California Proposition Outlawing Anonymous Internet Usage For Broadly Defined 'Sex Offenders' Passes

from the too-extreme dept

Yesterday, we wrote about a questionable ballot measure in California that, in an attempt to create harsher penalties for human trafficking, also included numerous problematic components, including banning anonymous speech for anyone on the sex offenders list -- which you can get on for a very broad list of offenses, many of which the public does not associate with being a "sex offender." As we noted, since the core argument in favor of the proposition is such an emotional item, and is well-intentioned, it was likely that the measure would pass -- and it did, with 80% of the vote. Unfortunately, you can now expect the internet provision to be abused -- and likely challenged in court, leading to a wasteful legal fight spending California taxpayer dollars to defend an almost certainly unconstitutional provision. Wouldn't it be nice if we could focus on actual problems instead of lumping in all sorts of other things?

Filed Under: anonymous speech, california, free speech, sex offenders

California Ballot Measure Will Likely Ban Anonymous Speech If You Were Arrested For Urinating In Public

from the that's-not-constitutional dept

Here in California, of course, we have a number of (often excessively confusing) ballot measures every election season, and this year is no exception. I've spent a fair amount of time going through the various ballot measures myself in determining how I'd vote on them, and it quickly becomes clear that -- as with so much in government -- the devil is in the details, and the details are often hidden or purposely shoved aside. Take, for example, ballot measure 35. The "summary" version of it sounds like something that many would support:

Increases prison sentences and fines for human trafficking convictions. Requires convicted human traffickers to register as sex offenders. Requires registered sex offenders to disclose Internet activities and identities. Fiscal Impact: Costs of a few million dollars annually to state and local governments for addressing human trafficking offenses. Potential increased annual fine revenue of a similar amount, dedicated primarily for human trafficking victims.

Human trafficking is certainly a big concern. However, there are a lot of details here. That "disclose Internet activities and identities" part is already a concern. And, many of us have heard the horror stories of how states put all sorts of people on "sex offenders" lists for things that aren't sex offenses -- things like urinating in public or (perhaps slightly more controversial) two teenagers engaging in consensual sexual activity.

It turns out that the internet stuff in this bill is massively problematic. Unfortunately, some "voter guides" completely ignore the issue. A popular California voting guide from KCET barely mentions the internet part of the measure, and positions it as something of a no-brainer to support. But, if you look at the details, they're pretty scary:

Proposition 35 would force individuals to provide law enforcement with information about online accounts that are wholly unrelated to criminal activity – such as political discussion groups, book review sites, or blogs. In today’s online world, users may set up accounts on websites to communicate with family members, discuss medical conditions, participate in political advocacy, or even listen to Internet radio. An individual on the registered sex offender list would be forced to report each of these accounts to law enforcement within 24 hours of setting it up – or find themselves in jail. This will have a powerful chilling effect on free speech rights of tens of thousands of Californians.

While Proposition 35 facilitates government monitoring of certain online accounts, it doesn’t add safeguards for civil liberties or privacy. The proposition leaves unclear who will be tasked with reviewing these lists of online accounts for accuracy and completeness, and there are few limits on how the data could be used. There is substantial risk that law enforcement will subject these accounts to additional monitoring, and that officials might turn these lists of accounts over to ISPs or popular web services and solicit the assistance of these intermediaries in monitoring users’ online behavior. For example, if an individual on the registered sex offender list participates in an online political forum, will law enforcement actively monitor these discussion groups? Will other individuals on that forum face increased scrutiny because one of the forum members is on the registry? There are also risks to online accounts that are shared between household members – such as joint Netflix accounts – which will be subject to the same rules of reporting to the police, thus implicating the data of individuals who have committed no crime other than sharing an account with someone on the registry.

The LA Times posted a forceful editorial against the provision, noting that it's all about punching emotional buttons rather than a legitimate law enforcement issue:

It punches most of the usual emotional buttons, appealing to voters' sympathy for victims and disgust with perpetrators who are the closest thing the United States has to modern-day slavers. And in calling for longer sentences, it follows the same assumptions as other tough-on-crime initiatives born in fear or anger rather than thought: Punish people more severely and they will offend less. Merely by being on the ballot, the measure implies that the Legislature would not or could not deal with the issue.

That's false. Lawmakers became convinced in 2005 that state and federal laws dealing with kidnapping, extortion and other crimes were not keeping up with human trafficking, and they adopted a law that was painstakingly crafted with input from law enforcement, victims, advocates and others. That law has been fine-tuned more than a dozen times over the last seven years as experience was gained, people were prosecuted and legal holes were discovered and plugged. Proposition 35 would subvert that work and substitute a web of poorly drafted laws that expand the sex offender registry, divert resources from victims and, most important, could not be adjusted to keep up with changing circumstances without yet another ballot measure.

