Though the article uses the same word, "friend" is clearly not the right description.
I have thought a lot about how ubiquitous depictions of rapes like this are nowadays and what kind of damage it does to the people involved, though of course particularly the victims. I'm not saying I was a particularly healthy 17-year-old when I was raped, but I remember feeling that I could get past the rape and keep functioning, but when I walked out of the laundry room in the dorm and heard someone say, "So THAT's the one [Rapist] fucked?" I suddenly wanted to die and then didn't get better for a long time after. Maybe that would have been the process anyway and maybe I'm unusually concerned with having control of the narrative, but I think this is going to be a huge problem and am so impressed by grassroots movements like #IAmJada
Their defense is they thought the recording/Periscoping would dissuade the rape. I could imagine giggling being the result of surprise that it didn't followed by deep fear.
That's definitely possible, Minivet. And "what to do when you inadvertently witness a rape" is not something most teens are prepared for. (I mean, in my case I personally am not impressed by "Pretend to be asleep and then later tell the campus police you were sort of aware but don't remember anything out of the ordinary," but I don't actually hold it against the guy, who was presumably didn't know what else to do.)
I'm also interested in how Periscope will deal with things like this that violate its terms of service but can, as in this case, mean someone on the internet calls the police. I'm sure they have policies, but I hope they're reasonable ones.
2: NPR made it sound like the defense was, "I got distracted by how many likes I was racking up."
I think I too would find it distracting if a streaming video of a friend being raped was generating a large number of "likes".
I mean, talk about reinforcing your uncertainty about what the hell to do in this already confusing and highly stressful situation. Dozens of comments of "OMG CALL THE POLICE NOW!!!" might have generated a very different response from dozens of "likes" and similar affirmations.
How do people who listen to NPR in the car with young-ish kids deal with stuff like this? Do you immediately turn it off? Do you casually change the station? Or do you just not listen to NPR in the car with young-ish kids? Speaking as someone who listens to NPR in the car with infant+toddler.
I didn't have the kids with me. If they had been, it probably would have depended on the context - whether I felt like wading into a big discussion of what was going on, and if there was time to do so. "Rape" has come up before, though, and we've given a fairly honest explanation.
In general, I think explaining this particular situation to kids would seem so foreign and unrelatable to them that it would be like hearing about Crimes On Mars - unlikely to give them nightmares.
I figure that death, killing, and murder comes up all the time in storybooks, so any time I feel squeamish about something, it says more about me and/or society than what's actually appropriate for children.
Elaborating some - there are crimes kids can easily relate to - death of a pet, of a parent, things close to home. There are crimes which are (hopefully, not always etc) more disconnected - war, rape, etc. My theory is that with the latter, you control the intensity by monitoring the amount of emotions put in the conversation vs. the amount of emotional distance. So with rape, I've explained it matter-of-factly, and it hasn't made much of an impact, and I've added things like, "This is really upsetting to the person who didn't want to have sex, because bodies are private and...[so on]" because it didn't seem to have enough emotional weight at first.
I think it all sounds like contract law to them.
"She got caught up in the likes" said her lawyer. I think that's one of the most awful things I have ever read about our species.
8: Typically NPR gives a warning immediately before stories containing containing potentially-disturbing content.
So with rape, I've explained it matter-of-factly, and it hasn't made much of an impact, and I've added things like, "This is really upsetting to the person who didn't want to have sex, because bodies are private and...[so on]" because it didn't seem to have enough emotional weight at first.
What's the bit from To Kill A Mockingbird? Six-year-old Scout asks Atticus what rape is, and he replies something like "Carnal knowledge of a female without her consent," which gets a "If that's all it is, why was Jem being so weird about it?" (I haven't read the book since the eighties, so I may be misrecalling.
"She got caught up in the likes" said her lawyer. I think that's one of the most awful things I have ever read about our species.
I have a vivid memory around age 20 of the beginning of being able to empathize with people in news stories. Before that it was mostly words unless it struck me for some reason.
Way, way different than this girl, of course. Just thinking about empathy as a thing that develops over times.
5: That bit is from the prosecutor, not the defense attorney.
