Prosecutors in New Jersey have pulled off a neat trick. They have made a victim out of an immature jerk loathed by much of the country when he came to its attention two years ago.
Dharun Ravi is the Rutgers student who used a webcam to spy on his gay roommate, Tyler Clementi. When Clementi committed suicide by throwing himself off the George Washington Bridge, the tragedy became a morality play. It was widely reported that Ravi had posted a video of the closeted Clementi having sex, and thus outed him and drove him to take his own life. Shy and a talented violinist, Clementi became a national symbol of anti-gay bullying. “Something must be done,” declared Ellen DeGeneres.
The prosecutors have duly done something: After he refused to admit guilt in a plea deal, they have thrown the book at Ravi, who could face ten years in prison if convicted in a trial that has just begun. They are pursuing Ravi to the utmost despite the unraveling of the tidy black-and-white story that rightly outraged people at the time of Clementi’s death. In a long, nuanced account of the case in The New Yorker, Ian Parker reports that the initial narrative about the tragedy was entirely erroneous: “There was no posting, no observed sex, and no closet.”
Advertisement
Parker’s piece won’t make anyone warm up to Dharun Ravi. He is portrayed as an arrogant showoff, desperate to cover his tracks with authorities once he finds out about Clementi’s awful fate. But he is not worthy of prison time, either. It can only be misplaced zeal on the part of New Jersey’s prosecutors that makes them so determined to define Ravi’s conduct as criminal spying and (in the charge that brings the most jail time) “bias intimidation.”
Ravi and Clementi agreed to become roommates their freshman year after finding one another online. Ravi quickly discovered that Clementi was gay, since his prospective roommate was posting on a gay website. (Clementi came out to his parents shortly before leaving for school.) Ravi and a friend engaged in juvenile banter, making fun of Clementi for being gay, “poor,” and uncool. It’s painful to read, but no different than what high-school students say about one another all the time.
Clementi and Ravi barely talked when they lived together. One night, Clementi asked Ravi to leave him alone with a nonstudent in his mid-20s for what turned out to be an assignation. From a friend’s room across the hall, Ravi briefly turned on his webcam and saw the two in an embrace. He derisively tweeted that he saw his roommate “making out with a dude.”
Clementi later saw Ravi’s tweet and agonized about what to do. In the meantime, he asked for the room again for another tryst, and this time Ravi tweeted that people should tap into his webcam for a show. But Clementi turned off Ravi’s computer, and the viewing never happened. Clementi requested a change of roommates. With that, and disciplinary action against Ravi, it should have ended.
There are no laws against obnoxious disregard for the feelings of a sensitive young man. Parker writes that the indictment against Ravi “can be seen as a kind of regretful commentary about the absence of such statutes.” The case against him for invasion of privacy is shaky since he apparently didn’t expect to see or see any “intimate parts” (as specified in the law) the first time around, and the second time no one saw anything.
The charges for “bias intimidation” — a scandalously amorphous category — are weaker. One gets the sense that Ravi may well have hit it off with Clementi if his roommate had been more gregarious. And one can imagine, as Parker notes, him being just as scornful if Clementi’s sexual partner had been an unattractive woman.
Trying to right a wrong that the law can’t reach, the prosecutors are guilty of perpetrating one themselves.
Rich - The case is not a travesty. Mr. Ravi's initial peek was admittedly a non-issue insofar as prosecution is concerned. What matters more was Mr. Ravi's attempt to invite a horde of others (and, potentially, the world at large) to spy on Mr. Clementi. It was only Mr. Clementi's ability to turn off the webcam (and unplug everything in fear of a second, hidden webcam) that prevented Mr. Ravi's plan from going ahead. That would appear to constitute an attempted crime, even leaving aside Mr. Ravi's apparent (and transparent) attempts to cover up his actions.
I think that many folks around the Corner (particularly Derb's commenters) are unduly hung up on Mr. Clementi's choice of partner when analyzing the merits of the case. As I argued on Jersey Conservative, it ultimately doesn't matter whom Mr. Clementi was with. (External Link) The violation of privacy is the same. New Jersey law today simply doesn't account for the "viral" type of Peeping Tom. The penalties are far too low to deter such actions, which are increasingly easy to perpetrate. While using a hate-crime law to increase the sentence is the wrong approach (not least because it demeaningly treats gays as fragile), prosecution for at least the standard crimes charged against Mr. Ravi appears to be well warranted. A low sentence for these crimes would also hopefully spur the NJ Legislature to upgrade penalties where broad exposure is intended or effected.
There is one issue which has been overlooked in the tussle over the charges against Mr. Ravi, and the nature of his actions. That is whether Mr. Ravi or his actions can be said to have represented "conservative" positions or attitudes. While figures like Dan Savage have explicitly made this connection (in Mr. Savage's case by tying Gov. Christie to anti-gay thugs because he opposes gay marriage), there is no proper basis for this notion. This issue is discussed in depth in "The Clementi Case and Conservative Identity," available here: External Link
Jersey says, It was only Mr. Clementi's ability to turn off the webcam (and unplug everything in fear of a second, hidden webcam) that prevented Mr. Ravi's plan from going ahead. That would appear to constitute an attempted crime, even leaving aside Mr. Ravi's apparent (and transparent) attempts to cover up his actions.