The ACLU has stepped up and tried to remind people that it's likely unconstitutional in that it removes the right to speak anonymously over issues completely unrelated to any crime:

The Supreme Court has long held that the First Amendment protects the right to speak anonymously. The initiative infringes on that right of registrants to speak anonymously on the Internet, because it means a person who is convicted decades ago of a relatively minor sex offense, such as indecent exposure, or a crime that has absolutely nothing to do with either children or the use of the Internet, must now inform the police of any name he or she uses in any sort of online discussion group.

Unfortunately, because this is an emotional issue, it's likely going to pass, and then there's going to be a huge mess as it's put into practice, followed almost certainly by lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the provision. Emotionally driven issues tend to make bad law, and it seems like this is no exception.

Filed Under: anonymity, california, free speech, human trafficking, sex offenders, social media

Another Attempt To Make TSA Searches Open To Sex Offender Charges

from the touching-junk dept

Back when the TSA's new search procedures went into effect last year, there were a few efforts to subject TSA agents involved in screenings or patdowns to claims of sex offense or sexual assault laws. While I'm not convinced that this truly makes sense, I do know that I've now had conversations with a few different people who have had extremely emotional reactions to having to go through the patdowns, where they truly felt abused afterwards. Some of the accounts are downright frightening, of people who clearly were seriously impacted by the experience.

harbingerofdoom alerts us to the news of a proposed law in New Hampshire that would make the TSA search a sexual assault, where penalties would mark those convicted as Tier III sex offenders. The bill specifically "makes the touching or viewing with a technological device of a person's breasts or genitals by a government security agent without probable cause a sexual assault."

I have to admit that I'm a bit torn about this. As mentioned, I know some people who certainly have felt sexually abused by the searches/patdowns. And I have no doubt that emotional abuse is real and horrifying. I also have serious questions about the usefulness or appropriateness of these searches, and think we'd certainly be best without them. But labeling a TSA agent a sex offender for doing what the TSA requires seems like a pretty extreme response. I recognize the goal here probably isn't to get TSA agents branded sex offenders, but to create a situation that leads to a policy change. But the whole "sex offender" list concept has been abused over the years in dangerous ways, labeling all sorts of people "sex offenders" and branding them for life, even if their "crime" wasn't what one would normally consider a traditional "sex" offense. I'm not convinced that expanding that list, even if to drive a policy change, is a good idea.

Filed Under: new hampshire, patdowns, sex offenders, sexual assault, tsa

Georgia Supreme Court Says It's Okay To Put Non-Sex Offenders On The Registered Sex Offender List

from the this-is-not-good dept

The question of registered sex offenders lists is a tricky one -- because for those people who really do commit sexually-driven crimes against minors, it's hard to be even remotely sympathetic to any complaints they have about the punishment they receive. The problem is that so many things are considered sexual offenses these days that many people are put on the list, and must live with it for life, for something that most people may consider a youthful indiscretion, rather than something that automatically should brand them to neighbors as a possible child molester. Things such as kids having sex with each other after only one of the two teens has reached the "legal" limit or even urinating in public can sometimes be classified as a sexual offense.

And, now, it's gone even further, so that non-sex-offenders can be put on the list. A law passed a few years back says that sex-offender lists must also include those convicted of "kidnapping or falsely imprisoning minors." Again, if you've done one of those things, you certainly deserve to be punished, but should you be put on a sex offender list? A guy who was convicted of "false imprisonment" of a 17-year-old girl when he was 18, during a drug bust gone bad, was added to the sex offender listings in Georgia and he sued to be taken off the list. However, the Georgia Supreme Court has said that it's perfectly legal to put non-sex-offenders onto a sexual offender list.

Again, no one is saying folks like this shouldn't be punished for their crimes -- but this goes beyond punishment for the crime he committed. And the really bad thing is that including all of these other offenses on such a registry dilutes the power and value of any such registry. The purpose behind such a list was supposedly to alert neighbors to be aware -- but when you expand the list to include all sorts of people who are of no risk at all to children, it takes such a list away from its very purpose.

Filed Under: georgia, sex offenders

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

from the help-us-out-here dept

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?

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

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."

Filed Under: bans, illinois, sex offenders, social networks

Facebook Boots Off Almost 5600 Sex Offenders; Don't You Feel Safer Now?

from the now-that-that's-out-of-the-way dept

Facebook says it's cleared about 5600 sex offenders from its userbase, following the big push from a bunch of state attorneys general. The figure's being compared to the 90,000 people that MySpace said it kicked off, leading to some speculation that Facebook isn't trying hard enough; its chief privacy offer says its requirement that people use their real names could deter sex offenders from registering in the first place. If these people Facebook has identified are using the site in violation of their parole or other restrictions, it's good they're being exposed. But the real problem here is that finding sex offenders on social networks and kicking them off is being misconstrued as the ultimate protection for kids. The actual threat posed by sex offenders on web sites is often exaggerated by politicians, and this sort of find-'em-and-ban-'em response causes some actual ways to keep kids safer online to be overlooked, in favor of non-existent magic bullets.

