Tyler Clementi, Rutgers Univ. student, committed suicide

[heliochrome85]

debating isnt your thing. don't quit your day job.

[stebo0728]

Obviously the intelligent conversation in this thread as come to an end because of people trying to play the devil's advocate. Too bad.

Your missing the point. You CANNOT definitively say what you would do, im sorry but you cant. I dont care how much you value anything in your life, when you get to a point of clinical depression, none of that matters, you dont think with any rational part of your brain about what else is in your life. Please stop crucifying the kid for how he reacted to a situation you have NEVER been in. And no the intelligent conversation is just starting. The moment you realize that you CANT speak to a situation you know nothing about, you will have that Tah-dah logic moment of clarity. No ones saying give these guys the death sentence for murder. But any reasonable person should be able to see that they hold at least some culpability in the matter.

[IBCoupe]

Wow. It's like your brain just quit.

"The right to not slip on wet grass" is not a civil right. "Privacy" is. You fail on that count.

And second:
We prosecute them because we can. They broke a law and they're still alive to face the consequences.

[heliochrome85]

i find it amusing that both you and the guy who tried to burn a pile of qurans on 9/11 are from central/north florida.

must be something in the water.

[IBCoupe]

You people seem like you'd try to throw the slammer at a grandmother who forgot to pay her monthly phone service bill. Or a child who forgot to put on his safety pads before playing in a soccer game.

Do you have no heart?

Neither of those two examples are crimes against another person. One's a breach of contract and the other's... I don't even know what that is.

But, no, I don't really have a heart. Learn to argue better, please. Or just find a different board.

[stebo0728]

You people seem like you'd try to throw the slammer at a grandmother who forgot to pay her monthly phone service bill. Or a child who forgot to put on his safety pads before playing in a soccer game.

Do you have no heart?

Sorry but I tend to have more of a heart for the victim than the perpetrator in matters.

Theres no such thing as debtors prison in America, so the grandmother argument is a red herring. And the soccer kid is as well.

Could you maybe know these guys personally and not be divulging that detail? You seem to argue with the fervor of someone with a personal stake in the matter.

[IBCoupe]

I think he has given up now, and is using "devil's advocate" as an excuse. His behavior has wandered into the trollish. Kind of embarrassing.

[IBCoupe]

You have the civil right for personal safety.

Fine, if you want to argue that, I'll concede it for the sake of argument. Now go find me someone who's willfully violated that right of another person and tell me that they shouldn't have been prosecuted, either.

Those are all laws in Alabama. We could prosecute those who offend/break those laws, but we don't. Because it would be both morally and ethically incorrect. Same applies here.

Wrong jurisdiction. But in any event, "invasion of privacy" is not the same as "flinging boogers." Desperation is unbecoming.

[IBCoupe]

One college student is already dead, is it really far to run the lives of two others because of his stupid action

Not for his stupid action, no. But certainly for theirs.

[stebo0728]

I'll say it once, I'll say it twice, I'll say it a million times.

One college student is already dead, is it really far to run the lives of two others because of his stupid action? No.

Ok here we are getting at it a bit, so holding someone accountable for their actions can be considered "ruining" their lives? Sorry holds no water. They ruined their own lives when they decided to ruin someone else's. Now there are socially accepted consequences. If you dont like these socially accepted consequences, denounce your membership to society.

[heliochrome85]

i find it amusing that both you and the guy who tried to burn a pile of qurans on 9/11 are from central/north florida.

must be something in the water.

You are trying to personally attack me because your intellectual argument was of no substance and I exposed it.

Sorry! I'll be more gentle next time.

you are right. you win 100 internets.

silly me, i should have never tangled with an intellectual powerhouse such as yourself.

what is it that you do again?

[stebo0728]

Theirs was also caused by his.

So, it's his fault that they invaded his privacy?

[heliochrome85]

"the homosexual advocates"


I GET IT NOW
HE IS A TEA BAGGER.

[heliochrome85]

please son, dont try to educate me about the rules here. im quite aware of how things operate in this forum.

your ability to talk in circles is astonishing.

also, you arent denying it.

[heliochrome85]

His secrecy of homosexuality and sheltered life. If was open and true with himself this entire event wouldn't have occurred.

yes and we live in a utopia.

there is a significant population in this country who want to deny gays and lesbians their rights, and so being "open and true" also means unequal.

