If Banning The Internet For Sex Offenders Is Unfair, Is Banning The Internet For Copyright Infringers Fair?

from the help-us-out-here dept

Wed, Jan 13th 2010 8:12am — Mike Masnick

For many years we've questioned the logic of courts banning people from the internet for committing some sort of internet crime (mostly commonly sexual offenses online). Many courts have decided that it's ridiculous to ban people from the internet in an era when the internet has become so integral to our lives and our jobs. And, as more content and services move to being online only, it gets even sillier. If you're banned from the internet can you use a Kindle? What about a VoIP phone? It gets confusing fast. Luckily it looks like yet another court has thrown out an internet ban on a sex offender as draconian and a potential violation of the guy's free speech and association rights.

While there's been some split in the courts, it looks like many are starting to question such bans, given how ubiquitous the internet has become. And yet... just as this is happening, we have the entertainment industry pushing hard to kick people off the internet for a small number of accusations (not convictions) for file sharing. Seeing as the courts are already claiming that internet bans -- even for online sex offenders -- is too draconian, how can anyone justify an internet ban as being a fair and equitable "punishment" for being accused (not convicted) of sharing some music?

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: copyright infringement, internet ban, sex offenders, three strikes

88 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

The Infamous Joe (profile), 13 Jan 2010 @ 8:30am

lightbulb
I feel foolish that I didn't think of that comparison already.

Nice one.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Steve R. (profile), 13 Jan 2010 @ 8:32am

Ye Olde Slippery Slope
If it somehow becomes legal for someone to be denied internet access because of some perceived infringement. Every special interest group will claim the same equal "right" to punish people who they define as "bad".

In terms of copyright infringement, we don't even have a level playing field. Those howling over infringement are claiming ever more supposed "rights" that they don't even possess. If this trend were to continue we will all eventually be denied access to the internet!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2010 @ 8:36am

Re: Ye Olde Slippery Slope
And then we'll all go back to buying shiny plastic discs.

Problem solved!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 13 Jan 2010 @ 8:40am

Re: Ye Olde Slippery Slope
And then they'll be a market for 'internet simulators'...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DH's love child, 13 Jan 2010 @ 8:52am

Re: Re: Ye Olde Slippery Slope
At Tower Records!! wait...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ryan, 13 Jan 2010 @ 9:05am

Timing
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2010 @ 9:09am

If you outlaw the internets then only internets will have outlaws. Tubes!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2010 @ 9:19am

I guess NAMBLA doesn't lobby.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2010 @ 9:25am

Re:
lol what? that doesn't make sense!

but yes the issue raised in the post doesn't make much sense either.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Anti-Mike (profile), 13 Jan 2010 @ 9:38am

Perhaps we can get Kevin Mitnick over to discuss internet bans. He has some very interesting personal experiences with this!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2010 @ 9:41am

Do we take away people's access to driving after they commit driving offenses? Driving is fairly ubiquitous in our society.

Seems to operate on similar logic.

On the other hand, we don't bar shoplifters from shopping...

I suppose it probably has something to do with having a license to drive and losing that. I'd hate to see the implementation of a license for internet use...although sometimes I wish their we're shopping licenses and that my wife's would get suspended!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Infamous Joe (profile), 13 Jan 2010 @ 9:49am

Re:
Do we take away people's access to driving after they commit driving offenses?

You're still allowed to ride in a car.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ryan, 13 Jan 2010 @ 10:01am

Re:
The primary difference that I see here, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that an individual unable to drive to a sufficient degree of skill will cause undesireable consequences for fellow drivers - although I do think a lot of penalties associated with drivers' licenses unrelated to safety are pretty much scams to pull in more government revenue(as are just about any government licensing schemes anymore).

