch do I agree that it could be called a hate crime even by today's rather broad standards. The guy was stupid and immature, but he wasn't a mafia boss trying to intimidate his roommate. It was a prank in extremely poor taste that wound up going very much awry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh yea I forgot it's bad for business to go after millionaires.
If someone wants to be racist well good for them. Sure being racist is stupid but it's part of free speech. I don't know why the guy would kill himself for being gay. I mean who cares about that shit anymore. The majority is like bah whatever you're gay well good for you. Sure there are some small groups that spew hate speeches but they're ignored for the most part. We all laugh at them for their ignorance. Look at the WBBC they protest at soldiers funerals a pretty messed up thing to do. It's sick to even think about doing something like that let alone doing it. They're all free and we all think they're fucking morons.
If you don't like it just go protest where they are with a Satan Loves WBBC sign. I'm sure there are plenty of atheist like me that have no problem with doing that. Or if you're not atheist you can always Rick Roll them lmao. That sound pretty fair to me someone needs to go Rick Roll Ravi for his super crimes against us all O_O
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WAIT???!!!? WHAT?!??!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...in the commission of a criminal act
How is it that if a bystander gets shot and dies in the commission of a bank robbery, the bank robbers are guilty of murder, even if they didn't mean for the person to get shot?
Simple. If you have reason to suspect that your actions are:
1) Illegal and,
2) Potentially harmful to others,
Then our system says that anything that happens as a result of your actions is, wait for it...
Your fault.
Now, I'm not going to go so far as to say this stupid Indian-American is guilty of murder, but we do have a system that says he should be held very responsible. He was an adult after all, and just because his parents are pathetically poor at raising a boy to manhood, doesn't mean that he should be free to just walk the streets when his actions resulted in the denial of a fellow American's privacy.
This was at best a civil rights violation, and at worst, an attack on a minority individual for their sexual orientation, which had the (admittedly unintended) consequence of a suicide.
Maybe if the children of immigrants, who are born in other countries want to keep their privilege as American residents, they should heed carefully the message here, and do their best to not deny other Americans their civil rights.
Or get deported.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ...in the commission of a criminal act
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ...in the commission of a criminal act
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ...in the commission of a criminal act
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ...in the commission of a criminal act
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The media spins, and Mike bought in?
While whether it should be might be a point Mike could raise in a debate, it has no bearing on the fact that Ravi was sentenced for something other than the fact Clementi died.
*If we are to accept that evidence supports CNN's statement that the taping was of Clementi having sex, which it stated in the second article that Mike linked to.
For the record, I agree with Mike's assertion that the law shouldn't take into account the reactions of other people to the degree that was attempted in the first case mentioned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you read Clementi's chat transcripts within a day of his suicide you will also see that he is unsure whether he thinks it was that big of a deal. Here's a reasonable speculation: he was in a very weak mental state from general insecurity. The stress of reporting Ravi to the university is one of many things that pushed him over the edge.
What is frustrating is that although Ravi's actions are detestable, everyone seems to detest his actions because Clementi was gay. Everyone I know has done something within scale to the cruelty of Ravi's actions. You have said something inexcusable to a family member, friend, or roommate. You have cruelly gossiped about a coworker or classmate. You have done something in the realm of what Ravi did wrong. Yet, since your actions were not directed at someone because of the color of their skin or their sexuality, most people will turn a blind eye.
Ravi's actions were wrong because he showed a lack of consideration for the feelings and privacy of his roommate.
Clementi's action was wrong because he showed a lack of respect for himself and his own value. I've known people who have had much rougher lives than Clementi, who contemplated suicide but persevered through the shit that life threw at them. I'll show empathy for Clementi, but I'll also deplore suicide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Please explain Molly Wei's sworn testimony that it was activated a second time and shown to more people in her room?
I mean a paper is cool and all, but to put that above the testimony of someone in the room who did the act....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ravi
Ravi did not commit murder, he was neither prosecuted for nor convicted of murder. He has also stated publicly that he will appeal the verdict.
