Privacy: Not Just a Right but Something Greatly to be Desired and Cultivated
October 1, 2010
CNN reports that bias (i.e., hate crime) charges are being considered in the sad case of the young man whose sexual encounter was secretly broadcast on the internet by a couple of students at his college.
The whole issue of hate crime/bias is rather complicated and, frankly, speaks to the psychological preoccupations of modern society, the Left's judicial equivalent of the `victim statements' that are so popular on the Right. In the former case, a life is apparently more precious if the person is a minority of some kind, and killed for that reason, than if, say, the perpetrator merely wanted to steal their victim's money, find out what what it is like to take someone's life or simply whacked them for having ginger hair (or whatever other distinguishing feature said victim might possess which has yet to find an advocacy group). In the latter, a life is worth more if the person had loved ones who can speak up for them. Watch out, then, if you live on your own, are a homeless street-dweller, or suffer from serious body odour: your life will be worth much less when it comes to justice. For me, a life is a life: whether you kill a straight or gay or black or white or father of ten or someone who has not washed for five years, you have still taken a precious, unique life. You are a killer. End of story.
This case is a little more complicated even than these scenarios, though. The young man took his own life; it was not taken from him. That is not to say that the vile invasion of his privacy is at all acceptable or to be treated as a thing of little consequence. On the surface, at least, it would seem that there must be a clear connection between broadcasting his private life for all to see and his subsequent action in killing himself. Yet to connect the two in a direct way in a legal setting is surely going to be highly problematic, and it is very unlikely that any successful prosecution of such could be mounted; but there can be little doubt that the suicide will deeply colour any verdict in the case, whatever the charges. Indeed, I suspect that, had he not killed himself, we would never have heard of the matter, and criminal charges would possibly never even have been brought.
If hate charges are filed, it is possible that this could have implications on a much wider scale. If, let us say, at some point in the future someone writes a ferocious review of a book I have written, or a student engages in some sad web campaign to discredit me, and I go away and take my own life, might it be possible that the reviewer or student could be held responsible in some sense for my action? It sounds strange, as if it might never happen; but one of the problems with talk of `hate crimes' and, more specifically, `hate speech' is that, given the way they point toward potential legislative action by the courts, there are serious First Amendment issues here. Obviously, the First Amendment does not apply directly in the case above, but the case could nonetheless point to legal and cultural trends that will ultimately have an impact in this area. The First Amendment is important because it protects the right of anyone to say things, which I hate and detest, in the public sphere and, thus, defends my right to do the same with regards to others. If I choose to top myself as a result of what someone has said about me, that is my choice; there are, after all, libel courts as an alternative way of making sure that certain limits are observed.
Returning in conclusion to this specific case, this sad story would seem to involve not a hate crime (though that is not to deny that hatred of gays may have been a motive -- who knows?) but an invasion of privacy. Whatever this young man was doing, and whether one morally approves of it or not, it would seem to have been consensual and involved no legal crime against any person or their property. He had the legal right to do it, and to do it in privacy. That right appears to have been egregiously violated.
It would appear that the accused did not see that what they were doing was particularly serious. I am almost inclined to say: `Can you blame them?' -- for they have grown up in a world where privacy is increasingly despised. Facebook, the web, the surreality of a myriad reality TV shows, has turned life -- the whole of life, even its most intimate and private moments -- into one grand public performance. This is not to excuse what this pair did; but a society that despises and ridicules privacy, modesty and decorum (even the words sound cringeworthy -- which tells you something about the world in which we live), can expect to produce offspring who simply do not understand the importance of these things. Indeed, I have a feeling that, if the young man had not killed himself, many might be asking what all the fuss was about -- `Like, Dude, we only, like, totally live-streamed him and stuff!' -- and that would be a most sad sign of the times. The invasion of privacy is utterly despicable.
It is surely time to take back privacy, to make it (ironically) a major social virtue. Freedom is thought by too many to be the right to do anything I want, anywhere I want, whenever I want, in whatever way I want. Maybe it is time to start thinking of freedom as the right to keep whole tracts of my life hidden from public view and scrutiny.
