EFF Sues to Block New Internet Sex-Offender Law 305
Bobfrankly1 writes "The EFF sued to block portions of the approved Prop 35 today. Prop 35 requires sex offenders (including indecent exposure and non-internet offenses) to provide all of their online aliases to law enforcement. This would include e-mail addresses, screen and user names, and other identifiers used on the internet. The heart of the matter as the EFF sees it, would be not only the chilling effect it would have on free speech, but also the propensity of these kind of laws to be applied to other (non-sex offending) people as well."
Yeah right... (Score:5, Funny)
Like they could ever enforce this...
---
Sent from a registered sex offender
Re: (Score:2)
I have to agree with this... It is like asking someone to remember their passphrase or where they stored the hidden safe.
Oops forgot.
The problem with a lot of these laws is that they overestimate the infallibility of the mind to remember things it doesn't want to remember, and makes harsh punishments for people who are so handicapped or actually don't have the information in the first place.
Those that are actually hiding something will cough up something plausible and get away scott free.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yeah right... (Score:4, Insightful)
This is basically how I see it too. While I'm on board with sexual offenses being some of the most violating forms of violence on others, it's being applied in places it doesn't belong, such as (without prior coercion) taking a nude picture of yourself should you be under age, at the most basic enforcement. Making the law ever stricter just ensures that you'll have a reason to compel compliance at best, and get the aggressor to live in fear.
Reform (something our justice system SHOULD be focused on) shouldn't be about living in fear, it's should be about not wanting to commit the acts again and feeling remorse for the acts committed. If you go to the extreme and tag them for life, you give no incentive to behave and every incentive to commit crimes again. This ultimately does not help build a better society.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Yeah right... (Score:5, Informative)
It has about the same odds as getting the /. editor to include the state for which this law actually applies in the summary. (It's California in this case.)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Hey c'mon, there's about 3290 propositions passed globally every year, and only 10 of those aren't from California. Is it really necessary to still preface these things?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yeah right... (Score:5, Interesting)
Every charge sticks unless you can afford to go to trial. Unless you've been wronged by the police before it's pretty hard to have a grip on just how fucked the system is.
Nowadays they can arrest you, make up some false charges... then your in the system and you have to defend yourself with whatever limited resources you have. It's total bullshit and they don't have to ever deal with it again unless you go to trial. Which most people can't and will not. Plea bargains look pretty tasty when your life is in unknown hands and your only form of communication is a telephone that is very restricted.
Re: (Score:2)
#fail
Here is a good PSA on sex offenders
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17u01_sWjRE
as long as sex crimes involve victimless crimes, then there will be injustice.
Re:This will fail.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sex offenders can come from all walks of life. Some, just as with other criminals, are otherwise fine people and fair candidates for rehabilitation but that is a distinction many people are incapable of making because: (a) they can only view criminals in terms of stereotypes; (b) any attempt to not view criminals in terms of stereotypes leads to cries of "going soft on crime", despite the fact that the prison itself is an abject failure; (c) sex offenders, especially child sex offenders, are the paranoia du jour and we jump at shadows as if on cue; (d) we have sadistic urges and enjoy seeing people punished - the Christian right especially likes to see sinners cast out from society it seems; (e) "sex offender" is a ridiculously broad term, so sweeping as to do great damage. It lumps someone who urinated in a public place in with murdering rapists - what a spectrum! - an injustice if ever there was one.
Re: (Score:3)
(d) we have sadistic urges and enjoy seeing people punished - the Christian right especially likes to see sinners cast out from society it seems;
The "Christian right" are neither Christians nor right. Their views do not in any way reflect what Christ taught. His message was forgiveness, tolerance, and nonjudgementalism. He was decidedly against the wealthy and powerful (which was ultimately what got him executed).
The "Christian right" would be in the crowd screaming "CRUCIFY HIM!!!"
Re:This will fail.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Just look at the 80s and associating pedophilia with homosexuality. I have met heterosexual pedophiles that were truly convinced that they were not child molesters because they were strait, and often their churches supported them in this assertion. I saw churches overlook fathers molesting their daughters because the strength of the idea that it was purely a gay thing, thus whatever they WERE doing couldn't possibility be raping their kid. Pointing this out could often get you ostracized....
Hrm (Score:2, Interesting)
This law seems open to abuse. What rate limiting system does it use? I use a ton of different nicks in my line of work and I tend to change them multiple times per day.
