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."
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.
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
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.
"No one has ever been raped, beaten or contracted a sexually-transmitted disease on the internet."
I think that statement's a little too broad to be taken as true.
That doesn't mean, though, that I disagree with you in spirit. I'm concerned that 'sex offender' is too broad of term for this to really apply. I heard a story about a guy who was 19 and had sex with his 17 year old girlfriend. According to the laws of that state, there was some flexibility there if the age difference was two years or less. The male was like a year and two days older than the female. The judge banged his gavel, and now the kid is a 'sex offender' that has to register.
If anybody had asked my opinion, I would have said that this was excessive considering the context. The idea of banning him completely from the internet, in my mind, is ridiculous. Not only would this have the potential to effectively prohibit him from working in an office environment, but as the internet becomes more and more integrated into our daily lives, it will become the punishment that continues to keep on punishing. Every year that goes by, his life gets harder.
I don't have a silver bullet for this problem. But I would at least offer the suggestion there should be levels of sex offenders. For example: Somebody convicted of statuatory rape where the age difference is less than 4 years would be a different level than somebody who brutally raped an unwilling person. The person I just described wouldn't be banned from the net, but the sort of person you'd see on "To Catch a Predator" could be.
That suggestion is a bit short-sighted considering my point about the ubiquity of the internet, so it should be taken with a grain of salt. Still, though, nobody (outside of an extreme case) would think of banning a convicted criminal from using a telephone. It won't be long before internet access is just as fundamental to our society.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
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 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.
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.
...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.
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.
This is like forbidding alcoholics from taking public transportation because they might take a bus to a liquor store.
Or, it's like forbidding a horse thief from wearing shoes because they might use those shoes to walk to a stable and steal a horse.
"Protecting the Children" is completely out of hand. It's nothing but politicians pandering to parents who feel guilty that they're so busy working they're not taking care of their kids, who they drop off at day-care or leave with the nanny every day.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
The real solution is to give sexual predators the punishment they truly deserve in the first place, which is life in prison without possibility of parole.
Which may or may not correspond with current lists of "sex offenders".
Those who want to be soft on sex offenders are most likely not parents, and most definitely not parents of a child who has been abused.
Except for those parents who are themselves abusers...
The problem is that so many things are considered sex crimes. Public urination is on that list. Met a chick at a bar who consented? If she realizes you're not as hot as she thought you were, legally she never consented. If you're intoxicated you cannot consent.
It's not black and white, and it never will be.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
This one makes for an interesting turn of events.
Interesting? Try "sick" - And not for the underaged-sex aspect of it.
Crap like that shows just what utter BS every single bit of "for the kids" legislation amount to. Kids may well need some legal protection from adult predators, but from similarly aged kids engaging in consensual behavior???
Everyone raise your hand who didn't play "doctor" or some variant well before the age of 14.
<chirp> <chirp>
Yeah, thought so.
As for the law relevant to TFA, again, I absolutely oppose most "sex offender" laws because they demonstrate our real level of freedom.
No "cruel and unusual" punishments? I'd call forced homelessness due to the density of schools, churches, and parks in many areas "cruel".
Equal protection under the law? Can you point me to the "convicted CEOs who screwed employees out of billions" registry list?
No ex post facto laws? Suuuuure, so NJ only intends to apply this restriction to new offenders, I suppose?
No one (usually not even the ones who do it) supports child molesting or rape. But we need laws applied fairly and rationally, or we may as well go back a system of "justice" where the grand high poobah of Allah orders rape victems whipped for their immodesty.
"There's even a report of a girl getting the sex offender label for having sex with a younger boyfriend."
There are, in my mind, three main reasons why males are more prone to sex "offenses":
- high hormone levels
- strength
- age difference (in general, males fall for younger girls, and vice versa)
But in these cases, just having sex with a boy/girl, only the last reason plays a role, and it's just a rule of thumb. So I don't see why females (why call them girls when the sex offender label is for adults) would be exempt from this ridiculous law.
And prosecuting her didn't ruin the life of her older self?
"I don't have a silver bullet for this problem. "
I do. Put every sex offender into therapy and only allow them back into society when they're no longer deemed a threat to society.
Make people serve their time, but afterwards, let them get on with their lives.