News Fail

by Shaker TBJ

[Trigger warning.]

There is a heated debate among feminists about the value of images that show people sexually degrading women. Some folks argue that free speech is important, and pornography or art can be empowering even when it shows degradation. Therefore, we should not limit such images. Others argue that even if women consent to participate in degrading images, the images do harm to society as a whole and we should discourage them. But until recently, I thought all compassionate people agreed that when women do not consent to sexually degrading acts, and do not consent to recording images of those acts, we should not be spreading those images around.

According to an October 13, 2009 online article in the independent Michigan Messenger, in 2007, a woman reported to police that people whom she thought were her friends sexually assaulted and "drunk shamed" her. (I won't link, for reasons that will become clear later. And I won't write the woman's name, because although she has made her story public, she is a victim and I do not want to participate in making victims' names public.)

The woman was a teacher in Haslett, Michigan – a suburb of East Lansing. She is an out lesbian, which is relevant because of the way in which the people assaulted her. She and five of her fellow teacher friends decided to celebrate the end of the school year. All of the teachers spent the evening drinking and smoking pot. The party ended up at another teacher's house. The woman eventually passed out between a coffee table and a sofa.

After the party, the woman discovered that her friends had assaulted her after she had passed out. The woman suspected she had been given a drug and sexually assaulted (I usually wouldn't use the passive voice, but the news article doesn't give any hint who the woman suspects, so it's difficult to write in the active voice.). She also discovered that her friends had "drunk shamed" her. Two of the teachers drew offensive drawings and sayings on her body with marker. Among other things, they drew penises on her legs and wrote names on her stomach. Some of the drawings were, according to the woman, an inch from her vulva.

Like many degrading acts against women, the people involved took photographs. They used a digital camera and a cell phone.

The woman reported the incident to the police the next day. She wanted to press charges of sexual assault. After reviewing the case, prosecutors would not charge sexual assault, but they said they might be able to charge battery. Eventually, no charges were filed. The woman suffered personally and professionally; she felt "degraded, defiled, lifeless" – like her friends had treated her as a bathroom stall.

The woman decided to go to the independent newspaper I mentioned above, the Michigan Messenger. She gave the Messenger the police report and the photographs. She wanted the Messenger to publish her story, so that she could expose how degrading the actions of her friends were, and how unjust she felt the law enforcement response was. The woman even gave the Messenger permission to publish the photographs.

And publish the photographs they did. On the Michigan Messenger website, viewers can see images of the woman, passed out, with her former friends actively degrading her. The degradation is sexual. It is misogynist. It is proprietary – a show that the woman should be accessible to the men – and therefore homophobic.

To sum up, the woman did not consent to what the other teachers did to her. She did not consent to them touching her. She did not consent to them moving her shirt and exposing her abdomen. She did not consent to them pulling up her shorts. She did not consent to them dragging markers across her exposed flesh. She did not consent to any sexual activity. She told the newspaper that there was nothing more humiliating.

The woman also did not consent to the other teachers taking photographs.

There is no ambiguity about the lack of consent here. She could not consent to the acts or their recording – she was passed out.

So even though the woman eventually wanted to tell her story, the question remains – should a newspaper publish images of people sexually degrading a woman without her consent?

To use an analogy, in law enforcement, we do not say "child pornography." We say, "images of child sexual abuse." Such images are not just pictures of kids in dirty poses. Those images are in reality photographs and videos that record a crime scene. What is going on in those images is that someone is abusing a child. Pedophiles trade these images, and use them to desensitize additional child victims. The images spread over the Internet like oil on water, and even if authorities are lucky enough to rescue the child, they can never take back the proliferation of the child's shame. That is why it is a crime to possess and distribute, as well as to produce, images of child sexual abuse.

Likewise, in this news article, the photographs are not fun party pictures. They are depictions of people sexually degrading a woman without her consent. It's true that the woman wanted the photos made public in her effort to raise awareness about the injustice she suffered. But they are still photos that depict violence against a woman – in Michigan, apparently the crime is battery; in other places, maybe the acts would be different crimes. Everywhere, as the woman said, those acts are degrading, defiling, and life-destroying.

The defense that free speech enthusiasts usually give to sexually degrading material does not apply here. Usually, the defense to sexually degrading images consists of saying that the woman is choosing to perform the acts, she is choosing to record the images, and she can always say no – in short, she consents. But these images are of people violating an unconscious woman. The photos show an attack, something that happened without consent. And not only is there a lack of consent as to the physical acts, there was no consent as to their recording.

The only possible argument to support publishing these photos online is that the victim wanted them published so that she could obtain justice. In fact, when I emailed the newspaper to complain, I received a polite response from an assistant editor. The editor assured me that the Messenger published the photos at the request of the victim, because she wanted her community to share her outrage. So I do not want to discount this woman's agency or assume that I know better how to fight this injustice on a personal level.

On a societal level, however, I still disagree with the Messenger's decision to publish the photos. What does it say that a woman must publish sexually degrading images of herself in order to beg society for justice? And how many viewers are finding these photos online because they care about violence against women, versus viewers who are looking to see the sexual degradation of an unconscious lesbian? The photos look like one of those exhibits from the Sociological Images blog – disembodied body parts, a passive woman, her body a receptacle for the desires of others. People will pay to see images like that. Or click, and register an increase in web page hits.

If the woman had published the photographs herself, I would not be so critical. She is a victim and her agency deserves some respect. And maybe the Michigan Messenger's true motive really is to expose the injustice that the woman suffered, rather than to profit from titillation. But maybe a rape victim will see those images and suffer flashbacks. Maybe a predator will use those images to persuade someone that it's acceptable to use an unconscious woman like a bathroom stall. In the end, maybe compassionate people should not promote images that show attacks on women.

(Readers can Google; now you know why I won't link.)