Re:Hrm (Score:5, Funny)
Ah, so you are the shill that keeps creating new accounts here?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
one could avoid a public urination conviction by claiming that draining oneself was "necessary as an emergency measure".
Uromysitisis?
Re:Hrm (Score:4, Insightful)
I thought one could avoid a statutory rape conviction by marrying before sex, and one could avoid a public urination conviction by claiming that draining oneself was "necessary as an emergency measure".
--
Pretty much generally correct on the first one, not so much on the second.
They don't consider pissing one's pants an emergency worthy of breaking the law. To add insult to injury, in many US cities it's become nearly impossible to find any public business, office, etc that allows anyone to use their bathrooms any longer, even paying customers.
Next time you're stuck on an overcrowded bus, train, subway, etc and are forced to stand near some piss-soaked person, remember he/she may not have had a choice.
One would think the public health hazards posed in a large and crowded city would indicate strongly against such laws, at least with such extreme and life-altering and permanent negative ramifications as punishment for something that really doesn't rise to the level of requiring such severity.
I'm thinking more along the lines of a ticket-able minor infraction with fines ranging from $50 to $150 or more in areas where it's become more of an immediate sanitation/health problem. No need to go ruining somebody's entire life, fer chrissake!
Talk about "cruel and unusual punishment"! Are we chopping off children's hands for shoplifting candy yet? Makes about as much sense. Oh, I forgot. We're only sending armed enforcement personnel to halt the threat to the public health (and licensing/permit income) posed by preteen lemonade stands at this point :-| Sheesh!
Strat
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But peeing in some bushes, intentionally hiding your genitals? As far as I know that's not a sexual offence everywhere, so in which places is it considered a sexual offence? And why would that be considered a _sexual_ offence? Which pervert made up such a law?
It should probably still be an offence slightly more serious than "normal" littering (and le
the ironic part is... (Score:4, Insightful)
4chan (pedo central) doesn't use usernames, accounts or aliases so they wouldn't be required to report it!
Re: (Score:2)
A potential solution on other sites would be shared accounts or the anonymous coward option. Even if you let government know, if enough people are using the account it becomes meaningless.
Tor is also fun.
Re:the ironic part is... (Score:5, Interesting)
That's the point and that is the long-game being played, here.
Ultimately, "for the children", they will enforce use of real identities for all individuals on the internet. At the very least, there will have to be a registered real identity that is easily referenced for anyone in "authority" without need for a warrant. Ideally (in their mind), your real identity will simply be all you have to act under while online, presented to everyone.
If "bullies durp durp durp" doesn't do it, then "sex offenders durp durp durp!".
Not to mention, if we're so afraid of these people that we have to put scarlet A's on their doors and mailboxes, have then register every activity and location and method of contact on earth, etc, etc... then why the fuck are we even letting them out of prison, in the first place? Either someone has served the time for their crime and has been determined safe to re-enter society or they aren't. (Probation, yadda yadda).
Re:the ironic part is... (Score:4, Insightful)
Why would this be a bigger problem than people having the same real name, which happens all the time?
Because pedo-cops are over-zealous (and ineffective) and because most of the judicial system has not figured out the nuances of the internet yet.
First submission to law enforcement: (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
This raises the issue of people with usernames in common.
There will be people who (accidentally or intentionally) share a usernames with those reported by sex offenders who will now be monitored.
It would be trivial and impossible to prove it was intentional to get a name on that list so at least in the short term someone can be treated as a sex offender.
EFF has it right. (Score:5, Insightful)
Nowadays a lot of people are classified as sex offenders that shouldn't be, like teenagers that send each other naughty pictures, or somebody that texts a lewd message to the wrong recipient. These people barely meet the definition, yet are branded for life.
If the sex offender status could be assigned with accuracy, I think this proposition would be okay. But it isn't, so the proposition means people are going to get hurt who shouldn't have even been declared as sex offenders in the first place. The proposition compounds the challenges these people face.
And I agree with the EFF that it's a dangerous trend to set. If you want to take away the anonymity of some pervert, do it for a real criminal who posts a credible threat to the community. Many people with the sex offender status don't fit that definition at all.
Re:EFF has it right. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
most people probably couldn't be reasonably expected to remember every fake alias they've ever created.
So don't, use bugmenot [bugmenot.com] instead.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can't give you any examples, just in case you ask. So take this as anecdotal. However, I stand by my comment. In the last 2-3 years I've found it 90% non working.
