Whether or Not Tyler Clementi's Constitutional Right to Privacy Was Violated (Essay Sample)

Cyber Bullying
Students Name:
Institutional Affiliation:
Cyber Bullying
Whether Or Not Tyler Clementi’s Constitutional Right to Privacy Was Violated
In the United States, the state law of New Jersey includes a criminal offense that addresses the non-consensual distribution of intimate videos and images. The law prohibits distribution of video or photos of nude individuals having a sexual conduct unless that person has given consent for distribution of such photos or videos (Hinduja & Patchin, 2014).
Additionally, several states of Australia have also made laws that address the non-consensual distribution of intimate images and videos though some are just extensions of criminal harassment provisions. In New Zealand, the law reform amended the provision in the Crimes Act 1961 to make it a criminal offense to distribute intimate videos or images without the person's consent. However, it does not cover the remedies in case a person breaches the law (Bonanno & Hymel, 2013).
In the case of Tyler Clementi vs. Ravi and Molly, to determine that the constitutional privacy of Tyler Clementi was violated, two things need to be certain. First, the offense needs to capture all modes in which the intimate images may be shared either through social networking, physical delivery, email, advertising or word of mouth among others. It may include publication, distribution, advertisement or availing of an intimate image to another person. Additionally, the distribution of videos in whatever form ought to be done without the consent of the individual in the video or image. Second, the accused must knowingly distribute the video or image intentionally. Third, the accused, ought to have knowledge that the person in the video or picture did not consent to the distribution of the video or picture. The law further recommends that if one found guilty, the offence is punishable with at least five-year incarceration.
From the above facts, it is clear that Ravi and Molly had violated the constitutional rights of Tyler Clementi. Reasons being that the accused set a webcam to record him while he was getting intimate. Second, they distributed the contents of the video without his consent. The fact that they set a webcam and distributed the video without his consent amounts to violating his constitutional rights to privacy. An example is a case of Michael Piznarski vs. Jane Doe. The two were students at Colgate University. During the summer, they had a sexual encounter that Michael was secretly recording. When they broke up, Michael threatened to post the video online. Jane filed a complaint with the police and obtained a search warrant for the Michael’s apartment. The police managed to get a digital camera and a laptop that had the alleged video. Michael was convicted under New York unlawful statute on surveillance that is known as Stephanie’s Law. The law states that it is illegal to use any device to record secretly or broadcast a person having intimate when that individual has a secret expectation of risk. He appealed, and his appeal was rejected on the same grounds. The statute does not, however, apply to eavesdropping.
Whether the offense should be considered cyber-hate or classified as a hate crime
The offense constitutes a hate crime and not a cyber-hate. A cyber-hate involves the use of electronic communications technology to spread malicious information. The electronic communications include use websites, emails, and cell phone text messages. Cyber-hate means that the perpetrator of such an act wants to spread hatred via the internet or other means that have been mentioned above. For instance, if an individual is spreading a message of terrorism or racial discrimination, then that will be referred to as a cyber hate. A cyber hate is totally different...