Now then, I won't argue whether the convicted man was good or bad -- because most child molestors do not reform
You'll go further than that: you'll assume the victim was a child molester even though his convictions were for raping ADULT women because it is so hard-wired into your brain that everyone on the sex-offender's list is a child molester. Sheesh.
I'd call it a pretty damned nonexistent risk considering the victim had prior convictions relating to sex offenses against adult women. Wouldn't that make it less likely that he would go after some neighbor's male child?!?
Plus, the sex offenders had the second-lowest rate of recidivism on the page you linked to next to manslaughter.
Sex offenders were less likely than non-sex offenders to be rearrested for any offense -- 43 percent of sex offenders versus 68 percent of non-sex offenders.
But don't let facts get in the way of your argument.
After the alleged murderer was informed that his neighbor had never molested a child and was in fact on the sex-offender list for crimes against adult women, the suspect replied that (I'm paraphrasing here) "these people can't be cured."
So, the victim was on the sex offender list for raping adult women, but this psycho was so convinced that sex offenders are dangerous predators that can't be cured, that he actually believed his son was in danger. His own words, referring to the victim looking at his son:
"It was more than watching," Oliver said. "You could see his eyes. He was fantasizing, plotting. Later on down the line, who knows how many other children he could have hurt."
So raping adult women = lusting after young boys?
We shouldn't be surprised by this type of tragedy after the media and politicians have gleefully embarked on a decade long scare campaign designed to convince the public that sex-offenders are pure evil incarnate. That they can't be cured. That they are worse than murderers. That they lurk behind every tree and every bush, waiting to attack children. That all sex offenders=child molesters and all child molesters=baby-butt rapers.
This alleged murderer may be a low-functioning individual, or he just may be crazy, but nevertheless our society has reinforced his paranoia and justified it. The real tragedy about all of this is that we have allowed our "modern" society to behave like some medieval village.
Personally, I believe the shark-jumping took place when the "War on Drugs" started going full-swing. The immediate criminalization of a significant portion of the country's populace, and the increasingly para-military style police force was the beginning of the end.
The drug war isn't the only factor causing the approaching crapstorm, but it seems that the mechanizations were put in place around that time (80s) to start some serious freedom stamping.
Where is the outcry when ISP's and the government restrict communication in the U.S.?
Everyone is up in arms about Yahoo cooperating with the Chinese government, but Yahoo and other companies bend over backwards to help the U.S. Government, often with nary a question. The telecom's cooperation with the NSA with the warrantless wiretapping of citizens is an obvious example (and there the Times did an admirable job getting the word out), but as most on Slashdot realize, there are two magic phrases which suddenly causes First Amendment amnesia... terrorism and child pornography. Mention one of those terms and you'll have Yahoo employees jumping through hoops of fire to hand you customer records, regardless of how substantiated the claim may be.
I don't remember the NYTimes writing an editorial admonishing AT&T for deciding to "filter" their network for copyrighted material.
People often ignore freedom of speech abuses in the U.S. because we have the First Amendment. Therefore, freedom of speech is guaranteed... right? But China's constitution guarantees the freedom of speech as well (article 35). You can't just deny that your house is burning down because you have a piece of paper that guarantees it's fireproof.
Go ahead and explain now the difference between an "act" and the "image of an act"... oh dear time for a coffee break...
Of course you know this, but...
In the case of child pornography, the line between sexually abusing a child and possessing a picture of sexual abuse of a child has been blurred so much that it no longer exists.
The media hype and political pandering surrounding child pornography has created a society where most people really don't see a difference between the picture of the act and the actual act. The theory of demand for such pornography causes more abuse was the wedge in the door; now, it makes no difference whether there is an economic interest, because the argument has progressed to the absurd assertion that merely looking at a picture of child pornography is an act of molestation. Add to that the fact that child pornography no longer has to include actual sexual activity (scantily clad youth in "sexual" poses is enough), and we find ourselves in the free-speech mess we are in today. Suddenly no politician thinks twice about the proposal to make cartoons drawings illegal.
All of this sets a very dangerous precedent. Without the ability to find simple images and content illegal (and which result in very severe penalties), the government would have few reasons to monitor mere civilian communication. This is their ace in the hole: the perfect excuse to retain ISP records, to monitor open wifi connections, to outlaw encryption (coming soon to a country near you!).
