How Dharun Ravi Could Get 10 Years for Expressing Unapproved Views

Dharun Ravi is on trial in New Jersey for spying on his college roommate. Although the Newark Star-Ledger says "Ravi is not charged in connection with [Tyler] Clementi's death," it is doubtful that he would have been charged at all if Clementi had not jumped off the George Washington Bridge on September 22, 2010. That was three days after Ravi, monitoring their Rutgers University dorm room via a webcam, watched Clementi kiss a male visitor and two days after Ravi tweeted that he "saw my roommate making out with a dude." If Clementi had not killed himself (for reasons that remain unclear), Ravi surely would not be facing the prospect of 10 years in prison for "bias intimidation."

But now that he is, his fate may hinge on his opinions about homosexuality. "He's not homophobic," Ravi's attorney, Steven D. Altman, insisted during his opening statement on Friday. "He's not antigay." When the prosecution called four Rutgers students to testify that "his roommate's sex life had been very much on [Ravi's] mind and that the spying had relied on advance planning," The New York Times reports, "Mr. Altman elicited from those same witnesses testimony that Mr. Ravi had shown no hatred of gays or of Mr. Clementi." It is safe to say that if Ravi had told his friends "man, I hate queers," or had simply endorsed the biblical view of homosexuality, those sentiments would have been used against him. This is how "hate crime" statutes, which enhance penalties for existing offenses based on bigoted motives, end up punishing people for their beliefs.

Ravi (who, like Clementi, was an 18-year-old freshman at the time) has claimed he activated the webcam on his computer that night because he did not trust the older man visiting Clementi and wanted to keep an eye on him. Altman emphasized that Ravi and a friend, Molly Wei, caught just a few seconds of Clementi kissing the other man. Ravi also said he was joking when he tweeted that he planned to watch the two again two nights later. But even if we discount Ravi's mitigating explanations, he is guilty, at worst, of being an immature jerk—not the sort of thing people usually got to prison for. Ravi's comments to friends suggest that if he was picking on his roommate, it was probably because of Clementi's social awkwardness rather than his sexual orientation. Is the second motivation 10 years worse than the first? 

More on hate crime laws here. For an in-depth discussion, see my 1992 Reason article "What's Hate Got to Do With It?" (PDF).

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Fluffy||

    Morbid curiosity was the motive.

    If you had a roommate who you suspected was in the closet, you would be curious to know his actual orientation.

    It's really no more complicated than that. I don't see what's so mysterious here.

  • ||

    That and being a dick to a awkward weird guy you got stuck sharing a room with.

    But even at its worst, it is not and should not be a crime.

  • ||

    Perhaps the college should be sued to the bejesus belt for sticking people together in the perverse sociology experiment that is a college dorm.

    You know, academic researchers typically have to fill out long "human subject" forms, detailing any "experiment" that involves people. That includes something as ridiculously innocuous as running a completely inoffensive website by a group of people to see if they prefer to have the "Submit" button at the top or the bottom of a form. And yet, college dormitories roommates are stuck together in small rooms, sometimes apparently without regard to the fact that they are human beings.

    That these tragedies don't happen more often is surprising, really.

  • ||

    "Perhaps the college should be sued to the bejesus belt for sticking people together in the perverse sociology experiment that is a college dorm."

    What?

  • ||

    Are you familiar with the issues surrounding human subject experiments?

    Roommates are usually chosen by the college. Putting a suicidal openly-gay man in a room with a guy who is really bothered gay men, is, to say the least, a hell of a way to run a railroad.

  • ||

    There was always an awkward weird guy living in my dorm rooms, but no one gives me any mitigating circumstances for that.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    Didn't you always live alone?

  • ||

    Perhaps because the awkward weird guy was you.

  • ||

    "My mother always warned me about taking the bus. She said there is always one weirdo on the bus. But I could never find him." The Geechy Guy

    The potential punishment for Ravi seems out of line with the crime, but the Felony Murder Rule has the occasional outsized application and yet I don't think anyone opposes that law.

    So while I agree that 10 years is far too long for what Ravi did, in the face of the above, I can't really argue the prosecution is wrong.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    But that's not what he's being charged with. Sullum's article does a really shitty job of explaining what Ravi is on trial for. His first charge is collecting or viewing images depicting nudity or sexual contact involving another individual without that person’s consent. His second charge is transmiting or distributing such images. He's also charged with evidence tampering, witness tampering, and bias intimidation which is a "hate crime" sentence enhancer (raising the sentence from 5 to 10).

    My question is, has no one investigated this "older male friend" of Clementi's and the possibility that he might have "helped" him off of the George Washington Bridge?

  • Alessandra||

    The Prosecution adamantly tried to keep the Defense from interviewing this MB slime. The judge allowed. They tried to keep his identity secret. The judge ruled that Ravi and his lawyer could know who the man was, but they cannot say it publicly. But he will probably be forced to testify and it appears that then he will have to speak and answer questions. And for being a slime who is hiding information he deserves to have his little cover blown.

  • ||

    clementi was not in the closet, he was openly gay

  • Skip||

    This kid was blatantly inviting 25 year old guys into his room for sex. He was, in no way, still in the closet.

  • Number 2||

    Clemente brought a man to his college dorm room to stay the night, and expelled Ravi from the dorm room to be alone with the guy, on two ocassions. Sounds to me that Clemente was already fairly well out of the closet.

    According to the New Yorker article on the case, Ravi was annoyed that Clemente was bringing a 25 year old stranger into the dorm room where Ravi lived and left his personal belongings. He likely also was annoyed at being expelled from the room.

  • us||

    I am bi, i want to seek a bilover. I am 23 years old,slender,sexy,and beautiful. I am a member of __D a t e b i.c/0/M. there are hundreds of thousands of open-minded singles & couples looking to explore their bisexuality. I am also a member here, I think u will be the most attractive one there, lol~ just check it out, nothing lose if you don't like. Best wishes.

  • ||

    10 years in prison for being a typical college freshman?

    Being a jerk is not a crime. Being uncomfortable with having a gay roommate (generally selected by the college, not the student) is not a crime. At what point in anyone's adult life is one required to like someone he is forced to live in close proximity to, regardless of the reasons? If having issues with a roommate one didn't choose is a crime, who could be innocent?

    The webcam might fall under some "peeping tom" statutes, but that's about it.

  • ||

    Being a jerk is not a crime.

    That's where you're wrong.

  • ||

    Being a jerk to a straight white male with no disabilities is not a crime, then?

  • Sparky||

    You might want to check your local bullying laws if you have any yet.

  • ||

    Any such laws pertain to K-12 education, not adults at large, here.

  • Corneliusm||

    If being a jerk was a crime, most of New Jersey would be behind bars.

