When an alleged rape is streamed live
Johnathon Hock, 20, was indicted Monday and charged with two counts of sexual assault and one charge of voyeurism.
According to an earlier report by the Associated Press, the charges stem from an incident on February 26, when Hock allegedly sexually assaulted a woman whom he had been dating for two weeks.
Phoenix police said in their probable cause statement, reported on June 3 by KPHO TV, that Hock "set up a computer with a Webcam and sexually assaulted a woman he knew as she was passed out from drinking alcohol."
Analyzing the reports is a sobering and troubling exercise.
The Associated Press reported that Christopher Stone, co-owner and administrator of a site called StickyDrama.com, which follows certain Internet celebrities, recorded the livestreaming and immediately contacted the police as he knew that what was being broadcast was criminal.
The AP also reported that Steven Fruchter, the CEO of Stickam.com, the site that carried the livestream, said the site ended the broadcast as soon as it was notified of what was happening.
"When the violation was immediately found, the alleged perpetrator was banned and we have an open line of communication with the authorities to provide any data they require," the AP quoted him as saying.
However, the same AP report said that Phoenix police Detective James Holmes said police only learned of the alleged assault from the 20-year-old alleged victim.
KPHO TV said that she had told the police that she only learned of the livestream after she received texts from her friends. She then logged on to the site, where she said she found photos of the alleged incident.
Police told KPHO TV that they obtained the video, which was five minutes long, and heard Hock boast of how the alleged victim was passed out, which left him able to have sex with her without her knowledge.
StickyDrama.com reported a conversation with a Phoenix journalist who said that Hock was indicted on Monday. The site also posted a YouTube video in which a woman declares that Hock should not go to jail over what was, according to her, a "misunderstanding."
East Valley Tribune.com, a local Phoenix newspaper, said: "A viewer in Lafayette, La., called the Arizona Department of Public Safety to report the rape." It also quoted Parry Aftab, executive director of WiredSafety.org, an internet safety, help, and education resource, as saying: "It's the first livestream of an actual rape that I'm aware of."
However, perhaps what is beyond disturbing is that East Valley Tribune.com's June 3 report declared that images of the alleged victim could still be seen that day.
Amid all this distasteful confusion, one can only wonder about the alleged victim and the high supposition that copies of the livestream will always exist somewhere online.
And there is nothing she will ever be able to do about it.
Chris Matyszczyk is an award-winning creative director who advises major corporations on content creation and marketing. He brings an irreverent, sarcastic, and sometimes ironic voice to the tech world. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. 
Don't think I'm letting the guy off though.. he is a scumbag and needs to go to jail for this. As for the fact that it's recorded... I think that's worse for the boy than the girl. When he is older and able to comprehend and regret his crime, the knowledge that this video stream exists will add to his guilt.
Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong.
While a person can increase the odds they will be victumized, they at no time, are ever, the criminal.
With no criminal there is no problem.
With better judgement there is no problem.
Could you point out where the article said she only knew him for a few weeks?
"set up a computer with a Webcam and sexually assaulted a woman he knew as she was passed out from drinking alcohol."
That's the exact quote. They knew each other, doesn't say how long. From that sentence, they could've known each other for years. Who knows, maybe he'd done it before and decided this time it would be on webcam for the world to see.
Don't make assumptions that she only knew him for a few weeks.
One paragraph up your own excerpt:
"According to an earlier report by the Associated Press, the charges stem from an incident on February 26, when Hock allegedly sexually assaulted a woman whom he had been dating for two weeks."
Can't people be bothered to read anymore?
Nah just kidding. That is pretty messed up though. People should be careful who they drink with.
Looks like she was being careful. She wasn't with a stranger and I'm betting she was fully clothed when she passed out. This doesn't go against her in any way.
I got a question for "dudesmiles".
Hoe means prostitute.WHY/how is a rape victim,a 'hoe?
How many people (note I did not say which gender) have YOU victimized?You are dispicable.
And.....as far as being careful who you drink with.....alcohol by its nature erases cognition.Have nobody else here suffered a blackout?
1 in 3 American women have been raped.That means lots of you reading this.Wanna laugh some more about it?
I don't believe that statistic for a second. Where's your proof to back up that claim?
I read 1:4. Know 4women? Mom, Grandmother, Sister, Wife? Odds are one of them was or will be raped. A lot of them keep it under wraps because it's so much easier than dealing with folks like you.
http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-victims
And it says 1 in 6 of rape *OR ATTEMPTED* rape. So women have a 15% chance of being raped not 25, 33, or 50 as some of you have claimed.
Yes, it's a horrific crime; but let's not distort the facts.