On the other hand, it's fairly difficult to cause the same dire consequences for others by torrenting. Those that engage in malicious hacking or spamming or the like are legally restricted from internet usage, similar to drunk drivers with regard to drivers' licenses.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michial Thompson, 13 Jan 2010 @ 10:05am

I wonder
I'm kinda wondering how many Sex Offenders are followers of this site. It seems that not only does Mikee seem to think these freaks should be given everything, but everyone else seems to as well.

Sex offenders should be sent to some island somewhere and then periodically nuke the damn thing to clean the earth of these low lifes.

Internet is not a RIGHT, and the moment the committed a crime they lost their RIGHTS
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2010 @ 10:06am

Re:
Kevin Mitnick was accused of copyright infingement?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2010 @ 10:14am

Re: I wonder
Medicine is not a right, and the moment they commited a crime they lose their rights, to medicine.

What about the sex offenders who took a nude picture of themselves? Are they on your island? Or they had sex with their girlfriend or boyfriend when they themselves were 18 and their girlfriend or boyfriend was 17? Also on your island?

The internet is a communciations platform. Do they lose the ability to communcate? To use the telephone?

What color is the sky in your world?

Is it black and white?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BigKeithO, 13 Jan 2010 @ 10:23am

Re: I wonder
Where does Mike, or "everyone else" say that sex offenders should be given anything, let alone given everything?

All I saw was that the courts say that taking away the internet from these people is a violation of their rights. Maybe you island should be full of judges too?

You crazy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2010 @ 10:31am

Re: I wonder
At least one, judging by your repressed sexual rage.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2010 @ 10:32am

Misleading headline and superficial treatment of the subject matter associated with the criminal case.

No court has said that internet bans are unlawful. In each instance where access to the internet has been banned, courts have concerned themselves with they type of crime involved and the reasonableness of conditions and length of time associated with a ban.

Nice try attempting to equate criminal matters with civil matters. As yet I have not seen any civil banishment from the internet, and if I ever do I would fully expect it would be in the context of a time limited injunction pertaining to engaging in the infringment of copyright.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Alan Gerow (profile), 13 Jan 2010 @ 10:43am

Re:
"Do we take away people's access to driving after they commit driving offenses? "

But you are still allowed to use the street system. You can ride a bike, a
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2010 @ 10:46am

Re:
But everybody infringes upon copyright everyday!

So on top of being fined a million dollars, you also get your internet taken away from you?

That's fair.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2010 @ 10:47am

Re:
What does the National Association of Marlon Brando Look-ALikes have to do with this?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Alan Gerow (profile), 13 Jan 2010 @ 10:47am

Re:
(where'd the rest of my comment go?)

"Do we take away people's access to driving after they commit driving offenses? "

But you are still allowed to use the street system. You can ride a bike, an under 50cc scooter (many places don't require a license or registration), a Segway, pay for a taxi, take public transportation, walk.

In relation to removing Internet access would be closer to saying: you have been accused of speeding 3 times, you are under house arrest.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2010 @ 10:49am

Re:
Red herrings are fun.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2010 @ 11:03am

We should ban the homeless because being homeless is not a right.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dan, 13 Jan 2010 @ 11:16am

Re: Ye Olde Slippery Slope
Then agree to a change of the law that people that sexually molest children should be put to death.

That should be the case already though.

We wouldn't have that discussion then now would we. Do goobers, who cares that he raped your child. He deserves another chance.

you people are sick fks. Your always finding a reason to let someone off.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DCX2, 13 Jan 2010 @ 11:20am

Of course it's fair.
Sex offenders are merely assaulting other human beings. Copyright infringement is impacting the bottom line of major corporations!

Come on, you know that $$$ > human life.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dan, 13 Jan 2010 @ 11:23am

Re: Re: I wonder
sex offenders lose ALL rights.

Otherwise they agree to begin castrated.

What FUCKING color is the sky in your world?

Everything goes in your book quite obviously. What, you a closet perv that preys on the neighborhood childeren?

how about this you sick cock sucker.

What ever a sex offender is proven guilty of should happen to them. Doesn't matter what it is. Rape? They should be raped.

