South Carolina Candidate For Governor Claims There Are Millions Of Internet Child Predators
from the hyperbole-much? dept
Over the past few years, we've see quite the moral panic about the supposed threat of internet predators preying on children online. This isn't to say that it doesn't happen or that parents and children shouldn't be quite careful, but the press and politicians have clearly blown the threat way out of proportion. Study after study after study has shown that the threat is relatively small, and most kids are smart enough to be safe online and avoid anyone who seems sketchy. And, the reality is that preying on kids has actually decreased as the internet has grown more popular.But, of course, that doesn't make for the type of headlines that politicians want. South Carolina's Attorney General has now announced his plans to run for governor of the state, in part on the claim that he's going to crack down on child predators online. Now, we're all for cracking down on online predators, but it's tough to take him seriously, when he claims that "there are millions out there." Millions? That seems a bit on the high side. On top of that, he claims that "Any child can become a victim" because "the predators are so skilled at what they do." Except, of course, that's not what the studies have shown at all. They've shown that most kids aren't interested in strangers online at all, and if you reasonably educate them (which you should) they're likely to be safe. But why bother with the actual evidence when you can grandstand as part of your bid to be governor?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: exaggeration, henry mcmaster, politicians, predators
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
millions?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
..8 year olds, dude
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do some math
A. There are roughly 310 million residents in America
B. Roughly 25%, or 78 million of them are under the age of 18, leaving 232 million
C. Another 13%, or 40 million are over the age of 65. Certainly SOME of them could be predators, so to be safe, lets say half of them, or 20 million, are. That leaves us with about 210 million potential predators.
D. If there are millions (plural), that indicates AT LEAST 2 million, though likely more, predators. Let's say 3 million, just to be safe. That means that nearly 2% of the American population capable of being child predators, according to this jackass, are in fact predators.
No freaking way.
For reference, the unemployment rate is somewhere around 4.5%, meaning you are close to half as likely to be a child pervert as to be unemployed.
Or better yet, the Presbyterian population is 2.1%, meaning you are more likely to meet a child predator than someone who practices Presbyterian faith. Even better, 1.2% of the American population is JEWISH, for cripes sake. Twice as many child predators as Jews? C'mon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do some math
Pretty much everyone knows at least 35 people. I'm sure you have met a Jew, Presbyterian, or unemployed person. How many of you have met a predator?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Do some math
And no I have not, to my knowledge, met a predator (except my dog, who humps EVERYTHING). As for if I've met a Jewish person, I live on the northside of Chicago. If you knew about our demographics, you would realize what a silly question that is :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do some math
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do some math
2% is 7.6 million.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Do some math
I admit, I'm shitty at math, so if I've effed up somewhere, let me know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do some math
And really, when I was 15 I was much more interested in 14 -17 year olds than I am now. Other kids online are much more likely to want to sexually use and abuse your daughter than 55 year olds. Are you saying they aren't predators?
On a side note, males are genetically engineered by nature to want to spread their seed, and, in general, the most sexually attractive females are the most fertile. Is anyone surprised that older guys find 16 and 17 year old jail bait so attractive?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Do some math
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Do some math
Have a seat. Why don't you just have seat, right over here...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BTW
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
a politician is grandstanding to get elected? shocker.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: a politician is grandstanding to get elected? shocker.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: a politician is grandstanding to get elected? shocker.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gullible
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Swine flu
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't know the exact percentages, but they are fairly constant across the globe: the percentage of compulsive gamblers, alcoholics, homosexuals -- it's pretty much the same in every country.
If we assume that there is a genetic component to this issue (and why wouldn't there be?), it's probably safe to assume that the number is also constant across the globe.
The problem is determining the percentage.
To get to 2 million for just the US, you only need to have 0.5% of 380 million people. 1 in every 200 people might potentially be open to exploiting youngsters online? That number doesn't seem implausible. 1 million is just 0.26% -- 1 in 400 people. That doesn't seem unreasonable at all.
