Obviously, the situation with this boy who committed suicide is extremely tragic. Those two who invaded and posted his private life were out of line and had no right to do what they did. However, you cannot compare that situation to posting a film on the internet. Films are made for the purpose of being viewed by people. The bottom line is, posting a film is in no way, shape or form related to posting another person's private life.

In todays society privacy online is a very sensitive issue. Many people today are victims of cyber bullying and other types of harassment online. I believe that people must think before they post something online. They need to ponder whether what they are posting will harm the individual in any particular way. The problem is that these people who are posting videos or offensive material aren't thinking about the feelings of the other person. These people that are abused often go through depression or even commit suicide. Therefore, people who post questionable material online need to think about how it will affect people in the long run.

I believe you can compare the posting of the Tyler Clementi video to other posted films on the internet. Although films are made for viewing, they are not always created for a public audience. I believe the content of a film can greatly influence who the audience should be, especially in this case. Documentaries often include segments on individual's private lives, yet the subject knows they are being filmed and has signed a release saying they understand the film will be shown to others. It is the filmmaker's responsibility to tell their subject this. There should be severe consequences for anyone who creates and posts a video of someone without their voluntary permission. In the Clementi case specifically, his roommate did not ask Clementi's permission and posted the film regardless. He most likely did not know the laws of film and distribution and did not think twice about posting this online. It is obviously incredibly immoral to post something of this nature online, yet the morality of something cannot convict someone of a crime.
Not only should we think about how posting a video online will affect other people in the long run, we also need to think about how it could possibly affect us. In the Tyler Clementi suicide case, the roommate who taped Clementi with his webcam and later posted the video to the internet is facing up to five years in prison with invasion of privacy charges. The person who posts a video online should think of the possible repercussions involved and whether the audience response will be a positive or negative one.
I do not think we are responsible for the unintended uses of videos we post online. We are only responsible for the original film. To my current knowledge, it is impossible to prevent someone from messing with a posted film unless the person who posted the original film never posts the film in the first place.

There is no such thing as deleting something once it's on the internet. it's there. however sometimes things on the internet are released in order to be viewed, as a commentary or a perspective and that may mean that certain people may be offended. However there is a huge difference between releasing private information and posting personal beliefs. I think people just need to be aware of the repercussions.

I remember commenting on the blog about posting the film to the internet years after it was made, and whether it was right to do so without the permission of the subjects. I think these two situations are totally different. The two people who posted the video online completely invaded Tyler's privacy, which was so unbelievably unethical and insensitive, and pushed him to his tragic suicide. The difference between the two is the fact that these two kids never got consent from Tyler to do this, and he had no idea until it was already on the internet.

In response to the questions asked in the blog:

The film was wrong regardless of how "close to the edge" he was. You don't have to be suicidal to want to kill yourself from being the target of such extreme cyber bullying and invasion of privacy to this degree. Bottom line, it was wrong, and went way too far into someone's personal life that clearly was not meant to be seen by anyone else.

We are totally responsible for what we post. People are held responsible for their actions, so why should posting something on the internet be any different? It's not, and it definitely shouldn't ever be. As for things being used in the way we did not intend, well then people should really think things through before they put something up on the internet! Once something is online, it is free game, and can be used by anyone who has internet access. Sometimes things get manipulated, though, and while this can be unfortunate, it is inevitable. If the intention of what is posted is made clear by the original person, if it is then used in ways we didn't intend or manipulated by someone else, it is then that person's responsibility for how they are promoting it. The burden of responsibility cannot go solely on one person's shoulders even when their posting was used in a way they did not intend--how can a person consider all the ways their posting can be manipulated? At that point it is somewhat of a joint effort.

While many people on this forum have presented valid arguments, I have to agree with Megan Strouse. The two cases had different outcomes, but the actions leading up to those events were similar: someone posted video of someone else online for entertainment. However, in one situation we have an informative documentary where the participants were willing-- unlike Clementi who was not only embarrassed but whose sexual identity was unwillingly displayed before the public.

