By Mark Sweet, ESQ
Another tragic death on the George Washington Bridge, this time it was Tyler Clementi. He was taped having sex with another male by his roommate who broadcasted it via iChat (an online messaging service like gchat or AIM) to others. All of this because Clementi asked for the room for part of the night (known widely as “sex-ile”)While many of us have become sick of hearing about celebrity sex tapes (see: Hilton, Paris, Kardashian, Kim, etc.) it should be noted that there is nothing remotely entertaining about what happened here.

Tyler Clementi, 18, jumped into the Hudson River after posting a message on Facebook apologizing for what he was about to do (“Jumping off the gw bridge sorry”). All of this because his roommate, Dharan Ravi and his friend Molly Wei wanted to play a bit of a prank on Ravi’s roommate. Ravi and Wei set up a Skype feed from Ravi’s dorm room and then live-streamed the video to others.
So what types of crimes were committed? There seems to be a clear invasion of privacy. Some are arguing that this might be a hate crime since Clementi was caught having sex with a man.
Privacy Rights
A person has certain expectations that what they do in the privacy of their own home (or housing) will be kept private. There are obvious exceptions, like doing something in front of a large window for the entire world to see, but for the most part, what goes on inside your home is your private life. Here’s where things might get a little bit tricky, Clementi and Ravi lived in the same space. You are allowed to monitor your own space, so Ravi might be able to claim he was simply making sure no one stole anything from him. However, given the messages he later posted, it seems doubtful that he really had any other motive than to humiliate Clementi.
Taping Someone Without Their Permission
Besides an incredible “ick” factor, it is illegal in many states to tape someone without their permission. The act of taping someone without their consent is usually met with prison time, especially if the images are later transmitted to others. This shouldn’t surprise anyone, the idea of a landlord installing a shower camera is undoubtedly wrong. Here, there is absolutely no indication that Clementi gave Ravi permission to tape him.
Hate Crime
There is some indication that Prosecutors could charge Ravi and others with a hate crime if they committed these crimes against Clementi because he was gay. However, the Prosecutors have to prove that the reason Ravi did what he did was because Clementi was gay, not just because he was a roommate that was “sex-iled” to another room while Clementi had sex.
What do you think about what happened? What should these people be charged with?



One Response to Rutgers Voyeurism
Leave a Reply Cancel reply
New Posts
-
5 Dead in Atlanta Spa Suspected Murder-Suicide
22 hours ago
by Justin Witzmann
-
Recently Recalled Food Products
22 hours ago
by Caitlyn Obolsky, Esq.
-
Indiana Court of Appeals Issues Ruling on Anonymous Commenter Defamation Case
22 hours ago
by Caitlyn Obolsky, Esq.
-
ACA Religious Exemption Applies To Religious Schools?
22 hours ago
by Justin Witzmann
-
11 Abused Children Removed From Texas Home
22 hours ago
by Justin Witzmann
-
5 Dead in Atlanta Spa Suspected Murder-Suicide
Facebook Fans
Popular Posts
- Virginia to Consider Law Requiring Ultrasound Before Abortion (149 views)
- How a Couple of Photos Turned a Tourist into a Suspected Terrorist (138 views)
- Antidepressants, such as Prozac, Linked to Birth Defects (109 views)
- Police Arrest Suspect In Breyer Robbery (106 views)
- FDA Warns Multaq is Linked to Serious Cardiovascular Harm and Death (105 views)
Topics
Attorney Marketing (4)
Automobile Accidents (47)
Aviation Accidents/Disasters (25)
Bankruptcy Law (45)
Brain Injury / Brain Trauma (47)
Business Law (86)
CA suits (47)
Catastrophic Injury (86)
Celebrity (40)
Class Actions (75)
Constitutional (108)
Corporate & Securities Law (24)
Criminal Law (237)
Current Events (333)
Dangerous Products / Defective Products (165)
Divorce (15)
Dog Bites (11)
DoOver (30)
Drugs (22)
Drunk Driving (49)
DUI (51)
Dumb or Weird Laws (26)
DWI (45)
Education (13)
En Español (7)
Entertainment Law (13)
Estate Planning (31)
Family Law (66)
Federal (158)
Frequently Asked Questions (12)
General (384)
Historical Cases (6)
How-To's (24)
immigration (12)
Immigration Law (40)
Intellectual Property (19)
Labor & Employment Law (54)
Landlord – Tenant (15)
Law Enforcement (6)
LawSmart (3)
Lead Counsel (729)
Lead Counsel Guest Attorneys (114)
Lead Counsel Corner (1006)
Lead Counsel News (319)
Legal Trends (96)
Litigation (133)
Medical Malpractice (52)
OUI (13)
Personal Injury (181)
Press Releases (25)
Prisons (4)
Privacy (32)
Products Liability (80)
Recall (136)
Slip and Fall / Trip and Fall (39)
Spinal Cord Injury (31)
Sports (9)
Tax Law (18)
Torts (36)
Unfair Insurance Practices / Insurance Bad Faith (12)
Workers' Compensation (22)
Wrongful Death (92)








The individuals will have to live with the result of the “prank”. Their actions resulted in a suicide, and prove that they have no idea about the difference between public and private information.
As for charges, prosecuters must investigate it as a hate crime. Charges for illegal recording (if applicable), invasion of privacy and perhaps other civil liberties violations should also be pursued.
Reply