By the way, I fell the same thing should be done to domestic violence individuals. They beat their spouse, they should be beat just as bad by an individual that is the same appropriator difference in size.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dan, 13 Jan 2010 @ 11:24am

Re: Re: I wonder
what right?

What law in ANY country makes it a right to have internet access?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hulser (profile), 13 Jan 2010 @ 11:33am

Re:
No court has said that internet bans are unlawful. In each instance where access to the internet has been banned, courts have concerned themselves with they type of crime involved and the reasonableness of conditions and length of time associated with a ban.

I think you're mincing words here. Maybe the courts haven't said that any kind of Internet ban is unlawful, but they do appear to be veering away from this kind of punishment for what is inarguably one of the worst offenses. So, the question in the headline seems perfectly reasonable to me. It's basically pointing out that the RIAA/MPAA must believe copyright infringment is, based on recent court cases, worse than child molestation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2010 @ 11:39am

Re:
"Do we take away people's access to driving after they commit driving offenses?"

In most cases, you get your license taken away for offenses that put peoples lives in danger. So a (most often) temporary ban is reasonable. The situation is hardly comparable to the 3 strikes perpetual internet ban.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2010 @ 11:44am

Re: Re: Re: I wonder
You sound like someone personally affected by a sex offender. That is a horrible situation, but your view is now unfairly biased. You are in no longer in a position to make judgments or engage in debates that relate to this subject. Your comments about in this post clearly show that you are suffering from an unbalanced state of mind at the moment. Perhaps you need to take a deep breath and return when you can think clearly and rationally.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2010 @ 11:45am

Re: Re:
Duh, copyright infringers ARE worse than child molesters, because unlike child molesters, infringers support terrorism and farm subsidies!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Infamous Joe (profile), 13 Jan 2010 @ 11:46am

Re: Re: Re: I wonder
What ever a sex offender is proven guilty of should happen to them. Doesn't matter what it is. Rape? They should be raped.

Eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind, my enraged friend.

It's also worth noting that there are several flaws in your (obviously) poorly thought-out plan.

1. A man solicits sex from a minor on the internet. His punishment is to be solicited for sex from a minor on the internet?

2. An 18 year old girl sleeps with her 17 year old boyfriend. Her punishment is to have a 19 year old boy sleep with her?

3. A poor fellow who cannot handle his drink is caught urinating in public thrice. His punishment is to.. I really don't know, be urinated on three times in private? (He might like it!)

Finally, regardless of the nature of the sex crime, in your world all sex offender would still get to stay on the internet.

Have a great day, danny boy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Infamous Joe (profile), 13 Jan 2010 @ 11:49am

Re: Re:
Especially if you attempt to cut down the largest tree in the forest with one. (Ni!)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Anti-Mike (profile), 13 Jan 2010 @ 12:08pm

Re: Re:
No, but he was banned off the internet for 5 years.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2010 @ 12:09pm

Re: Re:
Some of the above posts here suggest that banning internet access would mean the person couldn't even witness someone else use the internet...is that really what those bans do?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dwind (profile), 13 Jan 2010 @ 12:10pm

How do you ban someone from the internet?
They can pull the plug at your residence but how can they stop you from going to the local macs or starbucks or any open wireless and getting on? How can they prevent you from getting an email address?
They can make it inconvenient but they can't ban a person.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2010 @ 12:11pm

Re: Re: Ye Olde Slippery Slope
Sex Offender does not equal Child Molester...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Infamous Joe (profile), 13 Jan 2010 @ 12:13pm

Re: Re: Re:
..and the ban was overturned in the middle of it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
NullOp, 13 Jan 2010 @ 12:18pm

Fair?
Fair :- a place people go to watch pigs race for cookies.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jim Johnson, 13 Jan 2010 @ 12:24pm

Re: Re: Re: I wonder
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_access#Internet_access_as_right
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Infamous Joe (profile), 13 Jan 2010 @ 12:28pm

Re: How do you ban someone from the internet?
Exactly. They are proposing a law that would allow Party A to terminate your services with Party B without any convictions, only allegations from Party A using an IP Address to "prove" you did it, and to top it off, the law is unenforceable.

