RSS
Twitter
Illinois Says Sex Offenders Can't Use Social Networks
from the ok,-but... dept
Mark alerts us to the news that Illinois has approved a new law that bans registered sex offenders from social networking sites. Now, I have no sympathy for anyone who uses a social networking site to approach kids for such nefarious purposes, but this seems like a rather broad brush for a variety of reasons. First, considering how many sites have added "social networking" features lately, this could block out a rather large portion of the internet. Hell, just recently Google announced new social features for its iGoogle homepage. Second, the vast majority of registered sex offenders weren't convicted of trying to entice a kid via a social network. Completely blocking all of those people from social networks seems rather pointless. Finally, the whole idea that social networks are some sort of breeding ground for predators is a moral panic made up by the press. Studies have shown that the common story of a predator getting online, pretending to be a kid, and befriending "targets" and "grooming" them is mostly a myth. That's not to say it hasn't happened, but it's quite rare, and the best way to deal with it is simply to educate kids on how to deal with strangers. Most are smart enough to deal with the issue on their own. But, of course, that doesn't make for good headlines for politicians who want to make sure everyone knows they're "protecting the children."
Reader Comments
(Flattened / Threaded)
Good.
Sex offenders losing rights is not something you'll get a lot of sympathy for, many of us think they should lose more than "rights" I personally think they should all be castrated in public.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Good.
Castrated for getting caught peeing on a wall in some back alley? Castrated for being 17 years old and having sex with your (also 17 year old) girlfriend? WOW!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Good.
And Shawn, that is exactly what the politicians are hoping for, what people hearing about this are as ignorant about the sex offenders register as you are.
Currently there are over half a million people in the US on the registries, put on there for things ranging from serial rapists, violent kidnap and sexual molestation on children, parents abusing their children, men caught with prostitutes, 16 year olds having oral sex with their 15 year old BF/GF, people caught urinating in public, even flashers/strekers at public events and in many/most states once you are on that list you are on it for life
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Good.
Then perhaps its time we redefine the term. When I was in high school 70% of the campus were "undiscovered" sex offenders. Current statistics put that at 77%.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Good.
Don't know about in the US but in Australia there have been several cases were 15 year olds have been charged with production, distribution and possession of child pornography for taking photos of themselves. Those 15 year olds get charged as adults and therefore get placed on the child sex offenders registry for life. Not every sex offender is a child molester.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: not good.
Actually, this is the problem. If people can make everyone go "won't someone think of the children", then they can get *ANYTHING* passed. Remember about the "Corn farmers will lose their jobs net neutrality?" well lots of companies use arguments like that, where people absolve logic to support an idea. How about we use abortion, or kids having sex, or terrorism, or any of the others that are pure grandstanding.
Usually it's called neocon republicans as opposed to fiscal conservatives, the former being the ones that shoot these views and southern IL where this law being made is exactly that.
would you like someone who has been falsely accused of being a sex offender to be castrated in public? What about someone who never did anything to a child, but maybe was out drunk/naked at night and arrested? Them too? Would you let yourself get castrated to equal out the injustice you're creating?
As the answer is no, thats why you must look at this logically.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: not good.
Usually it's called neocon republicans as opposed to fiscal conservatives, the former being the ones that shoot these views and southern IL where this law being made is exactly that.
Although I'm in agreement with the majority of your post I must take exception to your being blinded by your hatred of the republican party.
Last I checked the democrats controlled the IL house by a count of 70 to 48. Also, the IL senate is controlled by the democrats by a count of 37 to 22. And I obviously have no need to mention the governor of the state is a democrat and has been for some time.
So the point is, it's not about democrat or republican when it comes to passing STUPID f'n laws like this, it's about politicians in general trying to drum up votes.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Moral panic made up by the press
I'm not sure I agree, broadly, with the notion that sex offender topics/issues are ginned up to the level of moral panic by the press. Politicians routinely use sexual matters to incite unrealistic fears. Yes, the press simply telegraphs the wacky statements, and that's a kind of crime of its own, but I guess I'd rather lay blame at the feet of the instigating politicians first, the press second.
Unless we're talking about the producers of Dateline -- the Popes of moral panic.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
The state that I live in AOC is 17 or If the two people are within two years of each other. As for actual sex offenders, I agree with them being castrated.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Good
Shawn, you are a moron.
