It started with a Twitter message on Sept. 19: “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 night, the authorities say, the Rutgers University student who sent the message used a camera in his dormitory room to stream the roommate’s intimate encounter live on the Internet.
And three days later, the roommate who had been surreptitiously broadcast ”” Tyler Clementi, an 18-year-old freshman and an accomplished violinist ”” jumped from the George Washington Bridge into the Hudson River in an apparent suicide.
The Sept. 22 death, details of which the authorities disclosed on Wednesday, was the latest by a young American that followed the online posting of hurtful material. The news came on the same day that Rutgers kicked off a two-year, campuswide project to teach the importance of civility, with special attention to the use and abuse of new technology.
Then let me ask the question: Is such a broadcast protected under the First? Is “hate speech” not protected under the First? We cannot have it both ways. Or is it time to limit the coverage of the First and admit that such restrictions are mandatory because every right brings with it a responsibility, that violating that responsibility nullifies the right? Larry
The broadcast was not “news” – it was secretly taping someone, not for the purposes of uncovering public corruption or criminal activity, which freedom of the press might cover. What could possibly be the protection under the first amendment? Speech protection is essentially protection against government censorship, not giving each and every person the right to secretly videotape others in the privacy of their home and then broadcast widely.
My reaction to this was a feeling of unspeakable sadness.
I also thought immediately of Zygmunt Bauman’s idea of liquidity being the key idea for the time in which we live–the loss of boundaries, the loss of edges, the loss of propriety, the loss of civility, and on it goes.
This never could have happened when I was in school. It isn’t as if we are always marching ever upwards into the future. There have been real losses recently, and this story illustrates well that privacy and private space is one of them.
It matters.
Agree with Branford. The young man had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Secretly videotaping people in private moments and broadcasting it live is not “free speech.”
#1- Larry- Invasion of Privacy of a non-public figure is not protected speech under the First Amendment.
Supreme Court precedent has held that “hate speech” is protected speech under the first amendment. Free speech can be regulated provided it does not attempt to censor content (e.g. a politician running for office driving a car with an extremely large amplifier at 2 am, may not be censored for the content of his speech, but may fall afoul of local noise ordinances.
There is a push from advocacy groups, especially gay rights groups that seek to put limits on speech for what is considered “hate speech”, but their argument at least at the Supreme Court level has not prevailed- at least as to content.
That said, there is nothing redeeming in this episode. It is invasion of privacy, plain and simple and whether or not the internet stream was “protected” will not save the students from being prosecuted as they should be.
#3- It’s just one more example of our collective fallen nature. The humanists who believe we are marching into a utopian future are wrong because they do not understand what Paul, Augustine, and Luther have so persuasively shown- given the choice to do good “selflessness” or to fall into evil “selfishness”, human kind almost always picks evil “selfishness”. It’s in our nature. We have an inborn propensity to sin, which is why we need a savior. I forget which theologian stated “Original sin is the most easily proven of all theology.”
This is terrible. The 1st Amendment is a limit on government. This was a private action and the 1st Amendment does not apply. What we might have here is a cause of action for wrongful death. But Billqs post at 6 nails it. This secret taping and subsequent broadcast was evil and the product of human sin. Indeed you can see the corrosive effects of human sin all around this from the homosexual sin to the invasion of privacy.
Look at David’s sin with Bathsheba and the fallout from that.
How heartbreaking.
Free speech does not mean that the speaker cannot be held accountable.
I agree with Kendall, comment #3. Deeply sad and a sign of something perhaps fatal that has happened in our culture surrounding sex and privacy and the commoditization of human beings. Cross-quoting my more impassioned reaction from another blog . . .
[blockquote]What a wicked ass those two kids were for live streaming sex across the Internet. . . . And how typical for our society. We’ve got sexting and all sorts of other pernicious activities, public humiliation of kids in public schools of both sexes, not to mention hundreds of hours now of “reality tv†[sic] that engages in the salacious display of all sorts of embarrassing sexual detail.
