Slashdot Mirror
Sex Offenders Must Hand Over Online Passwords
mytrip writes "Privacy advocates are questioning an aggressive Georgia law set to take effect Thursday that would require sex offenders to hand over Internet passwords, screen names and e-mail addresses. Georgia joins a small band of states complying with guidelines in a 2006 federal law requiring authorities to track Internet addresses of sex offenders, but it is among the first to take the extra step of forcing its 16,000 offenders to turn in their passwords as well."
Because no one would ever log into a website with a known sex offender's password and make incriminating posts in order to have said offender sent back to prison. Seriously, what will be the penalty when (not if) this happens?
It's going to be hard to fight this sort of "THINK OF THE CHILDREN" type of thing. I mean, what are you? A pedophile? After all, only sex offenders that haven't yet been busted would object, right? So which is it? Little boys or little girls?
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
i think this violates the 5th amendment in my view, cause you are givin' up information stored in your head up to be used against you.
Didn't a federal court in Vermont recently rule that even child pornographers didn't have to turn over their passwords on the grounds that they might incriminate themselves?
I believe the point of the whole idea is that the monitoring/tracking is part of their sentence.
If sharing a song makes you a pirate, what do I have to share to be a ninja?
Just getting arrested doesn't mean he has to be on the sex offender list - he had to also get charged by the wrong DA and sentenced by the wrong judge. And all this time he hasn't written to the governor for a pardon?
Sex offenders don't generally get pardons, no matter how silly the offense is. The reason is that no politician wants to be the one who has attack ads about them pardoning sex offenders.
IN some states, the age of consent and child porn statutes have the same age limits.
For instance, a quick read of NV law shows the AOC to be 16. Child porn is defined as sexually explicit blah blah blah involving a person under 16. Federal law makes it a crime with a person under 18, but there may be some state line/interstate commerce nexus that needs to be fulfilled.
I didn't feel like looking at too many states, but found this same AOC/CP thing with NH-16/16.
Many states forbid distributing/exhibiting obscenity to people under 18, regardless of their AOC/CP statutes.
SO, excluding the feds, it's not a crime to have sex with a 16 year old or film it. But, she can't watch the tape afterwards. It's a crime to allow her 16 year old friend to watch the act as it occurs, but not a crime to have her join. Neither of them can smoke a cigarette or have a beer afterwards. If either one were to rob,beat,kill one of their fellow particpants, they would be tried as an adult in every state in the country.
-- Stolen from a Fark Thread.
I would remind you of John Adams' strenuous disagreement with this terminology, which he felt was chosen by Franklin and Jefferson to incite feelings of rage, rather than to reflect accuracy - indeed the very grounds on which I objected to the use of the term. Please remember that the soverignity that America was seeking was against the laws of Parliament, not of the King; particularly the Stamp Act and the Townshend Act. The phrase "no taxation without representation" doesn't make sense in an actual tyranny, and of course, that was the rebelling pretext: that America should be represented in Parliament if Parliamentary law was to apply to them. Indeed, the very concept of representation cannot, by definition, exist under a tyranny.
It is critical in understanding the works of our founding fathers to remember who Benjamin Franklin was: in every sense a pulpit liar, and a damned good one. He made not one but several careers from spinning things with a sort of careful carelessness, allowing his flair for writing to spill over his accuracy in speech. It is a minefield to attempt to take Franklin's writing literally. This propensity for flair over substance was the crux of Franklin's division with Adams (and indeed also between Adams and his cousin Sam, who with Jefferson and James Wilson ran slipshod over using the King as a focus for their rebellion against the acts of Parliament).
I appreciate that you're working from source material; that's new and refreshing in this discussion. I entreat you to resolve one riddle: how can someone be represented in a tyranny? Alternately, how am I misunderstanding the Parliamentary debacle regarding juxtaposed representation by proxy through Crown citizens?
I mean, really, it's important to remember that America's founding fathers tried to be a voting part of the British empire, when you discuss their views of the British governmental system. If it was a tyranny, there would be no Parliament to be a part of.
People have, for thousands of years, misappropriated the word "tyranny" to create an emotional reaction in their audience. I hope you'll resist the urge; simply citing Ben Franklin doing the same thing that grandparent poster did doesn't actually show the founding fathers believing in a fantastically inaccurate view of the British government. The British king was not an absolute monarch, and had not been for several hundred years. The founding fathers were perfectly aware of the Magna Carta. Please be serious.
That's unfortunate, since it's the immediate context of the things I said, and distancing yourself from that does damage to the legitimacy of your arguments.
You're quoting two disconnected issues and treating them as related. That's problematic.
Yeah, that's exactly my point. Sex offenders aren't being punished because they're unpopular. You might as well suggest that murders are being persecuted for being unpopular. I immediately and candidly disagree with this viewpoint. This isn't a popularity contest. It never has been. This is a question of people who go out and hurt other people being kept in check.
The equivalent argument in a mo
StoneCypher is Full of BS
Two words for you: McMartin Preschool. You see red scares and witch hunts always start with the BEST of intentions. But then along the way too many start foaming at the mouth like rabid dogs and then pretty much anyone can get into the crosshairs. Don't forget that just the other day we saw the guy convicted of child pr0n for having a freaking dirty Simpsons cartoon! So are you going to line up everyone who has ever seen a manga or hentai? Because pretty much every cartoon coming from Japan kinda " looks lolita" to me.
You see, when you get to the point that you label a crude drawing of someone with mustard for skin and 4 fingers and a head made out of spikes instead of hair as the same as a picture of a sexually abused 10 year old you have already gone past "protecting kids" and moved into the realm of "find us someone to hate!" which sadly is the point we have moved into now.
The truly fucking sad part for me is I used to make fun of those "crazy" militia guys living in the hills armed for WWIII saying that we would march lockstep into a police state and that they would use propaganda to lull the populace into going along. That slowly but surely piece by piece the constitution would be nullified by illegal laws first aimed at the hated, then eventually turned upon us all. I thought they were totally batshit nuts. Of course that was before you could spend 20 years in the pen and be branded a monster for life if you saw a cartoon character doing the nasty. If this shit keeps up I am going to have to see how much land up there by those "crazy" militia folk are, because frankly they are beginning to scare me a whole hell of a lot less than the folks making the laws right now.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
I'm not an American, but my take on it is this: Americans (the smarter ones) "worship" the concept of the Constitution as a written document regulating and limiting the rights of the government, not the document itself in its specific form. At least, I haven't yet seen people defending Constitution who objected to the idea of constitutional amendmends. Of course it's a document that has to evolve with time; the point is that there is a well-defined process of changing it, with a lots of checks and balances protecting the rights of all involved, that should be followed, and that Constitution as it stands at a given moment of time should be strictly adhered to for the whole system to be meaningful. That makes sense.