  • ||

    You are muff cabbage!

  • ||

    What's the statute of limitations on vicious practical jokes?

  • Sparky||

    Ask Phoebe Prince.

  • ||

    Not that vicious. More in the dye-in-the-shower-setting-alarm-clocks-forward-six-hours vein.

  • Fluffy||

    The webcam might fall under some "peeping tom" statutes, but that's about it.

    Maybe not even that.

    AFAIK, the webcam only picked up a little kissing.

    If I look in your window and see you watching TV or cooking some Ramen noodles, am I a peeping Tom? Wouldn't there need to be some nudity or sex or pooping or SOMETHING going on to make me a peeping Tom, and not just some guy walking by your house?

    Basically all the really happened here was a secret was discovered.

  • Sparky||

    Through a violation of somebody's expectation of privacy.

  • ||

    That's more of a civil wrong than a criminal one, isn't it?

  • Sparky||

    IANAL so I wouldn't want to guess.

  • Pythagoran||

    how much privacy can you expect in a dorm?

  • Fluffy||

    Dude, that's ridiculous.

    If I walk up to your house to give you a free Book of Mormon today, and I see you through your window and you are cooking some eggs, no one will say I am a peeping Tom. If I see you through your window and you are a nude teenage girl, they will.

    Seeing someone do completely innocuous activities can't really be a criminal violation of their privacy.

  • Sparky||

    Do you mind if I film you fucking your wife tonight? Don't worry, you won't even know I'm there.

  • Fluffy||

    Are you fucking stupid, or can't you read the thread?

    If you turned on the webcam in my laptop tonight and saw me and my wife NOT fucking but engaged in typical Monday night activities of watching fucking Antiques Roadshow together and then reading Dlisted and Playing Rome: Total War separately, it would be extremely annoying, but it wouldn't exactly make you a Peeping Tom.

  • Sparky||

    I think you're too stupid to pick up context. My original response was to your comment "Basically all the really happened here was a secret was discovered." You started going from there.

    Maybe as Pro L says it's a civil violation and not a criminal one. That being said, the guy had a reasonable expectation of privacy which was violated by his roommate filming him and showing it to all his friends.

    What if my camera caught you and you're wife playing board games but then you cleared the table and started going at it right there?

  • Fluffy||

    Especially if you LIVED IN THE SAME HOUSE.

    If you lived in the same house, you could say, "I checked the security cam I left in my house a few times. You can never be too careful."

  • Nash||

    The webcam spying was deliberate and intentional. Clementi told Ravi "he needed the room for a few hours". Ravi knew he was guy. Ravi watched him making out with a guy. Ravi tweeted about it.

    Ravi is a dick.

  • ||

    "Ravi is a dick."

    sure, but should he get 10 years in prison, and then deported afterwards, as a result?

  • Nash||

    I don't know. But all the charges brought against Ravi seem legitimate (spying, tampering). Whether that warrants 10 years is an appropriate debate.

  • ||

    You can spy on your own room?

  • Nash||

    When your roommate is there and has "asked for the room for a few hours" implying he wants privacy and then you deliberately spy on the roommates actions during that time-frame despite your room-mate not even knowing then yes, that would count as spying.

  • ||

    Imagine the burden on the transportation infrastructure, if we deported 99% of anyone who joins a frat, every semester.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    "If I walk up to your house to give you a free Book of Mormon [...] I see you through your window and you are a nude teenage girl"

    No, anything in public or sort of public view (someone answers the door and you can see inside) is not under an expectation of privacy. People legally "expect" privacy when doors or curtains are closed, even if you can kind of see through them. Open door, no privacy.

  • SFC B||

    Didn't some guy face a serious fine and jail time because a woman and he young daughter saw him in his living room where he happened to be nude?

  • Bruce Majors||

    Laws against peeping and flashing are gender inflected. If a man stands near a window nude and a woman sees him he is a flasher; if a woman stands near a window nude and a man sees here he is a peeper.

  • ||

    You don't have an expectation of privacy in a shared dorm room with another person. Would you say the kid had his privacy violated if the roommate had walked in the door and seen them kissing? No? Then stfu.

  • Alessandra||

    Not to mention that Clementi liked to sexually expose himself on the Net to strangers! aside from participating on a homosexual porn site where older men had group sex with college-age men...
    And that's the homosexual creep that the university shoved onto Ravi as a roommate.

  • Bruce Majors||

    Most gay men share nudity on the net, that is not odd for gays.

    And his having an older lover isn't strange. Undergrad gals have grad student and faculty lovers often. You just thinks it's odd because he is male.

    All that said, he should have been more respectful of the fact thatit is Ravi's room too, and perhaps gone over to the 25 year old's home.

  • Alessandra||

    "Most gay men share nudity on the net, that is not odd for gays."

    Because they have such deformed ideas about sex and sexuality, and relationships.

    Any crap goes with liberals and homosexuals.

    And this is also a feature of pedophiles, they love to share pedophile porn on the Net, and that is true for a number of homosexual pedophiles, as for others.

  • Sparky||

    No expectation of privacy at all? None? Not one bit?

    Do you think the kid would have invited his male friend over and started kissing him if he was expecting his roommate to come in?

  • Alessandra||

    And another tidbit, Clementi ridiculed Ravi in a message to a friend, because Ravi improvised a semi-closet to allow him to change his clothes, so that Ravi could have some privacy, having to be forced to live with a homosexual.

  • Tonio||

    having to be forced to live with a homosexual

    So, Al, what then? Segregation?

  • Alessandra||

    Universities don't force women to live with men, do they? It's segregated for a very good reason. Most adults (past college) are never forced to live with strangers, unless they are in prison or the military. You don't have the right to force people into unpleasant living conditions in a university setting. They are paying money to have good service and decent living conditions.

  • Zeb||

    Everybody knows what dorms are. If you don't want that to be your college experience, go to a college that doesn't require you to live in dorms.

  • Alessandra||

    why keep a stupid rule if it's bad?

  • ||

    No one here is advocating segregation. Don't make it something that it is not. Clementi does not represent all homosexuals, Ravi does not represent all heterosexuals. They are fucking individual people. That should not dictate what happens elsewhere when this type of situation is not a common occurrence.

  • ||

    He apparently didn't realize that a gay man's equipment looks really similar to a straight man's equipment.

    But then, I don't really care about being naked in a coed group, either. Was Ravi's endowment an embarrassment to him?

  • Zeb||

    "You don't have an expectation of privacy in a shared dorm room with another person."

    You do if you asked your room mate to let you have the room to yourself for the night and he agreed.

  • ||

    So you don't have the right to set up a personal security camera in your dorm room?