15: Yes. When I was a child I gorged on war stories, as I think all boys of my nationality and background did. There were hugely popular comic books with names like "War Picture Library" -- but now, when I read of the deaths of objectively despicable and ghastly people like the crew of the Schanrhorst, I am almost swamped with pity for the poor children.
objectively despicable and ghastly people like the crew of the Scharnhorst
?
I listened to a ton of NPR as a small kid, and one story that sticks with me was about women giving themselves abortions with coat hangers in socialist Romania. I had the foggiest notion of abortion at that point, and from then until I was much older I thought it had to do with sticking a coat hanger up your vagina. I remember a local news story about a woman who'd been raped a bus stop, and my mother's answer to rape was so confusing to me that I assumed it meant cutting off someone's genitals.
I heard about the story, and I don't know it was so awful. I hope the woman who was raped gets the support necessary to deal with her rape and its streaming.
I haven't clicked through to see if the video is available, and jesus do I not want to watch it if it is, but I'm having a hard time imagining that it's terribly ambiguous. I mean, nervous giggling is one thing, and not unlikely, but wouldn't you think that her defense, that the point of filming it would have been to dissuade/threaten the rapist, would have to be backed up by something that would be audible on the video? It just seems like the video would be overwhelmingly likely to make you think either that the defense was bullshit, or that the defense was obviously the truth and prosecuting her was insane.
I haven't clicked through to see if the video is available, and jesus do I not want to watch it if it is, but I'm having a hard time imagining that it's terribly ambiguous. I mean, nervous giggling is one thing, and not unlikely, but wouldn't you think that her defense, that the point of filming it would have been to dissuade/threaten the rapist, would have to be backed up by something that would be audible on the video? It just seems like the video would be overwhelmingly likely to make you think either that the defense was bullshit, or that the defense was obviously the truth and prosecuting her was insane.
It is a funny feeling to be more appalled by the videographer than the actual rapist.
Is that really so strange? This doesn't seem like what the videographer is charged with now, but she made and distributed child pornography.
People are often surprised that in many states you can legally stand there and do nothing to stop a crime or someone in peril.
You could stand on the street and video tape a crime without a legal requirement to step in. In fact, we appreciate it when someone video tapes police brutality or "catches" a criminal in the act with their cell phone.
23/24 reminds me of this, which is amusing and thus out of keeping with the rest of the thread.
I dont know how she gets convicted of kidnapping, rape, sexual battery and pandering sexual matter involving a minor, if her only action/inaction was videotaping it.
Remarkably half-assed and reluctant civic mindedness FTW.
26: The leg-holding bit probably qualifies for the battery I'd think? But yeah, it sounds like overreach to me too.
In fact, we appreciate it when someone video tapes police brutality or "catches" a criminal in the act with their cell phone.
In fairness, anyone attempting to stop, rather than tape, police brutality would likely find themselves brutalized as well, and with no recourse, either, since, guess what, no one recorded it.
I just installed Periscope and clicked on the video nearest me, which was of someone having lunch with her work name tag clearly visible, and saying things like "that does sound like a fucking nigger from the West Side."
Technology brings us all closer together.
Sorry, precise quote: "that does sound like a nigger from the fucking West Side."
Is that really so strange? This doesn't seem like what the videographer is charged with now, but she made and distributed child pornography.
Before you film your friend's rape, make sure your friend is over 18.
Point taken, but even distributing video of consensual sexual activities of adults is still a serious crime if done without permission.
That's an interesting point. You could easily imagine her not giggling at all, or being distracted by "likes" or whatever, and believe that she was genuinely periscoping the rape in an effort to stop it/document it--and even imagine that the video was in fact the key evidence that led to arrest and successful prosecution, and YET STILL imagine her friend being extremely upset about having her rape video broadcast on the internet, independently over and above the extent to which she was upset about the rape itself.
This may be controversial but I think "do not live-stream your friend's rape on the internet" is a perfectly reasonable general rule.
Or, I guess "do not live-stream on the internet your friend's rape." Whatever. Don't do it.
23/24/25 reminds me of the Seinfeld finale which was not amusing and thus fits with the rest of the thread.
Well, sure. Broadcasting your friend's rape is really bad form and morally wrong. But is it illegal?
See also: http://blog.bennettandbennett.com/2013/10/are-statutes-criminalizing-revenge-porn-constitutional/