All the while, getting kicked off the internet isn't going to make anyone buy more music, so the original "problem" isn't even solved.

What could go wrong?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dan, 13 Jan 2010 @ 12:29pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: I wonder
Hope its your daughter that is raped by the perv that spends all his time looking at kiddy porn on the internet.

hope they track it back to your house after wards and your ass fucked by all your buddies in jail.

I got a broom stick for you pervert. Thats all you deserve.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2010 @ 12:32pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I wonder
Condemning sexual violence by wishing sexual violence on someone else and then threatening/implying sexual violence on someone else.

I'm noticing in this post's discussion that you lack the ability to form logical arguments.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dan, 13 Jan 2010 @ 12:32pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: I wonder
Thats right, NEVER ask someone that was abused by a specific act about WHAT the punishments should be.

Your a stupid mother fucker, no shit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2010 @ 12:33pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I wonder
Man, your missing the best part of the broom.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Anti-Mike (profile), 13 Jan 2010 @ 12:36pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
As I said, he have some very interesting personal experiences.

Plus him and Darcy were really nice to sit and have dinner with :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dan, 13 Jan 2010 @ 12:39pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I wonder
I do HOPE that your family is raped and abused by sexual offenders(child/rape). you deserve it. You do everything in your power to let it happen to others with no regard to INNOCENTS welfare. So it should happen, TO YOU. And nobody else
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dan, 13 Jan 2010 @ 12:42pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: I wonder
And when did I vote the United Nations to represent me in anything?

When was I given a choice on who represents me there?

And WHY should I let a body of individuals that allow rape, genocide, slavery, piracy, ... dictate to me what should and should not be my freedom?

Are you for real?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jim Johnson, 13 Jan 2010 @ 12:45pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I wonder
You only asked what country makes it a right to have internet access. What does that have to do with rape, genocide, slavery, or piracy? I was answering your single question. Several countries have made it a right to have internet access.

Calm down dude you're going rabid here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TDR, 13 Jan 2010 @ 12:47pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I wonder
Question; Where does it say that "sex offender" is always equal to "molester/rapist"? I'd like to see, please. Examples have been given above of the overly broad application of the label - and it IS just that, a label, used by politicians to advance their agendas whether or not the person in question actually deserves the label in the first place.

Again, the label is often applied for things far more minor than you realize. Underage girls sending a pic of themselves to their boyfriend, 18 year olds sleeping with their 16 or 17 year old gf/bf, a drunk accidentally relieving himself in a public place (if you're drunk, you're not aware of what you're doing most of the time). All of these, under current law, would be classified as "sex offenders" even though they've done nothing to truly warrant the label. Or are you the type to never question the applicability of such labels but who rather finds comfort in blind hatred?

And another thing, as far as the definition of "minor" goes, before the 20th century, teenagers about 16 and up were considered adults old enough to be on their own and marry and own property. It's only been in these last hundred years or so that the boundary for "minor" has been moved up, partly due to the changes in society, I would think.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2010 @ 12:49pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I wonder
No one says you can't ask them. Their viewpoint is important. But its far from the most important thing to consider. Punishments need to be set by objective parties who can look at the merits of the deed and pros and cons of a given punishment. Those who are too close to the situation will are unable to look at the deed for what it actually is, and in nearly every case will advocate a punishment that is far more severe than what society as a whole will demand.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2010 @ 12:53pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I wonder
Hey Dan, those words could be seen as threats. Sexual threats. You, my friend, have just become a sexual offender.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Infamous Joe (profile), 13 Jan 2010 @ 1:10pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I wonder
Oh, I get it now.

Obvious troll is obvious. We've gotten spoiled having TAM around.