A good idea, but IP logging defeats it too easily. Or whatever it is sites use.
Re:EFF has it right. (Score:5, Interesting)
A childhood friend of my wife with mental disabilities (I don't know exactly what it was, I'm going off memory from what my wife told me a few years ago) who cant distinguish right from wrong, exposed himself to girls in his group home when he was a teenager is a registered sex offender.
This is a person who was virtually forced out of his home by his parents because they didn't want to deal with his illness anymore, and stuffed into a group home when he was prepubescent... a few years later mix in hormones, possibly interfering medications and a brain that doesn't quite process things right and all of a sudden he's a registered sex offender. He now can't be within a certain distance from schools and has to walk on eggshells while dealing with a mental disorder.
The whole sex offender system is useless without proper investigation or classification.
Re:EFF has it right. (Score:5, Insightful)
And if a child sees a normal part of the human anatomy why should that be a crime? Because you don't like it. Don't try to tell me that the mere sight of a human penis will irreversibly damage a child. It's a sick society that demonizes a pat of the human body so successfully.
Re: (Score:3)
Nowadays a lot of people are classified as sex offenders that shouldn't be
Yes, ALL OF THEM.
ACLU press release (Score:5, Informative)
https://www.aclunc.org/cases/active_cases/doe_v._harris.shtml [aclunc.org]
It's really not a good law - it won't accomplish its goal and it has lots of bad possible side effects.
Re: (Score:2)
The sad thing is, it passed by a bigger margin than a proposition whose sole argument against and rebuttal to the argument for was "we are no longer asking for a NO vote".
Yet one more piece of evidence that the California electorate, by and large, is both ignorant and stupid. Clearly those who voted "Yes" didn't even bother to read the summary of the proposition in the election guide, never mind the full text of the proposition (PDF) [ca.gov] or Section 236.1 of the California Penal Code [onecle.com] to determine whether or not the proposed amendments are even necessary. This really is classic California: people too lazy, ignorant and stupid to be bothered with attending to their duties as citize
Re: (Score:3)
People can't be blamed for failing to read the full text of the proposition. For one thing, a recurring tactic in the California ballot initiative system is for opponents of one proposition to push their own proposition, with wording that is difficult for a lay person to distinguish from the other proposition, but with some clause that causes it to override the other proposition and nullify its intended effects. What typically happens is that voters will see two propositions that seem to have the same lauda
Brilliant law... (Score:2)
The law also states that the sex offenders must pinky promise not to make any new usernames or online aliases, or else!
This is a ridiculous law that can never be fully enforced and won't work the way people think it will. What the hell are they even trying to accomplish with it?
Re: (Score:2)
That's one issue that can't be enforced.
OTOH what is stopping a sex offender from going to Facebook and registering myself as, say, Samzenpus? And then registering Samzenpus as one of their current and active aliases? Now that's going to be fun. Suddenly everyone on the Internet is a registered sex offender. Though that may also be the best way to render such a law completely ineffective.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I'm PReDiToR, but you know what I mean.
3 Strikes (Score:5, Insightful)
The real problem (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
The real problem here isn't the increased loss of freedom for sex offenders. I personally could give a shit less about them. The real problem is the ever increasing creep of the term "Sex offender"
So wait... You can't give a shit about sec offenders... BUT you have a problem with the creep of the term? So YOU do care about being who are label "sex offenders?"
The article indicates there are 73K sex offenders. That is about 1 for every 300 adults in CA!
Re:The real problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, but an individual under 18 is a CHILD.
Stopped reading right there. If you think so, you are completely out of touch with reality.
Re: (Score:2)
If so, what does that say for the integrity of a justice system that frequently enough decides to try and convict someone under 18 as an ADULT?
You see, the judicial system if perfectly happy to treat a teen as an adult when the DA gets to fluff up his record a bit.
Likewise, what if 'victim' AND 'perpetrator' are 'CHILDREN'?
Re: (Score:2)
but one second after 18 years since birth is A-OK!
seriously?
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, but an individual under 18 is a CHILD.
What? - That is nonsense.
There is no general rule, but pre-puberty is a fundamental rule. When a human hits puberty it ceases to be a child. Now hormones control things and sexual thoughts and feeling fills up the mind of the pubescent, and the child is no more. Not an adult yet of course but certainly not a child either.
It might be that some states/countries defines humans as children if their age is less or equal to 18, but that's a legal definition. Many countries defines a sexual adult by their age of c
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but an individual under 18 is a CHILD.
