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."

Citizens United: Washington, Supreme Court Reinstituting British Rule of Law?

As the hoopla continues post the presidential address last week over the comments made by Barack Obama regarding the heinous Supreme Court decision with respect to amending the Constitution once again in order to grant more and more privileges and immunities to the phantom "corporate personhood" created by a rogue Supreme Court in the late 1800's, little mention has been made of just who "corporately" will benefit the most over this latest Constititional Bill of Rights trashing.

The corporate media owners and Wall Street once again.

Interesting that such a decision would be selected by the Supreme Court to begin with and at this point in our history (who somehow have given themselves the power to refuse more and more cases brought by the actual citizens in this country, without "corporate" backing over Constitutional provisions, such as their refusals of groups addressing the 16th Amendment, and recently even the citizenship status of the individual holding the highest office in the land due to his unusual upbringing primarily outside the U.S. during most of his formative years).

Interesting due to the fact that it is those advertising revenues for those advertisements which have been dwindling for those media concerns also progressively with more and more newspapers now going belly up, and competition stiff for those ad dollars, after the advent of cable television now that there are over 95 stations for the American people to choose from and more and more appear to be choosing the weather station most of all.

This past presidential election cycle lasted for two full years, in essence with Illinois and Arizona without full Senate representation for major votes, even by those unduly elected representatives to begin with (since the Senate was comprised in the original Constitutional provisions and intent of the founders to be the voice primarily for the states, with the House the voice of the people, and Senate representatives and elections were to be decided by the various state legislatures for selection of Senators, which then kept the corporate influence other than the states issues at bay or diluted more so at least in the Senate).

And with the Murdoch machine (an actual Brit who simply became an American in order to buy up a great deal of America's print and television media, and who has used his influence and money to sway the political balances in two other countries, Great Britain and Australia previously) promoting his British style conservatism, interesting the timing of both this decision, and the holding of the Court which was more along the British style, once again, of Constitutional interpretation with respect to America's Bill of Rights protections - which was clearly intended for the citizens against the corporate, both governmental and otherwise (remember the Boston Tea Party and the East India Company's "sovereign status" with King George?).

It appears once again Washington is feeding Wall Street and its "sovereign subjects" again at the cost of the American public at large, and undermining the very fabric of our Constitution with respect to representative government in the process, which has been consistently the case now for well over 100 years by those progressives that continue to be selected by each and every Republican or Democratic "corporate" party platform and Administration.

Which platforms also supercede in many respects the actual provisions of the Constitution, and which have hijacked our political process also "progressively," per George Washington's warnings in his famous Farewell Address.

Also interesting is the group that brought this action, and their true corporate status, since it appears that although it has been also represented that this was a citizen rights focused group, as one in which there is also a claimed "educational" focus, it is also eligible for federal grant monies in matching sums.

So in essence, the federal government itself appears it is using some of these supposed "liberty as commerce" groups that have sprung up in the years since 9-11 in order to use the flag, patriotism and the public at large in order to continue to strip Americans of their Bill of Rights protections against the corporate, in all honesty.

Since why haven't any of these purported Constitutional focused groups used their donations and monies toward funding the Constitutional remedy for such continued treason and abuse of the citizenry, and filed the civil and criminal charges against some of these "misrepresentatives" which is the process that is provided in the Constitution to so do, and many of these groups are actually headed by lawyers or educators?

I would also dispute that it was the "conservative" members of the Court that were behind this latest corporate hijacking of our political process.

Since this was clearly a "liberal" construction of the Bill of Rights protections under the Constitution intended for the PEOPLE against the government and the corporate, and not a "conservative" one at all.

The corporate lawyers in this country are licking their lips over this one, make no mistake about it, and was also a major job stimulus for them, truth be told.

And this rather narrow holding with respect to a grassroots political PAC organization will be expanded, and expanded and expanded eventually to include corporate "commercial" concerns - even global ones outside the U.S., make no mistake, and appears to have been the true intention at the outset in this screening and selection of this case by the Court.

Our judiciary is simply another political tool in the now one party system - corporate socialism.

Even Obama during the health care deform consulted with the "stakeholders" and not the Constitution - "stakeholders" who have been consistently now granted more and more corporate friendly legislation over the American people's wallets and livelihoods since the Surpeme Court first trashed the Constitution in somehow adding another party to it - corporate "person-hood."

Why would Congress or the President wish to follow the Constitution and actually regulate those health care providers and concerns adequately per Constitutional provision, rather than fining homeless and jobless Americans for not purchasing their products at their excessively expensive rates, if in regulating those costs for their policies, or providing oversight of those high risk reinvestments and diversifications they continue to make with those profits, or tying any increases in annual amounts in with the CPI it would affect the amounts those Congressmen and Senators, and presidential candidates would receive for their future political careers?

Now, it appears, in unlimited amounts. Which means simply that the government in this health care legislation is mandating that you purchase a product from the financial sector, in order that they can then get your dollars through the backdoor in order to further strip you of your rights for their benefit, and your hard earned cash for their next campaign as a "donor" without even any tax credits for your donations.

And although former justice Sandra Day O'Connor has been quoted as criticizing the decision as compromising the future neutrality of the Court, her comments appear to be mere rhetoric also - since the Court has been political almost since the ink was dried on the Constitution per Jefferson's comments with respect to one branch in which there truly was not at all an adequate "check" on their powers, and who placed themselves as the arbiter of Constitutionality even outside the jury provisions which were actually meant to prevent such a clearly political decision such as this one from occurring.

And have done so consistently also through its voluminous and ludicrous Rules of Civil and Criminal Procedure every since, using even some of those court rules in order to circumvent the Constitution, and people's access to the court system itself.

And the Court and Congress actually have no inherent "rights" to redefine the fundamental basis for a representative government in any statute, law or court rendering.

In other words, you cannot have a truly representative government as clearly intended by those founders if candidates are funded or "promoted" or receiving campaign backing by any individuals or corporate concerns outside their own legislative districts.

Not to mention national and international corporate monies, which in effect then eventually might mean that the bin Laden family, or the British royal family, or Mr. Murdoch himself (a British national, all appearances to the contrary) could spread their cash for key committee leadership races and not only undermine the entire American political process, but hijack actually our government placing it under foreign rulership and control.

Even more so than it already is under the British bankers which own our own Federal Reserve.

So America, while the media pundits at Fox (the national animal of the British, mind you) are celebrating this victory and painting it as heralding a return to "freedom" and the First Amendment rights of the people, while the purported "liberal" organizations are crying "foul," remember it is all simply an act for public consumption on the part of those media owners and moguls.

Since they just got handed a privilege and immunity over that of the true citizend and people of this nation purposely and deliberately that will guarantee that more and more of America's wealth, and its political process, will be "corporately" determined, and their profit margins increased and also watch the election cycle in presidential years become more and more of a circus than it already is.

A neutral and independent judiciary?

Obama and Alito should be nominated for Academy awards at this point for best actor by a politician of the new seat for the entertainment industry, Washington.

Or at least declare and disclose their true employment status and benefits packages as not public servants at all, but corporate directors.