[stebo0728]

ONLY REPLYING TO INTELLECTUAL QUESTIONS FROM NOW ON>>>>>

Wow I feel so lucky, i had an intellectual question.

I'd agree with your viewpoint, but, again, I have limits on where I agree with you and where I must disagree with you. I'm completely for holding them accountable for their actions, but there must be a point where that accountability clashes with public response and an overzealous (or young) prosecutor trying to appease the homosexual advocates' outcry for justice.

Expulsion and civil remedies are more appropriate in this event. Criminal charges are pushing the book.

Perhaps the advocates are trying to bring some justice to an area that has had little to none in the past? Ill admit I am a bit homophobic, but at the same time, gays have been the target of ALOT of SH*T in the past, and whether you agree with their lifestyle or not, no one should have to be put through that kind of treatement. Pushing the book is necessary when trying to rebalance an area that has long been out of balance.

[heliochrome85]

I don't appreciate those personal attacks. Keep it up and you won't be happy with the result.

if you arent suggesting that i broke the rules, then all that talk of me not being happy with the consequences is an open faced threat. lets see what greg has to say.

[stebo0728]

His secrecy of homosexuality and sheltered life. If was open and true with himself this entire event wouldn't have occurred.

Its because of douche bags like this that he kept it secret to begin with.

[stebo0728]

Look, I completely see where you're coming from.

A homosexual child (13!!) Asher Brown just shot himself last week because his classmates kept making fun of sexual preference. That's horrible.
Although I do find it funny how we was able to determine his sexuality at such a young age. But that's another discussion.

When you say - "pushing the book is necessary" -

That was my whole point! Let's NOT push the book with these kids and make them an example (or point of ridicule) for the rest. They are too young. Like I said before, push the book or apply these criminal laws to those who are not trying to positively contribute to society - like a homeless person or crackhead (depending on their past).

But its not up to you or I to make that distinction. Its up to 1 judge, 2 lawyers, and 12 jurors. I think we can all agree that charges are warranted. It seems your argument is to no press them? Because these guys are at college? Thats where 90% of this stuff happens. Once we get in the real world all of a sudden its doesnt matter so much where someone likes to put their d*ck so long as its not anywhere around me or my family, we're good.

[stebo0728]

So, it's a never ending cycle. Putting two teenagers behind bars or throwing the legal book at them won't bring that cycle to an end.

Seriously - just because two people are criminally charged won't stop the next secretive college student to "come out of the closet". They're hiding their lifestyle for some reason, and the legal recourse of two people won't affect that.

But were not trying to stop gay guys from hiding their lifestyle, were trying to stop douche bags from invading their privacy and creating scenarios where someone would be pushed to take the actions he took.

[stebo0728]

In the end, yes. All of this discussion will be for nothing, because, as you said, it will be up to a court of law to come to a final decision.

I'd hope that, should the New Jersey prosecutor's office choose to try this case, the jurors sitting on the trial will show sympathy to the two students. I'm sure you'd disagree with that though.. And that's fine. We all have a difference of opinion, and that's why the Political Forum is here.

I think that many people don't get (YOU do) the fact that I do feel that criminal charges are warranted. They are! They broke the law.

But, ethically and morally, I don't feel as if they should be charged. But, again, that's just my view point and it seems as if most disagree.

Where would we be in the end with the problem of "privacy breech?" if we just let it go? Look this is a perfect time for this discussion, because the generation of children that seem to have cell phones growing from their ears are getting ready to hit the dorms. Your gonna see a MULTITUDE of these kinds of cases in the not too distant future, with cell phones that take pictures, shoot movies, many times unbeknown to the subject being recorded. This is the time to hash out a protocol of precedence in these matters, so that when the overwhelming numbers of cases start to come, we will be able to rule on them quite efficiently. Setting the precedent now that "as long as the other guys dead anyway, then whats the harm" is a scary one to set. Will people be harassed even more to drive them to suicide so that "alls well"?

Maybe the jury will show lenience, maybe not, but dont think this is a dead issue either way, because this is only the tip of the iceberg on this sorta stuff.

[AZhitman]

This thread had better get ratcheted back a couple notches. I'm not liking the tone it's taking.