We’ve got teenage girls sending naked pics by cell phone thinking they’re “private†and teenage boys sending them out to the world, and yucking it up. No respect on either side—either for one’s own value or for others.
What our society has moved into is the wholesale commoditization of sex—which is the natural end-result of sex unbounded by holy matrimony.
Once the “fire is out of the fireplace†it’s anything goes. And now we have the public display of the salacious details of all sexual acts—just for laughs and jollies, which is the “next step†after one has *sold sex*—the previous step.
From sex = commodity. To sex = humorous worthless mockery.
If you don’t have sex within the bonds of holy matrimony—and our society has decided that we don’t—then sex becomes a free-for-all and worthless, like stuffing our mouths with hundreds of chocolate truffles in one sitting until we vomit.
I hope these kids are brought to justice and thrown into the clink.
There has to be some boundary line somewhere, and it needs to start right here. Not only should we not be filming people engaged in sex and livestreaming it across the Internet *without their knowledge* [which is illegal] but we should not be filming people engaged in sex and *selling it with permission* either.
As it is, without societal boundaries and Christian standards for sex, it’s just become trivial and a mockery.
Further, any Christian should have been able to have a heart to heart with Mr. Clementi—or with a teenage girl if the same had happened to her—and while being clear that sex outside of holy matrimony is sinful and not God’s best for that person, also stood by the kid and helped bring the law-breaking turds to justice.[/blockquote]
The kids who did this come from our neighborhood. I feel incredibly sorry for their families. I don’t know them personally so have no idea what the kids are actually like, but I can tell you that when I was in college (admittedly a wilder time than now) we did many many really really stupid things. Thank God no one was ever hurt.
It may be that they thought this was just a really funny prank. Or it may be that they deliberately wanted to hurt this kid. I would guess that their punishment, if any, will depend on information that comes out about what kind of kids they are and what they were thinking when they did this. But there’s a line from “The Simpson’s Movie” that could serve as the motto for many kids of this age:
Marge: HOMER!! What were you THINKING!!”
Homer: I don’t know Marge. I don’t think. I respect people who do, though.”
I wonder if the late John Updike and some other authors bear some responsibility for this wave of publication of private sexual acts. I think in a way Updike and others violated the dignity of their fictional characters by “too explicitly” exposing their intimate sexual acts. Life imitates art.
Catholic Mom, I am sorry for the families in your neighborhood. This is sad on several fronts. I don’t think, however, that the students’ motives ought to have much to do with what happens to them. They misused university bandwidth in a gross invasion of privacy. Expulsion for a year would be appropriate, along with loss of scholarships, if any, both to punish what they did and to serve as a boundary on other students’ future behavior.
I think wrongful death charges would be excessive, though. This was a stupid stunt which went tragically wrong. They should pay the consequences for the stunt, but I doubt they could have known their victim would commit suicide.
Katherine, I agree. Academic punishment has got to take place simply for abuse of university rules and regulations, if nothing else. At the very least something that will be on their permanent academic records. As to criminal charges, that would depend, I’m going to guess, on whether it seems that they did this to intentionally hurt or bully this kid. I agree that kids (like adults) can be tremendously evil. But generally what I see in this age group is mainly just not enough good judgement to fill a paper bag.
CM, I simply don’t know if an act like this is criminal in NJ law. If it is, they may be prosecuted, probably for a misdemeanor-level offense. Wiretapping and recording without consent are illegal in some jurisdictions. The applicable law would determine whether this was a felony. It’s about time, frankly, that something is done about the invasion of privacy involved in the various cellphone, etc., videos of people who do not know they are being recorded in moments when they have a right to expect privacy.
I guess this is different from the peepholes and hidden cassette recorders we had in college, there for much the same reason. The pranks we played back then were wrong, but they were the kinds of things that some adolescents do. Poor judgment is a feature of adolescence.
I’d like to think we wouldn’t have set up a webcam, inviting everybody to log in and watch. But I can’t promise that we wouldn’t have.