That's just a (useful) legal fiction.
Keep your tits/dick/pussy put the fuck away. Is this really asking too much of society?
Yes, it is. They call it a sex drive for a reason, and we've almost got one. It kicks in a lot earlier than 18, too.
Problem is with sex offense laws, not registry (Score:2)
As a social conservative who appreciates the damage done by sex offenses and as a pragmatist who recognizes the liklihood of recidivism, I find the concept of sex offender registries appealing. The problem is that sex offense laws have been turned on their head. The Judaic Law (I am Catholic) tolerated teen fornication provided the couple got married afterward, yet in the U.S. an 18-year-old having sex with a 16-year-old is considered rape. On the opposite end of the criminalization spectrum, adultery --
Re: (Score:2)
- the topic of two of the ten commandments -- has been completely decriminalized in most states!
Good. If the sole reason for a law existing is religion, it should be decriminalised.
Would you like to travel back in time 550 years when Queens were beheaded for accusations of adultery?
Why not go back to the times of the Roman Empire, when a husband was allowed to murder his wife if she cheated on him.
Re: (Score:2)
- the topic of two of the ten commandments -- has been completely decriminalized in most states!
Good. If the sole reason for a law existing is religion, it should be decriminalised. Would you like to travel back in time 550 years when Queens were beheaded for accusations of adultery? Why not go back to the times of the Roman Empire, when a husband was allowed to murder his wife if she cheated on him.
And you completely forgot the (Christian Biblical? Muslim? I can't remember) Official Divorce proceedings where a husband tells his wife "I divorce you, I divorce you, I divorce you" and that's it.
Re:Problem is with sex offense laws, not registry (Score:5, Interesting)
The Judaic Law (I am Catholic) tolerated teen fornication provided the couple got married afterward, yet in the U.S. an 18-year-old having sex with a 16-year-old is considered rape.
Unless both is famous... Justin Bieber was 16 and Selena Gomez 18 when they were papped making out (just tongue kissing but still). Both are California residents and it happened in California, whose statutory rape law clearly make this illegal (misdemeanor fine), yet no charges were ever filed as far as I know.
Re: (Score:3)
...adultery -- the topic of two of the ten commandments -- has been completely decriminalized in most states...
...in Moses' time adultery took place *only* if the woman was married, which is why there's a second commandment (men always requiring clarification).
The number of concubines King David had when he moved into the House of Jerusalem is noted....
cheers,
That's a big list (Score:3)
Here's how to crash their database... (Score:4, Interesting)
...or at least create an unmanageable amount of work for the data-entry bureaucrats: Create a "catch-all" email address, i.e., [anything]@example.com goes to you. This is trivial to do with Postfix. Then make up a list of thousands---or millions---of email addresses @example.com and submit that to them. Making the list is of course trivial with a simple Perl script. Also ensure there are a few specific addresses at the example.com domain that go to someone else, such that the bureaucrats can't simply add "[anything]@example.com" to the registry. (If they do do that, they'd be adding the email address of an innocent third party, which could result in another interesting lawsuit all by itself.)
If any RSOs in California are interested in doing this, contact me (jraxis -@- jraxis.com). I'll set you up a catch-all at one of my domains and generate you a list of a few million random addresses at that domain.
Predictable in every respect (Score:2)
It wasn't hard to predict that idiot voters would approve this proposition and that it would then promptly be challenged in court as unconstitutional. I told a friend just that days ago, and look what happened. The same idiots believed the "arguments against" lies about Prop 33 and voted against that one, too. I really hoped that one would pass, as I've been stung by the perverse loyalty restriction in old Prop 103 twice now when I switched insurers.
uh oh, lol (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly illegal (Score:2)
Another day, another terrifying proposal (Score:2)
It seems like we hear or read about a law proposal with incredulous consequences nearly everyday.
The incredible lack of forethought and even rudimentary logic is beyond my comprehension.
Do they even think about the problem beyond pandering to a misguided vocal minority? Do they even think about the innocent people it will catch in its wake? Do they even think AT ALL??
Maybe I'm just naive to think that they actually care about anyone outside of their rich cronies club.
The threat of "real names" policies (Score:3)
In the last few years, some major social media service providers have been pushing for "real names" policies. Most notably, Google has been doing this. This has been a big controversy with Google+. Google's plan with Google+ was to use it as the basis for an identity authentication system. Part of the privacy threat I see with Prop 35 is that social media services will use it as an excuse to enforce "real names" policies, claiming that it's just too difficult to check whether a pseudonym is a new alias for a registered sex offender, so no one should be allowed to use pseudonyms. That would be a significant blow to free speech on the Internet.
