Slashdot Mirror
New Jersey Bars Sex Offenders From the Internet
eldavojohn writes "New Jersey just passed legislation making it illegal for sex offenders to use the internet. NJ congresswoman Linda D. Greenstein said, 'When Megan's Law was enacted, few could envision a day when a sex offender hiding behind a fake screen name would be a mouse-click away from new and unwitting victims. Sex offenders cannot be given an opportunity to abuse the anonymity the Internet can provide as a means of opening a door to countless new potential victims.' While they still can search for jobs, this is a major expansion over the prior legislation which barred them from social networking sites like facebook or myspace."
Could they be any more ridiculous?
No one has ever been raped, beaten or contracted a sexually-transmitted disease on the internet.
Are they going to ban sex-offenders from using cell phones? From writing letters? From talking?
And of course, like all of the best in stupid legislation, these laws are essentially unenforceable. On the net, no one knows that you are a dog, or a convict.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
People convicted of drug offences banned from the internet, because they might use the internet to buy drugs
People convicted of fraud banned from the internet, because they might use the internet to defraud someone
People convicted of disturbing the peace banned from the internet, because they might use the internet to disturb people
And so forth.
A totally unworkable, probably unconstitutional waste of time. A legislative brain-fart if you ask me.
While this is obviously about the United States, it's a problem everywhere. The criminal legislation velocity in the United Kingdom is totally out of control. There's a bill every couple of months that criminalises some silly action. I recon that the criminal code should only be adjusted by bills put to referendum. This would reduce the volume of legislation and protect the people from totally stupid laws, unenforceable laws.
Simon
Really, its become LoonyLand.
People are ashamed of the US, people don't want to travel there, people don't want to support American companies, people don't want to even listen to them.
They are a case of "do as we say, not as we do".
http://www.rense.com/general79/wdx1.htm
I moderate this legislation -1 unenforceable
I tend to agree, because the internet was made for porn.
/.
Porn, porn, porn.
We ALL know where THAT leads...
possibly even to
1) Sex offender applies for job which requires internet access/use.
2) Sex offender doesn't get job because of this law. (and also possibly because they're a sex offender)
3) Sex offender sues NJ for silly-ass law.
And what about those sex offenders in NJ who already have jobs that require Internet access/use?
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
If these sex offenders are all so heinously dangerous that they need to be stripped of things like using the internet, moving to a neighborhood without angry mobs with pitchforks driving them out, etc. -- why are they out on the streets? Shouldn't dangerous people be locked up or executed? Make up your damn minds - either lock 'em up (or execute them), or set them free. You can have your cake and eat it.
What makes sexual offenders so much worse than violent nonsexual offenders (who are allowed internet access)?
There are a fair number of sexual offenders who aren't actually violent.
I believe sex crimes include stuff like indecent exposure, "Lewd and lascivious conduct", consensual (but illegal) sex, etc.
I guess the Wars Against Drugs, Terror, Iraq etc are not enough, have to start a War Against Sex Offenders too.
Oh well I suppose that makes most voters in New Jersey feel safer.
Oh and by the way would someone define "sex offender" in the context of this article? If you use a broad definition of "sex offender" then someone who was arrested and prosecuted for streaking in their college days or for public urination may meet the criteria as a "sex offender".
THIS IS MY STATE ....
I'm a proponent for freedom and privacy and all that... ...but these are convicted sex offenders, not your average joe or script kiddy. I admit I have to agree with the decision, even if it's not reliably enforceable. Please keep in mind the popularity of online chat rooms as far as finding young kids goes, and the use of the internet to spread child porn. Even if it doesn't work perfectly, I can't disagree with it.
Please, Think of the children!
This is all getting ridiculous. Here in South Florida, sex offenders are prevented from living within 2,500 feet of a school, parks, and other places where children gather. This puts all but tiny slivers of entire counties off-limits, and of course there's no housing available in those slivers.
So what have they done? Parole officers are telling their parolees to live under a bridge. As many as 20 sex offenders at a time live under this one bridge connecting Miami and Miami Beach, where they have no power or running water or even reliable shelter from the weather.
And they wonder why some of them disappear from the system entirely.
Either sex offenders are a threat to society and should be in prison or they're not and should be released. This crap about releasing them and making it impossible for them to live a normal life does nothing but encourage them to break the law.
Doesn't T-Mobile market a phone that switches to WiFi when WiFi's available? Could a sex offender violate this law simply by making a phone call?
668: Neighbour of the Beast
So are they a threat to society or not? If they are, then keep them in prison. We have a court and parole system dedicated to making this decision on a case-by-case basis.
When you tell someone they have to make a living for themselves but can't live anywhere and can't do this and can't do that, what are they going to do? Accept it and try to live a miserable life or run away and hide from the system?
Oppressive restrictions like this only make things worse.
Wait so... instead of letting these guys sit around on the internet all day where they're essentially harmless, those in the sex offender registry who are there for a legitimate reason (as opposed to for say... pissing on somebodys lawn at 3 AM or being 17 while getting a blowjob from a 15 year old) will now need to go outside and "interact" (i.e. molest for those of you you are clueless--namely, legislators) with real people to get their rocks off. Good job New Jersey. You sure solved that problem. Make sure all the child molesters go outside and play instead of sitting around in front of the computer at all hours. Maybe it'll help out the kids too. 'Cause they get some more exercise trying to run away. We'll have this obesity epidemic kicked in no time. That WAS the problem they were trying to solve right?
...of serving your time and paying your debt to society?
At this rate we may as well just cut to the chace and sentence convicted sex offenders (and whoever else is out to get your children) to lifelong destitution. We can brand them or something so people know to hate and fear them because, really, they can't possibly have reformed...and it would save neighbors and employers the bother of looking them up in the registries (heaven forbid people actually do something about their own security).
TFA implies this only affects the worst of the worst. Let's at least hope that's accurate.