Ravi says he had called off the “viewing” anyway, which is credible to me, given his propensity for bluster. Regardless of whether you believe him, given Ravi’s testimony and the facts as recounted in the New Yorker article, I doubt there is enough there for the jurors to conclude there was an “attempt.”
Also, if you want to make a case for increasing penalties for privacy violations, this case is not it. A few seconds showing a kiss? Come on.
Hardcastle - Your decision as to Mr. Ravi's credibility is not unreasonable, but you concede thereby that a trial is necessary. The issue of whether Mr. Ravi truly decided to call off the viewing, or was prevented from doing so (and so attempted a crime), is a matter for the jury to decide in light of all the facts as elucidated by counsel. This obviously requires a trial.
Could be, but I would argue (a) that the statute itself is too vague and (b) that as a matter of law there isn't enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Ravi intended or "attempted" anything the second time around.
There can be no expectation of privacy from your roommate. Mr Clementi should have "gotten a room" as they say, and not expected his roommate not to peek, nor invite others into HIS room to peek.
Ravi and Clementi never agreed to be roommates - they were paired together automatically, and part of the problem resided in the fact that they never talked to eachother, because Clementi was shy and Ravi thought Clementi was a gay loser.
I read the article by Ian Parker. It's a must-read for anyone interested in this case. A real tour-de-force of journalism. And I say that without irony. Lowry should have provided the link in the article. It is this: External Link
The guy was a jerk, but not a criminal. We need to learn how to tell the difference again in this country. We are criminalizing everything and that is not good. Ex., feeding your kid bleach = criminal, feeding your kid nothing but McDonald's = stupid, but not criminal. Yet somehow we are beginning to conflate the two. This story is just another example of that same trend. Freedom means freedom, even the freedom to make a total fool of yourself.
It's fairly clear that Ravi was rude, annoying, and intemperate in his Twitter postings. What's not clear is how much that behavior contributed to Tyler's death.
This is a prosecution designed to show "we care about gays". It is over-reach, not unlike many cases that are brought forward for effect.
What has never been discussed is the stupidity of the Rutgers system that never considers whether a straight man might feel uncomfortable in a situation that forces him to cohabit with a gay man. Both men were quite young and socially awkward. Is it surprising that they didn't know how to handle a situation without resorting to online advice/Tweets of bravado?
Ahhh, but you see, that is the problem. If the university had actually taken the action of not pairing gay and straight together, then I am sure they would have violated some policy of theirs that says that it in inhuman to consider sexual orientation as a criteria for room mate placement.
The liberals have cried from the heavens that it is unfair and illegal to be bias based on sexual orientation as if it had the same status as gender, or race. As if it were a birth right instead of a choice. So I am sure that the university, being good little followers that they are, was fully onboard with this assignment because I am sure that they hoped that the gay student would help the "backwards and repressed" straight student see the light and convert.
I am sure that Rutgers embraces homosexuality and makes no effort to segregate heterosexual and homosexual males from each other in its dormitories. Very few heterosexuals are happy about having to live in close proximity with homosexuals in a living situation, and heterosexuals run a strong chance of being demonized as bigoted for speaking up about this situation being unsatisfactory.
Rutgers, and many other universities, should consider creating a small dormitory on its main campus that is explicitly gay-friendly. We already have many single gender dormitories on virtually all of our nation's campuses, a dormitory that specializes in serving gay students would go a long way toward making everyone happier.
Rogue prosecutors, federal, state, and local, trying to make political points in order to advance their careers are now a real threat. For more evidence of this read about the prosecution of three Duke Lacrosse players External Link.
Having a gay roommate is not new. My freshman year began 29 years ago. One of the guys on our hall was gay. We all knew it, as did his roommate, who was randomly assigned. Nobody cared. Unfortunately, too many gay people fall for the Left's propaganda narrative, which falsely posits that (1) everybody hates them, (2) being openly known as gay is a very new phenomenon, (3) everybody gay was terrified of being known as such until about 5 years ago, and (4) they need the government to protect them from all the hate. The truth is that there is no hate. The Left's narrative has done untold damage and the damage will continue as long as it serves the Left's lust for power at any cost.
JP Knight, you bring back memories of going to a state school 30 years ago. When I graduated High School I had no idea what 'gay' meant because, thankfully, the school system wasn't forcing that information on the grade school population in an attempt to normalize it. There was a whole floor in the dorm I lived in at U. Mass. Amherst that was occupied entirely by homosexual men. No one bothered them. They threw their own parties and seemed pretty happy. A friend of mine told me what 'gay' really meant and since I was 19 by then I really didn't care. Sex should be a private issue. It shouldn't be the biggest thing that defines anyone.
