As mentioned here at McCarthyism.com a few days ago about the theatrics of the SOTU, here’s another prime example:
Sulkowicz Let Down by Obama Speech
New York Senator Kristen Gillenbrand invited as her guest Emma Sulkowicz who has gained fame as a performance artist carrying her mattress around Columbia University in New York City to bring awareness to the issue of campus sexual violence. The article is also a good example of how being able to talk back using the comments section is an interesting way to see a newstory through other people’s eyes (whether you agree or not with their viewpoints). The premise of bringing Sulkowicz to the SOTU to raise awareness seemed to fail as most people in Congress and government did not know who she was or why she had gained a certain degree of fame. Sulkowicz was disappointed that Obama did not call attention to campus sexual assaults, but really it would be impossible for the President to speak on every serious issue facing the country/world within the short of amount of time alloted for the speech (and shorter attention spans of the public). That is not to downplay the issue of campus sexual assaults, but only to say there are probably other issues that grab the attention of everyone in the country such as jobs, war, health care and the economy.
But what is most worrisome about Sulkowicz’s case is the accompanying theatrics itself. When a woman makes a charge of being raped, her identity is shielded by the media unless she publicizes it herself, as Sulkowicz did. That’s fine. The problem is the guy she accused of raping her has had his name splashed all over the media even after he was exonerated by the police. To be accused of rape or sexual assault is one of the most harmful statements to a person’s reputation. It should be a law that people suspected of a crime should not have their reputations destroyed before receiving due process. Sulkowicz’s continuing to accuse a classmate of rape after his exoneration (which means there was not enough evidence for an indictment, but does not mean she is necessarily lying either) is libelous; but it is the media’s fault in printing his name in the first place. The law should be that printing a suspect’s name before a conviction (even under indictment) should be illegal with stiff monetary penalties for publishing the person’s name. The infamous perpetrator walks done by police for the media cameras should also be illegal; they harken back to the barbaric time of locking people in stocks for public embarrassment. If people are truly innocent until proven guilty, then grant them the dignity of privacy and reputation until they are convicted by a court of law; the current system is a sham and a shame of justice.
Originally posted: http://www.mccarthyism.com/2015/20150125.htm
mccarthyism.com 