No. You are so far BEYOND a moron, other morons look to you as a GOD.
Most 'sex offenders' are innocent people who are caught up in an overzealous law/ I heard of one case a man who was branded a 'sex offender' for grabbing a fifteen ear old girl's arm in order to pull her away from a car that was about to hit her.
And other stories of KINDERGARDNERS beign branded sex offenders for HUGGING their classmmates. And of mothers being forced to register because they BREASTFED their children.
I repeat again, Shawn. You are a moron.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Good
Links or you are making shit up.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Good
It's called Google buddy, it took me les than 5 minutes to find this info:
- Fitzroy Barnaby, convicted of "unlawful restraint of a minor" and put on the sex offenders list for pulling a girl out of the way of a car and then lecturing her: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,190586,00.html
- Jacqueline Mercado, life destroyed over family photos: http://www.dallasobserver.com/2003-04-17/news/1-hour-arrest/
- Child sex offenders, http://plancksconstant.org/blog1/2006/12/ota_young_children_c.html
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Good
Links or it didn't happen.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Even in states with a relative age of consent, anyone under 18 taking pictures of their own naked body is technically a sex offender, as is anyone who willingly possesses said picture. Just because some 17-year-old makes the (admittedly idiotic) mistake of 'sexting' doesn't mean that this person should be banned from so much of the web. I could see a provision being granted in specific cases where the individual involved actually used social networks to draw in kids, but even that could be considered constitutionally questionable.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
"Sex offenders losing rights is not something you'll get a lot of sympathy for, many of us think they should lose more than "rights" I personally think they should all be castrated in public."
Which would of course make all those involved in the castration and all the onlookers into sex offenders themselves.
They would then also have to be castrated and the process would continue until only those who disagreed with this stupidity would be able to breed......
Darwin Rules!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
Sounds like the French Revolution to me! Everybody, get some masquerade masks, this is gonna be the party of the century!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
"... the best way to deal with it is simply to educate kids on how to deal with strangers."
Yet another topic on which Masnick claims expertise - but probably it's just opinion created in an instant, and regardless of the fact that stranger encounters are part of what make social networks compelling...
But then we know the Masnicks are always right.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
"Yet another topic on which Masnick claims expertise"
Can you backup your comment with facts? Please elaborate or at least provide a link to where he writes that he is claiming to be an expert in the field.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
Your could read the article where Masnick claims sufficient expertise to pronounce Illinois' actions "rather pointless", and then proceeds to describe the "best way".
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re:
YOu do know that this is an opinion site, right? Using logic to back up one's opinion is not a claim to expertise.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you basing your opinion on ignorance or just stupidity ?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
If you believe that parents are unable to protect their kids by educating them about potential dangers, then you also claim that the "Just say No," "look both ways before crossing," and the "don't talk to strangers" programs are failures designed by Masniks to jeopardize our childrens safety.
In other words, your an idiot who is likely to never have had children.
My wife and I have educated both of our children on things like who to not talk to both online and in real life. Its your job as a parent to educate and perpare your children for adulthood, which should include information on keeping safe.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
So you are saying that just what you tell your children is enough? There shouldn't be any restrictions on child predators when they come out of jail? They shouldn't be banned from playgrounds, from working at schools or other places where they might end up alone with children, etc?
It's like most things - there isn't a simple solution. If keeping them off of social networks (like stopping them from coaching little league) keeps one more kid safe, the effort is worth it. We aren't talking data accuracy or value of DRM here, it's the value of a child.
I have to agree with the other poster, Mike is posting like an expert in the field, when it really just is an opinion, mostly a play to get SEO juice to his site.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re:
OK, by that logic, why don't they go ahead and ban convicted shoplifters from ever entering a store again. Burglars from ever entering homes (anyone's home, their mother's, brother's, or even their own). Car thieves from getting near cars.
It's absurd that our society has become so reactive instead of preventative. The real sex offenders show very clear signs at early ages, but the parents of these kids ignore them with their "my kid is perfect" attitude. As we grow up, we're told that those types of acts are evil and wrong, but no options are ever offered to people who might have a compulsion to do it. There is no anonymous hotline where they can get help or counseling.
As a society, we turn our backs on these people and make them feel like outcasts until they actually act on their (wrong) urges. Then we lock 'em up and brand them for the rest of their lives.
