- Home
- Politics
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Health
- Religion
- Society
- Tech
- Money
- People
- Science
- Galleries
Rutgers' Tyler Clementi 4th Gay Teen Suicide in September
The tragic story of Tyler Clementi has made national headlines this morning, everywhere from ABC to CBS to CNN. I personally counted nine people reading about Tyler’s story in four different newspapers on my train ride to work this morning.
This was at least the fourth suicide of an LGBT young man in the last month alone, and the first to involve a college student. Tyler’s story is a sad reminder that the environment for LGBT young people in college isn’t always friendly and welcoming, a fact proven by a Campus Pride study earlier this month.
Tyler’s suicide, and those of Seth Walsh, Asher Brown, and Billy Lucas, also add extra significance to the start of National Bullying Prevention Month. CNN’s Anderson Cooper will be hosting a Town Hall on the issue next week, and CNN’s Turner Network neighbors Cartoon Network will launch its own bullying prevention efforts. We’ve so far been encouraged by the media’s coverage of these tragedies, and we’ll continue to closely monitor all reports to make sure they are accurately portraying the real harm that is caused when bullying goes unchecked.
We’d also like to remind the media of the fact that these tragedies did not happen in a vacuum.
Seth Walsh was from Kern County, California - which is of the most anti-gay areas of the state, and which refused to allow gay men and lesbians to marry, even during the window when such marriages were allowed. Billy Lucas was from Indiana, one of the ten states that just filed a brief arguing that marriage is not a fundamental right in the Proposition 8 case, and several people left anti-gay messages on a memorial page for him.
Asher Brown went to Cy-Fair High School in Texas; the same school where nine students brutally beat an openly gay 16-year-old just one year ago – and the same community that ranked near the top of the list for banning books with gay content. And Tyler Clementi was from New Jersey, where Senators earlier this year voted to reject a marriage bill and where voters elected a governor who used fear of marriage equality as a campaign tactic.
The Trevor Project released this statement:
“It is true that the beginning of the school year can be especially challenging for youth. As young people struggle to establish their position among their peers and to gain popularity, they often volley for position at the expense of other students who are perceived to be different. They pick on each other, and in some cases target certain individuals for ongoing bullying and harassment. In the cases of Tyler Clementi in New Jersey, Seth Walsh in California, Billy Lucas in Indiana and Asher Brown in Texas, we know this to be true. For the seven youth in Minnesota who have taken their lives in the past year, the ongoing and unchecked harassment by their peers led to isolation and increased depression, further increasing their risk eventually leading to suicide.
“These horrific stories of youth taking their own lives reflect on school bullying culture in this country. To be clear, they do not point to a contagion of teen or youth suicide, but that the media, parents, teachers and friends are more in-tune to speaking up about the causes.”
One last thing the media needs to be aware of: Its audience includes not just parents, educators, and community leaders who could make a difference in the way youth treat their classmates who are (or are perceived to be) LGBT. The audience includes the kids themselves – the ones who are the victims of constant bullying and harassment, day-in and day-out at their schools. Journalists can and must provide resources in their reports to help young people in crisis.
Comments
Dharun Ravi & Molly Wei
should be charged with hate crime, terroristic threat, and stalking. They should be charged as adults. They should be expelled from Rutgers without the possibility of ever graduating. They should be put in general population in the local prison.
No bail ...no bond!
Did
they know that he was going to commit suicide if they spied on him? He could just as easily thanked them for outing him to his parents so he didn't have to live in the closet anymore. At most, MOST, I can see a charge along the lines of involuntary or constructive manslaughter. Hate crimes, terroristic threats, playing a practical joke on your room mate (ie your stalking) they're all second to that. Supposedly the victims twitters posts and interactions didn't seem suicidal until the last one. At that point it was too late. What's the whole story here? After the first one did he get pissed at his room mate? Did he feel the room mate was committing a hate crime? Did he have no friends to take solace in? It seems there was no support net for this guy if that's the case. Suicidal risk right out the door. Forget that he's gay. What if he were heavily religious and slipped up and that got on that chat service and his parents found out that he had betrayed their values and he offed himself? Do you know how this story would be cast then? "Religious crazy kills himself over offending the sky daddy by performing a biological function" This story is getting overblown, and only one side is being presented. Take a deep breath before you respond and detach yourself from the situation or we'll get another incoherent mess of plans of action with no reason behind it.
