As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
McCain: Sex Offenders can't use the Internet
Jragghen
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Cnet article about McCain's legislation
So aside from any withering vestiges of respect that I had for McCain flying out the window, it makes me wonder what other sorts of draconian legislation we're going to see coming down the pipes in the future which will likely be leveraged on the basis of being "for the children." We seem to have accepted, as a culture, that people who are convicted of being sex offenders (such as this man who performed the grievous crime of trying to chastize a girl who walked in front of his car) have less rights than the rest of us, but where does that stop so that they can start living their lives again once their jail sentence (or other punishment, as appropriate) has completed? And what won't they try to legislate "for the children"?
Millions of commercial Web sites and personal blogs would be required to report illegal images or videos posted by their users or pay fines of up to $300,000, if a new proposal in the U.S. Senate came into law.
The legislation, drafted by Sen. John McCain and obtained by CNET News.com, would also require Web sites that offer user profiles to delete pages posted by sex offenders.
...
After child pornography or some forms of "obscenity" are found and reported, the Web site must retain any "information relating to the facts or circumstances" of the incident for at least six months. Webmasters would be immune from civil and criminal liability if they followed the specified procedures exactly.
McCain's proposal, called the "Stop the Online Exploitation of Our Children Act" (click for PDF), requires that reports be submitted to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which in turn will forward to the relevant police agency. (The organization received $32.6 million in tax dollars in 2005, according to its financial disclosure documents.)
Internet service providers already must follow those reporting requirements. But McCain's proposal is liable to be controversial because it levies the same regulatory scheme--and even stiffer penalties--on even individual bloggers who offer discussion areas on their Web sites.
According to the proposed legislation, these types of individuals or businesses would be required to file reports: any Web site with a message board; any chat room; any social-networking site; any e-mail service; any instant-messaging service; any Internet content hosting service; any domain name registration service; any Internet search service; any electronic communication service; and any image or video-sharing service.
...
The other section of McCain's legislation targets convicted sex offenders. It would create a federal registry of "any e-mail address, instant-message address, or other similar Internet identifier" they use, and punish sex offenders with up to 10 years in prison if they don't supply it.
Then, any social-networking site must take "effective measures" to remove any Web page that's "associated" with a sex offender.
So aside from any withering vestiges of respect that I had for McCain flying out the window, it makes me wonder what other sorts of draconian legislation we're going to see coming down the pipes in the future which will likely be leveraged on the basis of being "for the children." We seem to have accepted, as a culture, that people who are convicted of being sex offenders (such as this man who performed the grievous crime of trying to chastize a girl who walked in front of his car) have less rights than the rest of us, but where does that stop so that they can start living their lives again once their jail sentence (or other punishment, as appropriate) has completed? And what won't they try to legislate "for the children"?
Jragghen on
0
Posts
I'm ok with requiring sites to report things though . It's too easy to setup a site in such a way that you can sidestep any responsiblity for what ends up on it.
I wonder if that registry of online handles is going to wind up like the no-fly list.
but then when we want to expand those tubes, to say, rural areas, do we require the sex offenders to move, or do we just install the tubes without taps?
That's just because you are a sex offender.
I think it's more like we as a society are lazy and so don't really want to make the effort and differentiate the 18 year old fucking the 16 year old boy/girlfriend, and an actual evil of society.
I'm farily sure he's talking about the treatment heaped upon them after having their time served. They are just about the only criminals who have to serve multiple sentences, as it were, for their crime. Either keep them locked up because they aren't safe to be sent back into society, or leave them alone after they've repaid their debt to society.
Yea, this is probably enough to move McCain off the list of politicians I like. Come to think of it, I don't know if I have anyone on that list.
Ah. I agree, but I believe that some bastards just shouldn't be allowed around children.
Which means, among other things, that they can't buy books on Amazon according to this legislation, because it involves them registering at a site which will then have a profile where they can recommend books.
A small price to pay.
coupled with the clause holding site maintainers responsible yeah it pretty much would. It would end up like "To join our forums please fill out thier 52 page application and submit to a full background check to prove you don't touch little boys"
I like how the US still pretends we own the internet
I think we're too inconsistently harsh. I don't know why sex offenders have to walk around their neighborhoods and tell everyone of the crime they committed. Oughtn't everyone have to do that?
I want to know why society picks on sex offenders.