It’s clear that boundaries need to be set, and enforced – since photos and videos are so easy to make these days. I sure wouldn’t want the locker room horsing-around that we used to do to be posted on the Internet.
Sigh. I hope this guy’s partner is being offered counseling. As for the two students involved in the recording, I agree that there should be an appropriate inquiry at the university and civic levels.
Wrongful death is a civil action for money damages. It could be brought by the parents.
BTW — About 20 years ago a bunch of Princeton University students dared each other to go out to the Princeton train station at night and climb over a 10-foot barbed wire fence, right next to the sign that says “DANGER. HIGH VOLTAGE. KEEP OUT” and climb up onto the top of the little shuttle train that runs right by our house back and forth to the university during the day. One kid managed to do it and touched the live wire and subsequently lost both arms and one leg. Some kids of this age, notwithstanding their admittance to an elite Ivy League university, do not have two brain lobes to rub together.
If this could have happened when I was in college in the early 80s, I am sure it would have as I think of the behavior in my own dorm. And we would have been equally horrified if this tragic event had resulted. Whatever else happens, these kids should be required to take at least a year visiting colleges and high schools speaking about privacy and consequences of such actions.
While tremendously saddened by this event, I wonder at the widespread presumption of the right of privacy. In colonial America privacy was provided by walls and curtains. In technological modern America one should exercise some prudence. If there is a camera in a room planned to used for illicit sex, put a towel over it.
Well, yes, off2, and I also warned my daughters about the date rape drug when they went to college. But that doesn’t make it acceptable when someone is drugged or secretly filmed. Sad when “close your roommate’s laptop” is a routine precaution.
21. Katharine, I’m sorry you read “acceptable” into my post. It was not intended.
I didn’t, really, off2, but covering my roommate’s computer isn’t something I would necessarily have thought of, if I were the student in question. Obviously the two people who were videoed didn’t. This event is sickening on a number of fronts, isn’t it?
Collecting or viewing sexual images without consent is a fourth-degree crime. Transmitting them is a third-degree crime with a maximum prison term of five years.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/09/30/national/a013110D17.DTL&tsp=1#ixzz112E8BBAO
But you see this IS public because the internet is involved. The filming may be contemptible, the death wrongful, but the results are public; the materials aired on the internet are protected by the First. It was spread as it was originated, because the college nitwits thought they were being funny, and by college student standards, they were. This is no different that putting oneself start naked on Facebook or the like.
Is this an invasion of privacy? Sure. But that isn’t really this issue, is it? This is no longer a private action and there is no sign that it was meant to be. This is a prank and pranks demand an audience for their appreciation.
I don’t know why some of you are surprised at this This is “normal” collegiate behavior. They have been brought up with the belief that being seen by a camera is vital, that exhibitionism is a solid value, that exposing oneself to the public is amusing and no shame. You just don’t see much of it unless it hits the news.
Besides, the privacy argument is a fiction, a [pleasant figment from the past. On any street corner in England and in most cities of the US there are cameras watching your every move. Idiot Americans have been filming themselves and others and posting these results on the internet for years. Data about your private lives is gathered constantly by computers for every purchase you make, and these add up to a massive profile which a corporation can access at any time. And if you do not allow medical treatment for a child for religious reasons, the state intervenes whether you like it or not. Privacy? What privacy?
Original sin? Sure; we all know it even though we know that the story of Adam and Eve is a myth. We are simply a shrinking minority, and getting smaller, that’s all.
It is worth noting that, as to wrongful death, these students should have known that a case of precisely this class resulted in a girl’s hanging herself. That was in all the news media. Larry
The deliberate malice behind this crime *ought* to qualify it as a form of manslaughter if there is any justice in the world (which there isn’t, apart from courts of equity). The two people involved ought to spend the rest of their lives behind bars, or at least until the unfortunate Mr Celementi is resurrected. And his estate should sue them for every penny they will ever make.
