Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Illinois Bans Social Network Use By Sex Offenders

Posted by timothy on from the good-feel-measure-vs.-bad-feel-felons dept.

RobotsDinner writes "Illinois Governor Pat Quinn has signed into law a bill that bans all registered sex offenders from using social networks. '"Obviously, the Internet has been more and more a mechanism for predators to reach out," said Sen. Bill Brady (R-Bloomington), a sponsor of the measure and a governor candidate. "The idea was, if the predator is supposed to be a registered sex offender, they should keep their Internet distance as well as their physical distance."'"

30 of 587 comments (clear)

  1. Incoming 1st Amendment Challenge by Gorm+the+DBA · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I see this dying quickly to a challenge on the basis of rights of association and free speech.

    Yes, you can ban them from talking to the punishment here is far too harsh to not be challenged.

    1. Re:Incoming 1st Amendment Challenge by Darkness404 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Except for the fact that guns are designed to shoot things. Honestly, I believe that disallowing non-violent felons from the right to bear arms or any other constitutional right is wrong, but social networks are simply talking, and honestly, you can't be molested online, despite what some people might think.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    2. Re:Incoming 1st Amendment Challenge by Hamilton+Publius · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Agreed, but also not all convicted sex offenders are convicted for crimes that imply all of the outrage associated with the title "convicted sex offenders". As many other posters have pointed out, things like two underage people having consensual sex, public urination, texting a naked picture, etc require registation as a sex offender and apparently being banned from popular social networks. The Economist had a great article about this very subject (cover article actually). They pointed our rightly that the situation is unlikely to get better because no politician wants to be branded as being against coming down tough on "sex offenders".

    3. Re:Incoming 1st Amendment Challenge by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not when we use the word "rape" to describe a 15 year old consenting to have sex with a 20 year old. You can try to argue semantics and claim that a 15 year old is not competent to give consent, but even so, it is not a violent crime. Rape of the variety that involves a gun pointed at someone's head is a violent crime, and I would not dispute that, but rape that involves no weapon or fighting is just not something I would call "violent."

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    4. Re:Incoming 1st Amendment Challenge by hey! · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I doubt it.

      After you've been convicted of a crime, you can certainly have civil rights taken away as a punishment.

      But there's something else people might not realize: civil rights under our system can be regulated if there is a compelling public interest in doing so and the regulation is narrowly tailored to serve that interest. My freedom of speech does not entitle me to speak my opinions through a bullhorn at 3AM in a quiet neighborhood. I am required to find other means of expressing opinions. A law against talking at 3AM would be too broad; a law against talking so loud that people inside their houses are unable to ignore it is narrow; it doesn't prevent me from communicating other ways or at other times.

      Telling a sex offender he can't communicate with his friends ever again would be unconstitutionally broad. Telling him he can't use social networking sites to do so is a more narrow restriction, what's more there is a rational justification for it. A social networking site provides access to many, many more potential victims than tradtional ways of making and having friends. Not only is there a "law of averages" effect, it's an ideal laboratory in which to hone a script for convincing a victim to put himself at danger. You can be rejected hundreds or even thousands of times, but if you try something different at or near the point of failure, eventually you'll have a diabolically effective approach.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    5. Re:Incoming 1st Amendment Challenge by schon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Telling him he can't use social networking sites to do so is a more narrow restriction, what's more there is a rational justification for it.

      No, the "justification" is most irrational.

      Lumping violent repeat rapists in with people who pee in the woods when they think they're alone, and claiming that "it's for the children" is 100% completely and totally emotional, and therefor about as far from rational as you can get.

    6. Re:Incoming 1st Amendment Challenge by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

      but rape that involves no weapon or fighting is just not something I would call "violent."

      Bullshit. It's rape if one of the partners doesn't consent to the activity. The fact that the rapist wasn't armed really shouldn't enter into the calculation, except in so far as that they wind up charged with additional weapons offenses in addition to the rape charge.