Ravi is not being prosecuted for what he thought of Tyler Clementi, he has been convicted (pending appeal) for invading Mr. Clementi's privacy, publishing that on the internet, and then trying to cover up his tracks and tamper with both physical evidence and witnesses. The article attacks a straw man, and misses its mark
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ravi
Mmmm, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, maybe you're not just another troll.
The article did not state that Ravi was being tried nor was prosecuted for murder. However, allow me to point out that if Ravi's roommate had not committed suicide, there would have been precisely 0 (zero) convictions, although possibly a smudge on Ravi's academic record. The suicide is prompting the use of other laws to create a liability commensurate with a murder verdict. In today's politically correct climate, this is a fairly typical kneejerk reaction, and don't be surprised if there aren't a few laws being crafted to address this issue more precisely in the future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ravi
While the "piling on" of some of the charges is a bit much, he still needed to answer for breaking the law, and then trying to hide that evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ravi
No, the suicide prompted a thorough investigation, where Ravi's obstruction of justice came to light.
Ravi shot himself in the foot a second time, by turning down the plea bargain offer. A murderer would not have been offered a plea bargain for community service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ravi
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If it violated laws, then he should be punished accordingly.
Trying to turn it into something more is the bad thing.
This case is very emotional and sensationalized.
For those who think it was only Ravi and Molly who saw it, please read her testimony. While Ravi went and showered she was showing it to more people.
All we have to go by is what people typed online, we have no idea what - if anything - was actually said/done in meatspace.
Ravi tried to hide evidence, influence witnesses, and make himself look innocent. This shows an awareness that those actions were not the best thing to do, and to try and hide his orchestration of them.
I don't think there needed to be the "hate crime" extras thrown in, what he did would have sucked no matter who the target was.
Inviting people, even "jokingly", to join in a viewing of his roommate on a date shows he didn't care about this roommates privacy.
We may never know what drove Tyler to jump, but Ravi broke several laws (even without the whole hate crime spin) and he needs to answer for those.
Let the punishment fit the crime, not the suspicion.
I think Ravi is a horrible human being, but I am not unbiased. While his actions might have contributed to the sad outcome, I can't say it was 100% his fault.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Facts Are Off
What type of punishment would there be if someone placed a camera in a women's restroom?
Further he did advertise it on Twitter by trying to get others to watch.
I am gay BTW, and it seems the prosecutor pressured the witnesses into pushing the bias intimidation part of it.
And I think the charges are overblown, typical of NJ and especially that county.
Unfortunately I have zero power to push back on this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Facts Are Off
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Crime and Punishment
Yes, some people do take abuse and invasion of privacy better than others do, but that shouldn't be the basis of letting people get away with being jerks online. They ought to be held accountable for their attitudes and actions without being able to hide behind free speech laws, otherwise only obnoxious people have the right to free speech while their victims get pushed offline, as Christos and Lesli Catsouras have been to get away from the horrific images of their dead daughter that were forever being sent to them by email. http://www.ocregister.com/articles/family-337967-catsouras-nikki.html
That said, I believe that their campaign to remove the offensive images of their daughter from the internet is ultimately self-defeating because it's gone viral and the more you try to ban something the more people want it.
The answer is a robust moderation policy on all websites in which the administrators are legally obliged to enforce a TOS that includes provisions that prohibit offensive or intimidating behaviour. As it is, not enough of them do, and freedom of speech is restricted to those who are either obnoxious or not in the trolls' crosshairs.
I would also add (for cases like Drew) that parents need to police their kids' use of the internet to the point of cutting it off if they insist on going to dodgy websites.