The whole issue of hate crime/bias is rather complicated and, frankly, speaks to the psychological preoccupations of modern society, the Left's judicial equivalent of the `victim statements' that are so popular on the Right. In the former case, a life is apparently more precious if the person is a minority of some kind, and killed for that reason, than if, say, the perpetrator merely wanted to steal their victim's money, find out what what it is like to take someone's life or simply whacked them for having ginger hair (or whatever other distinguishing feature said victim might possess which has yet to find an advocacy group). In the latter, a life is worth more if the person had loved ones who can speak up for them. Watch out, then, if you live on your own, are a homeless street-dweller, or suffer from serious body odour: your life will be worth much less when it comes to justice. For me, a life is a life: whether you kill a straight or gay or black or white or father of ten or someone who has not washed for five years, you have still taken a precious, unique life. You are a killer. End of story.
This case is a little more complicated even than these scenarios, though. The young man took his own life; it was not taken from him. That is not to say that the vile invasion of his privacy is at all acceptable or to be treated as a thing of little consequence. On the surface, at least, it would seem that there must be a clear connection between broadcasting his private life for all to see and his subsequent action in killing himself. Yet to connect the two in a direct way in a legal setting is surely going to be highly problematic, and it is very unlikely that any successful prosecution of such could be mounted; but there can be little doubt that the suicide will deeply colour any verdict in the case, whatever the charges. Indeed, I suspect that, had he not killed himself, we would never have heard of the matter, and criminal charges would possibly never even have been brought.
If hate charges are filed, it is possible that this could have implications on a much wider scale. If, let us say, at some point in the future someone writes a ferocious review of a book I have written, or a student engages in some sad web campaign to discredit me, and I go away and take my own life, might it be possible that the reviewer or student could be held responsible in some sense for my action? It sounds strange, as if it might never happen; but one of the problems with talk of `hate crimes' and, more specifically, `hate speech' is that, given the way they point toward potential legislative action by the courts, there are serious First Amendment issues here. Obviously, the First Amendment does not apply directly in the case above, but the case could nonetheless point to legal and cultural trends that will ultimately have an impact in this area. The First Amendment is important because it protects the right of anyone to say things, which I hate and detest, in the public sphere and, thus, defends my right to do the same with regards to others. If I choose to top myself as a result of what someone has said about me, that is my choice; there are, after all, libel courts as an alternative way of making sure that certain limits are observed.
Returning in conclusion to this specific case, this sad story would seem to involve not a hate crime (though that is not to deny that hatred of gays may have been a motive -- who knows?) but an invasion of privacy. Whatever this young man was doing, and whether one morally approves of it or not, it would seem to have been consensual and involved no legal crime against any person or their property. He had the legal right to do it, and to do it in privacy. That right appears to have been egregiously violated.
It would appear that the accused did not see that what they were doing was particularly serious. I am almost inclined to say: `Can you blame them?' -- for they have grown up in a world where privacy is increasingly despised. Facebook, the web, the surreality of a myriad reality TV shows, has turned life -- the whole of life, even its most intimate and private moments -- into one grand public performance. This is not to excuse what this pair did; but a society that despises and ridicules privacy, modesty and decorum (even the words sound cringeworthy -- which tells you something about the world in which we live), can expect to produce offspring who simply do not understand the importance of these things. Indeed, I have a feeling that, if the young man had not killed himself, many might be asking what all the fuss was about -- `Like, Dude, we only, like, totally live-streamed him and stuff!' -- and that would be a most sad sign of the times. The invasion of privacy is utterly despicable.
It is surely time to take back privacy, to make it (ironically) a major social virtue. Freedom is thought by too many to be the right to do anything I want, anywhere I want, whenever I want, in whatever way I want. Maybe it is time to start thinking of freedom as the right to keep whole tracts of my life hidden from public view and scrutiny.