Hidden problems (Score:3)
1. Urinating in public can, in 13 states, qualify as a sex offense, through charges such as "indecent exposure", etc. A few links mentioning this issue can be viewed here:
http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/02/sex-offender-registry-megans-law-forbes-woman-time-children.html
http://www.economist.com/node/14164614 [economist.com]
https://downtownathens.wordpress.com/2012/03/06/public-urination-considered-sex-offense-in-georgia-not-enforced-by-police/ [wordpress.com]
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-02-25-sex-offender-laws-cover_x.htm [usatoday.com]
2. Certain interactions with a prostitute can also qualify for sex offense.
Number 1 is certainly more common, and is something nearly any good beer-drinking mammal has been guilty of. Number 2, although less common, is rather questionable. Why questionable? Figure that out yourself. But if it is to be such a grievous offense in the the U.S., it would seem appropriate to prevent U.S. citizens from traveling to nations where such an atrocious offense is legal, such as Austria, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Netherlands, Switzerland, Turkey(?) and others. And certainly anyone doing business with such perverted nations should be registered and arrested as accomplices, because anyone with scruples would take the support of such offenses just as seriously as we take pissing on bushes here -- no dubya pun intended.
Incontinence in the UK! (Urination Pistols) (Score:3)
At one time in the UK, it was legal for a man to urinate in public, so long as it occurred on the rear wheel of his vehicle and he had his right hand on the vehicle. The laws allowing this were the Hackney Carriage Laws, which were repealed in 1976.[35] Public urination still remains more accepted by males in the UK, although British cultural tradition itself seems to find such practices objectionable.
I guess when wanking became ambidextrous, they nixed that one.
Blocked by judge (Score:2, Informative)
A little context (Score:5, Insightful)
The proposition was billed as the human trafficking and penalties initiative. Its main focus was on increasing penalties for those convicted of human trafficking (mostly kids and women into prostitution). That's why it passed with such a high percentage of Yes votes. The part about sex offenders' Internet activity was a single sentence [ca.gov] buried in the middle of the voter pamphlet's summary description, so probably was glazed over by most voters.
I was baffled why something whose main provision seemed like such a no-brainer was even a proposition. It sounded like something the legislature should've been able to pass in 5 minutes. So I did a bit more research and dug up this article [time.com] explaining why it may not be very helpful, counter-intuitive as that seems. That's something you have to be careful of with these ballot propositions - if it sounds like a simple Yes vote, you need to ask yourself, "What's the catch? Why hasn't the legislature passed this already?"
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Actually the issue is way more complex than you suggest.
for a little more context.
"Californians will vote in November on Proposition 35 — a bill that would increase fines and prison sentences for convicted human traffickers. While the desire to fight human trafficking seems uncontroversial, the bill itself is rife with problems and penned in poorly defined terms.
Writing in the Guardian Wednesday, writer and sex worker advocate Melissa Gira Grant points out the dangerous but all too common conflation o
Good thing usernames are unique! (Score:2)
Just imagine if you could accidentally use the same alias as someone on the sex offenders list!
It is far worse than most people realize (Score:2, Informative)
In some states a man (and laws ecxlude women) can be put on the Sex Offenders list for simply taking a leak in public.
Imagine this, you are driving along a highway miles from anywhere and nature calls. You stop beside the road and answer the call of nature. When you return to your vehicle there is a police car parked behind yours.
"Yes officer I was answering the call of nature"
Boom, you are in the back of the police car and there goes your life. Chaged with being a sex offender simple for answering the call
Re:Sorry.. can't agree. (Score:5, Insightful)
First they came... (Score:5, Funny)
First they came for the pedos,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a pedo.
Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the guys into fisting and DP sites,
and I was like... "at least it was fun while it lasted".
Re:Sorry.. can't agree. (Score:5, Insightful)
In my state, "sex offenders" include people who have urinated in public, people who forgot to close the bathroom shades before getting out of the shower, and a great many teenagers who couldn't keep it in their pants. Are these the "depraved and psychotic people" whose lives you wish to destroy?
Re:Sorry.. can't agree. (Score:5, Insightful)
Never underestimate the willingness of unthinking cowards to try to take away the rights of others, especially if the believe it will never affect them.
