The Rutgers Indecent, but the other way

<p>

</p>

<p>My, you certainly have an active imagination.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I think most of us here believe that would be wrong. But what many are questioning is whether or not it is illegal (criminal penalties) and would truthfully identifying a former lover and rating their prowess make one liable in a civil action.</p>

<p>Think about all the celebrity autobiographies which have been written where the author identifies former lovers “without their consent.” From what I have observed, as long as the author is being truthful, there don’t seem to be too many of these books being pulled and the authors sued. Of course, people can sue for just about anything. They just don’t always win.</p>

<p>Perhaps one of the many lawyers we have on CC would care to elaborate. Is there a law on the books guaranteeing that our sexual activities will remain secret? If you tell your best friend at dinner that you had sex with George last night and he was a lousy lay, can you be sued if he finds out you talked about it? Have we legislated discretion and good manners?</p>

<p>I’m kind of surprised with that with all the outrage and cries for criminal or civil penalties that no one has tried to make a first amendment case for Karen. That’s usually the first argument that’s thrown out whenever anyone brings up the prospect of jail time or civil penalties for spoken or written speech.</p>

<p>Most of the celebrity autobiographies I’ve heard about are telling tales on dead people who can’t sue – Sinatra, Elvis, etc.</p>

<p>I also would like to hear from lawyers as to whether the guys have a case in a civil suit. Would foreseeable consequences be part of it? When you send something out electronically shouldn’t you foresee that it could get spread around?</p>

<p>I’d read there were issues of defamation of character- so she might be accused of making libelous statements. However… how does one prove that the negative ratings or comments about size and skill/performance were inaccurate/false?? :rolleyes: :o</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I went through a phase (many years long I’m sorry to admit) where I read one after another. There are plenty out there which detail affairs of people still living.</p>

<p>nrdsb4… agree, i dont see a legal question, i was responding to whether it was “wrong” … maybe something civil, i have no idea. i guess my response was to seeing what i believe is a double standard…i believe we would see outrage if a boy had done the same thing…and not seeing any “outrage” here.</p>

<p>Some of those guys were pretty cute. Is that wrong of me to say?? Lol</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Men have been rating women for years, sometimes provoking outrage, and sometimes only provoking guffaws.</p>

<p>I can only speak for myself, but had this come from a male, I would have felt disgust. When I first heard about this particular incident, I felt disgust. I don’t think highly of people of either sex who blab about their sexual escapades.</p>

<p>

Agree with this statement.</p>

<p>Nrdsb4 may be right in post 88. It may be that men have rated women’s body parts, and sexual prowess, and then making a powerpoint presentation complete with pictures, and showing it to a number of friends, and then getting it leaked to the world wide web for all the world to see. She may be right.
But personally, I haven’t heard of such a thing.
So it may be what this young woman did is exactly the same as men have been doing for yrs, as Nrdsb4 hints.</p>

<p>Or, then again, maybe this ISN’T what men have been doing for yrs, and so maybe this case is different. This case isn’t just talking about an experience among a few friends.</p>

<p>No one denies that men have been rating women for centuries. But it doesn’t mean when women do it that it’s any better.</p>

<p>True story: When our local Little League had baseball tryouts, each coach had a different evaluation system for the boys – letter grades, numbers, whatever to determine who had good speed, throwing strength, strong bat. When it came to draft day, when all these were equal between kids, the dads often referred to the intangibles, including the column labeled “GLM,” which stood for good-looking mom. That always amused me.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Has ANYONE said that it was? Seriously?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Apparently that’s exactly what it was until the friends took it upon themselves to forward it electronically. In years past, this wasn’t possible because the technology wasn’t available.</p>

<p>I guess we don’t agree. I don’t see this as just talking about an experience with a few friends. When I have chatted with friends, past or present(about any topic) I have not made a 42 page slide presentation to accompany my words. And further, I have not put such a presentation on a source easily copied or transferred to all the world.
You may not agree there is any difference, Nrdsb4, but I do. I do not see it as “exactly” the same, as you said in 93.</p>

<p>^^^You’re right, from a moral perspective, I don’t see any difference. Both vile.</p>

<p>I might change my perspective if I learn that she did in fact intend for this to go viral. So far, I haven’t seen any proof of that. She should have been able to look ahead and foresee the possibility, but I don’t know for a fact that she did.</p>

<p>While I’m a lawyer, I’m not admitted to practice in North Carolina, and these are areas in which state law generally governs. Moreover, this is not an area in which I practice. Off the top of my head–and not legal advice anyone should rely on–my “gut feeling” is that Ms. Owen may have a FAR better case than any of these young men. </p>

