This morning the trial of Dharun Ravi opened at Middlesex County Superior Court in New Brunswick, N.J. I fumed about the case last weekend on Radio Derb:
Next Tuesday the trial of 19-year-old Dharun Ravi opens. . . . If found guilty, Mr. Ravi could go to jail for ten years.
What did Dharun Ravi do? Well, he was a freshman roommate at Rutgers University with a chap named Tyler Clementi. Clementi was homosexual, and not a closeted one — he didn’t make much of a secret of it. Why would he? Our young people are taught from kindergarten on that “gay is just as good as straight,” that Heather has two mommies, that homosexuals should be “proud,” and so on. My local high school has a club for homosexual students. Anyone who’s embarrassed or ashamed about being homosexual hasn’t been paying attention for about thirty years. And in fact, Clementi wasn’t ashamed: in those first three weeks of his freshman year, he attended at least one meeting of the Rutgers students Bisexual, Gay, and Lesbian Alliance.
Well, a year last September, Dharun Ravi and another freshman, Molly Wei, used a webcam to secretly watch Clementi kissing a young man Clementi had picked up. After watching the video, Ravi gossiped about it on Twitter, quote: “I saw him making out with a dude. Yay.”
Three days after that, Clementi committed suicide by jumping from the George Washington Bridge. Whether this had any connection at all to the webcam incident, is not known. That Dharun Ravi thought his prank might drive Clementi to suicide is preposterous; that he intended that result is preposterosity squared.
The homosexualists were up in arms none the less, and every damn fool politician in New Jersey joined in the hue and cry. Chris Christie, who I think less of every time he opens his fat mouth, quote: “I don’t know how those two folks are going to sleep at night, knowing that they contributed to driving that young man to that alternative.” They don’t know that, Governor, and neither do you, and neither does anyone. They played a trivial prank; Clement killed himself; cause and effect are not obvious, certainly not established to any fair evidentiary standards.
(And nor will the trial attempt to establish such cause and effect. As the USA Today report notes: “Ravi is not charged with anything to do with the suicide.” A legal friend tells me that if the prosecution so much as mentions Clementi’s suicide, that would be grounds for a mistrial. The trial is not about the suicide, it’s about what Dharun Ravi did – see above.)
Continuing the Radio Derb rant:
The even more dimwitted Senator Frank Lautenberg has introduced national legislation that, quote, “would require colleges and universities that receive federal student aid to adopt codes of conduct that prohibit bullying and harassment of students.” So now it’s going to be a federal crime for students to pull pranks. What the hell country is this, North Korea? What’s going to be the next federal offense on the statute book – forgetting to feed your goldfish?
And so on. This prosecution is of a piece with the child sex-abuse witch-hunts of the 1980s and 1990s, so memorably described by Dorothy Rabinowitz in her 2003 book No Crueler Tyrannies. Back then it was anti-family zealots and charlatans like the egregious Eileen Treacy playing havoc with due process. Today it’s the homosexualist lobbies grabbing for more power and influence in the sheep’s clothing of an “anti-bullying campaign.”
In both cases courts of law were/are being used to promote fashionable hysterias in defiance of reason and evidence. You think “hysteria” overstates the situation? Listen:
Equality Forum, a national gay-rights organization, released a statement that called the actions of Ravi and Wei “shocking, malicious, and heinous,” and urged “the prosecutor to file murder by reckless manslaughter charges.”
(That’s from the same New Yorker piece as the Chris Christie quote up above. It is a measure of the insanity we’re in here that even the New Yorker, as homo-friendly a magazine as you could wish for, leaves one with the strong impression that this case stinks to high heaven.)
This is bad. A calm and coldly objective system of law is all that stands between us and random tyranny. If the law loses its wits, we’re finished.
These prosecutors are a disgrace to their profession. The Dharun Ravi trial is a travesty of justice. The actual charges are “invasion of privacy” (in Ravi’s own dorm room!), “bias intimidation,” which basically means having Bad Thoughts, and evidence/witness tampering – deleting tweets and such, really just b.s. what-the-heck charges, added on the off-chance that the court might take them seriously. For this the Middlesex County prosecutors want ten years.
Further from the USA Today report:
The trial is expected to last about a month . . .
And cost how much? To what public purpose? Is the New Jersey court system so bulging with unspent funds they can squander money prosecuting student pranks?
Legally, [local attorneys] Weinstein and Kennedy said, while Ravi might appear “guilty” to the public, it is legally a difficult point to prove by the prosecution . . .
I should certainly hope so. And if Dharun Ravi appears guilty, or “guilty” (which I assume means “not guilty of any criminal intent or action on the evidence, but has something coming to him anyway”) to the public, then the public, and the nation they constitute, has gone to a place from which there is no rescue.