Don't forget the 3% of men who are raped. I don't know of any women who have been, but I know of one guy who was.
A drop in reporting, when applied to statistics, indicates a drop in the act. I've been around long enough to know that numbers don't lie if you have all the facts to back them up. But that's the problem, isn't it. Most rapes are committed by someone in a position of power, usually close to the victim.
Honestly, how many daughters would go to the cops if dear old dad raped them? What about if Uncle Joe did? Her Preacher/Priest? Her teacher?
A drop in reporting just means a drop in reporting, it doesn't mean a drop in the event.
My favorite stat is unreported rapes. How can someone compile unreported statistics?
When I read things like "1 in 5" <insert terrible crime here> victims do not report it I can't help but roll my eyes. It is a total BS made up number.
Making up stats doesn't help your cause. You are simply making up the assertion that the actual number hasn't decreased, but the reporting of it has.
Total BS.
as far as the live stream existing forever, the girl needs to file a lawsuit against the websites which broadcasted it. while they are not likely liable for the broadcasted content, they should be held liable for any reproduction of it. additionally a judgment against the site (or perhaps a civil judgment against the perpetrator) would serve as a precedent deterring future persons from broadcasting the video. while she may be precluded from bringing the lawsuit again at a later date, it would still deter most reproduction.
it is truly a shame that this ever happens, but to do it publicly over the internet and bragging that you are commiting a crime against another is particularly horrific.
Your claim without linking to the study with this conclusion is as specious as Odinsbacklash's statement. Show us the facts, not more hearsay.
"...as far as the live stream existing forever, the girl needs to file a lawsuit against the websites which broadcasted it. while they are not likely liable for the broadcasted content, they should be held liable for any reproduction of it."
They didn't create reproductions of it. "Creation" when it comes to 'reproduction' of binary data is pretty vague when it comes to the Internet. This kind of an interesting philosophical question: Is allowing for repeated downloading questionable material over your network 'creating' new copies? Personally, I doubt it. Who decides what is questionable, illegal or tortuous It is an interesting question. I don't think there is such a thing as 'broadcasting' on the Internet. Things are 'fed,' like RSS, but, usually, you have to want to receive the content. It doesn't spontaneously appear on your screen unbidden. One can use filters, if they choose to. They can just navigate away from the postings on any site. They can hit 'delete' on emails they don't want.
The ISP's are immune from suit, because of the remaining sections of the CDA. They are the means of communicationing content. They can't be held responsible for the posting of something they have no control over. If this were true, the telephone companies could be held responsible for what its customer's say on the phone.
"...additionally a judgment against the site (or perhaps a civil judgment against the perpetrator) would serve as a precedent deterring future persons from broadcasting the video."
It would, also, create an illegal prior restraint of speech.
The site is immune under the CDA. The perpetrator, most likely, doesn't have much money, so suing him would be an exercise in futility. No P.I. attorney is going to take a case when the defendants are immune or broke.
I have never see a civil suit such as you describe deterring anything. Most people engage in this type of behavior without thought or care if what they are doing has, previously, been adjudicated. It's the Internet. It's anonymous. The chances of an individual getting caught are next to nil. The RIAA/MPAA have sued thousands and have posted time and time again on the Internet that illegal downloading is tort, if not a crime. How many pirates have they stopped? Not many.
Just how would suing the site and/or the 'perpetrator' stop the copies of the video that are already out there? Most of the potential posters/forwarders of the video wouldn't know about the jury verdict. So, it couldn't act as a deterrent.
"while she may be precluded from bringing the lawsuit again at a later date, it would still deter most reproduction."
This a, perhaps, unfortunate fact of life in this era of instantaneous dissemination of data. You can't get it back. There is no such thing as 'back.' A jury verdict in the US is not going stop a poster/forwarder from posting/forwarding it. They wouldn't even be aware of the verdict.
"...it is truly a shame that this ever happens, but to do it publicly over the internet and bragging that you are commiting a crime against another is particularly horrific."
Did you read the article? The supposed victim said it was a misunderstanding and she did not want the alleged perpetrator to go to jail. She didn't say she was 'horrified' about the matter. Only the government and the do-gooders are upset about it, so they can pander to their constituencies and appear as being tough on crime. This attitude is endemic. After an event that 'horrifies' someone, they come out with a bunch of blanket condemnations and very quickly dispose of the fact the man is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Get real.
As far as the guy being innocent, that is fine, but given the circumstance it better be a pretty good story that would prove him innocent.
Regardless this type of act is horrific and tramatic to anyone who is touched by it (not speaking specifically to this instance now). While I would agree that these situations present a huge gray area where consent and rape are difficult to distinguish, but when the victim is passed out there is a clear line that indicates rape.