That's my bad. :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
:), 13 Jan 2010 @ 1:19pm

Re: Re: Re: I wonder
Have you been molested?

Go to therapy or take some anger management classes or you will find yourself in that island of yours very soon.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2010 @ 1:27pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I wonder
Disconnect him from the internet!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2010 @ 2:06pm

Re: I wonder
The internet is also not something used to smack people over the head with. Though I agree that Child Molesters should be dragged down the street by a large dog slowly till their remains are naught. Deciding who can and who can not share information over the internet is not a direction we want to head in as a society. Done.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chargone (profile), 13 Jan 2010 @ 2:14pm

i'm probably about to infringe on a copyright here:
"Evil lurks in the datalinks, as it lurked in the streets of yesteryear. But it was never the streets that were evil"

taken from Sid Mier's Alpha Centauri

admittedly, this is probably more appropriate to attacks on the internet as a whole, but still.

I think a lot of people, especially in positions of power, haven't yet grasped how similar 'the internet' and 'the street' actually are.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2010 @ 2:50pm

Re: i'm probably about to infringe on a copyright here:
Pirates are just modern-day pamphleteers. The only difference being that pirates hand out everyone's pamplets.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 13 Jan 2010 @ 4:02pm

Re:
Misleading headline and superficial treatment of the subject matter associated with the criminal case.

The headline asked a question. I don't see how a question can be misleading. And even if it were a statement, it would not be misleading in the slightest. It's a reasonable question. Or do you disagree? Do you think that it is fair to remove people from the internet? If so, what for?

No court has said that internet bans are unlawful. In each instance where access to the internet has been banned, courts have concerned themselves with they type of crime involved and the reasonableness of conditions and length of time associated with a ban.

Your first sentence does not agree with your second sentence. Yes, as noted in the post, courts *have* declared internet bans illegal due to the reasonableness of the punishment in relation to the crime.

And that seems to fit perfectly with my headline, which you incorrectly called misleading.

Nice try attempting to equate criminal matters with civil matters.

Heh. Really? I would think that you would know better than to bring that up, as it actually supports my position even more. I didn't even bring up the fact that one was criminal and one was civil, because I could actually potentially see a stronger case for an internet ban in a criminal case. I can't see where it could ever make sense in a civil matter (not even a lawsuit). Do you really want to suggest that it actually does make sense in a civil matter? I am hoping you misspoke. I will await your retraction.

As yet I have not seen any civil banishment from the internet, and if I ever do I would fully expect it would be in the context of a time limited injunction pertaining to engaging in the infringment of copyright.

And you believe this to be perfectly acceptable?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
McBeese, 13 Jan 2010 @ 4:59pm

Re: Re:
People should lose access to the tools they use to commit their crimes, wherever possible.

Drunk drivers should lose the privilege of driving on public roads.

Armed robbers should lose access to guns.

Internet predators should lose direct access to the Internet.

The RIAA and MPAA should lose access to lawyers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonomous Cow, 13 Jan 2010 @ 5:55pm

Wow - this thread got way off topic.
I thought it was about three strikes and how you are kicked off without due process.
Oh well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Henry Emrich (profile), 13 Jan 2010 @ 6:07pm

Even if they somehow *did* supposedly enact a "law"
"banning" people from the Internet...it won't work.

Kevin Mitnick was ONE guy. Let's say they attempt to "ban" ten thousand pretty tech-savvy "pirates". You think that will actually work? You think they won't just "war-drive" the fuck around, doing destructive (and pretty much untraceable) shit with whatever open Wifi connections they find?

How *would* you even "ban" someone from the Internet, anyway? IP addresses aren't like people's names. The only thing they *might* be able to do is ban people from purchasing Internet connectivity *IN THEIR OWN NAME*, from an ISP. No way to "ban" somebody from using a cracked smart-hone. No way to "ban" somebody whose name you don't know, on the basis of the quality of evidence that leads "anti-piracy" organizations to issue cease and desist warrants to computer printers. The whole notion of "kicking somebody off the Internet" rests on a total misunderstanding of what the Internet is (a series of common protocols -- not even a "thing" in the sense of a single unified network).