Really, it isn't the sex offenders that are on probations, its the repeat offenders, and the people that are doing it that they don't know about that are the real problem. this just takes away peoples right, it's like say you fscked up, and were then labeled as a sex offender, you loose everything, and you have to earn rights back, but those people should be left alone for their one bad act. what good does it do to punish them for life? is taking the car away from the achohalic fair? how about telling the people who got busted smoking pot that they can't do something? each law after another is forseing the population into a black whole, where some feel fuck it I might aswell kill myself, because life is pointless. what about the sex offender, that got killed, and he didn't deserve death. but due to some parent thinking oh I don't want this guy near my family, he was killed. http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/07/12/11/1330257.shtml -- right there. doing this is just another hook on the line.
NJ is the FIRST State that has bannned the Death Penalty which makes it a progressive state in line with Europe.
Now they go and do this!!
I don't get it
Really, a privilege? Guess I must have missed the part in the constitution where it says "anything not invented yet is automatically forbidden, unless the government decides otherwise". I could've sworn there's even some sort of, I dunno, amendment with some verbiage to the contrary. Must be my bad.
If these people are dangerous scumbags, fine, lock em up forever.
If you set them free, at least let them live a normal life. Not being allowed to use the internet is a bullshit restriction. You might as well tell them not to read. Equally inconvenient and disruptive to normal daily life, equally unlikely to stop deliberate pervs from doing it again, and equally unenforceable.
But yeah, feel-good legislation for subscribers to Internet Tough Guy Magazine.
Why not just keep them in prison for life, or set up a penal colony with a big minefield around it, and make them live there, in a single sex environment, with only other paedophiles, for the rest of their lives?
Because many of the top judges, policemen, and politicians, are PAEDOPHILES, that's why, and they want to be able to get out of jail after a couple of years, for raping children...
It really is not due process - it is politicians playing with the lives of people under arbitrary conditions and sidestepping the legal process instead of the formality of a trial. If they want this stuff they should re-try the offenders and see if the evidence makes it worth this extra penalty. Retrospective laws can be nasty - paticularly since those who are caught with minor offences (eg. public urination) would be caught up with this too
This would be OK if we were talking about real rapists or other dangerous sex offenders (like people who actually used the internet to meet victims), but for example a mother breastfeeding her child in public and being arrested for it by some overzealous idiot of a police officer is now also going to lose her right to have an internet connection. There are lots and lots of "sex offenders" that really did nothing wrong, or did something totally unrelated to actual sex. 15-17 couples, people urinating outside, streaking,... It's bad enough already that these people are barred from many jobs (teaching, for example), but now they are even going to be kicked off the internet? What's next? They shouldn't be allowed to visit libraries anymore? Stay 1 mile away from any playgrounds or sports facilities visited by minors?
Ridiculous. If they've paid their debt to society and are deemed reformed they should be treated like any other type of criminal. If they're considered a danger to society they should be locked up for life or simply shot. Creating a class of almost-persons is, IMHO, well within the definition of cruel and unusual punishment.
I've seen a number of vitriolic posts talking about those horrible sex offenders, as if they knew exactly what one was.
You don't. Trust me, you don't. Yes, it includes rapists, child molesters, etc... but the actual set of offenses that cause someone to be called a "sex offender" also includes stupid little things like flashing, victimless crimes like newlyweds making hanky-panky in a technically-public area, questionable crimes like public urination... all sorts of things that infuriate the puritanical elements of our society. It makes a nice, easy-to-administer Scarlet Letter for everyone the puritans hate.*
I would not have as much problem with this law if it actually applied only to the rapists and child molesters. Unfortunately, it does not.
* The label is also often used to repress closeted gays... "Those durned fagnits, having sex in the parks! This'll learn 'em!"
the internet's going to be so quiet with all the sex offenders gone. :(
How are they going to post on Slashdot NOW!?
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...............
The Manufacture of Madness: A Comparative Study of the Inquisition and the Mental Health Movement (Paperback)
by Thomas Stephen Szasz is an interesting book. The author makes the point that if something is simultaneously a sin, a crime, and a mental illness what you are really dealing with is societies prejudice. This has been true of drug use, homosexuality, and sex offenders.
Ultimately its about society and individuals. How comfortable are you with having sex offenders living in your neighborhood. Would your opinion change if you had kids? This is a balance of rights and clearly some people are nervous about having sex offenders living in their neighborhood. The question is is this a legitimate concern, lots of people will be nervous, paranoid about lots of things so where does legislation step in.
By limiting their rights to the internet what the system is essentially saying is these people cannot be trusted, they are not reformed. So ideally they should be in a prison or some other institution where they can be reformed and if they can't then they shouldn't be out. By having them live in a hostile society, which is exactly what happens when you have laws like this, you are infact wronging them.
karma
This seems to make slightly more sense than how the summary portrays it. If they were convicted of molesting someone through myspace et al, why not take their weapon away from them? On the otherhand, if you didn't know she was underage at that party, from the sounds of things you should still be able to read slashdot.
Can slashdot comments have one of those EULA style things that pops up and asks you to check that you've RTFA'd?
Or maybe some kind of captcha that makes you answer questions about TFA? :P
That is the worst part of this law. Not the unconstitutionality, or the fact that its unenforceable. How can you expect a person to re-enter society these days without the internet? I have an uncle who is finishing up a 8 year term in prison on a sexual charge... yeah he did something sick and stupid... but hes also been a geek his whole life, and I was looking forward to showing him all of the tech that came out in the past 8 years, and all the websites he should check out on a daily basis (this being one of them).
Seriously, you're telling me this man can't use the internet? This guy who will have FINISHED his debt to society and is square with the house, who spent 20 years before his imprisonment fiddling with breadboards, he can't check out slashdot? You already banned him from facebook and myspace, that wasn't enough?