Because
stalking .....when you take pictures or people without their knowledge or consent, when you record people without their knowledge or consent ......this is considered stalking and is illegal at best.
terroristic threats .....when you expose a person, in a venue that they would not otherwise be exposed in, thereby putting that person in harms way .....that is s terroristic threat.
hate crime .....had it not been for the fact that the student in question was gay, would the tape, web cam shots, whatever, have been made and posted to the internet ? thus, it can be concluded that it would further expose that individual to public hate .... prerequiste for hate crime.
If a parent would put a loaded gun in a child's toy box and the child would play with the gun and kill themself, that parent would surely be charged with murder. If a person or persons violates another persons privacy and places that in a common area wherein others may use that same (ill gotten) knowledge to destroy one, then the person or persons responsible for the distribution of said knowledge is equally as guilty as the parents of the child.
I don't
even know where to start with that. But let's go piece by piece,
Stalking. The way you describe it sounds more like peeping.
"Unless covered by another provision of law providing greater punishment, any person who, while in possession of any device which may be used to create a photographic image, shall secretly peep into any room shall be guilty of a Class A1 misdemeanor. "
Stalking on the other hand,
"A person who intentionally and repeatedly follows or harasses another person AND who makes a credible threat, either expressed or implied, with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm is guilty of the crime of stalking" (emphasis added on AND)
1st paragraph pwnd.
Next. Terroristic threats
"Often known as a terroristic threat, this MISDEMEANOR charge occurs when an individual COMMUNICATES any type of THREAT that causes a person or group to be in fear of bodily harm, disrupts an assembly, public gathering or the use of a public building or indicates an attempt to interrupt or disrupt any type of public service such as telephones, water, sewage or electricity." (Emphasis added on Misdemeanor, communicates, and threat.)
Third. You think that if his room mate hadn't been gay it would not have been put online? Do a google search for college porn and tell me if its all gay men. I dare you. HOW DARE you politicize this young mans death. - "I think he's a good person," said Michael Zhuang, 17, a neighbor and former classmate. "I don't think he's a homophobe. It would've been no different if it was a girl in the room." From people who knew him personally.
And your final paragraph. Oh the crazy contained therein...
"If a parent would put a loaded gun in a child's toy box and the child would play with the gun and kill themself, that parent would surely be charged with murder" - Actually negligence.
"If a person or persons violates another persons privacy and places that in a common area wherein others may use that same (ill gotten) knowledge to destroy one, then the person or persons responsible for the distribution of said knowledge is equally as guilty as the parents of the child." - You can't make up your own laws politicalair. Seriously. Did someone use the knowledge that this young man was sexually active to destroy him? There was no intent to do so. And the young man destroyed himself. Sad as it is. You're letting your emotions get in the way of thinking. Take a look at my example of the religious student, (because you seem to have decided to skip over it completely) what if he had killed himself? Would you have ever even heard of this story? You know the answer as well as I do. No. Because people commit suicide all the time for all different reasons. Truth be told none of them are very good reasons. None. Now if gays deserve the same treatment as anyone else then leave out the fact that he's gay and ask yourself why would he kill himself over this? Is this a good reason? No. Because it never is. Have you stopped to think, (I know it hurts) that this kid was suicidal before this video tryst happened? Why didn't he seek out help before hand? Why why why? We don't know why. And we don't know what the consequences of our actions will be. This was a very bad consequence of a practical joke gone wrong, that's all. Period. No hate crime, no plan to terrorize his room mate until he killed himself, no threatening emails or phone calls sent to the kid, (that we yet know of) there is no reason for any of your rant. I'm so glad you're not a lawyer.
How do you know anyone's intent?
You cannot know the intent of Ravi and Wei, you can only know the facts as they can be presented. It is a Federal crime to send anything pornographic over the internet particularly to minors. There is no indication Ravi and Wei didn't violate Federal law.
While it might be difficult to prosecute as a hate crime, animus was shown by the comments of Ravi and putting anyone's sexuality on the internet is obviously devious and is likely the result of anti-homosexual sentiment in this case.
It is unfortunate, but Ravi and Wei should bear the whole weight of both state and federal laws so as to deter others from such horrid behavior.
Please field a question.