    If you suspect your roommate of stealing from you, and you set up a camera to see if you catch him in the act, but catch him making out with some random old guy he met off the internet then you should be held criminally liable for spying?

  • Bruce Majors||

    That's true. But he seems to have aimed it at Tyler's bed.

  • Sku||

    If you're on MY property looking through my windows, YES. Especially if you're standing on a trashcan to get high enough to do so.

    If you're setting up a camera on my proprety with the deliberate intention of filming me, YES.

    If you're setting up a camera on a property you share with me with the deliberate intention of filming me without my knowledge...I don't know if the laws cover that, but I hope they would. I hope it's illegal to film someone in their own home / private dwelling without their knowledge.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    My freshmen year roommate just came out as bi this past summer (5 years later). I was sure he was gay about 3 minutes after meeting him. We're really good friends still, but uncomfortable sharing a room with him.

  • Sparky||

    I guess if he's bi the upside is he might bring home some hot chicks for some 3-way action.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Actually our biggest conflict centered on the fact that I had a nympho girlfriend so we used the room all the time and he didn't bring anyone home all year so I never got to repay him.

  • Bruce Majors||

    A common injustice against gay kids, especially those not out. Their het roommates always want them to go find someplace else to sleep while they shag, with the understanding that the gay kid can also ask for the room for a night. But if they are not out they can't ever ask for it. Been there.

  • ||

    Being a jerk is sometimes a crime.

  • Hugh Akston||

    If we could just put his heart in prison for ten years we would. But that would kill him, and we're not a cruel society.

  • Ring||

    Someone will be here any moment to re-iterate that they are not looking for any extra rights, just to to have the same standing in society as everyone else.

  • Tonio||

    Present. But I can only speak for myself. Hate crimes laws are anti free speech. I do acknowledge the reality that for every one like me there's (at least) one who wants to enact FA-stifling hate crimes laws, etc.

  • Zeb||

    Who the fuck is "they"? Gay people are individuals too and don't think with a collective mind, you know.

  • Bruce Majors||

    Actually lots of gays are as herd like as most straights.

    But good for you Tonio.

  • Paul||

    it was probably because of Clementi's social awkwardness

    Shouldn't that be a hate crime, too?

    *reaches for inhaler*

  • wef||

    Ravi should admit that he is a gay Muslim, apologize and be done with it.

  • Alessandra||

    What I don't understand is why people do not elect politicians to scrap these ridiculous "hate crime" laws based on sexual orientation. It is all good and well to point out they are ridiculous, but they are not going to go away if people merely talk about it.

    Time for political and legislative action.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Simple. Anyone who opposes hate crime laws is a racist/homophobe/misogynist etc.

  • Sparky||

    The problem is, most voters think hate crime laws are the solution to the problem. And they have plenty of time for political action.

  • Tonio||

    How do your feel about hate crime laws based on race or religion?

  • Alessandra||

    If you beat up a man because he is homeless or if you beat up a man because he is Jewish, why is one said to be worse than the other? If you beat up a black man because you hate blacks or if you beat up John because you hate John (although he hasn't done anything to you), why is one said to be worse than the other? Hate crime laws are about special privileges regarding the law for only certain groups. They go against every principle of equality in jurisprudence or democracy.

  • SFC B||

    When I was in high school and college I actually thought that hate crime legislation was a good idea because "such thoughts are simply awful".

    Then the James Byrd trial happened and I realized that it didn't matter one lick whether those men killed Byrd the way the did because he was black, or because he owed them money, or what. It's not like the hate crime designation on that made it do they could be executed twice as hard.

  • ||

    Exactly. The only time that "hate" figures into a crime of violence is if it makes the crime premeditated.

    For example, you might beat up a stranger, but if you had gone out looking for someone who was Jewish to beat up, then the crime was premeditated even though the victim was a stranger.

    I believe the law already does treat incidental acts of rage differently from planned acts of violence. That should suffice.

  • jacob||

    Are you this eager to erase the different degrees of crime based on premeditation? If I kill a guy in the heat of the moment or I kill him after plotting it out for a week, what is the difference? Is he less dead if the crime wasn't pre-meditated?

  • Sku||

    Unpremeditated killing occurs by accident, in self-defense, or when one intends perhaps to injure but not to kill.Premeditated killing can have any motive. Racial, financial, jealously, etc. It seems pretty clearly more immoral to kill someone on purpose and with planning than to kill him accidentally in, say, the course of a fight. But is it more immoral to intentionally kill a black man because I don't like blacks than it is to intentionally kill a black man because I want his money? I don't think that moral distinction is as clear as the premedidated / non-premeditated distinction.

  • jacob||

    I'm not referring to accidental killing. I'm talking about purely intentional killing that isn't premeditated. If a man comes home and sees his wife screwing another guy, there is a different charge if he picks up a screwdriver and stabs the other man, as opposed to if he follows the man home and kills him. Both killings are intentional, but only the second one was premeditated. The law states there is a distinction between these two crimes. Hate crimes follow the parallel thinking, right or wrong.

  • ||

    I believe the distinction is that during the time required for the premeditating heated passions should wear off. If they do, and you still go through with the crime it is a cold, calculated killing, which is considered more evil than a killing occuring in the heat of passion.

    In other words, if you have time to think about it and decide killing is better than not killing then you are morally defective. That is my understanding.

  • Tonio||

    Good answer, though overly long.

  • Bee Tagger||

    A lot of people will refuse to vote for someone if they perceive them to be anti-hate crime legislation. Not many people will vote for someone simply because they are anti-hate crime legislation and not many people will refuse to vote for someone for being pro-hate crime legislation. Voila, risk-averse politicians don't rock the boat.

    I, of course, have zero evidence to back that up.

  • ||

    The message here is that homos are just as mentally fragile as chicks are.

  • Alessandra||

    Let's suppose, instead of Ravi, it was a stupid homosexual roommate, let's call him Ravelle.

    suppose Ravelle did exactly what Ravi did to Clementi, he had a little viewing party with some of his friends and Clementi committed suicide. Would the prosecutor jump on Ravelle with all these charges? Would the liberals here call for Ravelle to get 10 years in prison?

    No. And Ravelle would not be charged of a hate crime!

    So if Ravelle has a prurient interest in watching homosexual sex, this is considered OK compared to if Ravi puts the webcam as a prank on a homosexual roommate, which is then deemed to be something really much worse.

    This is completely crazy.

  • Sparky||

    I think you're wrong and it would still be a hate crime. I think the fact that the tape was made available for viewing to non-gays that still leaves it open for the ridiculous hate crime charge.

  • wef||

    What tape? Maybe I'm missing something.