The original content we post on the internet is our responsibility. If I was to post a video about someone or something, I would be responsible for that-- just as Tyler's roommate and accomplice should be responsible for the unwilling sexual video they posted online. However, as stated once that content hits the world wide web it's fair game. There is nothing (or at least very little) one can do to protect their content on the internet. Even copyrighted material is at risk. Therefore, while we are responsible for what we initially put on the web, unless it's copyrighted, there is nothing we can ultimately do about someone else taking it and reworking it to suit them.

I feel the answer to this question is rather obvious: do not post something revealing a part of someone that you would not want revealed about yourself. Shouldn't we all have the decency to not post the most intimate secrets of someone's life online for all to see? We are responsible for what we post, just as we are responsible for what we say out loud. This all boils down to a mantra I am sure we all learned as children "if you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all."

Something about this article really bothers me:
"But how far does this go? Perhaps this young man who took his own life was "close to the edge". "

Perhaps that was the case, yes. That is something we will never know. Regardless however, there is no justification for what the people did. To exploit a person's personal life in that way is a form of bullying. Often times the stories you hear on the news of suicides are the result of bullying. We have become desensitized in this country and have lost recognition of what bullying actually is. Maybe the viewers of the video did not know exactly what they were doing, but I still feel that is morally wrong to look into another person's private life in that way. This country lets many different forms of bullying slide on a day-to-day basis. Our ignorance to the subject has allowed it to become more and more tolerated. By tolerating bullying and making is socially acceptable, yes, we are all responsible for the boy who took his own life.

I too commented previously on internet privacy and dealing with the matter of posting a film several years later about children in poverty. After reading this post, I believe that these are two extremely different situations. Tyler was in serious distress when he took his own life, which consequently was after the time his video was posted by his roommates. Although no one can be sure if the two events related to each other, I definitely believe the video post was a catalyst for what Tyler did to himself. The two people that posted the video should take full responsibility for their actions and what may have led Tyler to take his own life. The video was exploitative, private, and cruel to post. In the case of the film about children's poverty (although I haven't seen it), there is probably no material that would be exploitative and too personal to show. In any case, whether homosexual or heterosexual--I think it is unjust to post anything that personal (i.e. sexual acts) that doesn't involve yourself, and if you do, then you must take full responsibility for the consequences of your post.

Posting is the responsibility of the creator, or owner of the work. Some choose to share their private works on the internet, some do not. It is impossible to know if someone is "close to the edge,"and the only solution is to leave a private life alone. Many "Youtube celebrities" were created because of the lack of consent of the owner. The popular video "Star Wars Kid" was released without the consent of the kid in the video. Although the video attracted millions of viewers, the boy in the video did not want it, and sued the kids who posted it. They were not responsible for creating the work, and therefore had no right to post it.

It all depends on the level of involvement or engagement that the poster has with the person that he affects. For example, the Rutgers students who posted the video of Tyler Clementi sleeping with another boy clearly did not post the video online for objective reasons.

It is a difficult argument, and perhaps the best way to analyze this would to be to review various privacy rights and whatnot. If something is posted in the sense of review, criticism, mockery, or defamation, then clearly the poster is responsible, at least at some level, for any consequences. If something was posted and another reacted strongly and unfavorably, yet the nature of the post was objective and/or unintentional, then it is of no real fault of the poster.

There is no easy answer to this, as the poster can always deny reasons and claims, just as anyone seemingly affected by it can say whatever they want.Col

I agree with Daniel, this is clearly an extreme situation i wouldn't classify with posting a film but I believe, once something is posted many things can come of it. We are still responsible if we post something with the intention of chaos or not. Although its a tricky situation because there are so many different kinds of people who can view things on the web, someone somewhere will be offended. Its just the give and take of the internet.

I believe there is a huge difference between posting what can be referred to as "private" and what may be "personal", in the case if Tyler Clementi, that video was released with malicious intent and with no other motive but to hurt and offend. Personal information however, if released constructively and hopefully with the permission of those featured/discussed can have a lot of useful and educational uses. The barrier is there, albeit thin at times.

We are responsible for what we post because we have seen what can happen if we are not careful. Far too often the newspapers are flooded with stories of people posting information to facebook, twitter, tumblr, and other personal websites. People need to start being more careful about who they share information with online, no matter how close they are to one another. We as a society need to learn from these events and do everything in our power to make sure they don't happen again, and every change starts with one person.