Re: (Score:2)
In my state, "sex offenders" include people who have urinated in public, people who forgot to close the bathroom shades before getting out of the shower, and a great many teenagers who couldn't keep it in their pants. Are these the "depraved and psychotic people" whose lives you wish to destroy?
What state are you in?
Re: (Score:2)
, people who forgot to close the bathroom shades before getting out of the shower
WTF, is this true? I very rarely sleep with my curtains closed and my bedroom looks over a quiet residential street. If my neighbours cop an eyeful, so what, I don't care, but if they're offended then maybe they shouldn't be looking up into my bloody windows.
Re:Sorry.. can't agree. (Score:5, Insightful)
If they can not be trusted than keep them in prison, end of story. None of this bullshit about trying to turn the whole country into a prison. It'll be one crime after another, for the non-rich, until traffic offenders end up being monitored. If the crime warrants life time monitoring then keep them in prison for a lifetime where they belong.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No, no it really doesn't. Many states, mine included don't display level one offenders.
Do you know how the level system works? Let me explain it to you.
Level 1: Usually (but not always) completed treatment successfully, as well as passing multiple polygraphs and plethysmograph exams.
Level 2: Moderate risk for re-offense.
Level 3: High risk for re-offense.
Some states even use civil commitment, and can hold an offender for an indefinite amount of time prior to release, well beyond what would be considered time
Re: (Score:2)
Freudian slip there?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04clpd7h0b0&t=0m44s [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
So the public urinaters don't get published in the database you can see. That's a good start, probably because it would be embarrassing to the state if they had to deal with public urinaters being strung up by vigilantes who thought they molested someone.
However, there must be some drawback to being listed as a level 1 offender or they wouldn't have that level at all.
Re:Sorry.. can't agree. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sorry.. can't agree. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
There could have been a school fieldtrip to that alley at 2 a.m. on a Saturday night and have accidentally seen a penis.
And WILL SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
We can't have Young Boys Seeing Penises!
You have NO IDEA what that will lead to.
Re:Sorry.. can't agree. (Score:5, Funny)
And WILL SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
But the court order said I'm not supposed to think of the children any more.
Re: (Score:2)
Likewise, Janet Jackson should be registered as a sex-offender, right? :)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Who defines potential? Personally, I find you potentially dangerous, and definatly psychotic.
Also, to what end do we allow Prop35? Many states not only don't distinguisy between juvinile and adult sex offenders, but also require longer then juvinile life (21st birthday in most states) registration requirements.
And if this passes, who's to say that in the near future, you will loose all anonymity for simply dis-agreeing with the powers that be.
No. This can not be allowed to happen.
Re: (Score:3)
"Convicted sex offender" is a very broad term that describes anyone who has been convicted of doing anything that might be construed as a sexual offense, even if the actual victim not only didn't complain, but was a willing participant.
What we really want to do is ensure that serial rapists cannot use the internet as their predatory jungle, and for this type of person I entirely agree with you. But I'd hate to ruin the life of some poor 20yo who fell in love with his sisters friend who happened to be 17, bu
Re:Sorry.. can't agree. (Score:5, Insightful)
What we really want to do is ensure that serial rapists cannot use the internet as their predatory jungle
Why are serial rapists running free to begin with?
Re: (Score:3)
They need the room in the prisons for pot smokers. You don't expect the private prison industry to have to deal with dangerous people do you?
Re:Sorry.. can't agree. (Score:5, Insightful)
People caught peeing in a bush are treated the same as child molesters under this law. It also includes people that in any way benefit from solicited sex, including the family of people willingly involved in the sex trade.
Violent offenders are already incarcerated, and those that have been released from prison after serving their time are still pretty closely monitored. This proposition sought to make a crime "more illegal" in order to increase the government's authority. The weasel-wording of the bill's description ("increase penalties for sex trafficking") allowed that to get through with an overwhelming majority; suffice to say, I'm not impressed.
Re:Sorry.. can't agree. (Score:5, Insightful)
...offenders are already incarcerated, and those that have been released from prison after serving their time are still pretty closely monitored
In my opinion, once a person has served their sentence, their criminal record should be sealed and not available to anyone, unless the person commits another criminal act, throughout their parole period, and after the successful completion of the period of parole the record should be expunged after 2 years. The whole criminal justice system seems intent upon punishing people for eternity; rather the focus should be rehabilitation and re-integration into society. If a convict is likely to re-offend maybe the person should never have been released from prison. From the moment of release from prison only the police should have access to the person's record but no background check for employment should reveal the existence of the record for all but a select few jobs (financial services, working with the vulnerable, position of trust which includes public office holders). Otherwise, society might as well tattoo a red 'C' on the forehead of the convicted. If a person commits another criminal act during their two-year probation period, they are not eligible for release from prison after the second conviction.