The only thing an attempt at "banning" someone -- ANYONE -- from the Internet will do, is piss of a lot of really tech-savvy folks who -- already -- don't give two liquidy shits about what "the law" says in relation to copyright, etc.

This isn't about whether it's a "right" (but that works as a really nice straw-man, btw). It's about what people *will do*. People are *still* doing 'illegal' drugs. Prohibition doesn't work.

Penalizing somebody who understands the ubiquitous -- and necessary -- tools upon which our entire civilization runs (computers and digital networking and such), is simply a recipe for creating an entire new crop of Kevin Mitnick clones. It won't work, because it CAN'T work.

So whether it's "fair" or not is also totally irrelevant. It's not particularly "fair" that if you bring a knife to a gun-fight, you probably get shot. What happened to the MesoAmerican tribes (Aztecs, etc) wasn't particularly "fair" either, but as we all know by now, superior firepower wins.

All the rest of it -- including Drama-troll's dramatic little re-enactment of "Sunset Boulevard" -- is bullshit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Henry Emrich (profile), 13 Jan 2010 @ 6:10pm

How do I Know people are still doing "illegal" drugs?
Anti-Mike's posts confirm that at least ONE person out there is stoned out of his mind. I want whatever you're on, dude!
Seriously.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2010 @ 12:19am

Re: How do I Know people are still doing "illegal" drugs?
I disagree... dan wins, hands down.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
slander (profile), 14 Jan 2010 @ 12:22am

Re: Re: How do I Know people are still doing "illegal" drugs?
I really need to make sure I'm logged in before posting...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 14 Jan 2010 @ 10:48am

Re: Re: Re: Ye Olde Slippery Slope
Even just restricting ourselves to child molesters, kicking them off the internet will in no way prevent them from molesting anyone. There may be restrictions necessary for keeping others safe (not allowed to teach school, etc) but let's make sure they actually make sense. Otherwise we're just curtailing someone's liberty for revenge, which is not a legitimate cause.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 14 Jan 2010 @ 11:00am

Re: Re: Re:
Drunk drivers should lose the privilege of driving on public roads.

But not lose access to roads.

Armed robbers should lose access to guns.

But not to ski masks.

Internet predators should lose direct access to the Internet.

If it is judged that they are likely to offend again, they've already served any jail term, and this is decided to be effective and the least restrictive means of preventing reoffense, I agree.

If I beat someone with a wrench, should I lose access to hand tools? If I infringe copyright on the internet, should I lose access to that tool which has many legal uses? What is so special about the internet? If I infringe by copying books, should I lose access to paper?

I think there are certain narrow circumstances where "People should lose access to the tools they use to commit their crimes, wherever possible" might be reasonable, but in general it is way too broad.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sheeple Herder, 14 Jan 2010 @ 11:29am

Internet Bans
The latest incarnation of this law was just struck down in Nebraska. Some of you might remember that giant show boat by the state AG's a few years back. They comissioned a study to find out just how many child sex cases were aided by the internet.

The results came back that only 5% of teens had ever been sexually solicited online and that those other higher numbers did not take into account that many cases of harassement were by other teens.

The AG's promptly rejected the results of their own studies and purged thousands of former sex offenders from myspace and facebook.

Fear not only makes for great election year soundbites but it is ratings gold for all media outlets.

This is America who cares about the truth?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2010 @ 12:06pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
You have to admit that RIAA and MPAA losing their lawyers would be excellent punishment for abusing DMCA take down notices.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2010 @ 2:43pm

Re: Re:
"And you believe this to be perfectly acceptable?"

Yes, I do, so long as it is reasonable under the circumstances.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 14 Jan 2010 @ 4:40pm

Re: Re: Re:
Yes, I do, so long as it is reasonable under the circumstances.