There are probably lots of people who feel empowered and immune when behind a keyboard in the safety of their own house -- perhaps that's why the online numbers won't match the real-world numbers. In other words, people are more afraid of getting arrested if they physically snatch children out of the playground?
I don't believe there is a big danger, but this bozo might have gotten lucky with his grandstanding and actually hit the nail on the head.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
First, at least the summary does not state this number is with respect to the US. So, certainly out of the world population (predators in China can still hurt kids in the US), there are undoubtedly millions of predators. Further, I would not be shocked if there are millions of predators in the US alone. Anyone who thinks such a thing cannot possibly be true is really out of touch with the depravity of mankind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And there are
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sweden
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DUH!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I would say that Henry McMaster is correct
There are 1,596,270,108 internet users in the world.
"Prey on" can mean "take advantage of". Not specifically sexual.
So, are there 2 million internet users would prey (e.g. Disney) on children? Almost certainly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A small ray of future hope...
But for now, the good-ol'-boy system is well entrenched here. And, based on recent past headlines, would anybody be especially surprised if this guy turned out to be one of the pedophiles he's so worried about?
As for me, I'm attracted to women in their late 50's, early 60's. Mmm, gray babes!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kids?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now, I would presume that "sexual predators" can be more easily discerned from the rest than "terrorists", but I still have questions...is a sexual predator a SP for life, or just for a brief period of time, ala a phase? What portion of SPs are actively seeking to commit this crime, and how many don't even think of it until the opportunity arises? What qualifies as an "online" SP?--is that merely a SP that at some intervals gets online, or must it be one that uses the internet as their primary mechanism for predation? And as we all know, a lot of dipshits among us would define SPs as including 17 year-olds having sex, streakers, statutory "rapists" that were deceived as to age, etc.
Personally, I would guess that anybody that makes a broad statement such as accusing millions of sexual predators being online is an individual that doesn't care particularly much about justice, social progress, or the like so much as crusading. That, or perhaps he is just an arrogant fool, which is practically the same thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fear-mongering not productive for online safety
And what of these sting operations, where law enforcement pose as kids to entrap predators? Nancy Williard, a noted child safety expert, analyzed Pennsylvania data and found:
* Over four years (2005 through ’08), the Pennsylvania attorney general's office made 183 arrests concerning Internet-related child sexual abuse through its Child Predator Unit.
* Only 8 of the 183 cases involved actual minors (the rest were sting operations involving police posing as minors) - though certainly these arrests may have prevented cases involving minors.
* Only 5 of the 183 involved sexual contact.
In Pennsylvania at least, the data is not millions, it's 5.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
South Carolina - That says it all
South Carolina - where facts don't matter, local and federal judges are bought and paid for years (generations?) in advance and politicians are the same.
(Yea, tried to do a honest business there, never again.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: South Carolina - That says it all
Child prostitution ring? :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why do politicians speak before thinking so often? Perhaps we should work on that societal problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Usual SC Stupidity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Millions?
http://sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Check the Megan's law database
I have known a few child predators over the years because I was on the board of a church and had to deal with issues related to their status. Most of the congregation did not know (and frankly, need not know as long as they continued to walk the straight and narrow), but we kept an eye out for abuse and kept them away from ministries and activities involving children or just befriending children in general.
I have also known several women who were abused.
I know that of the 10 predators that I am aware of in my lifetime in California, 6 were charged, 5 went to jail (1 died suddenly when a freeway overpass construction fell on his van--no joke) and 4 were never charged to my knowledge.
To my knowledge, NONE of these had anything to do with the internet.
Anyway, count the Megan's Law database and double it and that will tell you an approximate amount of child predators out there.
It's a very small number (not millions, even in California), and of those, probably less than 1% use the internet in any manner to commit their crime.
The ones I knew committed their acts by being babysitters (or their children), next-door neighbors, relatives or club/camp leaders, not by using the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Henry McMaster
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]