      Mind you, I don't think statutory rape should be regarded in the same manner as what I described above, but to say that rape isn't a violent crime just because no weapon was involved kind of misses the mark, IMHO. You don't regard it as a violent act to have something penetrate your body against your will?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    7. Re:Incoming 1st Amendment Challenge by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Look, if a person is a child predator and cannot be trusted with their rights, then leave them in prison for the rest of their life. Prisons are not just there as punishments; they are there to keep dangerous people separated from the rest of society. Keep the people who are likely to repeatedly molest children in prison, and you won't have to have politicians try to figure out what a "social network" is.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    8. Re:Incoming 1st Amendment Challenge by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 4, Insightful
      "You don't regard it as a violent act to have something penetrate your body against your will?"

      If you:
      1. Do not fight, shout, shove, or resist in any way
      2. Are not being threatened with a weapon of some sort
      3. Were not poisoned or endangered

      Then no, it is not violent. Violent crimes involve violence of some sort. A lack of violence makes the crime non-violent. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and it seems pretty fair to set the threshold of a "violent crime" to be "violence was involved." This is not to say that it is perfectly fine to rape someone -- violence is not the sole factor in determining whether or not something was wrong -- but I absolutely would separate a violent rape from a non-violent rape.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    9. Re:Incoming 1st Amendment Challenge by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Do not fight, shout, shove, or resist in any way

      So we can only call a crime violent if the victim is willing to resist in same manner?

      Are not being threatened with a weapon of some sort

      Weapons are not limited to guns and knives. If you were a 100 pound female facing a 200+ pound male who has three or more times your muscle mass are you seriously going to argue that it shouldn't be considered a violent crime just because he didn't happen to have a firearm, knife or some other technological piece of weaponry?

      Were not poisoned or endangered

      Being raped is endangerment. Ever heard of STDs? Ever heard of the ones that can't be cured and which are eventually fatal? There's a reason why most states (even the liberal blue ones) allow for the use of deadly force when confronted with a would-be rapist. A rapist is arguably every bit as dangerous as a loaded gun pointed at your head or knife at your throat.

      Violent crimes involve violence of some sort

      I would argue that having your body penetrated against your will is an inherently violent act.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    10. Re:Incoming 1st Amendment Challenge by plague3106 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Due process of law does not mean passing laws further punishing people that have already paid their debt to society. They took the time to codify that you can't be arrested for doing what was legal yesterday but made illegal today, I fail to see how this is really a different concept.

      Would you argue in favor of a law that executes anyone convicted of shoplifting, ever in their life? Do you honestly consider that due process?

    11. Re:Incoming 1st Amendment Challenge by rjstanford · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Although ironically, having someone known to go around beating women into submission to brutally murder them being restricted from social networking sites has not even been proposed.

      How reasonable is this again?

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    12. Re:Incoming 1st Amendment Challenge by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is also true outside of rape.

      The person outside of the rape agreed to the encounter. There was nothing stopping them from making an informed decision about the encounter and taking steps to protect themselves. Of course not everybody makes an informed decision but that's a separate discussion.

      The rape victim has had this choice taken from them. That's why it's different. I should think this would be obvious to anyone who was interested in paying attention to my point and not nitpicking it to death with comparisons with consensual activity.

      I can't believe that I'm receiving troll mods for arguing that rape is a violent action. WTF is wrong with you people?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    13. Re:Incoming 1st Amendment Challenge by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "the difference between your strawman and the crime of rape."

      Let me repeat myself: Is it not violent to be shot in the head just because you are willing to be shot? This is not a strawman; you said that rape must be violent because the victim is not willing to have sex, and I am asking if, by that logic, a being shot is only violent when you are not willing to be shot.

      "I would personally resist a rapist with my last ounce of strength. The fact that some people might be too scared to do so does not reduce the violence of the encounter in any way, shape or form."

      Except, of course, that we consider it to be "rape" when a 15 year old has sex with a 25 year old, even when the 15 year old was not forced to do so. The fact that you automatically associate "rape" with something that involves fear, trauma, or a lack of willingness only demonstrates that statutory rape is a misnomer and that we need to find a new name for the crime.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    14. Re:Incoming 1st Amendment Challenge by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, sorry. Your example about statutory rape where the 'victim' is in fact consenting is an example of a non-violent crime.