Well, a year last September, Dharun Ravi and another freshman, Molly Wei, used a webcam to secretly watch Clementi kissing a young man Clementi had picked up. After watching the video, Ravi gossiped about it on Twitter, quote: “I saw him making out with a dude. Yay.”
Try as I might, I can't shed many tears for Ravi, the poor "prank" player. Guess that puts me in bed with the "homosexualists." Is there such a thing as heterosexualists, by the way?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEveryone who plays a prank should face jail time and $100's of thousands in lawyers fees? Or just those you don't like?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnyone who places hidden cameras in people's bedrooms without permission should face jail. That's pretty obviously a jail-worthy offense. If you found out today there was a webcam in your bedroom, you wouldn't want the perpetrator jailed?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt was his bedroom to.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo? I know we argue about the extent of privacy protections, but hidden cameras in bedrooms are now debatable?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm not claiming it was right, I'm claiming it isn't actionable.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNot everything that is wrong should be illegal.
He's charged with "invasion of privacy." Should that not be a crime? Should secretly videotaping someone in their bedroom not count as invasion of privacy?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIn the case of college room mates, no it should not be a crime.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere is no expectation of privacy from your room mate.
When you are the only person in your room and you don't see any cameras in the room and you haven't agreed to be videotaped, you have an expectation of privacy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSince you know that you live there with someone else, and you have no idea what that other person may have done in your absence, you don't have as great an expectation of privacy as you would in your own bedroom in your own house. I agree it is wrong, I disagree that it is criminal, certainly not 10 years in jail worth of criminal.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou just don't know the facts of this case. The webcam was in full view and Clementi even noticed it was on at one point.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat was my understanding too.
Plus it's a dorm room, do you have an expectation of privacy there? If he'd set up a web cam to catch his roommate stealing his ho-hos and the roommate committed suicide after being caught, would he be charged? Like Derb said, what link is there between the two incidents?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou should see what some of the people in my dorms did to people who had sex in places where privacy is not guaranteed. There was at least one occasion where I thought it went too far - but while the victim was humiliated, she did not kill herself, because she was not unstable to begin with. And, since there was no suicide, there was no witch-hunt. (Of course, she wasn't gay, so there probably wouldn't have been a witch-hunt even if she had killed herself.)
We all know that the only reason this is being investigated is because gays are trying very hard to make "bullying" into something that has nothing to do with real bullying, and is instead a code word for granting special privileges to gays. Having sex in dorm rooms is not a private activity, and such pranks are common - but gays feel they must be exempted from the normal pranks.
What ordinary people are expected to accept as part of the rough and tumble of ordinary life (including insults, jokes, pranks, and the existence of people with differing opinions) offends the gay community, because they think they're special and they want everyone else to think they're special, too.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNonsemse. Why can't you admit that your profound hostility to homosexuals every issue in which they are involved?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo anyone who disagrees with you hates gays.
How utterly typical. Do you want to discredit yourself any further?
At least now we know why you hate Santorum with such a passion.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI would disagree that room mates do not have expectations of privacy when the other room mate is out of the dorm room. But even if that is true, did the other man he was with have an expectation of privacy?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt might be a civil matter, it certainly isn't a criminal one.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell then, if a application for admission to Rugers asks me about my race, isn't that an invasion of privacy? Shouldn't its admission committee be jailed for ten years?
In any case, if we assume (for discussion purposes) that the Celementi case is an anviasion of privacy, shouln't that be a civil case, in whcih the defendant must show damages? What damage was done to an admittedly proud gay man?
There os a photo of me, still on the Internet. It was a costume contest, held in San Francisco, having nothing to do with gender identification (I won). My costume involved fishnet stockings. I am (hetero) male. Standing next to me, the only other person in the photo, is a noted local gay rights activist (also in costume for the contest).
Now, suppose that the title for the photo was "noted gay couple A and B pose in SF." Would that be harmful to me? Would it be harmful to him? Clarify!
If either of us jumped of the bridge, would that be cause to prosecute the other, or the photographer? Why or why not? Is it solely because the photo was taken in a public place? If all circumstances were the same, but the photo were taken in a private place, would that be cause to prosecute someone for an offense carying up to ten years? Why or why not?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"What damage was done to an admittedly proud gay man?"
This makes no sense. Being secretly recorded in your bedroom with your romantic partner is an invasion of privacy, no matter how "proud" you are. If you're proud of your heterosexuality, does that mean I can record you and your wife in your bedroom and broadcast it without causing you harm? Of course not. And the New Jersey statute specifically anticipates this scenario as a criminal invasion of privacy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Makes no sense" is a talking point of gay rights activists.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse