Imagine you are in the middle of an angry argument. You are enraged and in the heat of battle hurl insults and taunts.
Several years later, you learn that this argument is now out on the Internet. The whole world has been let into your most private sphere, anyone who wants to can see and hear you perform at your worst with a simple push of a button. And that's what many people want, because the rumor of your outburst on the Internet spreads like wildfire.
When you go online yourself, you see that the argument has been edited into shorter clips where only you are visible, the person recording the argument appears only with his calm and matter-of-fact voice.
The clip on Sveriges Radio's presenter David Druid has attracted a lot of attention, and many of "Morgonpasset's" listeners surely felt disgust and disappointment at the content. Sexist expressions that were repeatedly directed at the woman with the mobile camera stand in stark contrast to the image of the mischievous and charming guy that we know from the airwaves.
But what right does the public have to pry into someone's private affairs?
The moment we click through to the attention-grabbing recording, we are all dragged down into this humiliating soup. We shouldn't see this, and no person without criminal behavior should have their privacy exposed against their will.
The newly started site that has published the clips is a kind of dump, although instead of pedophiles, men are outed here who in most cases have been charged or convicted of violence against women. The men are exposed with name and picture.
What David Druid's quarrel has to do with it is very unclear. There is no evidence of abuse in the clips, whatever the site's headlines claim. And accusations of psychological violence - which became a crime only after these recordings - are completely irrelevant. So one can assume that it is Druid's celebrity that has made the images qualify for publication, the attention is like a slap in the face of the site's marketing.
Metoo was nothing less than a revolution for women in large parts of the Western world. Sexual abuse, oppression and gender discrimination were exposed like never before, the movement was so fundamental that today we talk about a before and an after. But with metoo's enormous power came over-trampling, where named men were accused on flimsy or false grounds. Accusations that in several cases had devastating consequences for these people and their families.
Now we see the same merciless pattern repeated where the clips of David Druid are published. The People's Court must be brought out, we who watch must be so outraged that we demand that Sweden's Radio kick its star all the way around the world. And as in the darker days of metoo, source criticism is conspicuous by its absence. Because there are many unanswered questions here:
What happened before the cuts? How did the retort sound then? What is the recording not showing? Why was the argument filmed? And what is the motive behind the publication?
But above all, this raises fears of a future society of terror, where digital technology is used to build a Stasi-like existence where every family member, neighbor or colleague could be a spy. Where the mobile camera is seen as a potential weapon that can destroy lives.
Finally, to paraphrase a famous old quote: I dislike your misogynistic expressions - but I am prepared to die for your right to a private life.