Re: (Score:2)
And what if that second criminal act was stealing a bit of food to survive? As you point out a marked criminal will find it very difficult to exist in the normal world. Two and Three strikes laws need to be removed, to allow individual cases to be judged on their merits and only the most depraved locked away forever.
Re:Sorry.. can't agree. (Score:5, Informative)
I would encourage you to view one of the many sites out there that let you search public registries of sex offenders. (for example, http://familywatchdog.us/ [familywatchdog.us] For fun, enter your address. You'll find:
1) the number of sex offenders isn't a "few" (if you live in a metro area, there will be dozens in a 2 mile radius)
2) if you view each one's offense, you'll find most (75%+) had "victims" 14 years old +. Some of those might have been "rapes", but were probably hooking up with someone they should have known better, but it was as consensual as any liaison (ignoring fact that a minor can't consent, but survey any high school and see how chaste your average teen is)
Such sex offender laws apply to all of these (plus those who get caught urinating in public, having a romp with their spouse in public, etc); not a "few depraved and/or dangerous/psychotic people". But "think of the children!" How about a single DWI resulting in a lifetime ban on owning a motor vehicle, or a single drug conviction resulting in a lifetime 9pm curfew?
If someone is truly so sick and perverted that they need a lifetime of monitoring, then give them an adequate prison sentence.
Re:Sorry.. can't agree. (Score:5, Funny)
but survey any high school and see how chaste your average teen is
That strikes me as a good way to get invited to test out this new internet offender law...
Re:Sorry.. can't agree. (Score:5, Insightful)
The main reason I object to these laws is that they are basically permanent punishment. The fundamental design of a functioning legal system is one of rehabilitation—once you've done your time, you become part of society again. Unfortunately, there are a few parts of our government that violate that design—disenfranchisement for convicted felons, sex offender registries, limits on where convicted sex offenders are allowed to live, and so on—by creating permanent or near-permanent punishments.
Unfortunately, such policies are a big part of why the U.S. has such a staggeringly high recidivism rate. They serve as a constant reminder of what the criminal did—a constant reminder that they're not like the rest of society—which makes complete reintegration with society impossible, forcing them to live on the fringes of society. Every time somebody asks if they voted, they either have to lie or have a very awkward conversation. When somebody asks them to pick up their kids, same problem. And so on.
Regardless of the type of crime, if you think someone is likely to reoffend, you shouldn't be letting them out, and if you don't, then you shouldn't be treating them like they're expected to reoffend, because doing so will significantly increase the odds that they will. That's basic psychology. Anyone who can't grasp that concept has absolutely no business setting any sort of policy on crime prevention. Unfortunately, most of the people setting policies on crime prevention don't understand that concept. And that's why crime in the U.S. is likely to keep getting worse.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless they're boyscout leaders, teachers, or religious figures -- in which case they should just be moved around to positions in other locations, covered up, and protected by their organizations.
Re:Californian Here (Score:5, Informative)
Same deal with the human trafficking sex offender registry.
You're trying to tell me a human trafficker who gets caught and was involved in sex offenses can't be tried for that seperately?
Seriously I'll accept a sex offender registry for persons who prey on children (I will put the cap at 16, although if we were being honest about this, 13 is the better standard for paedophilia. And if you look at the historic reason for raising the age of consent from 13 to 18 (ignoring the original AoC) you'd note that it was TO STOP 'UNDERAGE' PROSTITUTION, not for any actual sensible reason regarding a persons age of maturity or sexual development.) But honestly, applying it indefinitely to 'streakers' 'teenagers sexting their likewise underage partners' and 'public urinators' makes me embarassed to be an american.
If we can't try people based on the specific and necessary laws, then why don't be just repeal all laws and go back to 'at the judge's discretion'? I mean given the plethora of modern laws and the almost impossibility of not breaking one of them (nevermind in the case of sex offenses many people breaking ones that used to at most get you a night in jail or a few weeks community service: see fooling around in a park, car, your gf or bf's house, etc.) Hell, even just taking a picture of your kids running around in the buff (and how many of us didn't toss our diapers aside and streak naked across the house when guests were over? Y'know the sort of pictures your family take so they can embarass you when you bring your significant other over to meet the fams.)