If we block them from social networking sites, isn't that going to make them even more into outcasts? Isn't this how terrorist groups get started? People being singled out by society, getting treated poorly, a lot of them for actions that some states consider to be perfectly legal, but you're 18 and your partner is 17 and you're all filled up with hormones. UGH it makes me sick to think that's a crime, one that will stick with you for the rest of your life!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sergio, what you do not understand is that all those things you just described are priviledges not rights except maybe housing, but then again that was a slippery slope fallacy so whatever. The constitution only protects basic human rights not their preceived priviledges.
Also, it is society's fault that a sex offends exist? So really no is to blame for any of their crimes because our society did it to them. If you believe that crap I know some liberals who are selling a great public insurance plan right now you might want to support.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Boss, if you don't understand that the sexualization, which is unarguably a component of sexual "deviance" that results in these types of people, is a societal thing....well then you're just stupid.
It ain't all society, but it ain't all the perp either. We all have a role to play.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's not the murder's fault, it's SOCIETY's fault.
RIGHT!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"OK, by that logic, why don't they go ahead and ban convicted shoplifters from ever entering a store again. Burglars from ever entering homes (anyone's home, their mother's, brother's, or even their own). Car thieves from getting near cars."
When I got run over by a bus, I was arrested. Part of my being let out on bail was that I do not "approach within 100 yards of the victim" (The bus company buses or their stops).
I informed the police officer that I would love to sign that, but as soon as I do, I'm in violation of it because of the bus stop right outside.
He didn't like that.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
Most parents are a generationolder than their offspring, and there were no modern social networks when todays parents were kids. The assumption that parents know as much about social networks and how to use them as their kids do is absurd, and it's even more rediculaous that you can give the all the apropriate advice - you'd do better to let your kids explain social networking to you.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re:
Why the bloody hell do the parents need to know everything about social networks to teach their children not to give out personal information? It's just like real life. A parent doesn't need to know everything about every person in town to teach their children to be safe.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If the parents do their part, and the rest of society, the court system, the legal system, and all that does their part, perhaps a few less kids will suffer.
Here is a way to look at it. You are in an airplane that is about to crash. The pilot comes on the intercom and says "Well, we might crash. There is this system I can turn on that will make it 10% less likely we will crash, but I am not going to use it because my flight instructor taught me well". Wouldn't you want him to flip the switch and make it 10% more likely you don't crash?
Laws like this are exactly that - they won't fix everything, but if they help in any way, then it is worthwhile. Oh yeah, the parents still have to do their part.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you try to use a social network you would discover that they generaly depend on some element of being social; you need to share some info usually including interests and friends etc. And you don't have all the body language, visual or auditory clues you tend to have in real life so that compared to real life a sex offender (with only rudimentary social skill) can get relativly close before being spotted. So while your own efforts may result in being shunned at first contact it would be a mistake to assume this happens to all sex offenders.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re:
Um. I'm guessing you don't understand the phrase "generation older." By definition all parents are a generation older than their offspring AND they are probably not going to be "hip" on the latest and greatest social networking site/place/location/item etc. that their children will be involved in. And I call bullshit on the fact that todays parents don't know about social networking. Most of todays parents, with teenage children, are in their mid 30's to early 40's. This means that they grew up with early chat rooms, AOL, Yahoo, MSN, and do undestand social networking.
Even their parents understand social networking. Only they didn't do it online. They did it at school dances, malt shops, drive in movie theaters, etc. And they had just as many problems there as my generation (mid 30's) did in the early chat days and as their grandchildren (my children) will have in social networking websites.
So to say that they [parents] don't know what is going on is a blatent lie. Most parents choose to not look at what is going in. As Mike said, if I choose to not educate my children on who they should not talk to, regardless of the situation (web or real life) then I have no one to blame but myself. How dare I rely on the government or schools to teach them something so important? Most of the teachers and politicians are older than I am. So they, according to you, know even less about social networking than I do.
Stupidity at its highest.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The government has the DUTY to protect the children from these people. They can't trust you to protect your own children because parents have shown themselves to be complete morons. Usually the more moronic they are, the louder they are at saying that the government has no right to tell them how to raise their kids. So yes, the government NEEDS to protect the children.
I get the impression that a lot of child molesters read this site.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh I see. So you subscribe to the Fahrenheit 451 type of government.