My college days go a lot further back than that - and it was a backwater, behind the times place at that - a religiously affiliated college that still required attendance at Chapel.
But was the dorm ever gay. So gay that you couldn't tell who was gay and who was just vamping. People insulted each other in the worst terms imaginable, and it was considered to be unremarkable give-and-take. This was so long ago that I'm not sure the term "gay" was really used much (the posting filters will likely choke on the terms we actually used!).
I was young and innocent, and didn't think too much of it, assuming that it didn't matter who did what (who was gay and who was vamping). Years later I found out that one of my closest friends, as well as several other dorm-mates, many who had girl-friends in college, at least on occasion, were gays (for the most part - obviously I didn't inquire too closely into just where along the continuum of sexual practices they operated). Looking back, I said, yup, had it written all over them - but like I said, I was innocent.
The point is, that no one cared, and to this day I doubt anyone cares. We were young, full of ourselves, and took life as most people do: as we found it.
No one killed themselves that I recall, though one guy made a pretty good essay of it. Chugged enough hard liquor to die of alcohol poisoning, but was saved by timely medical intervention. He was a shy intense guy, who put a lot of pressure on himself to perform acedemically. Was he gay, and did that trigger it? Doubt it, as he'd have fit right in.
Was he harassed into it? Almost certainly not - though there were guys who were harassed mercilessly - including some in the "gay" crowd - he wasn't one of them. College-age males are a gamey and unstable lot, with vast potential for mischief, and occasionally tragedy. The law, or worse, Liberal intuitions of cosmic justice, aren't a very happy fit to all the things that go on.
This recent case has the sound of another one of these terrible things that the Left can't help exploiting. The idea is that, with a suitable application of ever more invasive legal intervention, any and all imperfections can be removed from the world. You can remove freedom that way, making the world worse - but make it better, not so much.
The LGBT crowd has made a lot of "progress" since I was a pup, but it seems that they are worse off now than before. Because everything has to be acknowledged and accepted, it is much more public, and much more a matter of official notice. The days of casual insults, of ambiguity, rumor and uncertainty, and of it being able to be dismissed as just another matter of minor social friction or fun - those days are gone. Now it is a VERY BIG DEAL, very serious, very public, a matter of extreme sensitivity, with social and legal implications baked into it at every level. One wrong step and you are on the wrong side of a lot of very public taboos - and the wrong steps can take all sorts of forms, right down to trying to keep your sexuality a private matter ("closeted").
This poor guy would have been a lot happier at that nominally religious college all those years ago, where Chapel was required, the girls' dorms were locked at 10PM, and drinking was grounds for expulsion, than he was at a thoroughly "modern" and "liberated" campus of today. There's a lesson in there somewhere.
They are pursuing Ravi to the utmost despite the unraveling of the tidy black-and-white story that rightly outraged people at the time of Clementi’s death.
The story was actually there for all to see, but you had to piece together the news reports and ignore their conclusions to glean the actual events. Even yesterday I heard two radio reports characterizing Ravi's acts as "broadcasting sex acts over the Internet." Actually, the only person who did that was Clementi, who broadcast pornographic pictures of himself on a homosexual site. That is how worried he was about privacy.
So I agree with LindaF, except that it is fairly clear that if Ravi's actions contributed at all to Clementi's desire to take his own life, any other kind of stress might have done as well. The stress contributed by Ravi appears to have been minimal -- and, in my view, brought about by the outrageous treatment of Ravi by Clementi. The deeper scandal here is that Rutgers considers it perfectly unremarkable for a student to expect his roommate to vacate his own room for hours at a time while the student brings in an older man, a stranger, to engage in homosexual sex with him right there in the dorm. And while that is going on, the roommate is across the hall, waiting, tapping his foot, worried about his belongings, finally texting to ask whether he can come back into his own room. "We're done," says the student some time later.
Gross and indefensible on the part of Rutgers and the R.A., who apparently never even considers whether Clementi was out of line.
As a New Jersey resident, I applaud Rich Lowry for this article. Criminalizing every form of bad behavior is stupid, counter-productive, and misguided. Unfortunately, NJ lawmakers and prosecutors have a long history of doing exactly that. Ravi may be a jerk, but Clementi wasn't pushed; he jumped. It's time that people start taking responsibility for their own emotional state, and it's time for society to send that message.
This case is not fundamentally about whether the victim was gay. (As Mr. Parker suggests, it could just as easily have been a "nice" Christian girl being observed online in an affair, and this being a factor in her later suicide.) The principle for privacy is the same no matter who the victim is - do we want to live in a world where you can be subjected to a privatized version of Orwell's 1984, and the perp gets a slap on the wrist? Would Mr. Ravi's case be a "better" one if Mr. Clementi's kiss had shown up on Tosh.O? Or if Mr. Clementi had been filmed fully in flagrante, and that some pseudonymed follower of Mr. Ravi's Twitter feed had copied the stream and posted it to some amateur p*rn site? That is essentially what Mr. Ravi appears to have intended to make possible, however ineptly.
Follow
