Hey, there! Log in / Register
Probably not many BU wisecracks at BC tonight
By adamg on Wed, 03/21/2012 - 6:00pm
A player on the BC football team was arraigned today on charges he used his cell phone to record the sounds of his roommate and a woman having sex, then played it for others; all very illegal under Massachusetts law. Channel 5 reports.
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Maybe not many cracks, but not much sense in comparing
Ugh, I was hoping this story wouldn't get posted with a headline like this.
As someone pointed out in the comments on boston.com, what this kid is accused of really should not be compared with what the former BU hockey players have been accused of.
Was the alleged conduct at BC childish, stupid and possibly unlawful? Yes. But does it really make sense to compare, or even talk in the same sentence about, the alleged crime of making an audio recording of people having consensual sex with alleged sexual assaults? I think that it is not appropriate, and I have to believe the alleged victims, particularly of the sexual assaults, would think that it's inappropriate too.
OK, maybe not the best of headlines
You're right, I should probably have not brought up BU just because I saw some BC kids cracking wise a couple weeks back when news broke of the latest BU hockey news.
That having been said, what he's accused of is a felony, it seems that the woman involved never gave her consent to be recorded, let alone have it played to others and a case decided just this week in New Jersey shows the serious implications of such recordings.
Audio vs. video in this context
Understood. But I have to quibble with "such recordings".
Not all electronic recordings are created equal. Notwithstanding the female's apparent voluntary admission that it was her on the tape (has anyone other than Channel 5 made the claim that she said that? Why the hell would anyone make that admission?) can we agree that an audio recording, which carries with it at least a chance of anonymity/deniability, is fundamentally different than a video recording, particularly in this context?
By no means do I mean to minimize what is, I am sure, a very unpleasant situation for the female in this case, but there is a reason why Justice Stewart said that he knew porn when he saw it and not when he heard it. Otherwise, every match between Sharapova vs. Azarenka and a host of others would almost certainly be banned from network television in the U.S.
In your last graf, everything
In your last graf, everything after the word "but" was made void by the use of "but."
Never use that when trying to make an argument.
(Note how I didn't make a rant about you trying to justify activities subject to a felony charge.)
Er, thanks?
I'm not really sure what most of your comment was intended to convey, but thanks, I think, for not ranting, particularly since I was not offering a justification of any activity, but merely pointing out the obvious - some crimes are worse than others, and that gradation also applies to the subset of crimes that are (sometimes arbitrarily) classified as felonies.
That's a felony? Wow
That's a bit of overkill in this case, don't you think?
Was the crack at BU really
Was the crack at BU really necessary?
Edit: Removed a sentence, saying that would be an insult to BC.
Why I mentioned BU
When the latest BU hockey story came out, I saw some online comments from BC-type folks about how, well, you can guess what they said about BU.
If she kills herself, Is it then a hate crime?
Oh right, it would not be. This was a non-hate crime because it was done by straight people. Keep moving folks, nothing but tomfoolery at the Heights.
By no means do I wish any ill will towards the victim, but will GLAAD help out Mitch the Moocher on this one? I sure hope they will, a person was injured here by use of electronic recording of a sexual encounter on a college campus.
Hate crimes are stupid.
Violent offenders should be treated equally as harsh.
She has retained Mitchell Garabedian. That didn't take long.
I see that the woman who was allegedly recorded has not only retained Attorney Mitchell Garbedian but Ch.5 is reporting that she now needs medication to cope with "the stress" of others hearing the recordings. Meanwhile, Garabedian is saying BC is at fault for failing to educate students that such recordings are illegal. This sounds like more of a money grab (see Garabedian's work against the Catholic Church) than anything else.
Yes, as soon as she acknowledged it was her on the recording
the ambulance chasers began to line up. The only question is whether that was her intent with the acknowledgement, or was she just being foolish.
A Felony?
Yikes...
He was in the hall, not in the room, no camera or microphone was hidden in the room. Basically he recorded the sounds from a common area.
Tastesless? Absolutely. Invasion of privacy? Totally. But this guy deserves a sanction from the college and the couple who were recorded are owed an apology. No need to get the state involved.
Makes me wonder how many bad judgement felonies I commited in college.
ill reiterate....yuppie
ill reiterate....yuppie americans, the most litigious
Clue us in, please
Is there something you know about all these people you're claiming are yuppies that we don't know?
Didn't think so, give it a rest.
Arrest me, too
Apparently, I committed this type of felony, too, a few years ago.
I was on a ski trip out west with a bunch of guys, and early one morning, my roommate was snoring up a storm. I mean absolutely wailing to the point of comical. I pulled out my MP3 player and recorded a few minutes of his snoring, which we just found out is a felony.
Are the circumstances different? Absolutely, but there's nothing in the law that explains the situation in which recording is not allowed - it simply is not allowed.
A felony??? Really?
Recording snoring not felony because snoring ≠ speech
Not correct. The Massachusetts recording law applies to 'oral communication' aka speech. Snoring is not speech, but cries of passion certainly could be.
And btw, recording is allowed, if both recorder and recordee know about it (or if it's being publically broadcast over radio/TV/PA, or if it's part of a warranted investigation, etc etc).
Read the law, it's pretty thorough and not particularly opaque with legalese.
Thanks for the correction
Looks like "oral communication" is the key, though it can have a whole different connotation in this case. ;-)
I'm off the hook.