I agree that the two situations are extremely different. Whereas the 1988 film had an altruistic sense, the posting of Tyler's private life had a malicious intent. In regards to our responsibility in posting things on the internet, it's crucial to realize that regardless of the initial intention of the post, it is subject to change. As long as you are willing to deal with the potential consequences of this, then post away but take responsibility. If you are not okay with the fact that postings can be (and often are) twisted, then you should refrain from posting. The internet has stripped away layers of privacy and as an audience we must learn how to cope and restructure our actions accordingly.

Media is a very powerful outlet in today's society, and it continues to grow rapidly every year with new advances in technology and as corporations gain power.

The question dealing with the death of the young boy who jumped off the George Washington Bridge is whether or not the two who exposed his private life were responsible for his death. Although these boys acted immaturely and disrespectfully, they cannot be fully blamed for the young man's death. The young man clearly has many issues he had been dealing with, and the exposure of his private information was the spark that triggered the young man's specific reaction.

It is important for everyone in the world understands that they are responsible for everything they say and do. People need to be careful what they post online because it will never go away. They need to be careful what they say to other people, and what they put in writing; because once something it is writing it is a permanent reference.

What these boys posted was wrong, and it invaded the privacy of another human being, but they can't take anything back. They were responsible for emotionally destroying another, and using one of the most powerful media outlet for the wrong type of exposure. We are all responsible for the words we write and say, and not even a sorry can change things that have already happened.

Posting a video on a website is just one cognitive action we as humans make and just as any other action, we are responsible for the consequences that follow. I agree with Katherine in that the two boys who posted the video of young man that did commit suicide, are not fully responsible for his death, however they do have a main part in it. Media, especially videos, are widely used on the internet and television and can be seen by millions every day. Just as we say in the movie "Fair Game" any small scandal can ruin a person’s life whether it be fact or fiction. What we finally decide to post must be taken into full consideration before we decide to do so. Manipulation can occur in any way through new technology and with the in mind we must then hold those who are willing to manipulate the videos responsible for their actions as well.

Individuals should be held accountable for any and everything they say. Whether on the web, in a text, or spoken by mouth, you own the words you speak, and you should use them selectively. Words or content posted on the internet should be thought after in a most careful manner. What you post on the web may very well remain there forever and it is difficult to explain or renounce what you have submitted in plain text for the whole world to see.

Cyberbullying and online harassment are becoming more and more prevalent. Hateful words make up a lot of the web's content and it is difficult to attach a name, much less a face to a posted quote, video, or artifact. In fact, countless postings remain anonymous and certainly not everyone is who they say they are. The internet today is a world of anonymity where morals and social boundaries don't seem to hold weight. It has become an extremely dangerous playground.

I don't think that the 1988 film is at all comparable to the posting online of this video. The people in the first film participated knowingly in its production and gave their consent to be filmed. Moreover, the second video was taken completely without the subject's consent - or his knowledge - and was of something extremely private and personal in the first place. Even though the students who took the video couldn't have known that the boy would commit suicide, taking and posting the video was nevertheless a completely immoral and thoughtless thing for them to do. They ought to be held responsible, at least in part, for his death.

Why obviously a tragedy, this boy's choice of taking his own life is beholden to no one but himself. I believe we live in a world where we often forget that our ability to chose is what makes us both free and human, and that not always are there direct correlations of good and bad that we can right with new laws or new restrictions. So to imply that this boy's death is somehow correlated to just that his personal life was revealed is a stretch at most, and the two who did the revealing, while deserving of some punishment, are by no means his executioners.

That said, we are rapidly approaching a world of non-privacy, as the Internet continues to flourish and spread information around the globe. Right now, anyone relatively competent with a computer and at Google searching could, with little effort, find out my age, where I live, where I go to work, my various emails and even this blog post. It's by no means a hard task.