  • Sparky||

    Sorry, not a tape. I guess it was just a recording on the guy's laptop.

  • Alessandra||

    Sparky -- a detail in the example wasn't clear. Let's say Ravelle and all his friends are homosexuals. They want to watch homosexual sex because they find it titillating.

  • Sparky||

    Then it's up to the judge I guess. Maybe we'll find out when there's a ruling on the case of the black lesbian girls beating up the white gay man.

    Don't mistake me for someone who thinks hate crime laws make sense. I think I'm with everyone else here in thinking they're completely idiotic. My response to your hypothetical was just what I think Americans at large would believe.

  • Alessandra||

    From the little I read in that case, I bet the guy did something bad first (he shoved them, he said something nasty, etc) thinking he would get away with it, then they turned on him, and now he is crying little pink victim, little victim of hate crime by bullies. If that's true, I'm glad they busted his nose. And the case should be dismissed.
    But that's just the impression I got.
    Unless three women were just out looking for someone to assault, which didn't sound like it, but...

  • ||

    What liberals here?

  • Bruce Majors||

    Let's say Ravelle and Tyler were roommates who became lovers and then Ravelle dumped him. And Tyler committed suicide. Should Ravelle get 10 years?

  • _||

    Ravelle: legit LOL

  • Old Mexican||

    Ravi surely would not be facing the prospect of 10 years in prison for "bias intimidation."


    "Bias intimidation"? Isn't intimidation itself biased by nature?

    And how did gossiping turn into a 10-year prison term felony? This has clear 1st Amendment repercussions. The judge should throw out the case and laugh the prosecution out the door.

  • ||

    It's "intimidation for reasons of bias based on race, creed, color, religion, etc."

    You know, the things you aren't supposed to be biased against. It's still open season on the rich, white, able-bodied heterosexual males.

    Which, you know, boo-hoo us. We still run the world, after all. Bring all the torches and pitchforks you want, fuckers. I got a nice boiling vat of santorum I'm just dying to dump on you.

    (Not you you OM, I hope you understand.)

  • Alessandra||

    Santorum, yes! A decent family guy instead of these dysfunctional homosexuals shoving porn and promiscuity in society.

  • Tonio||

    Ohhhhhhhh, someone has issues...

  • Alessandra||

    Oh, someone disagrees with you about your ideology...

  • Metazoan||

    I love how to Santorum supporters equality = social engineering, but government action to effect the kind of behavior the Dear Leader wants is not.

  • Nash||

    I read a new yorker article about this and it went into a lot of detail of what the story was. Ravi knew Clementi was gay well before they got to Rutgers (he did research on his roommate). The guy might not have been a homophobe or a hatemonger but he were certainly a bullying jerk. Spying on someone is pretty fucked up. Posting it on the internet even more so. Even Ravi's friends are not trying to defend the guy. They think he's a dick too. Being a dick isn't against the law, but it still adds context to this case.

  • Metazoan||

    I agree, Nash. This has very little to do with unapproved views and everything to do with unlawfully and nonconsensually recording another's sexual activity and posting it on the Internet.

  • Alessandra||

    It wasn't recorded and it was never on the Internet.

  • Metazoan||

    It was on the internet, even briefly. And it was an unlawful collection (sorry, not recording) of sexual images without the subject's consent. How do you seriously think that is ok?

  • Alessandra||

    I meant it was not on the Internet in the sense that it was made public for everyone to watch. It was restricted to a few people watching the images.

    I am not a lawyer, but I think you are mistaken about kissing being considered "sexual" images.

    I see people kissing every day in public and that is very different than seeing anyone having sex in public.

  • Metazoan||

    Action in public != action in private. Seriously? Do you think that I can record anything in your house, as long as I could have recorded it were you doing it outside?

  • Alessandra||

    do you think that seeing two people hold hands, two people kiss, and two people have sex are all the same thing?

  • Metazoan||

    No, but nice try at a strawman.

    Do you think that recording two people kissing on times square is the same as recording two people kissing in their house?

  • Fluffy||

    If the statute says "sexual activity" and I tape you NOT having "sexual activity" guess what?

    If the law says I can't upload "sexual images" of you to the internet without your consent, uploading images of you scrapbooking in your room doesn't count. This is not fucking India, and kissing is not "sexual images".

    Face it, they're stretching to make the law apply, because they think that the victim is a gay cause celebre.

    The guy was a fucking coward who killed himself, and "Somebody's gotta pay!"

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Do you think that recording two people kissing on times square is the same as recording two people kissing in their your house?

  • Grandpa Whithers||

    They are at my age, honey.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    He was recording in his own dorm room.

  • Metazoan||

    IANAL but is there not a reasonable expectation of privacy in this instance?

  • Alessandra||

    Don't know how the law applies here regarding the type of scene that was watched. If Clementi and MB has just talked all the time -- would Ravi still face the same accusations? Doesn't the accusation specifically say "sexual"? Don't know if the law considers kissing a type of sex. Given that Ravi's lawyer refused a deal, I would guess the law is in Ravi's favor.

  • Metazoan||

    Sexual doesn't necessarily mean "having sex"

  • ||

    The law may look on kissing differently, depending on what is being kissed.

  • jacob||

    How do you seriously think that is ok?

    The answer is obvious. The guy being recorded is a fucking loser queer and deserved to be made miserable.

    /s

  • ||

    First, it has to be proven that he intended to record sexual acts between the two. That hasn't been done yet, AFAIK.
    If he sticks with a "worried for my roommate in case something happens" defense, it might be irrelevant.

  • Ted S.||

    Bad laws are often used first on the unpopular, largely because fewer people will resist. See the Lori Drew case for an example.

  • ||

    Apparently you need to re-read the article.

  • Killazontherun||

    I admit to a prejudice. I despise suicides. If someone is attempting to end a life of sheer misery, like the poor actor with the Dutch surname who was losing limbs to diabetes who shot himself in the head, I only have sympathy for the guy. But here, the fucking anti-bullying martyr only deserves to have his corpse dragged in to the middle of the town square and shat on. Any sympathy shown in these instances only exacerbates the problem of suicide becoming an acceptable solution rationalized as a means to advance a cause. If the social stigma of suicide is higher than the stigma of kissing a guy than I would expect fewer gay suicides.

    Note, yes, depression is a real condition, but I'm not doing you any favors by being nice about it.

  • Tonio||

    Right, because if you successfully commit suicide the social stigma will haunt you for the rest of your life.

  • Killazontherun||

    My argument is only fallacious if suicide has never, or only infrequently as to be statistically irrelevant, used as a social statement. Unfortunately, I'm not wrong about that.