The number of travesties being committed by our 'elected' officials on a daily basis makes me wonder what the point of elected officials even is anymore. At the current level of insanity nearly any form of government would not be any worse from a legal standpoint. And when looking at miscarriages of justice, we're right in the middle of the pack with dictators, monarchs, and oligarchies.
Any system can be corrupt or just given time and the right set of officials. But the problem with democracies (and republics!) is that it can take a much longer time to effect a shift, and perhaps even longer to find out if that shift is real or imagined.
Re:Californian Here (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously I'll accept a sex offender registry for persons who prey on children (I will put the cap at 16, although if we were being honest about this, 13 is the better standard for paedophilia. And if you look at the historic reason for raising the age of consent from 13 to 18 (ignoring the original AoC) you'd note that it was TO STOP 'UNDERAGE' PROSTITUTION, not for any actual sensible reason regarding a persons age of maturity or sexual development.) But honestly, applying it indefinitely to 'streakers' 'teenagers sexting their likewise underage partners' and 'public urinators' makes me embarassed to be an american..
But talking sense, which you are, doesn't seem to do anything with this issue. Sense is blocked out. If you talk like this at a party, otherwise intelligent people will look at you like you're a pedophile. Seriously, give it a try if you don't believe me. In this way dissent is silenced: "any critic of the definition of witch/communist/pedophile must be an apologist and probably is witch/communist/pedophile themselves".
Re:Californian Here (Score:4, Insightful)
I was so annoyed by that proposition when I read it on the ballot. It was two totally separate issues that should have been separate. I am all for increased punishments for those caught dealing with human trafficking but I'm not about to agree to the part at the end about sex offenders needing to explain their whole internet life. We take enough of their rights away as it is and not all of them are even guilty of a serious crime.
Re:Californian Here (Score:5, Insightful)
I am all for increased punishments for those caught dealing with human trafficking
Out of curiosity, why? Do you have some reason to believe the existing punishments are too lax? Were the changes enacted by the legislature recently insufficient?
I'm usually deeply disgusted by every CA proposition that seeks to increase punishments for some group, using an appeal to emotion to justify it. Are the existing punishments really not enough? Why hasn't the legislature done anything about it? Is this actually a rational approach to solve a real problem, or is it just a political move that's expected to be a slam dunk, because hey, who wants to come out in favor of sex traffickers?
I get the value of referenda and sometimes I'm proud that it works to accomplish something that the legislature can't or won't, but the tyranny of the majority is a very real threat, as is constitutional amendment via popularity contest, and sometimes I wonder if it shouldn't be harder for people to get their pet issues on the ballot like this.
Re:This is fals issue (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not unreasonable for us to limit their access
Are you somehow of the belief that the only group harmed by these reporting requirements are "intergenerational" child rapists?
Do you think that someone that's on this registry that decides to seduce or rape a child is going to register the account they plan to use for that purpose with the police?
or create more laws that they can be found in violation of
Will we ever reach a point where we have enough laws or enough punishment for this class of criminal? If, every year, we enacted new, harsher punishments, and new laws that we can find these individuals in violation of, would we ever hit a point where you might decide it's time to stop? That's really the larger problem with propositions like this: who can come out against it without sounding like you're pro-child rape? Sometimes I hate how easy it is for people to get propositions on the California ballot.
Re:This is fals issue (Score:5, Insightful)
Our society places pedophiles in a special category because they compulsively attempt to lure children to them for purposes of illicit intergenerational sex.
Not all pedophiles are child molesters. I'm not even sure if the majority of them are.
It's not unreasonable for us to limit their access
I think it is to people who actually care about freedom of speech.
Instead of pretending that their rights are somehow linked to our own, let's accept that every society has an ultimate taboo and for us it's the child-rapists.
I don't want to accept what I believe is illogical nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
Part of the problem is that it only takes a little legal sleight of hand to add considerably less taboo and heinous acts to the list. When people agree to these laws, they are thinking 'sex offender' in the sense you are talking about. They are not thinking about 18 year old dating the 17 year and 364 days old classmate. They aren't thinking about the guy that peed behind the dumpster or forgot to pull the blinds.
Unfortunately, the 'justice' system can't be convinced to make that distinction on a consistent