P.S. We both live in NJ, and I vote here. I also don't agree with Megan's law. You fuck up the lives of THOUSANDS of people re-entering society, who have paid their debt, and you save, what, TWO lives a year?
See, maybe I think a little differently from the mainstream, but not everything these days should be saving lives. Kids don't have any fun toys any more cause a few kids eat things they shouldn't and die. Great, you save a couple lives, and the rest suffer. I say let a few die and let the millions of others have decent toys.
In my practice I see a variety of patients who have been convicted for sex offences - ranging from predatory paedophiles to people who made a simple bona fide mistake. The former are people who suffer from a mental illness - they need treatment and not punishment, and should not be released onto society before there is evidence that the treatment actually works. The latter usually get punished way beyond their "crime" and really should be entitled to living a normal life after serving their sentence.
I practice in Australia - another country of puritan heritage, but fortunately not as openly hostile towards sex as the US, and courts here tend to be less "Mickey Mouse" style. Nevertheless, one of my patients fell for a 15yo prostitute and had non-penetrative sex with her, one single time. Independent witnesses all reported they would have taken her for at least 18 if not older. The "perpetrator" had no prior offence and the circumstances were such that he was not actively seeking such connection but it happened spontaneously when she was allegedly actively seeking such relation
For that the man got 5 years of which he served 3. Since he was announced as a paedophile to his inmates when he was jailed, they scalded him badly with boiling water and beat him up badly before they had opportunity of learning the whole story. When he was released, he moved to my town. He is a religious man who confided into a local priest who had nothing better to do than walk from door to door and warn people about the dangerous paedophile who moved into town. A really nasty witch hunt started against him where even otherwise nice and educated people blindly joined in. Is this just? Will it improve anything? Will this protect any children?
The legislation mentioned in this article which deprives so called "sex offenders" regardless of their background of essential human rights is obscene, and the people producing such legislation either ignorant or criminal.
Considering the ubiquity of the internet today, and how much more important it will be in the near future,
this reminds me of slavery-era laws prohibiting slaves from learning how to read, which were legislated
because of fear of a slave rebellion. Specifically, slaves that could not read and write could not
effectively communicate to coordinate a rebellion.
Makes you wonder who these legislators really fear for.
The question is not "are sexual offenders more dangerous than other offenders?", the question is, who can we stigmatize with the people's support. The advantage to New Jersey of having this legislation is that sex offenders will be more likely to leave the state, as they can't work any office jobs there any longer. The disadvantage to every other state is that they might well fall out of all security rosters.
In a world where the vast majority of sexual offences are committed by friends and family, it seems odd that so much energy is wasted fighting "the stranger on the Internet" and so little energy is spent rescuing the woman and children being abused and intimidated within their own home.
Absurd! I agree. But to answer your question, sex offenders are much more likely to be repeat offenders.
We can't lock them up for life, because we haven't quite stooped to the level of "PRE-CRIME".
Yes, they will probably re-offend.. but that is still a probably, and as a free nation we're still required to give them that chance.
That's the reason that they have sex offender registries, and mandate that you reveal your past to your neighbors.
Also, another thing that makes them worse is the psychological impact it has on their victims.
If your car gets stolen, or if you get punched in a bar you aren't likely to suffer post traumatic stress disorder like a rape victim would.
On the same hand, I acknowledge what is labeled as a "sex offense" these days is rather loose.. and this law is indeed rather cruel and unusual.
I hope you're the only one, but experience tells me you're probably not (sigh).
Why is using the Internet a privilege? Who says so? You? What makes it so? Because you want it to be?
The US Constituion, Amendment 9: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
That one gets ignored a lot by all 3 branches, and it's high time to put an end to that nonsense. It's THE answer to the "you don't have a right to do that because the Constitution doesn't say you do" crowd, spelled out in rather plain language.
Interestingly, the word "privilege" appears in the Constituion 4 times that I counted on a quick search. Three times it's used basically a a synonym for "right" (in that it refers to things that shall not be taken away), the fourth referring to the fact that you can't arrest Congresscritters on their way to and from a session of Congress (which you also can't take away). Language differences between centuries, I'm sure, but basically the Constitution lacks the concept of this "privilege" nonsense that people drag out a lot in reference to things like driving, and now this.
instead of banning sex offenders from the internet because it is the same as lurking at playgrounds, maybe parents should educate their kids about the dangers of the internet. Society becomes increasingly digital and this requires some education from the adults, not extended punishment for people who under the law paid for their transgressions. I was taught not to accept anything from strangers when I was little. I think the same applies here. The people in NJ are running away from their responsibilities as parents. What's next sex education using porn sites???
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/28/vermont.banning.bush.ap/index.html
the bleeding must be stopped before any healing can begin.
This is a true story.. I knew a guy for almost a year, and one day he tried to forcibly rape another one of my guy friends.
:fap: :fap: on your free time, all that energy is just going to get built up.
What the fuck! I never saw it coming.
The offender is no longer welcome around anyone I know..
What's strange is that he is actually a good guy.. I just think of it like somebody with a sickness.
You can be a good person, but if you have a serious drug habit you'll steal from your children.
Honestly the guy can't be trusted.
...but I still wouldn't ban him from the internet. WTF!
It seems to me if you can't download porn and
Shouldn't we be ENCOURAGING these people to release that tension in the privacy of their own homes, not taking an outlet away?
(NOTE: I am not endorsing the legalization of child porn. I think that's a different story altogether)
"In USA, they came first for the pedophiles, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a pedophile;
And then they came for the sex offenders, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a sex offender;
And then they came for the sexual minorities, And I didn't speak up because I didn't belong to a sexual minority;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."
Anonymous Coward, Stories from the United Talibans of America, AD 2030?
Survey research tool for commercial and scientific use
Nowadays,pedophiles are the new "untouchables" the new (insert derogitory racial or sexual orientation statement here). Neighbors fear their new "pedo" neighbors, are encouraged to spy on, report, or even injure said party. What is the difference between a cross burning and a door to door "warning" in the end? Both give the same message of hate.
