INTERNET LAW - Modern-Age Crimes: Hate Crimes and Invasion of Privacy in Webcam Spying

Last week, the ex-Rutgers student who used a webcam to spy on his roommate and later published the video showing the gay roommate's love affair was convicted of a hate crime and invasion of privacy, among others.  The convicted may expect up to 10 years in prison and possible deportation to India, his native country.  Internet and hate crimes are definitely modern-age crimes.  Although the hatred and civil tort of defamation have always existed; the Internet is facilitating the proliferation of hate crimes, which are sanctioned with imprisonment.   After given respect to the pain and suffering of the families involved, one can only utter that this should be deterrence for those who might be prompted to commit hate crimes through social media outlets.  

Some young people may have to learn the hard way; this is that the Internet and social media must not be used to show bias or distress others.  Dharun Ravi (hereafter the Defendant) was a freshman at Rutgers and the roommate of Tyler Clementi, another freshman.  Clementi committed suicide by jumping from a bride, apparently, after finding that the defendant used a Webcam to spy on Clementi"s love affair with another man. The prosecution argued that the defendant set up a Webcam in his dorm and recorded Clementi kissing another man.  Then, the prosecution argued, the defendant Tweeted about this incident, published the video and promised in his social media page that he was trying to catch Clementi again.  A great number of students saw the video and the defendant’s Tweets.  When Clementi realized his love affair had been published, he took his life. 

The defendant was charged with 15 counts, including invasion of privacy and bias intimidation based on sexual orientation, the later is a hate crime.  The defendant was not charged for the death of Clementi.   The defense argued that the defendant was just "being a kid,” and that his actions were motivated by immaturity rather than hate.  The juror did not buy the defense’s arguments and found the defendant guilty of the 15 counts.  “Hate crime laws are public statements that our government and our society recognize the deep wounds inflicted when violence is motivated by prejudice and hate,’’ said the group’s deputy legal director, Hayley Gorenberg. “The verdict … demonstrates that the jurors understood that bias crimes do not require physical weapons like a knife in one’s hand.’’ 

Indeed, this case and its verdict is seeing as an opportunity for parents to teach their children, who are growing in the Tweeter and Facebook age, that social media cannot be used to express bias. “They don’t feel like they’re spying. It’s just their own iPhone they’re using, their own laptop,” said Annemarie McAvoy, an adjunct professor at Fordham Law School in New York. “Hopefully, parents will use this as an example for their children.” Technology is an intimate part of today’s youth, taking a picture and video and immediately publishing it on Facebook, Tweeter or any other social media can be done in less than a minute.  The speed offered by technology does not help children think twice about the consequences of their actions. So, unfortunately, cases such as this constitute a good example for future generations about the legal consequences of hate crimes and the danger of social media when it comes to express bias. 

Martha L. Arias, Attorney at Law; IBLS Editor