Celebrity divorces have long been tabloid fodder (think Kim Kardashian), but what happens when an everyday couple finds their marital troubles broadcast all over the Internet?
That's what happened Monday when Boston Globe web developer Andy Boyle live-tweeted a couple's breakup in a Boston Burger King, complete with photos and video. The episode started innocently enough:
@andymboyle
Boyle then continued with the drama-filled play-by-play, including the cause of the fight:
@andymboyle
The argument's pinnacle:
@andymboyle
And the resolution:
@andymboyle
This isn't the first time someone has live-tweeted a couple's presumed private moment. In March, comedian Donald Glover tweeted a couple having sex at a Bank of America ATM, including photos.
Which brings us to the question -- is it okay to document a breakup, or is it an invasion of privacy? Let us know on Twitter (hashtag #BurgerKingBreakup) and in the comments.
phones, et al were not ~ and I never smoked nor like the smell but it sure beats all the
overheard phone calls, texting and mumbling from those around me inside what is suppose
to be a place to enjoy a meal with friends & loved ones. I'll take second hand smoke anyday
over the crass and very uncivilized behavior of those who must 'stay connected' and tell the
world [through color commentary, llike a sports game] what they order, how it was served,
when they want a refill on coffee & the ubiquitous urge to express their need to find the 'john' -
What happened to common sense & courtesy. I can't believe the nonsense people feel
compelled to share nor the people who actually "follow" them. Twitter is a joke on us and we
are the victims of this Punk''d mentality. Oy! Even the news channels are using Facebook,
Twitter and Google+ to add "exposure" to their programming schemes. Enough, already.
However, this is such a thing as discretion. There was a time when, if one heard private matters in a public place, one made a hasty but discreet withdrawal of one's person from the event. There is also the little matter of appropriateness, the fitness of things. Why make something public that one would not want made public if positions were reversed?
"He just let a ripper go and I heard a small splash"....
For it to be an act of voyeurism, there would have to be by law some reasonable expectation of privacy separating the action from its audience. I hardly think a public, vocal argument qualifies. And like it or not, this typifies an act protected under the First Amendment.