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
This sort of bullshit is going on all over the world. Some European countries force you to pay hundreds of dollars a year to the government just to access the Internet (in addition to ISP fees). In the UK, you are being watched and recorded wherever you go and lifetime memberships to the upper house are handed out by corrupt politicians in return form money. The EU took DMCA and carnivore-type programs and made it even tighter. Censorship in Asia is even more severe. Chances are that your country is infringing on personal liberties even more than the US, and chances are that its citizens are such herd animals that they aren't even bothering to complain about it.
So, what country are you from that you think you can point fingers? Come on, we want to know.
I don't see the problem with this law. Using the Internet isn't a right, it's a privilege
WHAT!?!?!
And here I was thinking people had the right to do anything so long as it wasn't disruptive to other people's right to do the same.
Silly me. I guess I ought to be sending thank you cards to society-at-large for being kind enough to grant me the *privilege* of using a networked computer or whatever the hell else it is that I do all day and night.
So now sex offenders can't own a TiVo or have to register its use with the parole board and allow them to install monitoring software on it. Ditto for the new HD DVD player. Or your gaming console. Or a new cell phone. Are you going to ban them public libraries too?
I think I see this law as being extremely short-sighted... I don't object to what they're trying to do, but it isn't going to work.
If you want them in jail, put them there. But applying restrictions like these on them isn't going to save anybody.
Ban them from using phones, cars, other types of transportation, or even the postal service?
After all, those also provide a "means of opening a door to countless new potential victims".
that is my opinion exactly. if these people are SO DANGEROUS that we need to tell everyone who lives near them, prevent them from holding virtually any job, brand them for life, etc, then they should STILL BE IN JAIL. either you're released or you're not, we can't have this unending punishment for those who have supposedly served their time.
Sex offenders are wildly out of control, and we should make sure that we have the right to protect ourselves. Think of the victims here, and think of making it harder for these scumbags to find innocent families to victimize.
Except when you actually look at things a little more closely you discover that there are all sorts of people who were never any kind of danger to anyone (including children). Including cases which should probably never have gone anywhere near a court in the first place. Possible a few who people who are actually victims of sexual assault. But had the misfortune to be male whilst their attacker was female.
There are also plenty of "scumbags" with extensive criminal records who you don't know about because they violently assaulted people (including children), but at least the only injured or killed...
There are lots and lots of "sex offenders" that really did nothing wrong, or did something totally unrelated to actual sex. 15-17 couples, people urinating outside, streaking,...
In some cases public urination might be vandalism, but it certainly isn't "sex crime". Should there really be "dress codes" for public, which is what laws against "streaking", "flashing", "indecent exposure" ammount to.
On the other hand we have actions such someone hacking off parts of someone else's genitals with a knife not being considered "sexual assault".
I do realize that you do lose several of your rights once you are convicted of a crime, but this is a bit over the top since the internet is so ingrained into todays society, like going to the mall or walking down the street.
... ). Perhaps some sort of monitoring, like they do with the people-beepers for those on home detention.
In many cases this will condemn the person ( and entire family perhaps ) to a perpetual life on the welfare roles, or back into crime just to survive. In today's world its hard to get/keep a decent job with out legal access. ( email is pretty much a de-facto standard in business today, good luck finding or keeping a real job if you cant even email people )
What would make more sense is to ban them from 'child areas' much as they do with schools where you have to stay out side a particular radius ( i guess that means you cant pick up your own kid
And once you have served your time, haven't you paid you debt to society? Why are you going to be persecuted into the ground for the rest of your life? If so, why bother letting people out at all?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Wait so... instead of letting these guys sit around on the internet all day where they're essentially harmless, those in the sex offender registry who are there for a legitimate reason (as opposed to for say... pissing on somebodys lawn at 3 AM or being 17 while getting a blowjob from a 15 year old) will now need to go outside and "interact" (i.e. molest for those of you you are clueless--namely, legislators) with real people to get their rocks off.
This would not be a problem if it were possible to have them molest only legislators.
You get fired and go on welfare since you wont ever work in your profession again, at least in New Jersey..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
One of my friends, actually my best friend, is going to jail for 5 years for "2nd & 3rd degree assault of a minor". Apparently, you can get jailed for that for accidentally distributing CP.
How do you accidentally distribute CP, you ask? That's pretty easy. You don't know shit about computer security and you get your computer infected with something that makes you part of a botnet used for storing 'questionable content'.
My bro had the bad luck of discovering a whole series of zip files he didn't know anything about on his computer. He posts one to try to figure out what this shit is on his computer and how it got there. Boom, he has just distributed CP. This means he goes directly to jail, does not pass go, and DOES collect an unnerving sounding criminal record that will stay with him for a long time.
One thing that really strikes me about this law is that it sounds like a sort of combination of double jeopardy and ex post facto legislation: you were punished for a crime, released, but now they are going to punish you again for that crime, by passing a law after you are released from jail. Of course, who is going to stand up for a convicted sex offender in this day and age, and say that they are being treated unfairly? It would be like standing up to a lynch mob.
Palm trees and 8
Using the Internet could well qualify as free speech. But even if it didn't, are you seriously trying to say that the government ought to be able to revoke anything it wants if it doesn't fit the government's definition of a "right"?
For security, Facebook needs to verify the following information about you: [ ] I am human [ ] I am a dog Please note, dogs are not allowed on the internet.
-- I was raised on the command line, bitch
Why are people marking me flamebait for just asking if I'm the only one with this opinion? Lots of people have disagreed with me, which is fine, and it's not a big deal.
Or is this just an example of liberals censoring anything their sensitive little ears and eyes find different from their own worlds?
I thought you guys were supposed to be tolerant. Now we see the truth about that.
No weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men.-Ronald Reagan
It seems like the East Coast states are more puritan on attitude. In the company I work for, I deal with our counterparts in MD, NJ, PA and the attitude is "live to work" but also the attitude that you are not to enjoy yourself. They don't want you to enjoy the money you earn with high taxes by leaving you enough to get by but not enough leftover to spend on enjoyment such as vacation. You also have the more strict social rules such as dress. Out in the American West where I live, social and even work life is casual. I been to the East Coast and I gotten subbed in some places for showing up in jeans/sweatshirt. This is outside of work ! I could care less for the uptight East Coast puritan attitude including having to be very formal when dealing with certain people and their insistence with sticking to hierarchy. You have great ideas but you are told to know your place and shut up unless you are higher up in the working world food chain.
They are driving sex offenders to murder by making conviction of a sex offense an eternal punishment.
A lot of innocent people (like 18 year olds having sex with 16 year olds) get swept up in this net.
My ex-mother in law would have had me up except her daughter was older than me.
Sexual crimes are bad-- okay. But inappropriately touching someone does not approach murder, blackmail, beating someone nearly to death, etc.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
cutting off the internet is like cutting off the right to free speech.
Just what exactly is a fake screenname? Is it very different from a real one?
If you went around screaming "the Earth is flat" a lot of people would
have disagreed with you too. But they are - you know - just intolerant liberals
censoring anything their sensitive little ears and eyes find different from their own worlds.
From http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=205204285 New Jersey Bars Some Sex Offenders From Internet: The new law prohibits anyone convicted of using a computer to commit a sex offense from using computers or accessing the Internet for part or all of their parole.
I agree that using the internet is a privilege. All people do not have the 'right' to us the internet...otherwise all people would be given computers and internet access would be as common as running water. I don't think that many homeless people have MySpace pages! But, while we're talking about rights, don't all people have the right to live without being raped? Don't kids have a right to growing up without having some loser flashing his business at them? The victims of these sex crimes are not just subjected to a quick crime that's over in a few minutes, how about people who are haunted with the memory of being raped by someone they thought was trustworthy? Once you take away someone's right to living a life free of perversion, you loose your right to a simple, comfortable life. If you can't control your sexual urges, as sick as they might be, you've de-evolved to the level of an animal and you no longer have rights. No right to use the internet to drive a car, to live where ever you want to, to have a good job... Keep it in your pants and you'll be ok I guess. Maybe these losers should have kept it to looking at porn on the internet in the first place instead of taking it out on some helpless victim.
And the postal service as well. And talking.
Once again, we have a law passed like an angry parent who punishes their child with a rule not thought through. Sure, the train of thought the politicians want their voters to think when looking at the headline is "This law makes it illegal for a sex offender to access the internet. Therefore they will not access the internet or if they do, then they will be punished. Therefore my children are protected from sex offenders online." Forgetting the fact, that the sexual offence is also against the law but that doesn't not guarantee protection of the children.
Similar arguments lie behind Megan's Law. Perhaps a similar list of non-sexual violent offenders should be made available.
Oh noes they are doing something stupid again. People...listen to me very carefully. Murder is illegal right? Does that mean it is unenforceable because they can't stop you from murdering before hand? NO! It means that they can charge you with a crime if you do it. So...lets think for just a brief moment. For those who bothered to read the article, it applies to people who used the internet in their sex crime. So if Dirty Joe fondled Little Billy at the park...no internet was used...no internet ban applied. It also applies to the lifetime registration folks, which tend to be the really depraved sick fuck repeat offender types anyways. So...if you use the internet to commit sex crimes...they ban you from using the internet. Now...is this virtually impossible to prevent...well duh...but guess what...murder is virtually impossible to prevent. You can ban all the guns and knives in the world and I can still kill you with my shoe, my belt, or my bare fucking hands. What it does allow is if Dirty Joe trolled myspace for his catch...and they catch his ass even attempting to do that again...they don't have to wait for him to nail a kiddie to nail him...they just have to catch him logging on.
With that, I do see this as a problem if "Internet" is defined in the typical layperson terms. However I have long since learned that the media doesn't report shit correctly when it comes to "Internet" anything...and slashdot summaries are even worse. This is why it is so hard to get shit fixed. Stupid ass reporting, bad summaries, and a fucking clueless lynchmob screaming over bad information without thinking...the really trivial shit gets turned into crusades and the real issues get buried because they are "too hard" to understand. I imagine almost everyone in the thread screaming about this, didn't read the article, didn't research much at all, and probably can't explain the more complex issues like the Valarie Plame incident that is FAR more dangerous to our freedom.
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
To put it a bit less sarcastically than the AC did, it's not what you said, it's how you said it.
/. groupthink (whatever), tolerance is not as great a problem on /. as you may think. I've made unpopular statements here several times and actually been modded up for it because I wrote them clearly and didn't resort to personal attacks, which makes for (+1) interesting conversation. Do the same.
/. isn't crawling with Liberals, it's crawling with Libertarians. The difference is significant. The latter is actually closer to what "conservative Republican" (I see that in your /. profile) used to mean than it is to what Liberal is taken to mean today. Look it up.
This post is another example. Your first line is fine. You should have left it at that. Going on to insult the moderators was foolish, however. It only makes you look like you're here to pick a fight, and it makes others with mod points less likely to reevaluate your original post and fix the moderation if it is indeed wrong. The third line only reinforces that image.
Much as people like to whine about the
And FYI,
I seem to recall several acts of perversion by Congressmen being reported over the past couple of years. When a congressman gets busted for, say, having sex with a goat (Completely hypothetical and I'm not naming any names... you know who you are!) does he get on the list? Or are members of Congress and other high ranking officials magically exempt from these lists?
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
The only way this could remotely be enforced is by requiring software that reguarly reports how the computer is being used to be installed on it (which, since an internet connection is disallowed, would also have to be linked to a supplied modem that would routinely phone home), and random and unannounced visits to the former convict's place of residence to ensure that they have not purchased any newer equipment. Since they will require certain software to run on it, they will probably be required to use windows. Since there is no time limit mentioned in the article, one must assume it is for the rest of their life.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I guess reading is optional around here?!?!
