Do it if you have a private room
Do not do it if you are sharing a room. Go and do it elsewhere

Why didn't he go to the older BF's place to have sex? Didn't the older BF feel weird going to an 18 yo's college dorm room to do it?

One thing to consider, if Ravi had taped him with a woman, Tyler might have felt more power in dealing with Ravi. He would have been able to cuss Ravi out publicly for the intrusion, calling him a peeping tom pervert, which many people could relate to and hence ostracize Ravi. But because Tyler was gay, he did not feel comfortable confronting Ravi since it would have further exposed Tyler's lifestyle. So in a way, Ravi had Tyler cornered, because of the homosexuality. This is where it is unfair.

Like many Americans, I believe that gay sex is deviant, disgusting and immoral. I think gay "marriange" goes against many thousands of years of human social interaction and is ridiculous. My religion teaches that homosexual acts are a sin. I hate the sin, but don't hate the sinner.

Have I committed a hate crime when I express my view?

He refused plea deal due to fear of deportation since there was no guarantee that he wouldn't be deported. He'll become a worse person in prison. What a shame. Hopefully judge uses some discretion to spare him the worst.

"Hating homosexuals is a hate crime."

Hate is a thought. Actions, like assault, should be a crime. Should hating skinheads be a hate crime? What about hating Islamofacists? Or white Republicans?

Anonymous wrote:To me the most important aspect of this case is that it clearly says technology doesn't trump privacy. (Probably obvious, but I'm no lawyer). In this age I sometimes feel as though the right to Tweet or post to YouTube trumps everything else, and this jury said we can still expect privacy. TG.
It seems reflective of him and his parents that he refused a plea deal which would have spared him both prison time and likely deportation. He lived by his hubris, and now he'll surely suffer for it.

I had the impression from the plea deal that it was 5 years in prison for the plea deal.

From what I remember when I had a green card, even the plea would have put him at risk for deportation.
The whole mess is sad, but someone had to be the sacrificial one for a message to be sent to these stubborn arrogant young people.

To me the most important aspect of this case is that it clearly says technology doesn't trump privacy. (Probably obvious, but I'm no lawyer). In this age I sometimes feel as though the right to Tweet or post to YouTube trumps everything else, and this jury said we can still expect privacy. TG.
It seems reflective of him and his parents that he refused a plea deal which would have spared him both prison time and likely deportation. He lived by his hubris, and now he'll surely suffer for it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree, this is not a hate crime
If you want to do whoopie, do not do it in a shared space like a dorm room
It is really horrible when your roommate brings sexual partners into the room and your life is inconvenienced.

Just do nooki-nooki somewhere else

So, invasion of privacy?? No

Invasion of privacy was trying to broadcast the 'nooki-nooki'. Ravi should have told Clementi in his face that he objected to him 'doing whoopie' in the shared space.

Nooki-nooki, doing whoopie.. PP, are you in the 9th grade, or something?

What makes you think he was not told?

You know, Tyler was thinking more about sex than respect for his roommate. He should have found another place, gay or straight. It is not something that I would have found acceptable when I was in college, but forgive me, that was over 25 years ago and we had a different set of values. Ravi might have been disturbed, but the best thing to do would be to ask for another room mate, not peek like a pervert. That brings up the next issue, schools need to reconsider this room mate thing, it is messed up. They spend ooodles of money in the last 15 years building fancy dorms at colleges, and now, we still have the archaic system of room mates.

Anonymous wrote:I think he would have had a viewing party if his roommate was with a woman. Free live porn. The woman would also have been humiliated and harassed. But for some reason that would not be a hate crime. Hating homosexuals is a hate crime. Misogyny is somehow acceptable. It wouldn't even have been prosecuted if a woman under these circumstances had killed herself over this.

Agree with the first part. He would have filmed it if it were a woman, especially one 6 years older. If the imaginary woman or roommate had committed suicide, as a result, the prosecution would have gone ahead and perhaps the media attention would have been the same. It would still have been privacy violation and the little punk Ravi would have been held accountable. Yes, you would not have been able to call it a hate crime.

i read the new yorker article and came away convinced that this young man knowingly showed complete and utter contermpt and disrespect for his roommate. and that he knew to cover his ass.

Anonymous wrote:When we deport him maybe he and Obama can leave in January together.

My my, isn't someone desperate for attention.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What happened to the other student who was in on the secret taping? Why isn't she on trial and up for deportation, too?

She plead guilty. AFAIK, she's a citizen and not facing deportation.

What was her sentence?

^^jury does not decide.