      Rape against a non-consenting victim is sexual violence. There is violence inherent in the act of violating someone's body. Think for two seconds about what is actually entailed and this should be obvious.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    15. Re:Incoming 1st Amendment Challenge by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Reasonable? If your goal is to win the love of your irrational constituents, then persecuting "sex offenders" (which often includes public urinators and the like, and in any case is highly subject to selective arrest like everything else) who are an easy target (no one loves to speak up in their defense) makes a great deal of sense.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    16. Re:Incoming 1st Amendment Challenge by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But I have a friend in state police that says they are getting few if any actual child molesters through social networks. What they are catching there is what he calls the 'social retards' and says it is quite easy to spot the difference. The social retards will talk a good game online, but never meet anybody. When you raid their place there is CP alright, along with beastiality and brown and golden showers, and B&D/S&M, etc. You look into their background and most have gone out of their way to not have contact with anyone, kids and adults alike.

      Contrast this with the child predator, which is says is actually really damned hard to catch online. They aren't trolling online for kids, because they are coaching youth groups, being active in the church, anything that will get them closer to their prey. He says he has seen plenty over the years that will go so far as marry a woman just to get at her kids. He says they know when they catch one of these guys as they often trade highly encrypted DVDs through the mail with other predators.

      So despite the bogeymen stories according to him the hardcore child predators abandoned the net awhile back. There is just so much easier prey in their own neighborhoods, which is how they eventually get caught. I would argue that the social retards could probably be rehabilitated (I actually met one once. The sad little creature would probably have screamed if anybody actually touched him) and that the hardcores are gonna have to be caught the old fashioned way, with good police work. And as someone who had a fed in the past try to entrap him on IRC back in the day (I finally had to get ugly and tell them if they didn't quit talking dirty on a Windows repair channel they would get permanently banned) I find their methods on "catching" anyone on social networks dubious at best.

      The whole thing IMHO went south when we turned rapist into "sex offender". After all, everyone knew what a rapist was and had a definition that was pretty consistent. With sex offender it could be anything from pissing on a bush on up. Right now the whole "child molester" bogeyman has gotten to be about as insane as the Red Scare of the 50s. Just see McMartin and Little Rascals day care for examples of normal people acting insane because the word 'child molester" was uttered.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    17. Re:Incoming 1st Amendment Challenge by Runaway1956 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I have to weigh in here. I'm old enough, I've been privy to the details of a number of "encounters" that later went to court. I've had freinds, both male and female freinds involved.

      First, let's ground ourselves in reality. In Africa, today, (semi)organized gangs of men prowl the villages searching out female victims. Not only are the victims used and abused violently, but they are often cut and mutilated intentionally in an attempt to sterilize and degrade them. If the women survive, so be it, if not, tough. Victims range in age from infants to very old women.

      Compare common cases in the civilized world to the actions of those thugs in Africa. I could sit in judgement of those savages, and uniformly award the death sentence from now until hell freezes over.

      Here, in America, statutory rape has been abused to the point, that if a boy and girl have been dating for months, and he celebrates his 18th birthday before she does, he can be charged with rape, no matter that she consents, or maybe even initiates an evening of sex. THAT is a case of being raped by the system.

      There is a wide range of "rapes" in between the two extreme ends that I've just painted. And, anyone who believes that our court system is adequate for judging all of them has a few screws loose, IMHO.

      Real violent, brutal rape is simply not punished severely enough. The man who can use his fists to pummel a resistant woman into submission, should NEVER walk the streets again. In fact, I can justify the death penalty for many of them.

      On the other hand, having a casual relationship with someone met in a bar, only to be charged with "rape" later, because she has some "multiple personality disorder" is about as bogus as things can get. (I've been close to two cases like that.)

      I don't have any numbers to offer, but at a rough guess, I would say that nearly 10% of "offenders" in this country never should have gone to trial. Prosecuting attorneys seldom care about "justice", it's all about numbers.

      The laws regarding registered sex offenders do not go nearly far enough to differentiate between the classes of offenders. As already stated, the worst offenders shouldn't even see sunlight, but there they are, walking the streets. Others, if they really DID do anything wrong, should serve a year of probation and be forgotten - they are no threat to anyone.

      Laws like the one in TFA don't do ANYTHING to see that justice is done. They only create beauracratic hoops for a captive audience to jump through. They create jobs for people who get off on minding other people's business. They contribute to an Owellian society, something we are moving toward just as quickly as possible.