<p>If she’s telling the truth, she’s not responsible for the fact that her “thesis” went viral. Two websites published something she wrote which they knew she wrote without getting her permission. I doubt they had the right to do this and I think they know it, which is why they took down the names and blurred the faces at her request. </p>

<p>In at least some states, if I write a letter to someone, the physical letter is the property of the recipient, but the words are still my property. If I don’t want the letter published, it can’t be published and if it is, I am entitled to damages. Some of you may remember the JD Salinger/Joyce Maynard case. Ms. Maynard had an affair with Salinger, who sent her 10 letters. Many years later, she or someone she gave them to tried to publish them. Sallinger went ballistic and sued. Court held: she owned the letters, but the words were still his. Publication barred. If this is extended to emails, Ms. Owen still owned the words and photos of her thesis and the websites which publish it would be liable to her. </p>

<p>PURE SPECULATION on my part, what if some of this “nice young men” --GAG–the ones who got “good” scores forwarded on the email? Since they were posted on a frat listserve at Duke, is it possible that’s what happened? Oh, they may not have wanted mommy and daddy and, in at least one case, supposedly fiancee’s parents, to read it, but they were kind of proud of “COULD NOT WALK” and forwarded it to their frat buddies. Again, I don’t know this–it’s a random guess. But if so, then they obviously have no claim against Owen and arguably, they at least share in the civil liability to the other subjects for publishing it. </p>

<p>So, should some of the “poor young men” --jonri jokes back laughter–who got “poor” ratings try to sue her, I suspect that her lawyers would conduct discovery to try to trace the path of the email and would bring in all those who forwarded it in as additional parties to the action who would share in any liability for the damages caused by the publication. That would certainly include whoever put it on the frat listserves. The lawyers would probably bring in deadspin and jezebel as well. Those websites should, IMO, be held responsible for at least some share of the damages these young men allegedly incurred. </p>

<p>And, if anyone has a case for invasion of privacy, again, I think it’s probable Ms. Owen does. I realize I am a prude and not “a reasonable man.” But if anyone’s expectation of privacy was violated, it was Ms. Owen’s. Frankly, I don’t think either party to a drunken hook up has an expectation of privacy–and I’d bet a fair amount at least one of the guys blabbed about his encounter with Ms. Owen and would thus be held to have “unclean hands” which prevent him from suing her for what she said. But, if any of us wrote something like this to a friend, would we expect the friend to pass it on without our permission? Would we expect two for profit websites to publish it without our permission?</p>

<p>And, in the real world, whose future job prospects have been damaged more–Ms. Owen’s or those of the 13 young men ? Lets be honest…hers.</p>

<p>I would be mortified if she were my D. My heart goes out to her parents.</p>

<p>“including the column labeled “GLM,” which stood for good-looking mom.”</p>

<p>Given the popularity of another, saltier, 4-letter acronym with a similar meaning, anybody who complains about “GLM” should be reminded of the story about people asking Bess Truman to try to get her husband Harry to stop using the word “manure.” She said something like "It’s taken me 30 years to get him to use the word ‘manure.’ "</p>

<p>I’m a Duke student and honestly only a select number of people on campus knew about Karen’s Thesis till these internet blogs started publishing it. Even at that point, it wasn’t big news on campus till NBC Today did a segment on it. I think the whole issue is overblown and comparing what Ms. Owen did here to what the two Rutgers kids did is nothing short of a travesty so I hope the mods change the title of the thread.</p>

<p>This incident only reinforces the idea that no one has any reasonable right to privacy anymore. If you say verbally/e-mail/IM/tweet/<em>insert method of communication</em> something to someone, then you should expect that this information will not stay just between you two. That’s the reality of the world we live in.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>amen…</p>

<p>Yes, well ol’ Benny Franklin has a famous expression about secrets and that was well over 200 yrs ago. It is by no means just today’s world.
A reasonable expectation of privacy should never be interpreted as a guarantee of privacy.</p>

<p>Let’s remember too, the valid comparison here is the woman revealing such (normally) private sex life of her many partners, complete with pics on her pc- comparing to Rutgers where it was 2 students having a live camera on 2 adults having sex. Both groups thought their acts were in private.
The tragedy that came about after the Rutgers camerawork is not being compared in this thread. Some will say the 2 caused his death. Others say they were merely the last straw in a life-long series of events, of teasing, and lack of help that the poor student endured.</p>