No one is allowed to think for themselves and only the great and wonderful government knows what is right for me and mine.
How could I have been so wrong. I humbly submit to your greater wisdom and beseech your forgivness.
/sarcasm
Now give me $100 million so I can raise my children the way you see fit.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nah, I was just in a trolling mood today. Thanks for feeding me. Nom-nom-nom.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"....Only they didn't do it online...."
If you think the online version resembles closely what you did when you were a kid you're obvioulsy too old to have tried the new version.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Verbiage of the Law
Whoa people. Seems some of you need to slow down on the coffee.
It sounds like the verbiage of the law is at fault here. One thing made very clear in these posts is the wide variety of "sex offenders". Raping a little girl or boy vs. a kid or even young adult texting naked pics to a teen at the edge of AOC; are two very different offenses. Both sexual in nature, but one is a poor choice with minimal if any consequences, while the other deserves a mandatory prison sentence.
So it seems the sex offenders should be divided up into misdemeanor and felony groups, like other crimes. Or maybe we should just call a thief a thief and start cutting off hands.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Ummm....
These people do realize that sex offenders were targetting children before social networking sites became popular right? And in fact aren't the vast majority of sex offences still carried out completely offline? All they are doing is cutting of a branch and hoping the entire tree will die.
I think the Sex Offender Registry list in and of itself is not an accurate or fair way to determine this. Instead of going by the list why not go by the offense itself? Well I'm sure the answer to that is actually looking at each person's rap sheet would be "too costly and time consuming" and as said sooner blanket targetting the entire Registry makes for some nice soundbytes and political brownie points...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Reciprication rates over 85%
With repeat offenders in the Sex Offender Category being over 85% castration is probably the least of what should be done with these guys.
The BULLSHIT posts above about breastfeeding and 17+17 yr old offenders is just that BULLSHIT. Yes there are some off the wall cases where ppl are on the list, but 80-90% are there for LEGITIMATE reasons.
As for them being restricted from Social Networking. It's obvious that Mikee doesn't have kids either. The first time he found the neighborhood offender on his daughters myspace masterbating over her in a T-Shirt and shorts he would want more than to just ban them from social networking.
I personally applaud IL for this step, but still feel it falls far short of what should be done.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Reciprication rates over 85%
Damn right! Let's just slowly kill them all in the most torturous manner possible, from baby rapist to wall pee-er! That will solve the problem!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Reciprication rates over 85%
"Yes there are some off the wall cases where ppl are on the list, but 80-90% are there for LEGITIMATE reasons."
....back that up, please.
"The first time he found the neighborhood offender on his daughters myspace masterbating over her in a T-Shirt and shorts he would want more than to just ban them from social networking."
My, what rational, realistic arguments you make. You should work for the press, as you seem to have their ability to use inflammatory language and rare occurences in the place of, oh I don't know....FACTS!
"I personally applaud IL for this step, but still feel it falls far short of what should be done."
It is abundantly clear that you do not live here. Cite a source once in a while for your bullshit figures. The courts everywhere are making a determined effort to specifically control our sexual habits, and it's a joke.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Reciprication rates over 85%
You damned wall pee-er. You should be castrated with a dull spoon.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Reciprication rates over 85%
"You damned wall pee-er. You should be castrated with a dull spoon."
I'm clearly biased, being as how I've gotten the public urination ticket (those Red Line trains to Wrigley from Wicker Park are sooooooo long when you're brownbagging on the train). Thankfully, the friendly copper that wasted everyone's time by ticketing me wasn't crazy enough to try to put a sexual implication onto the situation.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Reciprication rates over 85%
Then you should be in the sex-offender registry. Since this site has comments you should probably leave. I could be a delicious 9 year old for all you know. I do not want your dirty wall pee-er hands exploring your own body thinking about me.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Reciprication rates over 85%
Yeah forget checking to make sure those 10-20% aren't caught up in this nonsense just kill them all right?
And even if Mike doesn't have kids I'm sure he is just as worried about the kids getting approached on MySpace as the ones that do the old fashioned things and grab them from the playground or walking home from school.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Reciprication rates over 85%
"Yeah forget checking to make sure those 10-20% aren't caught up in this nonsense just kill them all right?"