Filed Under: bans, sex offenders, social networks
Companies: facebook

Connecticut AG Upset That MySpace's Sex Offender Tracking (Which He Asked For) Works

from the logic-not-required dept

Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal has been at the forefront of the crusade to "protect the children" by blaming social networks for exposing them to sexual predators. This has largely entailed strong-arming the networks into doing all sorts of largely ineffective things that make for good political grandstanding. For some time, MySpace has been making moves to appease politicians, presumably thinking that it's better for it to take some action to try and keep them off of its back. It's put in place a system to identify sex offenders that have profiles on the site, using government sex offender databases, to track them down and kick them off. Blumenthal's latest stunt was to demand MySpace and Facebook hand over info on how many sex offenders they'd discovered on their sites; MySpace has obliged, revealing that it's identified 90,000 sex offenders on its site. So, you'd think Blumenthal would be thrilled to have some "proof" that the systems he pushed MySpace to put into place are working, that they'd blocked 90,000 would-be predators from contacting kids through the site. You'd be wrong.

Blumenthal instead says the figure "provides compelling proof" that refutes the study that came out a few weeks back -- the study commissioned by Blumenthal and 48 other state attorneys general -- which downplayed the sexual-predator threat social networks posed to children, like other research before it. So because the system he pushed MySpace to put into place is able to identify registered sex offenders, it supposedly proves that this is a real problem, one that he isn't blowing out of proportion, and that MySpace has "monstrously inadequate counter-measures." While we'd argue that most any counter-measure MySpace uses would be inadequate at stopping sexual abuse (because they're fighting a problem that likely isn't that big), it makes little sense why Blumenthal sees MySpace's success at identifying sex offenders in its system, just like he wanted, as a bad thing. It's really hard for MySpace to fight a problem that isn't there, but that doesn't fit Blumenthal's political version of reality.

Filed Under: richard blumenthal, sex offenders, social networks
Companies: myspace

Raising Some Questions About Smoking Gun Sex Offender Profiles On MySpace

from the anyone-check-if-it's-actually-real? dept

Last week, there was a story on News.com about how Connecticut's Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal, who's been on quite a crusade to "protect the children" from social networks, was demanding MySpace hand over info on sex offenders registered on the site. This seemed a bit odd, because MySpace and other social networks had already agreed to weed out the accounts of various sex offenders. Yet, as the article noted, an investigator (who was involved in a separate legal battle with MySpace) happened to find profiles of registered sex offenders still on MySpace including (gasp!) some who even used their own mug shots as their photos. Yet, as Sean Garrett points out, the whole thing seems pretty questionable. Why would a sex offender trolling the site for kids use their own mugshot -- and equally creepy descriptions that are pretty clear tipoffs. The whole thing seems quite likely that someone found the sex offender page and set up a fake MySpace profile.

Of course, it's possible the page was actually put together by the sex offender in question, but it doesn't look like anyone actually bothered to confirm that it's real. Instead, it's being used as a political prop by politicians and reporters of the horrible type of people found on MySpace. As Jim Harper notes, will Richard Blumenthal be investigating the reincarnation of Elvis Presley on Facebook next?

No one's trying to downplay the serious issue of sexual predators, but study after study after study has shown that the issue has been blown way out of proportion by politicians and the press who seem to love creating moral panics so they can claim they're "protecting the children." It's as if they stop thinking and all skepticism goes out the window the second anyone claims that sexual predators might be on social networks -- despite the fact that studies have shown the best way to combat the rare cases when children are approached by such miscreants is better education. Children who are educated on the risks are quite good at avoiding such contact. Yet, that doesn't make for such great headlines and probably doesn't help Attorneys General when it comes to re-election time.

Filed Under: richard blumenthal, sex offenders, social networks
Companies: myspace

Social Networking Site Bans Anyone Over Age 36 To (Sorta) Deal With Sex Offender Law

from the say-what-now? dept

We've pointed out the ridiculousness of various laws (and proposed laws) to require all sex offenders to register their usernames and emails -- and to have social networking sites match up their userlist to that list to ban users -- but this latest story is even more ridiculous. Apparently, the UK has put in place a law that could eventually require the Secretary of State to set up a system where sex offenders will be required to register their email addresses. This isn't the law yet, however, and may never be put in place. Yet, one social network is apparently reacting anyway, and has deleted all profiles of people over the age of 36, claiming that since it doesn't require a valid email address to register for the site, it has no way to compare its registered base with the still non-existent registered offender list. Why age 36? No one seems to have any clue. Basically, the reasoning makes almost no sense at all. The law isn't really in place yet. The 36 year old age cut off has nothing to do with the law -- or with actually blocking sex offenders, many of whom are well below the age of 36. This doesn't even make the point about how ridiculous some of these laws are. It just shows a totally nonsensical reaction to a non-law.

Filed Under: bans, sex offenders, social networks