Ravi Found Guilt of E-Spying; The Social Philosophy Issues-with correction

The U.S.A. Today reports that the former Rutgers student could get as many as ten years in jail for broadcasting homosexual sex activity on the Internet without the consent of the sex players. Plainly using sophisticated broadcast media access to violate the privacy of individuals should be .proscribed activity.

One of the involuntary 'stars' of Ravi's foray into the candid camera realm, Tyler Clementi, suicided a few days after learning of the publication of his personal error in sexual identity/activity.

Writers and amateur video-makers should strive not to include anyone's face or meaningful descriptions of individuals-recognizable to others, without express written permission unless of course one is writing about major public figures. It just isn't worth the headache of potential violation of privacy litigation.

Few Americans today are worth a hagiography. Yet it is not the case that common perverse behavior should be extracted from context and exploited-by-others. The broadcast media and even the Internet offer tremendous bully potential for the illicit corruption of any individual to exist socially without being stigmatized by opportunist predators seeking to promote themselves with truths that violate privacy or falsehoods that are a product of the rumorer's demented syndicalist imagining and permutation.

A free society requires freedom from social behavior of others that adversely draw attention to any individual capriciously. A free society requires people to be free not to be conformed to totalized conduct of good or of evil, of loyalty to corrupt politicians or even dissent from aforementioned.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-03-16/rutgers/53574554/1

It is possible that some sort of cross-cultural element existed in Ravi's choice to violate Clementi's privacy. In some foreign nations homosexuality is punishable by death, so violating someone's privacy to capture evidence of that sin would be no problem unless he should have got a Sharia court order, or possible a Hindu writ of out-casting, if such exist.

correction -correction

Ravi was not a neighbor of Mr. Clementi, but a room-mate. This changes the nature of the situation from the impersonal to the personal. Rutgers University should give students the choice of not having a homosexual room-mate forced upon them especially when they are in the rutting season.

I doubt that Ravi choose to be mated with a homosexual living in his personal space for a year or more engaging in homosexual practices. Rutgers officials might have told him to 'suck it up' if he had complained about the room-mate assignment. If his language used the word 'queer' in the student housing office they might have said he was using 'hate speech' and considered his expulsion.

Rutgers University evidently does not screen out students upon the basis of sexual preference and that is probably wrong. Ravi being from a nation where homosexuality is regarded as wrong conduct-as it is in much of the United States, might have been unavoidably upset at the evil turn in his personal living reality and perhaps was emotionally reaching out in some way to process the offensive situation toward a liberating (for-himself) direction.

Because the situation was quite personal and not a product of Ravi's creation or will-to-be occur is improbably described as a 'hate crime'. The homosexual room-mate problems in his college dorm would have been on the 'worst nightmare' side of things rather than a positive element reinforcing his opportunity for higher education.

Ravi did not cross the street to do surveillance or even invade the privacy of his neighbor as I mistakenly believe. Ravi instead set up his computer camera in his own living space as he had a legal right to do. He recorded what went on in his 'home'.

Sharing his home video on the Internet is a different legal issue, yet it does not seem like a hate crime to post of video of one's home even if it is messy or has homosexual room-mate goings on. Ravi's self-defense from being socialized to accept homosexuality in his personal life or home might have taken a tragic turn, however his actions clearly were not a product of pre-conceived hate of homosexuals to such an extent that he stalked them and victimized them criminally as part of a political or pathological agenda.