That a person can be thrown in prison for many, many years because he or she possesses a picture and nothing else is astonishing. And depressing.
Wait... what's that... fascism does not rule in America like some people on the internet say. You've lost me now. Crackpot!!
Har Har! See, it's funny because everyone thinks the American government is headed in the wrong direction and people are worried about the loss of civil liberties. However, this one time the Feds weren't able to steamroll through the justice system with excuses about national security, state secrets, and executive power. So therefore all those naysayers were wrong! Everything's a-ok! Don't worry about warrantless wiretapping, telecom immunity, or national security letters. Funny ha-ha!
Come on, that Countdown program is just about as biased left as you can get. I guess bias for the liberal side is called news, and bias for conservatives is an outrage, requiring an attack dog like Media Matters. It's a good thing that Fox News exists, or there would be no conservative voices in the media at all.
No kidding. Remember in the run-up to the Iraq war when the Bush administration couldn't get their agenda across to the american people because all the lefty news outlets refused to parrot their claims? Oh wait, that's right. Pretty much 99% of the American media (including the highly "liberal" New York Times) spent the years 2002-2004 mindlessly repeating the administration's talking points without doing any independent reporting.
But still, it's a good thing we have Fox News. Otherwise where would I get all the newest info on my favorite celebrities (what's that silly Paris up to today)? Or how I would know which ethnic/religious/political group to direct my hatred towards?
The Department would no doubt rather be busting gangsters, child molesters, and even actual counterfeiting rings, but it seems like some members of Congress are intent on pressing Justice to get involved in the P2P lawsuit game...
I highly doubt that the Department of Justice would rather be investigating actual crimes (in which people are actually harmed). The DoJ, the FBI, and most other law enforcement agencies seem to go after whatever "criminal issue" is the easiest to investigate and whatever will garner the most sensationalist headlines. Hence the rise in all of these sting operations involving drugs and the "to catch a predator" type sitations where citizens are arrested based on the theory that they would likely harm someone in the future (sure, the 14 year old girl is really a 45 year old cop, but there could be a real 14 year old girl who entices this guy over to her house sometime in the future).
It's no wonder that law enforcement agencies are all jumping at the chance to investigate myspace and facebook "criminal activity". It's a lot easier to sit at your desk and surf the web all day instead of being out on the street and arresting people who are actually harming others (violent acts, robbery, rape, etc.).
Spot on. There are so many laws these days, with ever-increasing penalties, that a little offense like jaywalking or spitting on the sidewalk can rack up a potential jail-term of 20-30 years. Spitting on the sidewalk, conspiracy to spit on the sidewalk, public nuisance, spitting within 100 feet of a school, endangering minors in proximity of spit, etc. Nearly everyone takes a plea now because it's insane to risk it at trial.
How many new criminal laws are passed each year, and how many others sunset or are repealed? Once a law is on the books it is hardly ever repealed. No one wants to appear "soft" on crime. Instead, we get more laws, a bigger prison population, with more expense to society, and in return we have absolutely nothing to show for it. Makes me want to spit.
Of course, this is not the case, and I'd be very surprised if it was legal for the US government to regulate anything short of child porn or snuff videos coming across the internet.
So far, the only thing stopping Congress from regulating the crap out of the internet (often using kiddie pr0n as an excuse/stepping-stone) has been the Supreme Court. Things might be different now that the Roberts court is in full swing. Of course, you'd think that true "conservative" justices would be more apt to strike down any gov't regulation of the internet, but I bet if you toss the words pornography, children, and deviant around enough they'll be happy to help turn the intertube as we know it into glorified cable-television with email.
The only reason broadcast television was ruled constitutional to regulate was because television is a broadcast media, that's sent into everyones home.
But once wireless networks are more pervasive throughout society... ta-da! Time to regulate!
Scary to think that a team of grown, (presumably) reasonable adults can be convinced to kick down your door and point a gun in your face just because a random report on a computer screen says so--with absolutely no confirmation at all from an superior or actual living person involved in the case.
And really, this was just minor, compared to what damage the kid could have done to this poor couple had he hacked into their home PC, deposited some kiddy pr0n, and then called the cops on them. Cops will go on kiddy pr0n raids, busting down doors, armed to the teeth, etc. based on a single tip or lead, with little or no corroboration.
I realize this is a matter of personal taste, and that one can easily alter the look of the desktop, but still... I challenge someone to claim that the taskbar and menu-button look nice. Even the easter bunny wouldn't pick that light pastel blue as a default color. First impressions do matter.