  • Sparky||

    This is how I see suicide as well. I think a small part of the blame goes to the parents not teaching their child how to deal with a bully. But at some point a kid is either going to learn to deal with it or off himself/herself. I think kids who do kill themselves are in the long run doing the world a service by removing their participation.

    As a quick anecdote, my daughter had a kid attempt to bully her one day. He and a couple friends rolled up and started calling her a fat cow and laughing at her. She just looked the kid right in the eye and laughed in his face. They all walked off and didn't bother her again.

  • Fluffy||

    I would give the parents more blame than that.

    In 2012 everyone knows that it's perfectly possible to be gay and out and live your life and be happy and successful. Fucking Amish people know that.

    If you kill yourself because you can't stand the thought that people might find out you're gay, to me it's pretty damn likely that what you really couldn't stand was the thought that your parents might find out that you're gay.

    Was this kid terrified that his parents might find out he was gay? Was that what he couldn't face? Because just being afraid of "society" knowing doesn't make any sense. Not any more. The kid had a computer and eleventy billion gay people out there on the internet who would have been happy to support him.

  • Tonio||

    Not everyone, Fluffy. And even though it's easy to find a supportive community through the internet, many families are still homophobic and the children of those families still have a tough time.

    The Amish? Really? Have they accepted homosexuality? Haven't kept up, but that's surprising. Linky?

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Was this kid terrified that his parents might find out he was gay?

    Nope, they already knew he was gay. Probably didn't know he was trawling the internet for peen.

  • Killazontherun||

    I don't blame his parents. Clementi was an asshole who didn't even love his mother enough to get through a minor personal crises to save her from grief. Everything about this that did not originate in the mind of an ambitious and conniving prosecutor is entirely his fault.

  • Incredulous||

    Just wondering. Isn't a juror's responsibility to decide guilt based on the entirety of the law? If one law conflicts with constitutional law (e.g., the First Amendment) isn't the juror obligated to give deference to constitutional law? In this case, that would mean a "not guilty" verdict on any hate crime charges since hate crime laws are a clear violation of the First Amendment.

  • ||

    Isn't a juror's responsibility to decide guilt based on the entirety of the law?

    Legally, a juror's responsibility is to follow the judge's instructions on the law.

  • Incredulous||

    I don't entirely agree. If the jury follows "the judge's instructions on the law" while disregarding the actual law, it defeats the entire purpose of a trial by jury. The judge's opinion would be substituted for that of the jury. The judge should ONLY instruct the jury to follow the law itself and inform them of the words of the law. Any personal interpretation of the law by the judge is irrelevant.

    Unfortunately, the judge's interpretation of the law (often in complete disregard of Constitutional law) is probably paramount in most trials.

  • Alessandra||

    Unless people elect better politicians than the ones in office now, nothing is going to change about these ridiculous "hate" crime laws... One more reason to support Santorum

  • Tonio||

    Al, I don't see how a frothy mixture of bodily fluids is going to save our great nation.

  • A Serious Man||

    Ron Paul opposes hate crime laws too. Why don't you support him? He won't throw kids into rape cages for possessing pot or kill enough Muslims for you?

  • ||

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  • ||

    I thought I had seen everything on this website, but you actively pulling for Santorum boggles my fucking mind.

  • Tonio||

    Perhaps (RC? Anyone?). But the reality is that most jurors probably don't know jack about the constitution and are intimidated by the judge and just want to get the fuck out of there anyway.

  • Alessandra||

    "Spying on someone is pretty fucked up. Posting it on the internet even more so."

    Since I don't agree with liberal ideology, I think not being able to relate normally and in a wholesome way to the opposite sex is pretty f*ed up.

    Sexually exposing yourself on the Net is pretty f*ed up. Sexualizing people of the same sex is pretty f*ed up. Bringing strangers home from anywhere, but specially the Net, to have sex with them is pretty f*ed up.

    And a university which does not allow students to have their own room is pretty f*ed up.

  • Tonio||

    Not sure if or where you went to college, Al, but shared dorm rooms were the norm when I was in college, and I believe they still are.

  • Alessandra||

    I didn't mean shared rooms are not uncommon. I'm saying I think students should have the right to private rooms.

  • Bruce Majors||

    They usually do it just costs more.

  • ||

    "I'm saying I think students should have the right to private rooms."

    OWS is supporting Santorum now?

  • Tonio||

    Should this "right" be enforced by legislation?

  • Grandpa Whithers||

    No. With a gun.

  • Sku||

    No. It should be enforced by NOT forcing students to live in dormatories their first year of college, but ALLOWING them to spend their own money (or their parents) to live wherever they want. We were not allowed to live in an apartment our first year if we so chose. It was against the RULES.

  • Another Phil||

    More caps please.

  • Metazoan||

    Homosexuality is natural. You know that, right? It isn't fucked up, and it isn't abnormal. Just because some scientifically illiterate throwbacks like Santorum think it is doesn't make it so.

  • Alessandra||

    Only scientifically illiterate throwbacks think that homosexuality is in-born and not a product of a bunch of psychological and social problems.

  • Metazoan||

    What? Do you have any evidence? There is plenty of evidence for the natural occurrence of homosexuality in other animal species, and no evidence at all that it is the result of "social problems."

    Let me guess, the Earth is 6000 years old? Evolution is a theory in turmoil? What else do you have?

  • Alessandra||

    Oh, animal species? Are saying you have the same brain of a sheep? I certainly don't. If you think there is no difference between any animal species, you are a little confused.

  • ||

    No, he's saying that gay sheep are not gay as a result of being touched inappropriately by a creepy uncle.

  • Alessandra||

    Did you know that sexual abuse can profoundly deform a person's entire personality, relationship and sexual dynamics in a number of ways -- including largely contributing to disorienting them sexually?

    Our brain dynamics are not made of stone -- they can be deformed and made dysfunctional in a number of ways, and profoundly so.

  • ||

    Yes, I do. I think sexuality is a combination of genetics/hormones, experiences and environment/cultural conditioning. I just choose not to see that as a deformity, and the only reason you do is because you've been culturally conditioned to believe your own sexuality typifies "normal", making everyone else "abnormal".

  • Alessandra||

    Oh, so you think everyone else can be culturally conditioned, but not you. Only you can make choices about how to think -- is it? -- but no one else can. What else have you got? Let me guess: you know everything, but other people don't?

    Proprietist: "I just choose not to see that as a deformity,"

    What are you referring to here? What does the "that" above refer to? I don't know what you were saying here.

  • ||

    No, like many kids, I had to overcome the anti-gay discomfort my Catholic parents "invested" in me, largely through becoming friends with lots of gay people. I'm fully aware that my heterosexuality is partially a result of the way my parents raised me, and partially the way I was born. I just don't expect everyone else to be just like me, as you seem to.