My guess is that it's just an easy thing to do. Focus the blame on the group everyone dislikes and doesn't trust to begin with and then just pile the crap on to make it seem like you're accomplishing something.
It's basically the same thing the Nazis did with the jews.
We need to buy an island for servers and call it InternetLand.
Its one the most inconsistant parts of our justice system but nobody wants to say so. No one wants to be labeled the "pro child molestor" guy. Do you have any idea the look I've gotten from some people when I've said I think Megan law(NJ's law that requires a sex offender to be registered) is unconstituitonal?
An easier (though not necessarily better) solution would be if, as a condition of their probation, sex offenders were required to have some kind of monitoring software put on their connection to check what kind of sites they were visiting.
- John Stuart Mill
Uh.. the jews didn't do anything wrong.
Sex offenders touch small children.
Big difference!
Now I'm not saying what McCain is doing is right, but I believe putting all the sex offenders on the moon with the whalers is a great idea.
You can do pretty much anything you like with someone who's on parole. If they don't wish to meet the conditions, they can serve their term in its entirity. The problem is trying to impose similar or identical conditions after they've served the entirity of either their sentence or their parole and are supposed to be as free of unwarranted government intrusion as anyone else.
See, this part is where the government needs to stop being lazy. Only the guys that are sick twisted fucks who mess with children need to be blasted off to a different planet. :P
Fixed that for you.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
See, but I don't believe that people like that can be fixed.
So, to the moon!
If nothing else I think as we get closer to the election, the proposal of this bill is going to dissuade anyone who previously might have been willing to support McCain over Hillary Clinton based on his credentials on civil liberties being slightly less bad.
It also means that pretty much any grassroots blog support that he might have had just went right out the window, since it's those very sites which would have to do th sort of background checking and records keeping he's implying. And while it's arguable how much that will help/hurt a person, that has to at least count for something/.
I like Megan's law. The mentality behind it perfectly captures the "Fucking stupid and scared idiots making laws because they're fucking stupid" situation.
I hate that everyone has forgotten what the Constitution is all about.
Hmm. Maybe someone should send them all one.
I suspect that a lot of legislators realize that a stupid bill like Megans Law is really bad, but probably rationalize it that it only effects a handful of people, and that opposing it is a pretty good way to lose your job the next time you're up for election. Sometimes what they'll do in cases like this is to add amendments to the bill that make it essentially unenforceable.
I think the reason things like this keep getting floated are primarily political:
* It shores up support with the parents. As for the sex offenders themselves, hey, they can't vote.
* They know they can pass it with barely any opposition, because the second someone says "Hey, aren't you going a bit far?" it's "SOFT ON CRIME! FOR THE CHILDREN! YOU HEARTLESS BASTARD! WHOSE SIDE ARE YOU ON?!" And it will work.
I believe I have the same two suggestions everyone else has; either:
1. Allow the sex offender completely back into society after their sentence is over, like every other offender, because if your life is essentially over anyway, what possible inhibitions would one have to performing other illegal acts besides their own conscience that is very possibly screaming 'revenge', or
2. Don't let them out of prison in the first place if you're so scared.
I like the one where we actually define which sex offenses ought to be a felony and which shouldn't (public exposure, for example, probably ought to be a misdemeanor, at least when it is one adult to another or taking a leak under an overpass), then making every felon register. Seriously, if we're looking to keep our kids safe and be informed parents, why don't we want to know whether the guy down the street spent years in prison for manslaughter?
The problem, as Aurin pointed out, is that most people (myself included) don't really think such people can be "fixed." At least not enough that I'd be comfortable having them live near my children.
I think one possible alternative is to create separate prisons for them, with less harsh conditions, and just sentence them to life. Make parole possible, but incredibly difficult. I mean, I don't like the idea of sending somebody to prisons like those we have in the US for something that most likely isn't even their fault. Then again, I don't want them fucking people up for the rest of their lives, either.
Tough choice.
Of course, as to the OP: until we start reigning in our definitions of "sex offenders," there should be a moratorium on any laws pertaining to them as a group. Seriously, skinny dipping is not a damn sex offense.
Hey wow, totally fucking different. If you're honestly comparing the damage done by a child molester, and the potential damage to be done if they repeat their offense after release, to having your house vandalized or your lawn gone stolen then you are fucking retarded.
For sex offenders apparently double jeopardy laws don't apply.