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."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: bans, illinois, sex offenders, social networks
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good.
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
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good.
Wow, you are really weird! I suppose you think urinating has something to do with sex? You must be an Oklahoma lawmaker.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Moral panic made up by the press
Unless we're talking about the producers of Dateline -- the Popes of moral panic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Good
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Good
- 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
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Good
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It ain't all society, but it ain't all the perp either. We all have a role to play.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
RIGHT!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I get the impression that a lot of child molesters read this site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Verbiage of the Law
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ummm....
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...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reciprication rates over 85%
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Reciprication rates over 85%
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Reciprication rates over 85%
....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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Reciprication rates over 85%
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Reciprication rates over 85%
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Reciprication rates over 85%
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Reciprication rates over 85%
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Reciprication rates over 85%
Yes. They probably did something else wrong anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Reciprication rates over 85%
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Reciprication rates over 85%
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Illinois Says Sex Offenders Can't Use Social Networks
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Prison on the cheap?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Prison on the cheap?
Exactly my point. Jails are overcrowded and expensive. Let's just kill them and get it over with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Prison on the cheap?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Beijing Universale Import & Export Wholesale Trade Co.LTD
First of all, you have a fucked up name and I suggest suing the shit out of your Mom's uterus for pushing you into the world.
Secondly, why can't any of you crazy spammalots hire someone to speak English? You'd probably dupe a lot more people that way if, oh I don't know, PEOPLE COULD UNDERSTAND WHAT THE FUCK YOU'RE SAYING.
Dark Helmet out....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
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....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mark
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Levity
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)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reply
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
people coming out of prison
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
S.O.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]