      Personally I can't see any justice in a law like this. Dangerous people belong in a dungeon or a coffin, and non-dangerous people need their rights restored.

      The system doesn't work, and laws like these will only make the system worse.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    18. Re:Incoming 1st Amendment Challenge by Delkster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Public urination? Sex offender? WTF?

      I find urinating in public generally more or less offensive (much more so if it's done at a random corner on the street, not really so much in a concealed bush), and would really like the drunked idiots in the city to stop doing that on the street (yeah, it happens), but seriously, if it counts as a felony that you have to register as a sex offender for... someone has a rather weird idea of a sexual act.

  2. Social Networks? by homer_s · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And who decides what a "social network" is?

    I wonder when we'll receive calls for govt. regulation of websites to keep it safe for children.

  3. This is stupid by the_humeister · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Either they've served their debt to society or keep them in jail. This half-assed "you're out of jail but you can only do X" is ridiculous.

    1. Re:This is stupid by glwtta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is why, despite my strong civil liberties leanings, I support a sex offenders register and other measures to keep an eye on them.

      You're advocating punishing people for crimes hey might commit - I think you have a very confused notion of "strong civil liberties leanings".

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    2. Re:This is stupid by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Either they've served their debt to society or keep them in jail. This half-assed "you're out of jail but you can only do X" is ridiculous.

      "Served his debt to society" is not coterminous with "does not pose a threat to the rights of others -- we would failing our duty to preserve those rights if we did not take reasonable steps to reduce the risk to society as we attempt to reintegrate prisoners into society. We know that some will succeed and some will fall back into crime but, of course, we don't know how it will play out in each individual case. We could keep them all in jail a lot longer because some are still dangerous or we could let them out under reasonable restrictions. The latter seems much more humane, IMO.

      The most obvious is the law prohibiting convicted felons from owning firearms. On /. it's easy for people to insist that felons should have all their rights back but I can just imagine how the public would react to a politician that proposes restoring gun-ownership rights for convicts.

      Another fairly clear-cut case are the provisions banning those convicted of certain white-collar financial crimes from taking a position of trust (aka, being accountants) over others' money. It seems reasonable that once you are convicted of embezzling your clients'/company's money, that line of work is off limits.

      [ IMO, the instant case turns on how narrowly or widely the term "sex offender" is construed -- if it really means "violent people that prety on children" versus "had sex while he was 17 and she was 16". In the former case, I'm not going to lose sleep over child rapists not browsing facebook -- in the latter, well, that just goes to show how retarded our sex-crime laws can be. ]

    3. Re:This is stupid by arth1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Indeed. A young girl living next door to a former sex offender has a statistically far higher risk of being raped by her father than the sex offender. Should we then ban all fathers from contact with their children?
      I mean, think of the children!

  4. Re:Punishment doesn't fit the Crime by fearanddread · · Score: 5, Insightful

    what's wrong is a society that treats public urination as a sex crime.

  5. Why are sex offenders treated worse than murderers by Rosyna · · Score: 5, Insightful

    People labeled "sex offenders" (could be from mooning someone, urinating in an alley, having manga, and other little things) are treated worse than murderers in the US. Murderers don't have to tell the community after serving time that they killed someone. They can rent apartments almost anywhere. There's no online database anyone can browse to find murderers living in your area...

    It saddens me as, basically, it's better for the perp's punishment to rape a child, kill them, and dispose of the body than just raping them.

  6. Re:how is this enforceable? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It isn't; but it should net some votes, and provide another charge to stack, next time the DA needs to throw the book at some unsympathetic perp.

  7. Re:America's unjust sex laws by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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 participants, they would be tried as an adult in every state in the country.

  8. Re:Bzzt! Wrong! by Abcd1234 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Correct. And all those things are also wrong.

    Creating an underclass of ex-cons who can no longer integrate effectively into society is a great way to ensure that criminals re-offend. Voting, in particular, is a right, not a privilege, and the government should never have the power to take that right away, ever (well, unless you like the idea of the government disenfranchising people based on the very laws they passed).

  9. Re:Punishment doesn't fit the Crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A murderer, however. He's free to use Facebook all he wants to track down new victims...