Before all the privacy loonies wake up, remember that it is perfectly normal for ALL your phone calls to be logged and it is standard practive for the police to check them, with court order, if they suspect something.
Do you do your banking by phone? How about your shopping? Do you search for answers about private medical conditions by phone? Are your sexual preferences revealed by your phone record? Are your sexual curiosities? How about your political leanings and affiliations?
I'm sure you can answer yes to a couple of the above questions. A detailed search of your phone record would reveal much about your life and likely let loose a few skeletons from the closet. However, most home internet users could probably answer yes to all the above questions. The internet is used for a much wider slice of personal life, and thus it deserves more privacy protection.
Blanket censorship excuse: "We're uhh... stopping the exploitation of children!"
Blanket surveillance excuse: "We're uhh... stopping the exploitation of children!"
Blanket excuse for a telecommunication company/government entity to do anything and everything it wants: "We're uhh... stopping the exploitation of children!"
Why has this method been so effective for so long? When will the madness end?
This is the exact same kind of fundamentalist zealotry that wants to destroy Christianity and anything other than what Allah wants, does anyone else see that?
Nope, sorry, don't see that. You seem as angry as a fundamentalist Christian who wants to destroy Islam and anything other than what Jesus wants. Anyone else see that?
If I SAY I am going to kick you in the nuts, thats assault.
In general, words such as the above are not going to be enough to constitute an assault. However, these words along with a twitch of your leg, as if you were about to kick me in the nuts, would likely be considered an assault. The victim has to have a reasonable apprehension of being in danger, words alone probably won't cut it.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd call it a pretty damned nonexistent risk considering the victim had prior convictions relating to sex offenses against adult women. Wouldn't that make it less likely that he would go after some neighbor's male child?!?
Plus, the sex offenders had the second-lowest rate of recidivism on the page you linked to next to manslaughter.
Sex offenders were less likely than non-sex offenders to be rearrested for any offense -- 43 percent of sex offenders versus 68 percent of non-sex offenders.
But don't let facts get in the way of your argument.
After the alleged murderer was informed that his neighbor had never molested a child and was in fact on the sex-offender list for crimes against adult women, the suspect replied that (I'm paraphrasing here) "these people can't be cured."
So, the victim was on the sex offender list for raping adult women, but this psycho was so convinced that sex offenders are dangerous predators that can't be cured, that he actually believed his son was in danger. His own words, referring to the victim looking at his son:
"It was more than watching," Oliver said. "You could see his eyes. He was fantasizing, plotting. Later on down the line, who knows how many other children he could have hurt."
So raping adult women = lusting after young boys?
We shouldn't be surprised by this type of tragedy after the media and politicians have gleefully embarked on a decade long scare campaign designed to convince the public that sex-offenders are pure evil incarnate. That they can't be cured. That they are worse than murderers. That they lurk behind every tree and every bush, waiting to attack children. That all sex offenders=child molesters and all child molesters=baby-butt rapers.
This alleged murderer may be a low-functioning individual, or he just may be crazy, but nevertheless our society has reinforced his paranoia and justified it. The real tragedy about all of this is that we have allowed our "modern" society to behave like some medieval village.
That could help explain it. (And the series too...)
Where is the outcry when ISP's and the government restrict communication in the U.S.?
Everyone is up in arms about Yahoo cooperating with the Chinese government, but Yahoo and other companies bend over backwards to help the U.S. Government, often with nary a question. The telecom's cooperation with the NSA with the warrantless wiretapping of citizens is an obvious example (and there the Times did an admirable job getting the word out), but as most on Slashdot realize, there are two magic phrases which suddenly causes First Amendment amnesia... terrorism and child pornography. Mention one of those terms and you'll have Yahoo employees jumping through hoops of fire to hand you customer records, regardless of how substantiated the claim may be.
I don't remember the NYTimes writing an editorial admonishing AT&T for deciding to "filter" their network for copyrighted material.
People often ignore freedom of speech abuses in the U.S. because we have the First Amendment. Therefore, freedom of speech is guaranteed... right? But China's constitution guarantees the freedom of speech as well (article 35). You can't just deny that your house is burning down because you have a piece of paper that guarantees it's fireproof.
In the case of child pornography, the line between sexually abusing a child and possessing a picture of sexual abuse of a child has been blurred so much that it no longer exists.