  • Alessandra||

    I had to overcome the anti-gay discomfort my Catholic parents "invested" in me, largely through becoming friends with gay people.
    =====
    You are free to prefer porn, pedophilia, sexual harassment, American Idol and MTV to any religious teachings, and think that any perverse, perverted, and dysfunctional thought or behavior that pops up in a person's mind is OK.

    If you just care about your navel, surely you can become friends with anyone in the world, without caring if they have enforce harmful politics and behaviors in society.

    Basically you only care about yourself, why should you be concerned if people with a homosexual agenda do harm?

    I don't like living in a sexually violent and degenerate world, nor one where people think that they are entitled to impunity for destructive attitudes and behaviors.

    Thanks to liberals, that's exactly the world I am forced to live in.

  • Bruce Majors||

    Since men have lots of pleasure producing nerves in their anal cavities, it is clear that God and nature intended them to be gay.

    Heterosexuality is a socially constructed perversion.

  • Alessandra||

    Let me guess too... you think criminality is also biologically determined? Like by the size and shape of someone's skull.. What else do you have?

  • Metazoan||

    Inappropriate. It is common for modern creationist retards to cite an incorrect age of the Earth and claim that evolution is a theory in turmoil.

    It is not common to find modern evolutionary biologists or neuroscientists claim that criminality is determined by skull size.

    I didn't say you have the brain of a sheep. Obviously different animals have differing anatomical features. However, it is clearly inappropriate to attribute homosexuality to social "problems" and call it unnatural when it in fact occurs naturally in other closely related species.

  • Alessandra||

    The more you are ignorant of the effects of psychology, formative experiences, sociology and social conditioning, the more you blame biology for things that are not biological.

    And the more you try to equate sheep with humans to validate the hoax that homosexuality is in-born in humans and that the human species is not heterosexual. If you cross with a sheep, you will have the same result as with a same-sex idiot.

    Completely dysfunctional and disoriented.

    You know as much of happens sexually in the brain of a sheep as in humans, that is, nothing.

  • Metazoan||

    Where am I ignoring the effects of psychology (inherently a result of biology!)? I don't pretend that one's DNA sequence predicts all of one's actions, and I haven't said that. I didn't even mention whether it is inborn- only that it is natural and that there's nothing wrong with it.

    Why you've focused on sheep is beyond me- I didn't mention them. I was thinking of nonhuman primates such as Orangutans and Chimpanzees, but sure, sheep are fairly closely related to humans. To deny that is to deny the well-established and supported underpinning of the modern life sciences.

    As to your last point, are you suggesting that sex has nothing to do with the brain?

    Oh, and argument pro tip: repeating that something is dysfunctional, and using that assertion as evidence of its own truth, is not a logically valid method of argument.

  • Alessandra||

    About the sheep, it's from another site -- it was too funny -- this guy arguing that 10% of sheep are homosexual... And he watched it on TV (SCIENCE!)... gay sheep doing their SNAP on TV proves it... LLLLLLLLOLLLLLLLLLL

  • Alessandra||

    Most people I come across who say that they think homosexuality is "natural" also think that it's inborn, that's why I said that.

    So explain a case of homosexuality. Take a case and explain what caused this individual to develop a homosexual problem (call it what you wish, if you don't agree that it's a problem). What are all the causes?

  • Metazoan||

    So if I don't know all the causes, it must be a problem? Huh? I don't know exactly what caused it. I just know that it's natural, from aforementioned evidence. I know that it doesn't hurt me. Just because I don't know the exact mechanism doesn't mean it isn't natural.

  • Sku||

    Why does it even matter if it's natural? Does NATURAL = GOOD? Does UNNATURAL = BAD? You know, monogamy is unnatural. But it makes possible a lot of good.

  • Alessandra||

    Sku: Why does it even matter if it's natural? Does NATURAL = GOOD? Does UNNATURAL = BAD? You know, monogamy is unnatural. But it makes possible a lot of good.=====================I think monogamy is quite natural for humans. The way "natural" seems to be employed by Metazoan is to mean "good." That's his mistake. Everything any creature does is "natural" -- because we are all part of nature. For humans, a lot of what they think and do is not good, however, even though it's "natural."

  • Bruce Majors||

    It's natural to get pregnant in your early teens. Homosexuals usually don't do that.

  • Alessandra||

    "So if I don't know all the causes, it must be a problem?" =============Take a case where a child went through all kinds of experiences that deformed their relationship dynamics in their minds, making them have serious psychological problems in relating to same sex and opposite sex. When adolescence hits, this then develops into all kinds of dysfunctional and disoriented sexual dynamics. If they had never had these deforming experiences when growing up, they would have been able to have intimate relationships with people of the opposite sex normally and in a healthy way. Because their psychologies were deformed over time, they cannot, unless they address all the underlying psychological problems. So, the homosexual dynamics are a product of deep psychological problems. Saying this is natural is absolute baloney. And you encourage the person never to resolve the problems they have.

  • Alessandra||

    However, it is clearly inappropriate to attribute homosexuality to social "problems"=============It is clearly inappropriate to affirm homosexuality is not caused by any type of problems if you yourself readily admit that you have no clue what causes it. There are all kinds of problematic behaviors in other animal species too. And there are plenty of behaviors that are "natural" in animal species than wreak havoc in human beings --like eating your own offspring, for example, or abandoning them to die, or having incestuous sex.

  • Tonio||

    Got evidence?

  • ||

    Actually, I find Kinsey's thesis pretty logical - that all people have some percentage of gay orientation due to hormones and genetics, and experiences and the environment can either enhance or suppress how we react to that.

    I find the nurture vs. nature argument wholly unscientific because it assumes the two are mutually exclusive. For instance a person with the mental capacity to be a super-genius may be a dimwit if they are raised in an uninspiring, educationally suppressive environment. Likewise many people with mediocre IQs might be able to overachieve if placed in the best possible learning environment to suit their needs.

  • Metazoan||

    Yes, nature vs nurture tends to forget about epigenomics and the interactions between nature and nurture.

  • Sku||

    "Actually, I find Kinsey's thesis pretty logical - that all people have some percentage of gay orientation due to hormones and genetics, and experiences and the environment can either enhance or suppress how we react to that."

    Which begs the question - if this is true - then why should not parents, families, or cultures attempt to influence the experiences and environments of their children in such a way as to decrease the odds of people moving in a homosexual direction? If one is not simply born homosexual, but can be influenced along a continuim, why is it bigoted to attempt to influence that continum?

  • ||

    Because assuming each individual has a unique and complex combination of natural tendencies, experiences, personal relationships and environmental influences to make up their sexuality, an upbringing that pushes them to conform to something they aren't will leave them feeling excluded and unaccepted and forced to suppress who they really are. The personality crisis can lead to psychological difficulties and suicidal tendencies.