The law applies to people that used the Internet to get into trouble in the first place or that are such problems the state has to spend tons of money to watch them continuouly (in this case - the law makes total sense, the state isn't going to waste money on people that really don't need to be watched. In fact with expenses going up they're letting people out of prison early).
On the other hand - if you became a sex offender through the use of the Internet then, obviously, you are especially dangerous (not just high school sweethearts at 18 with 17, just mooning some friends or newlyweds having a nice time in a semi-public place).
It means you contacted someone and - not in the heat of the moment (like with the newlyweds for instance) you pre-meditated a plan to go out and do something.
Computers are great about keeping records - if the other person lied about their age - you're off the hook as you didn't have intent.
The worry should be if this law was applied to high school friends IMing each other - hopefully the actual text of the law specifies that intent to contact an otherwise unknown person that claimed to be a minor has to be shown.
This is much like the no-fly list. According to our government, there are people out there who are so dangerous that they cannot be allowed onto a commercial airliner under any circumstances, and yet they are so unthreatening that they can't even be arrested.
This all reminds me of a slogan I used to share, until I realised that nobody got the point:
"If I can't trust you with a machine gun, why are you still AT LARGE?"
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
Most BDSM activity would end you up in the slammer if it was discovered inadvertantly, or the cops broke in.. regardless of consent.
Yes, rape is a terrible and inexcusable crime, but why is it so much worse than any other physical assault on someone's person? Because it involves SEX -- that horrible little word.
You are wrong, incredibly wrong. Rape victims suffer severe psychological trauma, far beyond someone who gets beaten up for example, and it is naive to think it is because of some sort of puritanical sex thing. This severe trauma occurs in societies that are quite liberal about sex and with individuals who are quite free with their sexual drive. Sex offenders are treated harshly because of the severe lifelong psychological trauma inflicted upon the victim, not merely because of it involves sex.
The trauma goes beyond the psychological as well. There is the possibility of physical trauma or disease that could interfere with reproduction. Causing a woman to be unable to have a child is a pretty severe thing. While this is far less likely with modern medicine, there is still the possibility of incurable diseases such as herpes and HIV.
If you were the victim of a hate crime, beaten, and had a broomstick shoved up your a**, wouldn't you consider that far more serious and traumatic that getting beat up in a bar fight that included a broken arm? I expect that rape is far closer to the first type of physical assault than the second. Now imagine that it wasn't a broomstick and that you have to take HIV tests for a couple of years and can't have a normal sex life with your significant other.
None of the above should be taken as support for the law. There should be some sort of gradation among "sex offenders", statutory rape between consenting individuals close in age should not be treated as a rape with physical assault.
In case you really aren't trolling, you're seriously confused; the *right* (yes, RIGHT) to purchase and use products (such as the Internet) must surely be one of the most fundamental rights/freedoms.
What is your evidence for "sex offenders wildly out of control"? Some stats to back up that hysterical viewpoint, please.
Of course the idea of taking away someone's fundamental rights and freedoms (not "privileges") because they committed a crime is not new - a prison sentence is exactly that, for example, as are parole conditions (again, *rights*, not *privileges*). But if an offender is that dangerous, seriously, they should just be in jail (or in a hospital if they're seriously mentally ill). Prison sentences are supposed to end.
OMG I should be scourged! I am not fit to be among decent people. SAVE THE CHILDREN!
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
It makes about as much sense as banning somebody who "drugged" a date from ever entering an store that has a pharmacy.
Still, it is a lot better than nailing all those who were incarcerated for public urination, etc. I do what kind of stupid things people get nailed for online that would be equivilent, and overall it's still a very bad law (just a little less dumb for the specificacy that was pointed out).
If sex offenders are such a danger to society, why do we release them? If we can't trust someone to be on the internet... how can we trust them to be on the street. I realize that changing the system to actually rehab sex offenders is a lot more of a challenge then just placing a series of more or less pointless restrictions on where they can live and what they can do but perhaps one of our think of the children legislators could take a swing at it.
Don't say that! You'll give them ideas!
Well, now I'm even more certain that you're trolling, but just in case ---- I think I see the source of the misunderstanding here, evidently (at least based on your homepage) you appear to be Italian; well, in the USA they have a really fundamental principle called "freedom", embedded into the constitution and deeply into the culture. Your argument amounted to a direct statement that the government should allow neither freedoms nor human rights - this is antithetical to the American viewpoint, whereby freedom is considered a fundamental "given" (unlike your viewpoint in which you should consider yourself lucky if the government allows you to do anything like walk down the street or buy a chocolate bar or Internet).
I thought you guys were supposed to be tolerant
Um, you were espousing a view that was specifically and by definition anti-freedom, which obliterates any defence based on "tolerance", since it is fundamentally in direct opposition to the very definition of tolerance and can never be resolved with it. Hello. Tolerance means accepting other viewpoints *that are tolerant themselves* --- accepting intolerant viewpoints would make a working definition of "tolerance" impossible (and worse, you vilify the more tolerant viewpoint than yours).
This law does not apply to all sex offenders. From TFA:
"The bill applies to anyone who used a computer to help commit the original sex crime. It also may be applied to paroled sex offenders under lifetime supervision, but it exempts work done as part of a job or search for employment."
This is a law restricting people from using the Internet who, in the past, used the Internet in the commission of a sex crime. I'm not saying it is reasonable, but it's a hell of a lot more reasonable than the way it is presented in the summary.