But where does that leave us? On the issue of privacy, teetering on a point of intense controversy. Possible solutions might include censorship or using aliases, but each of these have their own problems. However, on the issue of our responsibility on what we post? We have relatively little. Obviously, we should not be infringing on the privacy on just anyone, but if a situation calls for the need to expose something or use someone's name, then how can we control how that information is used?

Simply put, we cannot.

Whether we like to admit it or not, we live in a world of free choice and, as such, that gives us very little control over the actions of others. Just as those two boys had no idea of what the other boy would commit, we cannot possibly know how our information can be used. Our best option is to do the best we can to act prudently when revealing certain pieces of information and ourselves to realize the responsibility we have as creators of information when we put things out into the internet — not a responsibility for how that information is used, but why it is out there.

I'm not belitting the death of Tyler Clementi since it is a tragedy that someone would have to live through that, but I do think that the two instances are completely different. The subjects of the documentary "were willing to be in the film, with the parents of those kids agreeing." The subject of the documentary was educational. Tyler Clementi was unwillingly and unknowingly filmed by a couple of sick-minded kids who posted the video online for laughs. These two instances are polar opposites.

I do think that what we post on the internet is our responsibility, however. People think that because there is a layer of anonymity and separation from themselves and the subjects, that this takes away that responsibility. But again, in my opinion, the documentary does not have elements of bullying or extremely personal matters that have been mentioned, so I do not see the big deal in this instance.

The internet is a place where any information posted is available to virtually everyone. Anyone who posts online should be fully aware of this and needs to thoroughly consider the repercussions of what they post. Clearly, the case of the young man killing himself is a very unique situation and I'm sure the people who exposed his private life did not intend for him to kill himself. Legally, I don't think they, or any other "exposer", should be punished for their actions online. However, I believe that the people who do these acts online and morally wrong and likely are somewhat emotionally troubled by what they do. They should also be aware that what they post online is visible to anyone and people may judge the people who post the information very harshly. Their acts online can come up to haunt them in the future. Posting information on other people does not only color people opinion of those individuals, but also the people doing the posting.

Having not seen the film myself, it is difficult to offer an informed opinion on the topic based on the film’s subject matter. It is important to consider the fact that the film was conceived over 20 years ago and the context of its intent may have changed. This could affect the gravity of the decision of uploading the film. Nonetheless, hosting the film online has its benefits and its drawbacks at the same time. By definition, uploading the film to the Internet would dramatically increase accessibility and spread viewership, which would be a great incentive to publish it in such an open space. The purported message would be made visible to anyone with Internet access and could reach far more people than if merely distributed in physical form. However, the lives of the subjects in the film may have drastically changed by now rendering the application of the film to its original purpose questionable. Exposure to the public may or may not be a gripe with some. Ultimately, the most reasonable course of action would be to contact all the individuals interviewed in the film and have them reevaluate their willingness to share their story with the public.





This discussion is thought provoking and carries substantial gravity with it. Nonetheless, there are clearly visible flaws in the arguments of both sides. It appears incontrovertible that Griggs has violated any number of conventional copyright laws and breached the borders of plagiarism. However, the digital age we live in calls for a thorough restructuring of commonplace conceptions regarding intellectual property. The post specifically refers to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 as a reference point. This raises a number of questions that will produce a variety of responses based on what population answers them. In any case, it is highly questionable that a piece of legislature passed more than a decade ago (that’s several eternities in technology years) can even serve as a valid foundation for verdicts to be made on subjects like this. The evolution of the Internet throughout the past five years has been unfathomably immense which calls into question whether or not an informed decision made in 1998 can still be relevant. The movement towards one unified social Internet community has changed the norms we thought we knew completely. With the rise of anonymity and the intangibility of constitutional rights, the Internet currently exists as somewhat of a legal no man’s land, federal and legal spheres are trying to catch up to an entity with a monumental head start. Maybe the Internet should prevail as an untouchable platform for information exchange. Maybe the government should revise the Digital Millennium Act of 1998 at the expense of its catchy title in order to accommodate the innovations of the past few years.





