I didn't miss the point, I got it... YOU seem to however be missing it in a big way.
Okay, I'll bite. Let's just see about that.
You're trying to say that no one would be crying for punishment if the roles were reversed, if it were Clementi that snapped and killed his tormentors instead of jumping off abridge himself. And as I pointed out, that's a weak, totally bullshit point. The fact is, the kid, like in any college across the country, asked for privacy in his living space. He sought the permission of his roommate and had a reasonable assumption that what occurred behind closed doors was not being broadcast. It's an assumption most normal people would have. Not too many folks out there are alone in their homes worried about someone spying on them behind closed doors.
Again, you missed the point. My point wasn't to convey that people wouldn't cry over it. I could care less about peoples' -tears- over the matter. My point was, if you're going to charge above and beyond invasion of privacy you'd have to follow suit forever, in every single case that dealt out the same circumstances. Not only that, but you'd have to look at the situation in both ways to make a sound edit to the current legislature. If an act of privacy invasion causes someone to kill themselves and the party responsible for the privacy invasion is also responsible for the death, then sound reason, to me at least, would dictate that the reverse role of the victim killing the invaders instead of himself should be able to be tried as self-defense. Invasion of privacy is a form of trespassing, in a number of states if someones trespasses killing the trespasser, "humanly" of course, is ruled as self-defense. However, I doubt very seriously people of the world, in majority, would accept that had Clementi did just that, he should be let off with self-defense. You open up a whole can of worms with that role reversal and it would have to be addressed if the current law was changed to charge manslaughter in suicide cases.
And as for having actual knowledge of a subject being considered wiki-esque... thanks? I'm not real sure what you're inferring. Some people are actually educated and can speak about things without having to look them up and cut and paste a definition... If that's a problem for you, I guess it's your problem. My bad for not being a moron.
I may be stern, but don't account it all to insult. I meant you gave a very cut and paste definition to something with much broader workings. For instance, I've seen a case where a woman was shot in the back, fell on her face and died. She died from the head trauma from the fall. The ruling was manslaughter. Had the woman died from the gunshot, it would have more likely been second-degree murder. Like I said, you could write out a damn book of all of the twist and turns and the definition should only be used to start the foundation for further learning on the subject. Granted, you obviously had no way of knowing my knowledge level on the subject. Maybe I could have been more nice/clear, I apologize.
And did you seriously just equate calling someone a fat hag with forcibly outing someone by broadcasting their sexual encounter to countless people on the internet? Really? What happened was slightly more than "Oh gee, I think you're a fag, go die." And to minimize it is pretty ridiculous.
I didn't equate it, I was just giving a simple example. However, if asked to differentiate between the two situations I would side that yes, they are compatible. This is what bothers me about these things to the point of posting. You think their (gays) plight of acceptance is far greater than the acceptance of "just another fat kid" (If you feel I'm putting words in your mouth here it is not my intention, I'm just tryin' to provide a good example). It's the same damn thing. Both parties are hurt that they are not accepted and it's the same hurt, though how they handle the hurt is all up to them so it may seem like it is varied. It's not like being shot by a gun and comparing that pain to the pain of being stung by a bee. No amount of loved ones or support can truly suppress the feelings you don't belong, if you truly feel you do not belong.
I don't ever recall saying "suicide is ok" either. In fact, I think it's very not ok. I think that though something may seem insurmountable, there is always another solution. But thankfully I've never been pushed to the point of so much emotional turmoil or felt so utterly hopeless that I'd do something like that. But not everyone is me. You'd prosecute someone for mentally abusing their kid or their spouse or walking up to them on the street and punching them in the face... how is it that it should be totally ok as long as it's a complete stranger?
Bear in mind this bit here will have a great deal of personal assumptions tied to it.
I never said that you did say it was OK. I said in order to go past invasion of privacy charges the law/public would have to dictate that suicide is OK, something I bet many would not agree with, much like yourself. By OK I don't mean right, but I mean the social stigma often placed with it would have to be less severe than it currently is. Basically, it would have to be something decided as OK to punish upon. However, with such the stigma it bears, it's hard to touch that dog's fleas and possibly feel right about it.
End heavy assumptions.
Now, to further expand upon that dog's fleas and the example I used of the fat lady jumping off the AIG building at her co-workers words. If courts ever did decide that suicide was grounds for charging slanderers, etc., with manslaughter, could you imagine the amounts of money and problems that would cause? Who do you charge, the guy in third grade who started it all, the guy that said something ill fit that night, the parents who disowned their gay son, the roommate that called him a "fag". Did X's remarks really have the effect of causing the jump of Y? Was it more than just words that caused this feeling? I could go on all night, I really could. And then to charge all of these people would just be through the roof. Words would now mean way more than ever, to the point of one slip of the tongue is punishable by law. Can you honestly say you never have said a bad thing about anyone in your entire life? I can't. And the most people I have, I haven't seen them nor heard from them in years. They may have very well killed themselves at something I piled up on their plate. It'd be a nightmare and a mess.
Now to touch on your closing sentence. I never alluded to anything like that being okay. I'm really not sure what you're going for here, but clear it up and I'll be happy to comment on it.