I am not sure people quite understand the fact that a sex offender is not necessarily a pedophile. It is extremely easy to get on the sex offender list. Being 16 and having sexual intercourse with another 16 year old, soliciting for a prostitute, mere accident (the story of the guy grabbing the girl's arm because she was about to run in front of a incoming semi-trailer), and hundreds of other reasons. I think legislation like this and other extreme measures are born out of fear and hysteria of the populace and the demands for tougher crack down, without realizing that the stereotypical sex offender (the evil male searching for young children) is actually quite rare. And once you get on that list, for whatever reason, your life is now ruined. We may want to take a step back and consider the ways of getting on the sex offender list before we jump to writing legislation to "protect the children".
http://www.youthrights.org/
No further comment needed. What do you expect from a region where europe has dumped her religious fanatics, mentally disordered, ill with STDs and otherwise not wanted and later on, the rest of this planet joined the game ....
HAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHAH !
The sum of intelligence on a planet is constant. Nowadays we have more people. When classic goes away, so do I. Copy
I agree with hherb on this issue. We are way to harsh on sex offenders. It seems that we can keep on passing new laws that find new ways to punish sex offenders. Are the current laws not strict enough? Other than murder, sexual assault convictions carried the longest median prison sentence in New Jersey. I think if someone suggested we add an extra 2 years onto minimum sentences for all sex offenders it would pass in any state. We have since 1980 consistently upped the penalties for sex crimes since the 1980s. There is no evidence that it has helped. Now states are considering the death penalty for worst case sex crimes. There is a guy in Louisiana who is on death row for a sex crime without murdering anyone.
But no matter how harsh the punishment, we can always make it a little worse. We could insist that sex criminals serve a minimum of 25 years. Then we could restrict their privileges in prison even if they were well behaved. We could ban them from having a television. We could ban them from lifting weights. We could stop them from wearing civilian clothes. We could lock them up for 23 hours a day like those on death row. But no matter how much we punish them the public desire for revenge is never satiated. We always want more. When do we finally say that some punishment is enough?
About 400 municipalities in New Jersey have enacted local zoning ordinances restricting where sex offenders can live within their boundaries. This vengeful justice is getting so out of hand that an ex sex offender cannot function in society. They can't get a job because firstly they have a criminal record and secondly they are a sex offender and have to register as such. They can't live in many places. We are forcing them into a life of crime to survive. Many towns like to ban sex offenders from living within 2,500 feet of any place where there might be children. This list gets very long. It starts with schools and parks. Then it moves on into movie theaters and churches. Now the vogue is to also ban them from 2500 feet of libraries and bus stops as well. There are increasingly states and counties where there is no place a sex offender can live legally.
As to the specifics of the internet ban for sex offenders. Firstly if they have already served their sentence haven't they already paid back their 'debt to society'. Or is this to keep society safe and not as a punishment. Well what if their original crime had nothing to do with the internet. What if they raped an adult and have no desire to do anything to kids? Is there any evidence that this would make kids safer? There is no evidence that residency restriction laws do in fact diminish crimes against children. And remember banning people from a using the internet is removing a distant threat from a kid. They can't physically do anything. And all this assumes that they will choose to use the internet to contact kids to begin with. What if they do not? What about other categories? If someone had underage sex, the law is the problem there as opposed to the law breaker.
So what type of person is this law about? Is it about a sex crazed pedophile who cannot help stop themselves. Well in my mind they don't have what we would call free will. the urge is so great. States are starting to use civil commitment with such offenders so they never get out. So what sort of sex offenders are we talking about?
I think banning people from using the internet is also itself ludicrous. In the 1990s the net was nice to have but
http://www.aclu.org/crimjustice/sentencing/10286prs20010402.html http://www.aclu.org/crimjustice/gen/10212prs20030424.html
Looks like XKCD even has fans in the government. http://xkcd.com/322/
So really you've got two right there -- worst of the worst.
Child-lovers, also known as molesters or pedophiles, are simply expressing their sexual preferences. We are beginning to learn that sexual preferences are not a choice in any way and cannot be changed. Because of this we accept homosexuals with all of their sexual traits. We need to be more accepting of child-lovers as well as they are identical in every way to homosexuals expressing a different sexual preference.
How can we discriminate against one and not the other? Do you see any basic difference between them other than the ages? And, in many cases these people are both homosexual and desiring only children.
Do you really think your children are that innocent that they cannot openly participate in a sexual relationship?
If sex offenders are so dangerous that they aren't going to be allowed to even use the internet, maybe the government should work on passing a law that keeps them in jail longer.
Never expect that which you seldom get anywhere; Say like, a smart and honest politician, or moral and poor clergy, or humanist and valuable corporatist/plutocrat. KILL'em all and let gods sort'em out, I am damn tired of waiting for the lightning strike, global flood, armageddon, or some other bullshit myth to save humanity from the evil&greedy and stupid&needy of the world.
... and move on.
... maybe the next species will do better than humans, Dodo birds, dinosaurs ....
Logic indicates: If others can kill me by the will/order of a god/leader, then any good god leader (I want to follow or listen too) can tell me to intern'em, whack'em, stack'em, burn'em
Another puff-law to protect the political image of many fools. The Governor and most of the NJ state legislature are stupid or dishonest, but looking good for elections by the stupid or needy (faux-moral) majority.
Oh, I am blessed to never listen to any "good god leader" paving a road to hell for humanity and themselves.
Oh Lord, take us all from the earth
!HAVEFUN!
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
What defines "using the internet"?
How many times in a day are you on the internet without even knowing it? What about sending a text message? Playing xbox live? Adobe spyware? Taking the exam at the DMV?
Please! Someone think of the children!
We need to stop looking at "sex offenders" and "pedophiles" as the same thing. I think I'd be more concerned about someone pulling a gun and robbing me than I would be concerned about someone rubbing one out with the window open.
The point is, if someone has paid for their crime and been determined as a free person, they should be free. They shouldn't be subject to preemptive vigilante justice by having their entire lies ruined because of a label the government has put on them.
"The need to build the internet comes from something inside us, something programmed... something we can't resist."
I guess this means that Chris Hansen won't be taping new episodes of To Catch a Predator in NJ.