I've steered clear of it thus far, mostly because I possess an unfair advantage based on my education and background, but secondarily because I'm a**-deep in work tonight.

Keep the argument civil, factually-based, and it helps to provide backup for your position.

Thanks all.

EDIT: Posted too late - Way to save the thread. Carry on.

[IBCoupe]

Apologies for the delay; I had to get home from class.

His secrecy of homosexuality and sheltered life. If was open and true with himself this entire event wouldn't have occurred.

That also brings up the point of whether or not Universities should include a "Sexual Preference" box on their dormitory requests.

Wait, what? No. It absolutely does not matter what secrets he had. It absolutely does not matter whether or not he was open and true (as if there was evidence to indicate that he wasn't). It's completely irrelevant, and it's pathetic that you'd try to lay it out that way.

Privacy is privacy. He could have been having sex with three girls at once, and it would be exactly the same issue. His roommate recorded and broadcast his private matters without his permission. That's a violation of his civil liberties, and a violation of the law. Done. Over. Stop. End of sentence. Kaput.

Your personal safety is included in your civil rights.

And so? Do you have the slightest clue as to what you were trying to do with this line of reasoning?

[AZhitman]

Leaving out the "legally warranted" part...

If this were MY family member whose privacy had been violated (such as in the silly example I made earlier), the courts' treatment of the two students would be the LEAST of their worries.

They'd get to know the definition of "invasion of privacy" and "harassment" all too well.

Heartless? Yep.

Just like it's heartless to think that the victim somehow wasn't owed some common decency, some respect, and some basic human kindness...

[IBCoupe]

Please reference this post. You're defending a point that I agree with. I'm on the offense toward whether these charges are ethically and morally acceptable, not whether they are legally warranted.

Right. And we've gone over that, too. It was a fundamental civil right that they violated: privacy. You came back and tried to tell me that not getting hurt was a fundamental civil right, and I'll concede it, which brings me to the next point:

Yes.

So do I. I'm still waiting for you to explain to me how a person who intentionally violates someone's civil right not to be hurt doesn't qualify morally or ethically for prosecution.

Because it doesn't matter if he knew the webcam was there, or even if he knew the webcam could be turned on - he should have reasonably been able to assume that his roommate wouldn't orchestrate a conspiracy to get his personal matters aired on the internet without his consent. That is behavior that we do not tolerate, regardless of a person's age, class, or social status. It's just not something society should put up with, just as if we were confronted by a student who willfully violated someone's right to not be hurt. That civil right violation, by the way, has a name, too: battery.

But go ahead: explain to me how it would be wrong to prosecute these people.

[IBCoupe]

Dude, the prosecutor isn't drawing up pleadings that say these kids are being charged with several counts of violating his civil rights. We call it a civil right violation because it is ethically and morally wrong.

Also, there's this that I just wrote:

I'm still waiting for you to explain to me how a person who intentionally violates someone's civil right not to be hurt doesn't qualify morally or ethically for prosecution.

And this, right after it:

...he should have reasonably been able to assume that his roommate wouldn't orchestrate a conspiracy to get his personal matters aired on the internet without his consent. That is behavior that we do not tolerate, regardless of a person's age, class, or social status. It's just not something society should put up with...

How about you start reading my posts, okay, pumpkin?

[C-Kwik]

If Tyler Clementi was as "at risk" as you so choose to believe, then he should have avoided any social situation that could have led to his mentally unstable decision. Or gone to counseling. Or not enrolled in college. Or have lived in an apartment.

Woah woah woah. You're telling me Tyler should have had the foresight to see this coming? Perhaps then, we should argue that the two kids who recorded the video should have had the foresight to know that Tyler would commit suicide as a result. They are all about the same age. All were qualified to get into the same college and have the potential to have the same bright futures. Why do you hold one to higher standards than the others?

The reality is, they committed a crime(s). To my knowledge they are being charged with recording a sexually explicit video without consent and distributing a sexually explicit video without consent which, according to one article I read, are 4th and 3rd degree crimes respectively. While the underlying issue is that this culminated in a suicide, regardless of if the video was a factor in the suicide or not, they broke a law(s). When people break laws, they get charged. They face trial and if found guilty, they are punished. Since when is it unethical or immoral to prosecute a crime? Perhaps if the law itself was unethical or immoral, I might see your point, but recording a sexual video without consent is not what I would consider ethical or moral...