Can you express under which circumstances you would find it to be acceptable?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2010 @ 7:19pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
The appellate court opinion proceeds along lines generally consistent with my personal views.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jan 2010 @ 11:31am

Re: Re:
(many places don't require a license or registration)

Some places don't require any license. Move there.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jan 2010 @ 11:34am

Re: Re: Re: I wonder
What ever a sex offender is proven guilty of should happen to them.

In many cases that would be more of a reward than a punishment.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jan 2010 @ 2:32pm

Re: Internet Bans
"This is America who cares about the truth?"

Truth is a treat to a well-ordered society.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Randy, 10 Jun 2010 @ 7:09am

Fuad Kamal of Anaara Media is a Registered Sex Offender. He lives in the Washington, D.C. metro area, but I don't think there are any laws in his jurisdiction banning him from the internet. He is on numerous social media sites online. The thing that is bad about this is that Fuad Kamal served five years in prison for pedophilia and is now on parole. He cannot live within close proximity to a school and must register as a sex offender for the rest of his life. Should he really be on social media sites at all?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dave roberts, 15 May 2013 @ 9:45pm

Re: I wonder
U hav a narrow view of sex offenders. I am a registered sex offender within the UK. I am not a paedophile or rapist I was convicted for voyeurism. Voyeurism is watching a private or sexual act with sexual gratification. So let me put something to u. Whilst walking to the shops one night u walk past a lounge window and witness the resident of the house getting changed. weather u stop walking or not would u have a second look before walking past the house n out of sight. ... if u say no there is a very high likelyness that ur a blatant liar. If u said yes or lied n said no u have just commited a sex offence. If that person sees u looking recognises u and reports u to the police n u get charged n convicted uv now just been placed on tbe sex offenders register for 5 years. Does that make u a monster? Does that make me a monster? Does that mean I have to go to ur execution island? Wot if I was to tell u this. Yes I am a registered sex offender but I am also a father to a 7 yr old girl and im also a step father to a 10yr old boy a 5yr old girl and a 18monthold boy and they know me as nothing other than their dad due to the absence of their biological father. I am also a husband. I also work in a position of saving the lives of 1000s of total strangers every year. A sex offender is a very small part of who I am. I hav never endangered an adult or a child and never would are will. Do I deserve to die? Does my daughter or step children deserve to grow up without a father? Does my wife deserve to grow old and raise her children/step children without her husbands support?
Am I a vile disgusting monster that needs to be killed?
Or am I a loving father and husband and a human being, a real person with feelings and emotions just like you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dave roberts, 15 May 2013 @ 9:54pm

Re: Re: Re: I wonder
U hav a narrow view of sex offenders. I am a registered sex offender within the UK. I am not a paedophile or rapist I was convicted for voyeurism. Voyeurism is watching a private or sexual act with sexual gratification. So let me put something to u. Whilst walking to the shops one night u walk past a lounge window and witness the resident of the house getting changed. weather u stop walking or not would u have a second look before walking past the house n out of sight. ... if u say no there is a very high likelyness that ur a blatant liar. If u said yes or lied n said no u have just commited a sex offence. If that person sees u looking recognises u and reports u to the police n u get charged n convicted uv now just been placed on tbe sex offenders register for 5 years. Does that make u a monster? Does that make me a monster? Does that mean I have to go to ur execution island? Wot if I was to tell u this. Yes I am a registered sex offender but I am also a father to a 7 yr old girl and im also a step father to a 10yr old boy a 5yr old girl and a 18monthold boy and they know me as nothing other than their dad due to the absence of their biological father. I am also a husband. I also work in a position of saving the lives of 1000s of total strangers every year. A sex offender is a very small part of who I am. I hav never endangered an adult or a child and never would are will. Do I deserve to die? Does my daughter or step children deserve to grow up without a father? Does my wife deserve to grow old and raise her children/step children without her husbands support?Am I a vile disgusting monster that needs to be killed?Or am I a loving father and husband and a human being, a real person with feelings and emotions just like you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dave roberts, 15 May 2013 @ 9:59pm

