The Rutgers Suicide: Social Networking And Free Expression

In the aftermath of the tragic death by suicide of a gay freshman student at Rutgers University, there has been much in the mainstream media focusing on the victimization of this young man prior to this tragedy allegedly at the hands of a disgruntled roommate, especially in the ease in which this roommate had to a public forums on the Internet through a webcam to violate and humiliate this young man so thoroughly, even going so far as to advertise in advance his intentions.

What has been left out has been much, it would appear, in just truly led to this disaster as more and more details are coming out.

It appears both had had trouble adjusting to each other and their new circumstances as freshman living away from home most likely for the first time. And clearly seemed ill suited to be "rooming" together to begin with, but obviously felt that school officials or their own parents were not ones in which they felt they truly could confide. It appears the victim had also written on several public forums his discontent with the situation.

Much has been made of the fact that the victim was gay, and that this also must have contributed to his torment. But I wonder how many freshman maybe having their first sexual experience, or even their first with a new partner, would have been just as humiliated if it had been a heterosexual encounter also distributed for their fellow classmates consumption and enjoyment. No doubt, other than those that have narcissistic tendencies to begin with or use sex for self-validation, would have had trouble seeing such an intimate encounter or act broadcast.

Hollywood celebrities or high level politicians, of course, are excluded since narcissism, at least body image and a rich and varied sexual history, seems to be a prerequisite in those lines of work.

I would also question some of the mainstream media's defense of the Internet still in light of what occurred.

There does clearly need to be some regulation of these social networking sites that many younger adults and teens have access to, or at least what is and is not afforded to be published on them insofar especially of imagery and videos of other individuals without their express consent. But that is even a little too broad. Live feed video of your roommate on a world wide web is not the same as sharing your latest vacation shots or science project.

But then again, since the state and federal governments have a rather loosey goosey definition of "civil" rights with respect to its spying and monitoring activities at this point against the American adult population in this country as has been in the press more and more also since 9-11, and its fascination with video surveillance and gadgetry, why should those in the media or in higher office be surprised that such a tragedy might not eventually occur?

Just what are students doing with webcams in college dormitories, I ask? Do they need webcams in order to complete an assignment, or get to class? I mean a snapshot broadcast worldwide would have been bad enough, but a live feed webcam broadcast?

It seems to me that Rutgers just might also need to re-evaluate its fascination with gadgetry, and just what is and what is not allowed in those dorms.

A webcam seems even a little more onerous than a keg of beer, yet I would bet there is more administrative monitoring of alcohol consumption by the students in the underage dormitories than there was of bringing live feed webcams, or cell phones.

I know, I'm sure the reason is so that those students can phone home live and in person, but maybe a university wide net nanny is needed here and on many college campuses also?

At the price of tuition nowadays, even if kids are there on scholarships it does seem that the scholarships more and more do not even near cover the costs of tuition at the rates they have increased, much less books, room and board.

And the social networking that most should be doing should happen in the classroom and at the MU.

And just maybe communications classes should become a prerequisite at the high school or freshman college level, and others such as this young man could be spared from any future anguish, embarrassment, or torture in the name of "free expression."

This was not an example of free speech, or free expression in any political arena.

This wasn't a politician, corporate special interest, public figure, or Hollywood star. His adversary was not a political opponent, corporate competitor, ripped off citizen/consumer, entertainment ragazine, or disenfranchised citizen/voter.

This was an 18 year old American boy.

On "youth marketed" and advertised public forums.

And a live feed camera in a dorm room on an American college campus is not a "free press."