    If, in a controlled environment, kids were raised completely surrounded with the assumption they are gay, are told from an early age they will burn for all eternity if they engage with the opposite sex, and the parents enact punishments for violating this, more kids would likely live a gay lifestyle due to their conditioning. Likewise, kids in North Korea are mostly good little communists.

  • Alessandra||

    Because assuming each individual has a unique and complex combination of natural tendencies==============the human species is heterosexual, so although humans can be dysfunctional and disoriented in any which way concerning sexuality and relationships, it doesn't mean that's what nature intended

  • ||

    "the human species is heterosexual"

    That's obviously untrue, although there are arguments for heterosexual tendencies being rooted in the nature of reproduction. However, 95% of the time, people aren't doing it to make babies anyway and quite a few people never do it for that specific reason.

    Also, if being gay is teh evil, why did God put the male G-spot inside the rectum?

  • Alessandra||

    Alessandra --"the human species is heterosexual"

    prop: That's obviously untrue,

    The only reason you exist is because of a heterosexual reproduction.

    If you cross with someone of the same sex or with a sheep, the result is the same.

    If everyone only had homosexual sex and a homosexual problem, there would be no human species, period. You have a completely deformed world.

    It's patently dysfunctional and sterile, and goes against the essence of sexual reproduction in humans (and many other species).

    If everyone had heterosexual sex (and no homosexual psychological problems), you have a beautiful world.

  • Alessandra||

    ...to conform to something they aren't will leave them feeling excluded and unaccepted and forced to suppress who they really are. =================given that a human being cannot be formed and develop without culture, and culture will inevitably become a part of any human being, you can mistakenly attribute culture and deforming dynamics to some innate mold of a person ("what they really are"). So while you claim affirming that someone's homosexual psychology is what "they really are," you have no idea how culture and environment shaped and deformed their minds to be that way.

  • ||

    Um, I think I've clearly stated, repeatedly, that culture and experiences are a factor. But we can't change experiences that have already happened to us that shaped who we are today. And some people are born more innately gay, while others had that tendency brought out by experiences.

    Some people have the best metabolism to be an athlete, or the IQ to be a supergenius. That's innate in their genes. Doesn't mean people with a slower metabolism can't be athletic or people with a lower IQ can't be knowledgeable. But just because they weren't inherently born to be an athlete or supergenius doesn't mean they are "deformed." Your perception of normalcy is probably more shaped by cultural conditioning than gays' sexuality is.

  • jacob||

    @Proprietist - her perception of normalcy is more based on "Ewww gays are icky" than any type of rational or logical thought.

  • Alessandra||

    @Proprietist - her perception of normalcy is more based on "Ewww gays are icky" than any type of rational or logical thought.
    ==============
    Obviously, for pedophiles, pedophilia isn't icky. Bestiality isn't icky for people with a bestiality problem.

    You can normalize any crap in sexuality and condition people to think it's not icky. Nothing new there.

    It's obvious your thoughts about "icky" aren't rational. Determining what is icky isn't a rational kind of assessment, it's largely a product of whatever functional or dysfunctional dynamics a person has in their minds.

    For anyone who gets a particular sexual kick, that kick is not icky. You just lack discernment about how disoriented homosexuality is because you have been brainwashed to think this way.

  • Bruce Majors||

    The whole world is set up to prevent kids from being gay. That some still are indicates that they have an inborn inclination.

  • Alessandra||

    Certainly not the world I live in. The world I live in is set up to shove homosexuality down as normal in everyone's throats.

  • JW||

    Alessandra, dear, you are clearly a homophobe with serious issues. Go back to the dark ages and crawl back under your rock.

  • Tonio||

    Sexually exposing yourself on the Net is pretty f*ed up. Sexualizing people of the same sex is pretty f*ed up. Bringing strangers home from anywhere, but specially the Net, to have sex with them is pretty f*ed up.

    Why yes, the world no longer conforms to your imagined norms and personal taboos.

  • ||

    Bringing strangers home from the 'net for sex is a time-honored tradition that goes back at least as far as 9600 baud modems and AOL. It can be fun -- though meeting at a neutral location is a good idea.

  • Alessandra||

    You mean a certain group of irresponsible and ignorant people don't conform to a wholesome sexuality. That's not particularly new, you know?

    Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) remain a major public health challenge in the United States (U.S.) CDC estimates that there are approximately 19 million new STD infections yearly.
    ========
    Your expectations at work! A generation of STD infested Americans thinking they are "progressive..."

  • Metazoan||

    Because idiots like you won't allow sex education beyond the bronze-age fallacy that sex is unnatural outside of marriage.

  • Alessandra||

    Heh! Try looking at the profile of the people spreading STDs. It includes many many idiots who think homosexuality and promiscuity are normal, who have all the info about sex and STDs that anyone could possibly need.

    Leading the spread of HIV and syphillis are the homosexual and bisexual pigs who are tired of knowing what safe sex entails-- and who call Santorum "backwards." Well, if being a sexual pig is the way to go forward, I'll pass, thanks.

    Face it, your sexuality ideology is highly destructive and harmful.

  • Metazoan||

    Are you suggesting that humans normally would abstain were it not for our culture?

  • Metazoan||

    Also, serious citation needed that they are leading the spread of HIV and syphilis!

  • Alessandra||

    Time to educated yourself. Please go to the CDC site (although there are plenty others).

  • Another Phil||

    Time to educated yourself.

    joe'z law never gets old.

  • CultOfPersonality||

    Just curious, I can still molest alter boys though, correct?

  • Alessandra||

    80% of cases in the Catholic Church abuse scandal were homosexuals abusing teenage boys... and a lot of it was covered up by other pinkos in the CC, although the cover up was much widespread, it was not only a pink Mafia, it was covering church crimes that was their priority...

    That's why the Boy Scouts refuses to put their boys at risk.

  • Matrix||

    Alessandra is the Tony of the right-wing statist douches.

  • CultOfPersonality||

    Fine Alessandra, but can I at least make my girlfriend wear a fake beard and then sodomize her? Or better yet, can she sodomize me while I dress up like Madonna?
    I must know what is acceptable in these craaaazy times, Alessandra.

  • Alessandra||

    Isn't that what a homosexual agenda advocates? Any perverted and perverse sexual kick that goes through the mind of any little piece of crap of a human being must be legitimized. Denigrating and abusing people sexually in your mind (if not in reality) is what you consider progress, isn't it? That's what people learn from porn-- to think of sex like a pig. You think of your girlfriend as a pig, anything goes from there.