Which Federal law is it that states transmitting "anything pornographic" over the internet is illegal? You qualified it with the "particularly to minors" part, but I'm interested in the other part of your claim.
The Democratic National Committee approves of this website.
You ask me
How I can know anyone's intent and then you say, "putting anyone's sexuality on the internet is obviously devious and is likely the result of anti-homosexual sentiment in this case."
Your argument fails. Hypocrite.
Note the word "likely"
"Likely" only infers there is a greater than average probability. And to label anyone a "hypocrite" for using English purposefully seems a bit tawdry.
I'll issue the same challenge
to you as to politicalair.
Search college porn on google and tell me its all gay porn. I dare you.
Videotaping room mates doing something that embarrasses them is a prank. An old one. I see what you'll say next. "He shouldn't be embarrassed of being gay" No. He shouldn't. But gay people aren't necessarily voyeurs either.
Tawdry or not you fit the bill. Hypocrite.
College porn?
Well, this prank was very illegal in both state and federal statutes. You are the hypocrite for trying to justify the actions of Ravi and Wei. I suppose since you feel the way you do, you wouldn't have any problem putting your own tape on YouTube showing you having sex with your object of choice, likely your hand. I can't imagine anyone wanting to have an intimate relationship with a hypocrite, liar, and dumb jerk that you have proven yourself to be. College prank my ass.
Who
says I was trying to justify it? Did you not read my above postings at all?
But yes, it is a prank. An illegal one. As I pointed out above. If you can't take someone calling you out where you're mistaken then maybe you need to grow up just a little before you come sit at the big boy table. And actually yes I would very much have a problem of anyone putting anything of me being intimate online.
Please point out where I've lied? I take my integrity very seriously and you have no right to put it in question.
All and all you've proven yourself to be incapable of winning this argument so go ahead, convince yourself that it doesn't matter that you've been caught in a web of truth that you can't stand up to. I know where I stand.
Agrue No
As a forensic psychologist, I know it is best not to talk to the delusional. "Tawdry" is hardly a rebuke.
You
still haven't told me where I lied. You would impugn my integrity and then change the subject. That sir, (and I'm assuming sir) is cowardly.
Not their place
to out him-never, No excuses. Sad he didn't decide to live and expose them for the scum they are.
Not their place
Not their place? Not their place. Do we know that they were unaware he hadn't told his parents? Without that knowledge we can't make that judgment.
In my mind
taping someone having sex with anyone without their permission is a crime . Period. Outing is not for anyone to do but the person himself or herself.That is not relevant they should have never put anything online.
Oh
There's no doubt its a crime . Its so a crime. "Peeping" I believe is the term. I agree though. Not their place to out him. Did they know he wasn't outed? Because that IS relevant. It shows the prank wasn't malicious.
Federal Crimes
It is a federal crime to use the internet to show pornographic scenes on such sites as YouTube, because there is no authentication of age necessary. Even so-called pornographic sites where people attest to their age, are being scrutinized and held criminally liable in some cases. Thus, there is a clear federal statute under which both Ravi and Wei can and should be prosecuted to spend time in prison. The State of New York can try them and then turn them over to the Feds, which is probably what will happen. As to the hate crime statutes, although they may be applicable, this is one that would be difficult to prove because there is so little information that specifically shows a hate crime took place. As with any legal issue, you must pick the charges that can be prosecuted and leave the esoteric charges out. Leaving them in could ruin your entire case because of jury sympathy for these weasels.
They're safe now...
Religious folks of many religions are fed a steady anti-gay message from their leaders. The bullies and terrorists feel justified in their behaviour toward gay people, based on what they have heard from the pulpit. I believe thay any pastor, rabbi, or Muslim leader that spreads an anti-gay message to their flock has the blood of these young people on their hands. I believe this passionately. These wonderful young people are safe now with God, their Creator, and away from their tormenters. The world is a poorer place without Tyler and the others.
No matter HOW you look at it...
...Dharun Ravi and Molly Wei ARE guilty of a hate crime. But they probably won't be charged with one:
http://gravelle.us/content/tyler-clementi-hate-crime-victim
http://www.dailyscoff.com/?p=2645
Tyler Clementi may have done his attackers a favor by not taking them with him to the beyond.
But I'm not so certain he did society a favor by leaving them behind...
-jjg