Yeah, except, in this case, the 'community' is the global Internet. Pretty hard to do that.
So what? She does not give de facto consent just by dating a guy with "online sexual misadventures." What, exactly, are "online sexual misadventures"? Who decides this?
"At what point does a person become responsible for assumed risk?"
Assumed risk? You are saying that dating a person with a problematic sexual history means you assume the risk that you might be raped? Hardly.
"Should an Indycar driver whine about getting injured in an accident during the 500?"
This simile doesn't work. The Indy car driver knowingly enters into a dangerous situation which he fully appreciate. He is assuming the risk. This woman didn't know that she was venturing into dangerous waters, so she could not assume the risk.
"By associating with the cretin, this woman tacitly endorsed his offensively anti-social behavior. She appears to be an accomplice, not a victim."
Unless she has knowledge of the risks involved in her behavior, she cannot consent. I am not sure of what 'offensively anti-social behavior" is. Do you decide what it is? Perhaps it is in the DSM?VI?
If the alleged victim did not knowingly consent, then she is not a victim. In this case, it appears that the women may have been aware of what was going on. In that case, she may have given a knowing consent. I would guess, after the press pillories this guy, the criminal justice system will take a shot at him.
Meant to say:
If the alleged victim didn't not knowingly consent, then she is a victim.
If you know their history, or even if you don't, yes. Anytime you put yourself in any situation, you're assuming risk. You don't know what's going to happen. I believe that's a textbook definition of "risk"
There's a lot in this story that we don't know. I'm not here to defend this creep, even if he's innocent, but neither should any of you pass judgement without knowing the facts.
This girl dated some guy who had a history, went over his place, passed out on booze. Who know what she said or did before passing out? This was a live feed, so why were her friends watching at that very moment? They knew something was going to happen. She probably consented to and planned to have sex and wanted it broadcast. She riled him up but then passed out first. He, stupidly, took advantage of her while she was passed out.
This sounds like more of an amateur porn situation or some popularity stunt that went wrong than a poor innocent girl who was taken advantage of. It is possible? Is that why she said "Hock should not go to jail over what was, according to her, a "misunderstanding."?" That sure doesn't sounds like the words of a woman who had been raped.
Have you never been to a friends house and gotten drunk? Have you never had a friend over who got drunk at your place?
He raped her, it's as simple as that. If she's passed out, she cannot give consent. If she can't consent to it then he raped her.
However, that does not diminish what the guy did. You can not be an accomplice in your own rape, by definition.
Getting drunk with a stranger(after 2 weeks he still is a stranger) is always a risky proposition, and she should have more common sense.
That does not let the rapist off the hook in even the slightest way.
Hard lesson for the girl, hopefully she learned it.
Heres the real order of events:
John Hock rapes a girl in a PRIVATE room on Stickam (Private means only viewers who are allready logged into the room can see wahts going on) Stickam admins cant even see unless a user in the private room flags the live video.
A user flags the live video and Admins shut down the room.
A user in the room records the rape and sends it to StickyDrama
"KPHO TV said that she had told the police that she only learned of the livestream after she received texts from her friends. She then logged on to the site, where she said she found photos of the alleged incident."
Stickydrama writes a report about the rape and posts still (the video itself was never posted on Stickam or Stickydrama) Only still images were posted on StickyDrama, not stickam!
http://stickydrama.com/2009/02/another-hock-sex-assault/
"The site also posted a YouTube video in which a woman declares that Hock should not go to jail over what was, according to her, a "misunderstanding.""
Great reporting here, that video is from 2007 and refers to anther hock incident.
For those who think this young woman is to blame, she isn't. This was not about teasing or wrong signals -- this was about a rapist trying to gain power and control. This was about humiliating his victim in a public fashion. I can tell from many of the comments there is still a subtle and not so subtle confusion that somehow rape is about sex. It's about power and humiliation. No one, male or female, ever deserves such brutality.
I am not advocating blaming the victim, but they need to understand risky behavior and avoid it. Many rapes could have been avoided had the woman been more cautious.
- by madcpa July 7, 2009 10:09 AM PDT
- to pentest
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(39 Comments)About seven in ten female rape or sexual assault victims stated the offender was an intimate, other relative, a friend or an acquaintance. And that statistic is coming from the Beaurau of Justice Statistics
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict_c.htm#relate
And unless there was a tatoo on this guy's head indicating that he was going to rape her, stop blaming this poor woman. No one deserves it. And if you think that most rapes are preventable, that you should probably get your head examined.