Reading comments here is often interesting; and this particularly so since the subject has been held in my thoughts all day. Observations have been held at arm’s length for the most part. I agree with Father Harmon’s entry. I would even add that every time we as Christians fail to set an example of restraint and charity, we contribute to the lack of civility and lack of boundaries we have left for our children and grandchildren to grow in. We all have a part to play when we lose our children. The atmosphere lacking civility throughout our country on every side often sends chills through me these days.
Very sad. Kids who pulled the prank were wrong and will pay mightily for it. Kids that age and generally of that experience often do not have the judgment not to do something like this, because they don’t have the experience to foresee the consequences. And … they mostly now haven’t had the morals of older generations instilled in them to keep them from doing things like this. (But in all honesty, if we had had the same technology in the 60s, I do believe similar thngs would have happened – especially to homosexual persons. The movie Animal House was only an exaggeration of many places back then.)
But there is another factor here everyone is ignoring – the kid who committed suicide. He didn’t have to do that. He could have recovered from this embarrassment over time and probably become a wealthy man, after he sued the two who pulled the prank and sued Rutgers for giving them unsupervised access to the internet to do this. He, also, apparently did not have the experience and upbringing to be able to understand that this embarrassment was not the end of his world – he certainly did not have enough faith in the Lord to not commit the ultimate sin.
All very sad on all sides.
26. A Senior Priest, I don’t know the parties involved and I’ve only read two articles on the event. I dimly remember how I was in college, and the stupid things I did with my friends. The miracle is that we all survived our childhoods! I think you would be hard pressed to prove “deliberate malice.” Perhaps you had a more exemplary youth than anyone of my acquaintance.
Re #28: “not commit the ultimate sin.”
I would think the ultimate sin would be a sin absent of any love at all.
Re: #28
Ahhhh, I didn’t get it. You meant suicide. Agreed.
I would think it would be very hard to prove in a civil suit that the suicide was directly because of this sad incident. I think a reasonable jury could infer that it was at least in part a cause, but with suicides, you seldom know what the real causes are for certain. The sick thing is, a zealous defense attorney will try to paint the victim in all sorts of ways to try to exonerate the offender.
And another bizarre thing, if you read the details in this report…no one seems to be batting an eye over the fact that it appears to be a co-ed dorm. In my opinion, co-ed dorms are designed to create horrendous incidences like this.
Archer: This is already happening in the Phoebe Prince bullying case in Boston. Defense has subpoenaed all medical/psychological records of the victim to show that she was depressed and suicidal BEFORE six kids began harassing her daily for weeks. Well…sure she was! Because if it was me I would have shot them long before I would ever have DREAMED of killing myself. But she was depressed and miserable and this pushed her over the edge. But that hardly exonerates the bullies. BTW, the “hard cord” DA who has been pushing this case is retiring in December and the defense has managed to get the case pushed to January when a DA who is known to have more lenient views about the case takes office.
Statistically, persons with same-sex sexual attraction are more likely to commit suicide.
In regard to shame, according to Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, who has worked with this population, they are deeply affected and triggered by shame. Recall how the ‘shame’ word in Bishop-elect Martin’s speech to GC09 offended and was misconstrued and distorted out of proportion by Jim Naughton. Shameful experiences can be unbearable to people who have been shamed in childhood.
In therapy, Dr. Nicolosi and his colleagues expose and remove the shame and sense of abandonment (among other issues) and this relieves the pain and pressure and the desire to act out homosexually.
Archer, I remember the freedom of my girls-only dorms and regret that my daughters didn’t have that same environment. This offensive video and broadcast would have been just as egregious if it had been a male-female sexual encounter.
I have yet to read anything which would support a manslaughter charge or even a wrongful death suit, though. Stupid and illegal stunt gone tragically wrong.
“Stupid and illegal stunt gone tragically wrong.” Exactly so. Of course, the victim and his family deserve our prayers, but the perpetrators and their families our very much in need of our prayers as well. The forces are already moving quickly to use this tragedy to score political points and there will be calls for blood retribution for the perpetrators’ foolishness.