As powerful a machine as the Internet may be, to this day it only serves to reproduce and replicate reality in a globally accessible form. While this is an incredible feat and deserves all the awe and attention it can get, some things must be made clear. The Internet is not the cause of death for this young man. What must be observed is the drive and incentive that led the college student to end his life. When closely examined it becomes blatant that the suicide was initiated by his peers who exposed his privacy online. Granted, the adolescent’s secrets may have spread like a wildfire due to their publication on the Internet. However, what this story boils down to is a simple case of bullying. This concept has always found a way to exist and almost certainly always will. Therefore, demonizing the Internet in this case only draws attention away from the real problem. This young man’s self-esteem was fragile enough to be shaken up by his peers. While making his private life visible to all is all but commendable this can be taken as a 21st century prank that is more commonplace than the media paints it to be. This particular case may have reached widespread popularity and sparked this discussion in the public eye, but the real problem lies within the unnoticed instability of the student’s feeble psyche.

sorry for the double-post, but the first two paragraphs of my previous post can be disregarded.

If a person decides to post something online then i believe they have full responsibility for it. When other people use the posting in ways that the original poster did not intend, then it becomes harder to tell who takes responsibility. I think that if someone reposts something in a different way and with a different intention than the original poster, then the new person has taken responsibility for the new post they have created, although the original poster would still have some responsibility for the new post as well. Since the original poster made the media available the the people who change its intention, then they should the one considered responsible to some extent.

We see a lot of this in the news these days. Sadly, no one really realizes what they are subjecting themselves and others to by their decisions of posting. The internet is too big for anyone to really comprehend. Once something is posted it will NEVER go away, even if the poster deletes it. We must hold all persons fully responsible for ANYTHING they post on the internet because they are the ones that have to answer the question, could this post hurt me or anyone else in any way? If you are ever in doubt that the answer to that question could possibly be yes, then don't post it.

Nowadays, our world has become digital on so many levels that from a certain perspective what we post online can be compared to the actions we undertake in the outside world. We are responsible for our actions; hence we are responsible for what we post online. When we enter the online world, we enter a world, where different laws apply. The uncertainty that creeps from every corner must be anticipated and the actions we undertake in that digital world must be twice as considerate and careful. This reminds me of an old tale about a woodcutter and a bear –The two of them were friends and one day without putting much thought into what he was saying, the woodcutter told the bear that he loved everything about her but the fact that her mouth stunk. The bear was deeply hurt but did not say a thing, she only asked the woodcutter to hit her neck with his axe as hard as he possibly could or otherwise she would have eaten him. The woodcutter, scared for his life, did exactly what the bear told him to, thus injuring her very badly. Then they both went their separate ways. Years later they met again and the bear asked the woodcutter to look at her neck to see the wound. Surprised, the woodcutter did not even see a scar on her neck. Then the bear told him: “You see, even the worst physical injury heals, but that bad word you told me that day I will never forget”. In this respect, in the online space we can virtually hurt or abuse other people, without even realizing it. In addition, even though the online space is like a black hole for information, we have to be cautious, always doubtful and expect the worst that might happen with the information we post. It is rooted in our personalities as human beings to always look for approval and/or attention. The Internet is the perfect place where people can be whoever they want to be –they post videos, comments, pictures etc. in order to stick out from the crowd. When the two kids exposed the life of the third kid online, they did not put much thought into the damage they might cause, nor, in my opinion, did they mean harm. I believe, what they wanted to do is draw the attention to themselves, become “popular” in this new environment they were still getting used to –college. Still, they are responsible for what they have done and now they are suffering the consequences. It is not rare for innocent games to become life-altering events. I believe, that just as in high-schools we are taught about sex and how to be safe, kids ought to be taught how to be safe in the virtual world, what threats might lie there, not only threatening their own safety, but the safety of others as well. Especially, when it comes down to videos –just as we have studied in class, videos can be manipulative and are used as a tool of propaganda, their impact –often underestimated by people.

This is a difficult topic to discuss because responsibility for ones actions and being the reason someone killed themselves are too things thats are sensitive. It doesn't matter in what context you say things, whether you say them confidentially or you say them outright, everyone is responsible for everything they say. If you don't have the guts to back up your beliefs, then you shouldn't voice them at all. That being said the people responsible for creating the video, had no idea what would come of it. They had no way of knowing that the subject in the video would do that to himself. If the people responsible for the video did this to hurt the subject then that is horrible, and shouldn't be taken lightly, but if they had no intention to hurt him or "send him off the edge" then that should be considered as well.