Re: Re: Re: I wonder
U hav a narrow view of sex offenders. I am a registered sex offender within the UK. I am not a paedophile or rapist I was convicted for voyeurism. Voyeurism is watching a private or sexual act with sexual gratification. So let me put something to u. Whilst walking to the shops one night u walk past a lounge window and witness the resident of the house getting changed. weather u stop walking or not would u have a second look before walking past the house n out of sight. ... if u say no there is a very high likelyness that ur a blatant liar. If u said yes or lied n said no u have just commited a sex offence. If that person sees u looking recognises u and reports u to the police n u get charged n convicted uv now just been placed on tbe sex offenders register for 5 years. Does that make u a monster? Does that make me a monster? Does that mean I have to be castrated? Wot if I was to tell u this. Yes I am a registered sex offender but I am also a father to a 7 yr old girl and im also a step father to a 10yr old boy a 5yr old girl and a 18monthold boy and they know me as nothing other than their dad due to the absence of their biological father. I am also a husband. I also work in a position of saving the lives of 1000s of total strangers every year. A sex offender is a very small part of who I am. I hav never endangered an adult or a child and never would or will. Do I deserve to be castrated? Or do o deserve to be executed? Does my daughter or step children deserve to grow up without a father? Does my wife deserve to grow old and raise her children/step children without her husbands support?Am I a vile disgusting monster that needs to be castrated or killed?Or am I a loving father and husband and a human being, a real person with feelings and emotions just like you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dave roberts, 15 May 2013 @ 10:06pm

Re: Of course it's fair.
Ur view of sex offenders is very narrow and very wrong.
I am a registered sex offender. I nvr assaulted anyone! I watched someone get changed without there knowledge. Yes I am on tbe sex offenders register but that is not wot I am. Wot I am is a loving father of 4 and a loving husband. I save thousands of lives of total strangers every year and do so because that is who I am. I am a person just like u
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dave roberts, 15 May 2013 @ 10:16pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: I wonder
Hi im a registered sex offender. Ur punishment method has a few flaws in it.See im on the register for voyeurism.... I watched someone get changed without their knowledge. So in ur system of punishment id have someone watch get changed without my knowing but that wouldn't be a punishment as I wouldnt know about it. Plus it wouldnt bother me to be fair as im an exhibitionist lol
However I do agree on other cases such as child molesters and rapists. I am a husband and a father and I would kill anyone who touched either my daughter or my wife
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dave roberts, 15 May 2013 @ 10:16pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: I wonder
Hi im a registered sex offender. Ur punishment method has a few flaws in it.See im on the register for voyeurism.... I watched someone get changed without their knowledge. So in ur system of punishment id have someone watch get changed without my knowing but that wouldn't be a punishment as I wouldnt know about it. Plus it wouldnt bother me to be fair as im an exhibitionist lol
However I do agree on other cases such as child molesters and rapists. I am a husband and a father and I would kill anyone who touched either my daughter or my wife
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dave roberts, 15 May 2013 @ 10:21pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I wonder
Y the fuck would u hope for a child to get raped u sick cunt. N u call him a pervert
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dave roberts, 15 May 2013 @ 10:27pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I wonder
Thank u. I am a registered sex offender. I am not a rapist or a child molester or paedophile. I watched someone get changed without there knowledge.
Wot I am is a father and a husband
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dave roberts, 15 May 2013 @ 10:31pm

Re: Re: Re:
Hi I am on the register for voyeurism. Do I deserve to have my eyes removed from my skull?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dave roberts, 15 May 2013 @ 10:31pm

Re: Re: Re:
Hi I am on the register for voyeurism. Do I deserve to have my eyes removed from my skull?
[ link to this | view in thread ]