Would it be a bad idea to ask that students sign a legally binding code of online conduct in which they agree not to post intimidating or abusive comments online? Being made to think twice about his actions may have prevented Ravi from posting comments on Twitter inviting people to view that video. Internet safety advice is available here: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Parents/Yourchildshealthandsafety/Internetsafety/index.htm
http://www .bbc.co.uk/health/physical_health/child_development/safety_internet.shtml
http://www.wiredsafety. org
http://www.isafe.org
If more people took advantage of these resources, I believe the rates of self-harm and suicide over cyberbullying would go right down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This whole anti-bullying campaign smacks of an attempt to force acceptance through intimidation of being branded a bigot. The bullying campaign is a form of social engineering. It's impossible to be a bigot by not agreeing with some 'aternative lifestyle' simply because they're not their own race of people.
Nobody deserves to be bullied nor treated in a humiliating way, but the reality is that this isn't a perfect world and we're far from perfection ourselves. There will always be bullying, hate crimes, racism, war, and all the rest. You can conjure up any manipulative thought crime scheme and it still isn't going to work. Do you believe that the KKK and the Black Panthers are going to suddenly cease hating each other and sing Kumbaya together simply because the media or government told them to?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Criminal intent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Criminal intent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Criminal intent
There was interesting article about it in National Geographic a few months ago. Young adults are wired to wieght actions and consequences in a different way then when one is older. Looking before leaping is essentially a part of being young.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It was absolutely criminal. Filming someone in the nude alone, without their permission is a crime. Filming someone having sex without their permission even more so.
Should he be charged with a crime directly related to the death? I am not sure. Having been the target of bullying from the time I was a child until my mid-twenties, due to being a skinny geek with glasses, I don't know if I can have an unbiased opinion. But I will say unless you have been bullied day after day for many years you just cannot understand the impact it has on your life and psyche.
Should Ravi serve 10 years? Probably not. Should he serve some time and get deported? Absolutely! He is an adult, not some 10 year old, and should know this kind of bahavior is just plain wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Misinformation
So please stop saying that he recorded them and posted the video to the web because that did not happen at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Misinformation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's the *act* that's being punished, not the ideas
But they are not free to act on their fears, hatreds, fantasies, or psychopathy. If they act, and harm results to some innocent person, they should carry the can for it.
Nobody wants their privacy invaded. Most people would react very strongly to having their *intimate* privacy invaded, but then to have the results of the invasion publicised? No, that goes FAR beyond the bounds of anything anyone might consider a harmless prank. That was an act INTENDED to cause harm.
And the perp should be made to pay for it, if for no other reason than to discourage others from doing the same thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Puhleeez!!!
Say you’re 18 year old daughter split with her current boyfriend to go with some other guy. As a result, the ex-boyfriend decides to seek revenge by posting revealing pics of her online.
Do you people honestly me expect me to believe that you would agree with the no harm, no foul method of punishment for the ex-boyfriend that you are advocating for Ravi?
Puhleeezz!! I don’t think those of you defending Ravi even believe your own argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Puhleeez!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Plain and simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NO SEX ACT!!!!!!
JUST A KISS!!!!
KISS!!!!
KISS!!!
NO SEX!!!
That's why there's a lynch mob after this kid. Because everyone's an IDIOT who doesn't bother to read.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike Masnick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
captain obvious alert
Even if you somehow wrangle non-illegal out of perving on your room mate and using survelliance equipment without a warrant and the general sexual harrassmant issues associated with just making the recording without the participants consent...
IT WAS PUT ON THE INTERNET. I.E. FOR THE WHOLE WORLD TO SEE.
That is one cruel mother-fucker!!!!!
This isn't just a harmless tease/haze between roomies mate, this was massively cruel BS and I hope the parties responsible are suitably punished. Hopefully that will deter other sados from hurting people like that.....including the stereotypical 'wall of shame' frat boy culture we hear about in the movies...with no suicides required for it to be known around the world anyway....
And you know, maybe because this Ravi person is copping the flack they deserve it may make people in Clementi's position think twice about killing themselves. Because they now know the shame belongs on the perpetrator and not them and the whole world supports the Clementi figure in the story, not the Ravi who did the mean thing!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]