The only real way for this to not be an issue would be for all parties involved in a particular project to consent to its online distribution. Obviously, for many reasons, that could be difficult. However, in order for it to not be questionable, that'd be the way to go about it without any negative backlash.

Everyone how has posted something on the internet knows why they are posting it. either they do it to expose someone, or they do it to make themselves feel better. This is the problem. There is no "internet police" to say a video or a web page is bad or good. Sure there are filters but how secure are they? People who post hurtful videos on the internet do not realize the impact it has on people. to what end would you go to take a bad video of you offline? I bet some people would get it off by any means necessary, but they can't. Once it is on the web, its there for good.

The thing about the internet is that it is a unforgiving, never forgetting machine. Post something once and chances are its on there forever, even after its original has been deleted. True privacy does not know what a camera is If you don't want to even risk something being seen by the internet, don't let someone film it! The boy mentioned in the article is a unique case and the original poster probably didn't want such a tragic outcome. I don't think those who post a video should be punished unless it represents bullying or slander.

I think that we are completely responsible for what we write and post, therefore what we say on the computer and in public should be done with caution. The internet is a place where you raged comments or hurt sneers are recorded forever even after you press the delete button. Therefore we should all take ownership for our comments even on the internet, particularly in the case of which someone posting something without the permission of the boy which cause him to take his own life.

It's difficult to say whether or not depressed or emotionally sensitive individuals who commit suicide would or would not carry out the same or similar actions under different circumstances or when pushed to the brink at a different point in their lives. However, I think it is partly for this reason that we are especially responsible for the words, images, thoughts, etc. that we post, especially when the subject of our posts are people who have not asked to be put in the spotlight. One of the things that makes negative internet postings so detrimental to the metal health of any individual is the capacity for reception. The potential audience of anything posted on the internet is absolutely enormous, and if it isn't how many who have read or seen something that is damaging it's how many people have the ability to see it and might see it. We are taught from an early age that we are the ones who are responsible for and accountable for our own actions. Why should the internet be any different?

I personally think to compare someone's suicide with a film being posted on the internet is absolutely ludicrous and more than a little bit pompous. The "his most private life" you refer to are sexual encounters, which most people do want anyone to witness. A movie on the other hand is made for people to witness. As your post states people want the film online for altruistic reasons. While people wanted Tyler Clementi's encounters to be online for the reason of embarrassing Tyler Clementi. Whether he had psychological problems or not I do not know, however I think it's impossible for a film to "close to the edge" and posting a film online I imagine would only add life to it or at the very least it wouldn't cause your movie to commit suicide, which I mean both literally and metaphorically tense.

I think we should all, always be responsible for our online activities. Whether we are writing, posting photos, video, or engaging in any other form of online communication or expression, we should always be responsible for it. But, in the case of the kid jumping off the bridge, I think that was a situation far beyond the control of those who posted the content. Clearly, for someone to kill themselves, they must have already been at a troubling place. To hold those who posted the content responsible seems like a stretch... though I suppose content online is no different than any other content not in the online world... I suppose this is a very rare and particular case that would need to be closely investigated. When it comes down to it, we are responsible for what we put online.

This is an age where anyone can see what we post. the students that posted the private video of the kid that jumped off the GW bridge may not be directly responsible for his death, but their actions certainly sparked it. Inappropriate or insulting posts can have dangerous consequences.

Of course you can't place blame on the people who invaded his privacy for his suicide, that is simply not an expected response. However, it is the reality of the situation that anyone can easily make viral any picture or video of you so its important that people are careful when they videotape their private lives.

This is a difficult topic to talk about but I think that everyone has a moral obligation to monitor what they post online. Just because it as an open forum does not give you the right to post whatever you would like. This boy took his life because what he did in a private sphere was suddenly made public. We have our public lives and we have our private lives and all of us have a right to both. People will argue that we have constitutional rights to practice free speech whenever we want but we also should be utilizing a moral and ethical compass and exercising discretion when we do so.