Illinois Bans Social Network Use By Sex Offenders 587
RobotsDinner writes "Illinois Governor Pat Quinn has signed into law a bill that bans all registered sex offenders from using social networks. '"Obviously, the Internet has been more and more a mechanism for predators to reach out," said Sen. Bill Brady (R-Bloomington), a sponsor of the measure and a governor candidate. "The idea was, if the predator is supposed to be a registered sex offender, they should keep their Internet distance as well as their physical distance."'"
Punishment doesn't fit the Crime (Score:5, Interesting)
I took a leak outside the bar one night when I was drunk and now I'm banned from Facebook for life.
What's wrong with this picture?
you question is wrong ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe the punishments for sex offenders are already ok, and the punishmnets for murderers should be more severe?
Re:This is stupid (Score:4, Interesting)
Bingo. If sex offenders are so likely to recommit their crimes, then give them life sentences. I did not mean to say that they should be held longer than their sentence; they should have their rights restored after their sentence is served, and not live in fear of being arrested again just because they use a computer. If we are not willing to give sex offenders life sentences, then we should not start complaining about them logging on to Facebook when they get out of prison.
Re:More bad news from Quinn... Visitation Rights! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Incoming 1st Amendment Challenge (Score:2, Interesting)
To my eye, this would be akin to the distinction between "assault," and "aggravated assault with a deadly weapon." Granted, both of my examples are violent, but I was trying to show a place where the law does in fact draw such fine distinctions. As opposed to rape, which is sort of the only word the law recognizes in terms of nonconsentual sex acts, with no grades of offense, at least as far as I know. Shoot, even flat-out killing someone has grades of offense, from accidental manslaughter through premeditated murder. Not that a rape is ever really accidental, but it would be interesting if it wasn't a binary legal switch.
Never mind all the crap that will get you on the sex offender list all by yourself without ever touching another soul, like getting caught pissing in an alley way.
Re:Punishment doesn't fit the Crime (Score:1, Interesting)
'Coz their precious little bitch snowflakes might see a cock and suddenly go cock crazy. They irrationally fear that SEEING a COCK will make their sons gay and their daughters want to be fucked by 3 large men at a time.
Re:Punishment doesn't fit the Crime (Score:3, Interesting)
If they are not registered on the list then this law does not affect them. Yes, the web-based list shows all the registered offenders.
>The last thing I see as a major issue here is that they will attack the ones we have no problem depriving of their rights first, and when we let them do it to them they will eventually move on to us.
That's the classic slippery slope argument and the classic response is "Not all things lead to a slippery slope." For instance there's no national register of people who drive badly and if you cheat on your husband you dont need to wear a scarlet 'A.' Someone could argue that the former would help society. Some states force new drivers to have a "new driver" sticker in their car for a few months after getting a license, so its not unheard of, but we're not seeing slipperly slope effects like you suggest we might.
Re:What is a "sex offender" anyway? (Score:2, Interesting)
And as crazy as the U.S. is, it's not even in the same league as say, anywhere Muslims are in charge.
Re:Incoming 1st Amendment Challenge (Score:5, Interesting)
If you are out of jail, you have served your dues to society and (in theory) seen the error of your ways. Tacking on little extras that you can never rid of, even if you were to become the next Mother Teresa, is bordering on cruel. As it stands, there is no way for a sex offender to ever be redeemed in the eyes of the legal system, which in turn forces them to become social pariahs. They are lost to the world, and the world to them, because of one action which may have taken place 40 years ago. Sexual offenses have become modern-day witch trials. Banning them from social networking sites is laughable considering how things already are.
If that's your idea of justice, I think you're a very sad person. I would not even advocate that for crimes such as murder.
Re:This is stupid (Score:3, Interesting)
The utmost resistance standard is archaic. (Score:2, Interesting)
The first problem with your claim is that the US has dozens of jurisdictions, with different rape/sexual assault laws. You can't flat out assert that that utmost resistance is a requirement for a rape accusation in the USA; you have to name jurisdictions. I can tell you for sure that there is no such provision in California [defend-me.com], the most populous of the states. Hell, read the link and see to what lengths they go to make it clear that the threat must not even be violent (many bits omitted):
What is indeed the case is that historically, in many countries' traditional legal system, an utmost resistance standard has existed along the lines that you have mentioned. These requirements have mostly gone away in Western countries, however, along with other sexist requirements such as (a) the victim must not be the wife of the accused (e.g., California has a crime of spousal rape), and (b) the requirement that the alleged rape victim be an "honest" woman (e.g., the "no harm in raping a slut" defense).
Re:Incoming 1st Amendment Challenge (Score:1, Interesting)
Accidental rape?
Well, there was this one time when I was snoozing on the couch and my roommate's girlfriend came in drunk at 4am and mistook me for him. When she *cough* woke me up, I assumed it was the gal I was seeing at the time, because honestly who the hell else would?
Once the sun was up, I was less pleasantly awakened when our mutual acquaintance came out of his room and found her passed out on top of me, obviously post-coitus.
Technically, accidental rape on my part, deliberate rape on her part(although I'm sure my roommate wouldn't have pressed charges had it been him on the couch:)
Re:Why are sex offenders treated worse than murder (Score:3, Interesting)
If punishment were meted out based on the odds of recidivism, we'd give life sentences for speeding and fines for murder.
Re:Incoming 1st Amendment Challenge (Score:3, Interesting)
Yup. And I'd bet when that law was passed, people who cried "slippery slope" were dismissed as whackos. Now look where we are.
Re:Incoming 1st Amendment Challenge (Score:2, Interesting)
Just because it makes sense to have an objective line for age of consent, doesn't mean that everyone who breaks that law should be treated the same.
Or maybe we should put people on these lists for littering too?
I could play your game in reverse: if it's the 5 year difference that makes it not okay, what about a 17 year old and a 22 year old? What about an 18 year old and a 23 year old? What about a 40 year old and a 45 year old? Are they all not okay?
Obviously, in either case, it's not as black and white as 5 year differences.
And if you leave it up to judges, then what do you do with a judge who thinks it is okay for Old Men to marry young girls in those polygamy cults?
Marriage is a separate issue - it's a legal contract, one that should be restricted to adults. Indeed, on that note I find it mad that here in the UK, at 16 people can, as well as simply having sex, enter into a lifelong legal commitment. Yet if a 17 year old takes a naughty photo of him or herself, or his or her partner, they're guilty of possessing "child" porn.
Re:Not that long ago. (Score:3, Interesting)
Naturally these laws had nothing to do with protecting children; they were usually used to target homosexuals. In fact, of the 70-or-so countries where these laws are still in place, 40 of them only target male homosexual acts.
So the (typically religious) nuts get all fire and brimstone about gay sex between dudes (which is icky and gross and you put it where?) but when it's between women, oh! well... well surely if God had wanted hot lesbian action to be illegal wouldn't have made it so damned arousing. No, can't go making that illegal.
That actually goes waaaay back - IIRC, male homosexuality is a deadly sin in Judaism, but female homosexuality isn't (in fact it's existence is not even acknowledged anywhere). If I understand correctly, it is a consequence of their society being patriarchal - a homosexual male might just decide to not marry, or to avoid sexual intercourse with wife in marriage, and thus not produce any offspring (which would be vital for the survival of the tribe). There was also a fairly widespread belief that male semen is limited in supply, and thus shouldn't be "wasted".
On the other hand, women would usually be married without their consent, and once married, couldn't refuse sex to husband, so if they chose to screw each other in between their male gratification and child bearing duties, no-one really cared.
Why would I use my real name? (Score:2, Interesting)