  • Bruce Majors||

    Someone needs some touch.

  • Rick Santorum||

    Thank you Alessandra. I'll be looking forward to your vote when I come around to your home state.

  • Alessandra||

    Hey, you are surprising everyone, Rick, with how much support you are garnering. I hope it continues -- time for O to go, big time!

  • Metazoan||

    Yep, replace one social engineer with another!

  • Tonio||

    I'm having a little silver chalice made to harvest and then drink your tears. Anticipating their yumminess and sweetness.

  • Metazoan||

    How the hell did the woman involved get away with it?

  • A Serious Man||

    I think she was expelled, but because she didn't set up the webcam she's not criminally liable for Ravi's actions.

  • Alessandra||

    she struck a deal with the prosecution

  • Bitter Little Middle-class Man||

    Yes. She agreed to testify against Ravi.

  • Bitter Little Middle-class Man||

    But even if we discount Ravi's mitigating explanations, he is guilty, at worst, of being an immature jerk—not the sort of thing people usually got to prison for.


    If Clementi had not killed himself (for reasons that remain unclear), Ravi surely would not be facing the prospect of 10 years in prison for "bias intimidation."

    Only a lawyer would say that "IT is NOT clear".

  • Bitter Little Middle-class Man||

    Ravi is actually guilty of violation of civil rights...not just being a jerk.

  • Bitter Little Middle-class Man||

    He did not have permission to spy on these people or to record them. He posted it online as an act against Clementi...not a mere joke.

  • Zeb||

    Where the fuck did this closet case Alessandra come from?

  • Tonio||

    Uz beki beki stan stan?

  • Alessandra||

    Project much? Or you are out of the closet? Exposing yourself all over, I take it -- to show how not f*ed up you are... of course

  • rather||

    Alessandra, I may as well let you know you will be called a 'cunt' and sugarfree the resident leader of the 'Lord of the Fleas' will data mine your information and invite everyone to email him for to discuss your persona; life; BTW, he makes up what he can't research

  • wef||

    homohate is a product of genes

    or maybe of subtle social forces and family dynamics

  • Bruce Majors||

    Could be

  • Alessandra||

    Alessandra, I may as well let you know you will be called a 'cunt' ========
    I see that you have mistaken me for your mother AND father. No need to froth at the mouth so much simply because I am pointing out how destructive your sexuality ideology is.

  • Bruce Majors||

    So then you favor gay marriage and gays being monogamous and responsible?

  • ||

    No, he's in favor of stoning gays in the town square (and then scoring points because "them a-rabs" do it), human sacrifices and teaching that the sun revolves around the earth.

  • SFC B||

    I think the same place as that dude who was pimping Newular Titties back before everyone realized "Holy Fuck, are we actually supporting Gingrich?!?" and his candidacy crashed.

  • rather||

    Dr. Keith Ablow (Fox News) wants schools to Facebook monitor for predicting school violence; maybe they should have checked if the latest teen was eating sugar too

  • CultOfPersonality||

    So shouldn't the charges be something along the lines of "filming and distributing pornographic material over state lines without consent"? (I just made that up, but it's probably an actual federal law)

  • Pip||

    Was it here or somewhere else that I read that Dharun Ravi is alleged to only fuck male sheep. A search is inconclusive.

  • ||

    Is Alessandra the conservative answer to Tony? Cause damn the stupid is strong in that one.

  • Matrix||

    Yeah, I was wondering that myself. Probably a troll, but who knows.

  • jacob||

    Free Republic is missing one of their (many) resident morons.

  • CultOfPersonality||

    I read some comments on there for the first time ever yesterday...What a mistake. I did not think that level of stupidity was so rampant among neo-cons

  • jacob||

    Sorry that you had to see that, but it really is a funny place.

    I check it out because I'd say about 5% of them are actual Ron Paul supporters.

  • CultOfPersonality||

    After reading the comments on the John Bolton vs The Army Ranger article I was sick.

    It was funny too because they all ASSUMED the kid was a liberal pinko simply because he disagreed with mass murder, when in reality he is extremely active in the anarcho-capitalism forums.

  • Bruce Majors||

    Try the new socialist pro-regressive site Addicting Info. Stupid as thick as mud.

  • jacob||

    Check out her blog. Aside from a lack of aesthetics, it appears to be a big anti-gay lovefest.

    "Nazi Homosexuals"

    LOL

  • CultOfPersonality||

    I admit, I LOL'ed when I read "sexually deformed".

  • Alessandra||

    LOL -- sorry, we can't all love Ernst Rohms like you do. But you are too ignorant to even know who he was, so pearls to swine.

  • jacob||

    Wow - you are soooo smart! You can quote the names of esoteric authors whom nobody likes or cares about! Amazing!

    BTW your blog sucks dick. How about that? An anti-gay blog that is totally gay!!

  • Alessandra||

    Are you saying Rohm is an "esoteric author"????

    LLLLLLLLOLLLLLLLLL!

  • Bruce Majors||

    Blondes in uniform are hot.

  • Ari Mendelson||

    You know, somebody really ought to write a satirical novel lampooning this sort of tyrannical buffoonery. Oh, yeah. I already did. It's called "Bias Incident: The World's Most Politically Incorrect Novel."

  • ||

    This clown needs to go to jail, maybe not for life, but no less than thirty days. The simple fact of the matter is that he violated the privacy of his roommate and broadcast it on the Internet, and it just so happened to be an intimate moment, of which Ravi was aware at the time. If Clementi had been female, the courts would expect no less. Neither his gender or his orientation should matter.

  • wef||

    When did he broadcast "it" on the internet?

    Broadcast?

    A kiss?

    What? Are there secret sources of information on this that I have missed?

  • ||

    Just out of curiosity, did the guy who committed suicide, leave a note stating the public exposure was the cause of his suicide. Or is that only being assumed?

  • Alessandra||

    That's completely assumed. The judge has barred the prosecution from having access to Clementi's computer files and suicide note. Something I found bizarre. What are they hiding?

  • ||

    " he is guilty, at worst, of being an immature jerk—not the sort of thing people usually got to prison for."

    Oh, but thousands of people go to jail, sometimes for many years, precisely for this reason -- e.g. a 19-year old who has sex with his 17-year old girlfriend. Or how about the two 10-year olds who were convicted of sexually assulting an 8-year old, and everyone involved, victim and perps, was mentally handicapped.
    We could go on . . .

  • ||

    If this guy had done nothing except to express anti-gay political views, I would agree with this article. But in fact he appears to have committed two serious crimes, or should-be crimes: spying on his roommate's sexual affair, and revealing that personal secret to the world without permission.

    I hold him completely responsible for Clementi's death. 10 years is too few.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement