The Cost of Lost Privacy
The other day I heard about a 23-year-old Rutger's student who killed himself after a video his roommate took (without his knowledge) of his sexual encounter with a man (who did not know he was being recorded ) surfaced on the web. Everybody got to see it. Unfortunately, that included friends and family of the young man, who did not know he was gay.
There was a trial to determine if the roommate who took and shared the video should be punished for a hate crime. There was much debate over whether the video caused the suicide; the issue of whether or not the roommate meant to cause harm because he hated gays; and the suggestion that perhaps he was just having a little good old fashioned boy fun.
Here's what: It should be a crime for good old fashioned boy fun to include public humiliation and/or invasion of personal privacy--regardless of the motivation. Privacy is a necessary tool for healthy development. We simply must be able to take actions in private that we would never want made public. This is because we are supposed to learn from our mistakes. If every mistake we make is made public--we are never able to ask ourselves how we really feel, what we really need or what we ought to do. Instead, we will always be bombarded by someone else's opinions or ideas. This prevents honest evaluation. This makes it impossible to grow into one's self--it sabotages the kind of personal transformation that can lead to real happiness and a sense of belonging in the world. This is a form of slavery.
The current exhibitionist fad of exposing oneself almost completely in order to gain fame and/or fortune is much more dangerous than anybody seems willing to admit. I don't know if anybody's noticed, but real celebrities who are known because of their talent and skill tend to hide from the press--they crave anonymity. There is a reason for that: they understand the value of privacy to self-image; self-development; self-worth and self-awareness. Yet despite their desire to maintain it, our laws make it acceptable for photographers to torment and dog celebrities anywhere they go. The logic: they chose a public life.
I don't agree. I think they chose a public profession. Their lives should be as private as they choose. When they appear at a public function, with the goal of promoting their career, bring in the paparazzi--that's what they're for. But when they go to a wedding or a grocery store or to yoga--leave them alone.
There was a trial to determine if the roommate who took and shared the video should be punished for a hate crime. There was much debate over whether the video caused the suicide; the issue of whether or not the roommate meant to cause harm because he hated gays; and the suggestion that perhaps he was just having a little good old fashioned boy fun.
Here's what: It should be a crime for good old fashioned boy fun to include public humiliation and/or invasion of personal privacy--regardless of the motivation. Privacy is a necessary tool for healthy development. We simply must be able to take actions in private that we would never want made public. This is because we are supposed to learn from our mistakes. If every mistake we make is made public--we are never able to ask ourselves how we really feel, what we really need or what we ought to do. Instead, we will always be bombarded by someone else's opinions or ideas. This prevents honest evaluation. This makes it impossible to grow into one's self--it sabotages the kind of personal transformation that can lead to real happiness and a sense of belonging in the world. This is a form of slavery.
The current exhibitionist fad of exposing oneself almost completely in order to gain fame and/or fortune is much more dangerous than anybody seems willing to admit. I don't know if anybody's noticed, but real celebrities who are known because of their talent and skill tend to hide from the press--they crave anonymity. There is a reason for that: they understand the value of privacy to self-image; self-development; self-worth and self-awareness. Yet despite their desire to maintain it, our laws make it acceptable for photographers to torment and dog celebrities anywhere they go. The logic: they chose a public life.
I don't agree. I think they chose a public profession. Their lives should be as private as they choose. When they appear at a public function, with the goal of promoting their career, bring in the paparazzi--that's what they're for. But when they go to a wedding or a grocery store or to yoga--leave them alone.
posted by LA Fosner at 11:23 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home