We have had examples of “sexting” photos lead to tragic ends here. The “sexual revolution” with its casual and cavalier attitude to sexual relations have produced untold tragedies.
I just happened upon an article that talks about the power of SHAME.
As suicide statistics go, teens are more likely than adults to commit suicide (though it increases again after middle age), males more likely than females, people with homosex inclinations, longterm disabilities and addictions are more likely than those without.
#20: In very early colonial America, single men were discouraged from living alone. This was so that they would be under the supervision of a traditional family to keep them honest and moral.
#26:
[blockquote] “The two people involved ought to spend the rest of their lives behind bars†[/blockquote]
No, as terrible as this may seem, that is too drastic. WWJD? John 8:3-7
[b]#33 Archer & #36 Katherine:[/b]
I lived in both co-ed and single-sex dorms, and I have to disagree that co-ed dorms are designed to create situations like this. I also didn’t feel all that much more free in my women’s dorm. (Sure, I walked back from the shower wearing only my towel, but the co-ed dorm didn’t have hall showers, so that wouldn’t have been an issue, anyway.)
The filmed student, his partner, and the roommate who watched/broadcast were all male; I don’t see how the fact that the next-door neighbor, in whose room the roommate watched, was female was necessarily the catalyst that caused it all to happen.
I feel terrible for the poor young man who killed himself, and his family and friends.
I know — all too well, and from personal experience on the receiving end (but [i]never[/i] the other end) — that kids can be horribly cruel. I also know that kids don’t have good judgment, and that college students are still kids. Nonetheless, I’m absolutely stunned that anyone would do something like this. I will never understand why more kids (or adults, frankly) don’t seem to be capable of asking themselves, ‘how would I feel if someone did this to me?’
The legal question is answered in news reports indicating that the roommate voyeur and his accomplice have been charged with fourth-degree and third-degree crimes, with possible penalties of five years imprisonment. (I don’t know how this translates into the crime categories of other states.) They will probably also be expelled from Rutgers, I would imagine. These penalties, assuming trial and conviction, sound sufficient to me, unless some evidence of extended harassment and knowledge of an unstable mental condition in the victim comes to light.
The efforts of same-sex activists to make this a cause celebre appear likely to make the suffering of the grieving family even worse.
Shame: It can be so instructive and a positive force leading away from pride and perfect freedom found in confession and forgiveness. It isn’t as if it is in our “contracts” never to have to face it.
Thje co-ed dorms were not designed to create situations like this. But the CULTURE which caused the creation of coed dorms is. This is the same culture that gave homosexuals the opportunity to live in female dorms, the made grade inflation possible and inevitable, that made sex-after-the frat party commonplace, that made the Vagina Monologues a standard yearly appearance. The only standard is no standards, and the students involved here demonstrate this. This is more than and much worse than the dumb tricks we all pulled in college. The victim was obviously timid and withdrawn. They chose him for precisely that reason. And as I said earlier, they should have known the damage vicious bullying can do – someone else here referrred to it also. They KNEW it would hurt him,k didn’t they?
Larry
#25. Larry Morse This is definitely NOT a first amendment issue. The kids doing the filming did not have the right to film someone else who had a reasonable expectation of privacy without their consent, and therefore are NOT protected by free speech. Similarly if you broke into an author’s house, copied his book onto a hard-drive, and then published it yourself, you would NOT be protected by free speech since you had no right to publish someone else’s words. Free speech necessarily does not protect you from saying/publishing things that are not yours to say/publish.
I pray for all the families involved, as others have expressed.
I agree with al on the issue of original sin but let us not forget the multiplier: Social Networking. How the young generation though social networking are enticed to share their and others most intimate moments and sink deeper into narcissism; all way from adult supervisions, accountability, maturity and wisdom.