The media hype and political pandering surrounding child pornography has created a society where most people really don't see a difference between the picture of the act and the actual act. The theory of demand for such pornography causes more abuse was the wedge in the door; now, it makes no difference whether there is an economic interest, because the argument has progressed to the absurd assertion that merely looking at a picture of child pornography is an act of molestation. Add to that the fact that child pornography no longer has to include actual sexual activity (scantily clad youth in "sexual" poses is enough), and we find ourselves in the free-speech mess we are in today. Suddenly no politician thinks twice about the proposal to make cartoons drawings illegal.
All of this sets a very dangerous precedent. Without the ability to find simple images and content illegal (and which result in very severe penalties), the government would have few reasons to monitor mere civilian communication. This is their ace in the hole: the perfect excuse to retain ISP records, to monitor open wifi connections, to outlaw encryption (coming soon to a country near you!).
That a person can be thrown in prison for many, many years because he or she possesses a picture and nothing else is astonishing. And depressing.
But still, it's a good thing we have Fox News. Otherwise where would I get all the newest info on my favorite celebrities (what's that silly Paris up to today)? Or how I would know which ethnic/religious/political group to direct my hatred towards?
It's no wonder that law enforcement agencies are all jumping at the chance to investigate myspace and facebook "criminal activity". It's a lot easier to sit at your desk and surf the web all day instead of being out on the street and arresting people who are actually harming others (violent acts, robbery, rape, etc.).
Spot on. There are so many laws these days, with ever-increasing penalties, that a little offense like jaywalking or spitting on the sidewalk can rack up a potential jail-term of 20-30 years. Spitting on the sidewalk, conspiracy to spit on the sidewalk, public nuisance, spitting within 100 feet of a school, endangering minors in proximity of spit, etc. Nearly everyone takes a plea now because it's insane to risk it at trial.
How many new criminal laws are passed each year, and how many others sunset or are repealed? Once a law is on the books it is hardly ever repealed. No one wants to appear "soft" on crime. Instead, we get more laws, a bigger prison population, with more expense to society, and in return we have absolutely nothing to show for it. Makes me want to spit.
Hasn't Guttman's paper on Vista DRM been debunked? Or is this more FUD?
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=723
For example, remember this shaqcapade? http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061024-8062.html
Hmf. I thought they put that language in their Terms of Service so they could do their part to stop the exploitation of children?
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/02/1728217
Now the only reasonable question is: does AT&T support child exploitation?
Speed, speed, and more speed.
While the feature-list and included packages is very impressive, the default KDE desktop is truly hideous:
http://wiki.mandriva.com/en/uploads/9/9a/2008-kde-desktop.png
I realize this is a matter of personal taste, and that one can easily alter the look of the desktop, but still... I challenge someone to claim that the taskbar and menu-button look nice. Even the easter bunny wouldn't pick that light pastel blue as a default color. First impressions do matter.
Good. These are required in order to run Vista. Or wait...
Do you do your banking by phone? How about your shopping? Do you search for answers about private medical conditions by phone? Are your sexual preferences revealed by your phone record? Are your sexual curiosities? How about your political leanings and affiliations?
I'm sure you can answer yes to a couple of the above questions. A detailed search of your phone record would reveal much about your life and likely let loose a few skeletons from the closet. However, most home internet users could probably answer yes to all the above questions. The internet is used for a much wider slice of personal life, and thus it deserves more privacy protection.
Blanket censorship excuse: "We're uhh... stopping the exploitation of children!"
Blanket surveillance excuse: "We're uhh... stopping the exploitation of children!"
Blanket excuse for a telecommunication company/government entity to do anything and everything it wants: "We're uhh... stopping the exploitation of children!"
Why has this method been so effective for so long? When will the madness end?
Nope, sorry, don't see that. You seem as angry as a fundamentalist Christian who wants to destroy Islam and anything other than what Jesus wants. Anyone else see that?
Why, because of the weather? It can't be because of your traffic-throttling happy ISPs:
http://torrentfreak.com/rogers-fighting-bittorren
If I SAY I am going to kick you in the nuts, thats assault.
In general, words such as the above are not going to be enough to constitute an assault. However, these words along with a twitch of your leg, as if you were about to kick me in the nuts, would likely be considered an assault. The victim has to have a reasonable apprehension of being in danger, words alone probably won't cut it.