For the idiot who was whining about some guy showing his business in public scaring his kid. Throw out the TV and teach the kid about real life, that's if you're up on the subject yourself. One of the main reasons many people are victims is we teach them to be, often to the point of extreme arrogance, that they are above it all. So when real life, you know, good/bad, life/death happens, its a big belly drop and we make them out to be victims even when they are smart enough to know they are not. We ram it down their throats, especially kids, to the point that they are completely hobbled by it.
Parents if you can't control your kids on the internet, take it away. I know you might have to have meaningful conversations with them from then on, but you made that choice when you decided to have kids. Stop burdening the rest of us with your choices. That includes pandering politicians.
If you can ban sex offenders from the internet, why in the hell can't you ban murderers and rapists from sharp objects?
I stated that I wasn't talking about today's classification system for sex offenders. I'm not talking about the 20 year old who has sex with a 15 or 16 year old. I'm talking about the adult who rapes a minor. We are way too soft on the real predators and way too hard on the ones who aren't really predators.
If they are truly guilty to the point where they need to be registered for life, they should be in jail or dead.
So the court decided to preemptively ruin her life for her!
Plus, why didn't they charge her with kidnapping? Obviously if having photographs of her 15-year-old self is possession of child pornography, then having her own body is possession of a child!
the real issue is that once you create a federal gatekeeper, ostensibly just for sex offenders, then
... having a federal gatekeeper for firearms purchases does not keep criminals from buying guns -- all it does is create the false "faith" that the purpose of a fascist government is to protect the public.
... how would internet gatekeeping be implemented?
... to prove our innocense to the gatekeeper
EVERYONE, not just convicted sex offenders, has agreed to surrender control to the fascist gatekeeper.
it's similar to problem of firearm ownership rights as well
irrespective of where the boundaries are in the legal definitions of "sex offender,"
eventually, how would the "ordinary user" prove to the government gatekeeper that he or she is not a convicted sex offener?
of course, we could all agree to bio-chip implants
The problem with eternal punishment of anyone who commits a felony is that, our prison system is supposed to rehabilitate them and give second chances when they complete their time. But when you create a society bases future decisions on your criminal history (many jobs now do background checks, renting apartments do background checks, buying cars can even trigger a background check, etc.) and refuse you because you did something wrong 20 years ago... just creates a society of more violence. When someone who truly did repent themselves cannot get a job or move into an apartment or buy a house because of something they did in the past, their only outlet is thugging, robbery, and other violent crimes.
Our system then catches them and touts statistics on how likely a criminal is to repeat the crime.
In the future, it will not be possible to live life without an internet connection. If someone is not allowed to connect to the internet, then how can they live life? They won't be able to email a resume, text messages to family or friends, play games, or whatever else, such as pay bills electronically.
I'm not saying that the people aren't deserving of it in some cases, but I'm saying as a society, making punishment lifelong and eternal for felons (in general) is only creating a world where they are going to be increasingly repetitive and violent because they won't have a second chance to rebuild their life with if they truly had repented. If they can't get a job and function in society, the only thing left is to put yourself back in prison where you can have free lodging and food, something you can't easily earn on the outside when the system doesn't want you to have a chance to do so and tries what it can to prevent it.
Thanks,
Leabre
So what I said was flamebait? Really? It's not, you know. In fact, there's no moderation that says "disagree." I still say the moderation is just typical liberal intolerance.
No weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men.-Ronald Reagan
My boat is Italian. I am 100% American.
Now, explain to me how a comment you disagree with should be moderated as "flamebait". It shouldn't. You aren't supposed to mod down things you merely disagree with.
No weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men.-Ronald Reagan
-1, panicky sheep
Seriously, when did Americans become such pussies that they live in a constant state of fear of all things?
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
well in Miami, it got so bad that they had guys with good jobs homeless because there were no "lawful" apartments for them to live in.. they weren't allowed to leave the city nor would the courts make exceptions to the zoning rules. so they stayed homeless living vagrant under some bridge exactly between "safe zones". That's Sick.
it's dangerously close to a Bill of Attainder, but each of the laws like this come close, but there are 3 points: perpetual & ex post facto, property, and stigma.... these rules don't take property past the original offense and they only apply to those already "convicted" even though the law is after the consequences are finished. so it's not a "real" attainder law... but it's damn close. I'm surprised no court has ruled using that argument as it's in the ACTUAL Constitution and not the Bill of Rights.
Oh no, the liberal censorship machine is out to get you!
And that people, is the textbook definition of irony!
May the Maths Be with you!
As is this wasn't an unfortunate enough reality, keep in mind that in a US prison, inmates are routinely beaten and raped. So being forced to become a hobo might actually be better than the alternative.
It hurt to say that.
And if someone isn't a threat to society but still needs to be punished? That's where jail overcrowding comes from. Remember that these "cruel and unusual" punishments are an alternative to spending 5 years in a box.
I am one of many. My idea is not unique, nor do I expect my voice alone to sway you. I speak in a chorus of opinion.
I'm of the opinion we should keep the POLITICIANS away from the Internet. And all other forms of media as well. In fact, why don't we shove 'em in the capitol and then NAIL the damn door shut so they'll actually DO their fricken jobs for a change.
Sooner or later they will make advances towards their 'type', be it woman, man, animal or child.
You're assuming you know what a Sexual Offense is. In some jurisdictions, if you're taking a pee on a bush and a minor child happens to walk by (unbeknownst to you) and sees your tallywhacker... you're a Sexual Offender - for life.
Sure, lock up the crazies, but this is an open-ended life sentence with poor criteria.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
While some sex offenders shouldnt be able to have unlimited access to the internet, but pooling them all together is puinshing alot of other people. If your get caught pissin in the ally you can be charged as a sex offender. they have different classes of sex offenders, and i think they should use those classes to determine who can or cant use the internet. thats just my 2 cents