No, there is still no clear basis to know why Tyler Clementi took his own life, even as the variety of advocates use him to promote their own agendas.  That means it’s ripe for politicians to usurp the tragedy for their very own.  Via Eugene Volokh :

The Daily Record reports:

Several days ago, three Ocean County legislators called for action on a bill introduced in both houses of the Legislature that would establish the crime of “cyber-harassment” in New Jersey. Assemblyman Brian E. Rumpf, Assemblywoman DiAnne C. Gove and Sen. Christopher J. Connors, all R-Ocean, would make any electronic communication that is designed to harass someone a petty disorderly persons offense.

The renewed push stems from the Tyler Clementi suicide, which was apparently prompted by the surreptitious videotaping of Clementi having sex, followed by the release of the videotape. And such surreptitious videotaping of sexual behavior is already rightly criminal. But the bill goes far beyond such behavior.

What’s a tragedy if not an opportunity?  The proposal actually amends existing law, primarily by inclusion of the following (underlined portions to be added):

[A] person commits a petty disorderly persons offense if, with purpose to harass another, … [the person]:

a. Makes, or causes to be made, a communication or communications anonymously or otherwise, or at extremely inconvenient hours, or in offensively coarse language, or any other manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm;

*  *  *

A communication under subsection a. of this section includes, but is not limited to, the posting of a photographic images or other descriptive material on an Internet website, or the sending of a telephonic message, electronic mail, text message or similar type of electronic message or communication, by means of an electronic communication device. “Electronic communication device” includes, but is not limited to, a telephone, cellular telephone, computer, computer network, computer system, video recorder, facsimile machine or pager. A communication under subsection a. may be deemed to have been made either at the place where it originated or at the place where it was received.

No big deal, since no law-abiding person posts anything on the internet that uses coarse language or is likely to annoy a person.  And now an image that does that, say of a cop committing a crime or a politician with her knickers down falls into the same category.  While invasion of privacy laws already prohibit the broadcasting of Tyler Clementi’s private experience, how could ambitious and deeply concerned people fail to employ his death when, with the jerk of a knee, there was political capital to be gained?

Lest anyone not notice, this law would encompass the efforts of almost every blawger of any merit, since our descriptions and images certainly tend to cause annoyance.

Eugene notes that the law was unconstitutionally overbroad to begin with, and is made worse still by the changes.

The existing harassment statute was already flawed, it seems to me; but at least such statutes have generally been seen as focusing on speech said to a particular unwilling listener, and leaving people free to talk to the world at large. This proposal would make clear that speech to the public about a person is now a crime (albeit a petty one) if it is said “with purpose to harass another” and is “likely to cause annoyance.” So if I publicly harshly condemn Assemblyman Brian E. Rumpf, Assemblywoman DiAnne C. Gove, and Sen. Christopher J. Connors, then I could be a criminal if a prosecutor and a judge conclude that my speech is “likely to cause annoyance” and was said “with purpose to harass another.” Likewise if I post annoying comments criticizing a New Jersey journalist, or a New Jersey actor or sports figure or whoever else.

The mens rea component is covered by the “purpose to harass” language.  Words like “harassment” and “cyber-bullying” have become ubiquitous, but remain essentially meaningless.  They are undefined and open for pretty much anyone to claim to be the victim.  Eugene suggests that the best we can do is substitute “annoy” for harass, such that if the purpose of posting a description or image online is to “annoy” someone, then the mens rea component is met. 

Of course, we often intend to annoy people with online utterances, and believe they damn well deserved to be annoyed for their conduct.  That’s the nature of scrutiny, that people who engage in impropriety not be shielded from the consequences of their conduct.  There’s no exception here for annoying liars, miscreants or frauds.  There’s no exception here for annoying people by expressing disagreement with their well intended, or deceptively intended, public claims or statements.  There’s no limitation here for the private conduct of non-newsworthy private persons. 

But heck, Tyler Clementi is dead and we can’t let that go to waste.  Even though we still have no clue as to what really went through Tyler’s mind, or Ravi’s for that matter, the forces of disingenuity can’t let a tragedy go to waste.  They’ve got agendas to sell, and if they can find people stupid enough not to grasp their abuse of tragedy, they’ve got a winner on their hands.  

Let’s face it, when it comes to a tragedy like this, one that even touches vaguely related sacred cows, even relatively smart people jump on board, blinded by their adoration of underlying causes and happy to close their eyes to rational relationships.  In other words, who cares if it makes any sense, as long as the spin serves your desired outcome.

Just wrap up your beef, your issue, your next petty offense, in a tragedy and a ribbon and only evil people could possibly oppose you.  After all, we’re just doing this for poor Tyler Clementi.