Rutgers Student Commits Suicide Over Sex Tape

[John99]

Most states don't have laws recognizing a person's right to control the use of their likeness. The person could sue you if they think your use if harming them in some way, but that would be a civil suit, not a criminal case. .

No kidding.

Good luck proving damages, unless there's an unusual set of circumstances. Perhaps if I'm using your image to falsely give people the impression that you endorse my product or something

You dont have to prove damages in the scenarios mentioned in the link i gave to FORCE them to remove your image. Read that link because a lot of web sites can be told, under no uncertain terms, to remove peoples images\videos with them in it as there was never any consent issued. You have to remember all web sites are commercial enterprises weather they charge or collect ad revenue because the domain name has value and is no different than the photographer putting someones picture in his window and never getting permission to do so. There is no grey area here.

 

[John99]

But most do collect ad revenue and they are profiting from images and videos they never got permission to use or profit from. Of course the poor, people without means, addicted, lower intelligence or disadvantaged get screwed over.

I am referring mainly to where there would be some kind of psychological or other damage due to the nature of the image or video.

 

[Cifo]

Originally Posted by Cifo
It's common knowledge that college students engage in sex, get drunk, do stupid stuff, etc and that college students take goofy, embarrassing photos/videos of each other and post them on the Internet. It might be reasonable to assume that these two could easily occur together. Most likely, a judge would allow a jury to decide this.

Except those activites are not illegal.

This was.

One doesn't expect the University to need to re-state the criminal code in its policy manual.

Murder for hire is illegal, but I doubt there's a university in the world that has a policy that prohibits murder for hire.

Yes, this was illegal in a criminal sense (crimes), but other less serious invasions of privacy are wrong in a civil sense (torts). If a student is enjoying the privacy of his own room and s/he's picking his/her nose, etc, to record and publish it is a tort (a civil wrong) and the remedy is to sue the wrongdoer for invasion of privacy.

Rutgers already has its University Code of Student Conduct which actually does re-state criminal offenses which, as I already mentioned or insinuated, would reasonably occur at college: forgery of school documents, false fire/bomb threats, assault/battery, threat of force (eg, "I'll kick your @$$"), sexual assault, defamation/harassment, trespassing (including computers), endangering someone, any illegal use/possession/distribution of alcohol/drugs, stalking, and invasion of privacy with respect to nudity and/or sexual activity.

As I said, these are all reasonably expected activities on colleges. So, these two already seem to have violated Rutgers' University Code of Student Conduct.

As to the future, I would expect Rutgers to buff up another of its policies entitled University’s Student Life Policy Against Verbal Assault, Defamation and Harassment, and maybe add "Invasion of Privacy" to its title.

 

[Brian Foley]

Does the punishment fit the crime? Is five years in jail the appropriate punishment for this?

I was shocked by this, reading other sources on this incident, it appears that the perpetrator, who shared a roome with him, was uncomfortable with this young mans homosexuality. This is definitely a hate crime, and should be prosecuted as such.

 

[adoucette]

Yes, this was illegal in a criminal sense (crimes), but other less serious invasions of privacy are wrong in a civil sense (torts). If a student is enjoying the privacy of his own room and s/he's picking his/her nose, etc, to record and publish it is a tort (a civil wrong) and the remedy is to sue the wrongdoer for invasion of privacy.

Rutgers already has its University Code of Student Conduct which actually does re-state criminal offenses which, as I already mentioned or insinuated, would reasonably occur at college: forgery of school documents, false fire/bomb threats, assault/battery, threat of force (eg, "I'll kick your @$$"), sexual assault, defamation/harassment, trespassing (including computers), endangering someone, any illegal use/possession/distribution of alcohol/drugs, stalking, and invasion of privacy with respect to nudity and/or sexual activity.

As I said, these are all reasonably expected activities on colleges. So, these two already seem to have violated Rutgers' University Code of Student Conduct.

As to the future, I would expect Rutgers to buff up another of its policies entitled University’s Student Life Policy Against Verbal Assault, Defamation and Harassment, and maybe add "Invasion of Privacy" to its title.

Not to quibble, but those were listed only to show what were seperable offences, not an inclusive list of what is not allowed.

They do in fact state:

All members of the Rutgers University community are expected to adhere to the civil and criminal laws of the local community, state, and nation, and to regulations promulgated by the University.

Likewise they state:

Students are expected to respect the reasonable expectations of privacy of other individuals within the University community. Accordingly, students are not permitted to make or attempt to make an audio or video recording of private, non-public conversations and/or meetings on University premises, without the knowledge and consent of all participants subject to such recordings. In such circumstances the uses of undisclosed hidden recording devices is prohibited, as is the transmission and/or distribution of any such recordings.

Arthur