44, see 45. This matter has all been changed by the internet and our acceptable and common “social” behavior. And the rules for privacy have changed radically. The two are here bound together. Why don’t they have the right to film someone who has not given permission? We do this all the time with web cams and public cams. And the government snoops as a matter of legal course. Commerce gathers vital information that we have little grasp of and no control over. The state invades homes and takes children in custody quite legally. And Maine now has aa law that makes it illegal for adults to smoke in a car if they have children in it. Is there no reasonable assumption of privacy here in your own car?
I grant you, this battle hasn’t been fought to its bitter end yet, but it will be because American social behavior has made a mockery of the notion of privacy. I find this contemptible and villainous, but this is a fact, the way it is increasingly. (One blessing of church is that the bastards CANNOT get to you there.)
Indeed, the American passion for “prevention” will give nullify any limits put on invasion of privacy because the demand to prevent will trump all demands of privacy. Have you not vaccinated your children? Bad. The state will force your privacy in the name of prevention.
I don’t follow your comparison with breaking, entering and plagiarising. Larry
There is more info on this recently in:
[blockquote] The saga took another twist when the website Gawker reported that someone started a discussion on a graphic gay-oriented website after realizing his roommate was “spying” on him with a webcam.
The author described his conflicted feelings after reading his roommate’s tweets about the author kissing a guy in their room while he watched from afar. Should he report his roommate or request a room change? Would either help or just make things worse? The author later wrote that he told a resident assistant about the filming — and that he unplugged his roommate’s computer and searched the room for hidden cameras before another liaison.
[/blockquote]
Also interesting responses:
[blockquote] Numerous websites popped up in defense of the suspects, with some proclaiming their innocence or calling their alleged actions a prank. Countless other sites, however, were dedicated to bashing the suspects or calling for stiffer charges, including manslaughter.
The comments on the pages are emotional and sometimes vitriolic. Some postings call the suspects “sickos” and “cold-blooded killers” while others display homophobia and racism (both suspects are minorities), even thanking the suspects for their possible role in a gay man’s death. [/blockquote]
So, apparently , what might have been a “teaching moment” for everyone about civility and decency has just allowed people to vent further incivility and indecency.
I read the comments at Gawker. The victim didn’t seem too upset at the broadcast of the first encounter and was debating whether or not to even ask for a different roommate. He did decide to later. At the second encounter, he non-chalantly states that he merely turned off his roommate’s computer and “had fun.”
I am not sure that I will ever understand “social networking.”
Dr. Harmon in #3 mirrors what I’ve written on other blogs. Roommates walking in on one another has happened since the dawn of dormitories. I graduated college long before the internet and cyberspace; but, even so, it would never have occurred to my roommate and I to photograph and/or tape-record each other and pass around the results.
It’s disturbing enough that these kids did this; what’s even more disturbing is that they thought it was *ok* to do it in the first place.
The perps could use a psych eval–one could make a case for their voyeurism being socially/sexually deviant. Makes me wonder what sort of guidance(or lack thereof) they received at home for their first 18 years.
Yes, unspeakable sadness and the Clementi family is in my prayers.
Yet this is an even worse reflection on our culture.
But Bookworm, kids now do this all the time and think it is OK. This is how facebook started out, isn’t it? Sexually deviant? Since when, recentlh, has deviancy been a source of derogation? Indeed, it has lost all its negative connotations. Larry
Drudge referenced another article:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39456960/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/
In reading it I’m saddened that the discussion has become one about the rights and liabilities of various groups and misshapen “ideals.” The dead guy was a unique young man, not an icon of a group deserving of special privileges.
Rutgers seems more concerned with defending sexual diversity in the abstract than with the needless death of a student and the possible failures of its staff.
Only on this blog and SF have I seen anyone address the fact that spying on ones supposed friends is truly tacky and disloyal, as opposed to possibly illegal. And that the presenting cause was sin. (A few decades ago that particular sin was also felonious.)
I want my mid 20th Century American culture back (with some technological improvements). Don’t think that’s gonna happen.
Larry, you added to and re-illustrated my point…precisely…what kind of a culture are we that voyeurism and violating others’ privacy is not a problem?