[AZhitman]

Would it be unethical or immoral to charge Mr. Clementi with sodomy?

If not, then it's perfectly ethical, nay, IMPERATIVE that those who violated his trust be prosecuted to the fullest extent.

If so, then, well, I don't have anything further to add.

BTW, Mr. Clementi hid his homosexuality as well as he could... Learn a little more about him: http://home.comcast.net/~majerus-collin ... 753426.htm

There are state laws in EVERY state in the Union, as well as Federal wiretapping laws that prohibit video taping or recording a person in situations where privacy is their expectation. There are also laws about videotaping and broadcasting, selling, or disseminating recordings of others in public forums without their knowledge or consent. In his state, 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.

This is a sad case. I guess my position, even though I'm typically a cold, heartless, insensitive bastard, is this: If you're gonna defend the actions of those who invaded Mr. Clementi's privacy, then I pray you have NOTHING in your life that you're ashamed of... because karma ain't nothing nice.

Let me shift back into my comfort zone (cruel, heartless, right-leaning jerk): Were these two students US citizens? If not, they need to go. Now. Pack your crap, get on a plane, and go back to mommy and daddy in Bhopal or Taipei or wherever the F you're from. If you wanna hate on gays (because this wouldn't have happened if Mr. Clementi had been banging a chick), then it's only fair that we're gonna let our inner racist out to play (and we all have one).

I think an ironic, but perfect, ending to this would be both roommates doing a little prison time and finding out what it's like to be sodomized, both physically AND socially.

I could give a damn about their "bright futures". They have no regard for human dignity, so their future isn't really all that promising. They're pretty low on the food chain.

[AZhitman]

One college student is already dead, is it really far to run the lives of two others because of his stupid action?

They brought this on themselves. They ruined their own lives. If they're TRULY worthwhile human beings, they'll overcome this and succeed despite their stupid decision.

(Honestly, I'm amazed that the girl participated... I can see it from a guy, but damn.)

Here's what I can say, Eric: Thank God for people like you, who, right or wrong, bring some balance to the system and keep it in check... and force us to fully examine WHY we decide as we do.

[Bubba1]

Know a lot of at-risk teenagers, IL, do ya?

I'm sorry, but do you? Didn't think so. So don't take the righteous path with me, bud.

If Tyler Clementi was as "at risk" as you so choose to believe, then he should have avoided any social situation that could have led to his mentally unstable decision. Or gone to counseling. Or not enrolled in college. Or have lived in an apartment.

Again, his decision lies on his shoulders. And I'm not going to be nice and tip toe around what I believe just to make you feel better when I post.

Like I said, that he killed himself is not really that important to me. The violation was bad enough to warrant state action in either case. It's one thing to violate a roommate's privacy by walking in on him having sex with another man. It's another thing entirely to set up a hidden camera and tell people to watch.

It wasn't a "hidden" camera. It was a webcam publicly available and seen on Dharun Ravi's personal computer in the shared dormitory. Please read up on your news (from VALID sources).

As for the rest of the boloney you're spewing, I come down hard on the kid for jumping off of the George Washington bridge because he had numerous other options and outlets to go to. He choose the worst one available to him and will get the worst view in my mind because of it.

Also -

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Molly-Wei ... 3680947298

"She is innocent. She was just not smart enough to realize the consequence. We all do. People only talked about this because it was on the news. This sort of things happened every day in college. The public speaks out like a saint. Naive.

We are friends of Molly Wei. She is a bright and considerate girl. She is living in guilt right now. We do not want anymore criticism from anyone. We don't need moral lectures from anyone. We will continue to support Molly regardless."

100% In support of the above two items.

Molly Wei should be being feeling guilty. It's one thing to capture the embarrassing video. One might argue that it was a shared situation. But once she and the other guy made the conscious decision to humiliate him nationally by publishing it on the web, they crossed the line of decency.. Obviously she did not think Ty was the suicidal type when she did it, but that was no harmless prank.what she did was incredibly hurtful and sleazy. Rutgers should not want to claim such sleazeballs as students. She should get expelled.