Yes. They probably did something else wrong anyway.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Illinois Says Sex Offenders Can't Use Social Networks
Same thing that happened in Australia. They get a broad law concerning the internet and with the pretense of helping children. Then you lock up the internet to only allow "Good sites" (you know the ones Spyware Doctor say are OK, but that's another abuse! Speaking of Copyright Infringement).
As I stated it is simply a ploy to make more laws about the internet to allow them to monitor us and what we do.
To enforce this this law you will have to snoop on everyone in order to snoop on the bad guy. It ought to be interesting when this law goes to the Supreme Court and is contested.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Prison on the cheap?
If these sex offenders are so un-rehabilitatable and dangerous, that they can't be allowd in the internet, or live with miles of a school, or go to the grocery store if there's someone under 18 in it (ok, I'm taking this to it's logical, if absurd conclusion), why are these people not in a prison? Is it just that it's cheaper to leave them out in some far corner of "society"?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Prison on the cheap?
"why are these people not in a prison?"
Exactly my point. Jails are overcrowded and expensive. Let's just kill them and get it over with.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
HEre are some more exampls:
14 year old post nude pics of self - Charged with possesion and distribution of child porn- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29912729/ - Even the the mother of Megan Kanka (who megan's law is named for), feels that this is wrong.
"This shouldn't fall under Megan's Law in any way, shape or form. She should have an intervention and counseling, because the only person she exploited was herself."
And then there is this article - http://www.newsweek.com/id/208518/page/3 - Which shows a 'think of the children' law, like this one, is ineffective and may actually make the problem worse.
I'm not arguing for sex offenders. The ones that do stuff to/towards Children, deserve everything they get (and more)t. the problem, that many people with the 'Sex Offenders' label are given it for the wrong reason.
then you end up with laws that are meant to look good/tough, but actually make the problem worse, since it pushes people further underground. More light needs to put on these people that do stuff to/towards children, not try and hide them.
Whether you like it or not, they are around. I would rather know where they are, then assume they are not there (when you know damn well that they are) and the worse happens.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
"I'm not arguing for sex offenders."
Yes you are. Anything that lightens up for ANY sex offender is awful. Would you want me to stay away from your children if I peed on your leg? Thought so.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
" Anything that lightens up for ANY sex offender is awful. Would you want me to stay away from your children if I peed on your leg? Thought so."
I'm always surprised at the level of pure vitriole directed at sex offenders, regardless of any qualifiers.
I mean, it's not like they're Republicans or anything....
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re:
If you weren't already a sex offender, I'd say that you should understand. Since you (admittedly!) like to flash your junk in public you'll never understand how much it disgusts us to think that you might have any interactions with our children.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh man, you should have seen me in the fraternity days. It was truly a sight to behold...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re:
And there is no e in the word vitriol.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Levity
To put some actual professional perspective on this I shall comment. I actually WORK for a probation department. And yes, the probationers are trying to make underage friends on the social networks and grooming them. And yes as other people have said there are people labeled as "Sex Offenders" when they have pretty much done nothing wrong.
I was in court one time and was told that even if you asked for ID on a person.. and they SHOWED you that ID.. and it said they were over 18.. that it DIDN'T matter. They were STILL underage and you would be charged with Sex with a Minor. Mostly a lot of laws get put in place so that the prosecution can bring more charges, so that it will get plead down to what they wanted in the first place.
Just like Texas and several other states have drug Stamps for illegal drugs. You're supposed to buy a stamp for how many ever pounds of pot you've bought. It's just another charge to hit you with. (btw, those stamps have also been taken off the books in other states a double jeopardy)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Reply
You might not see this current thing as history repeating itself but its screaming loud and clear while Sex Offenders may not be these other groups history is starting to follow down a very similar path and most people are oblivious to where they came from. Remember it was a crime to be a Christian at one point in time, remember it was ok to Kill cripples, elderly, and people of Jewish faith in Germany during WW2, It was ok to enslave anyone of black skin color as well as to kill them, remember the Salem Witch Hunt they were out to kill your children and steal your men and do evil witchcraft to hurt you, remember back in the 1970’s if you were gay and caught you were charged with Sodemy and considered a Sex Offender and the Gay Rights movement still exists today. What has been at the forefront of each one of these train wrecks in world history and US History, an ignorant Politician playing to the fears of the public who did not have a real clue behind the facts? You want to truly protect your children and all children then look at what’s really going on around you and do your research you might learn something along the way.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment