Sex Offenders Banned From Facebook, Twitter
Illinois governor Pat Quinn signed into law this week a bill that bans all registered sex offenders in his state from engaging in online social networking. The bill defines a social networking site as one containing: "profile web pages of the members," "photographs placed on the profile web pages," and "any other personal or personally identifying information." Taking effect in January, the bill ensures that any registered offender who violates the ban will be charged with a felony.
Though the bill's aim is limiting the contact between sexual predators and potential victims, there is a small problem. It's not the definition of 'social networking' that's the issue; it's the definition of 'sex offender.' Back in 1994, 33-year-old Jesse Timmendequas (who had already twice been convicted of sexual assault) used a puppy to lure seven-year-old Megan Kanka into his New Jersey house, where she was beaten, raped, and killed. Her parents helped push a series of what came to be colloquially known as Megan's Laws into effect, forcing convicted offenders to register as sex offenders. In 2006, laws passed requiring all states to make those registries public.
Yet, in the hysteria to stop sex offenders, individuals with bizarre -- but not dangerous -- behaviors were labeled as 'predators,' usually for their entire lives. Salon.com reports that a full 13 states consider public urination to be a sex offense (Two only consider it an offense if a child is present). According to Human Rights Watch, 29 states require teens who engage in consensual sex to register as offenders, while 32 states require the same of flashers and streakers. The Economist profiles a Georgia woman and registered offender who was caught performing oral sex on a boy just shy of 16 when she herself was only 17 years old. That dubious infraction still haunts her, keeping her from gainful employment nearly 15 years later.
Any parent would want to know if a convicted sex offender were moving into the neighborhood, and would love to hear that he or she couldn't join their kids' social networks. Yet, Hacker Journalist points out that almost every Web site (Switched included) has a social networking component, as individuals can register and leave comments.
In the States, we let criminals out of jail because our system is based on rehabilitation. But keeping those who have been deemed rehabilitated from leading normal lives off of useful sites (The New York Times, LinkedIn, and Monster.com all have social networking elements) will only marginalize them more. Redefine 'sex offender,' and keep those with violent or disturbed pasts off of social networks. The public urinators and the kids who make bad decisions? Slap 'em with fines, but don't ruin their lives. [From: Mashable, Salon.com, HackerJournalist, TheEconomist.com, ChicagoTribune.com, and Human Rights Watch]
Facebook Crime and Punishment
Blackmail
Sending any personal info or incriminating pictures to someone on Facebook is a huge mistake for many reasons. One of the worst possible outcomes is getting blackmailed for money, sex, or, well, anything these sickos dream up. Really, whether they're using a fake profile or not, it's a horrible idea. Read up on the story of an 18-year-old who blackmailed 31 male classmates after he posed as a girl and asked for nude pictures. That's lesson enough.
Impostors
Sure, it can be harmless to impersonate a celeb online or create a fake profile for a movie character. But seriously, there's a definite line you shouldn't cross when pretending to be someone else and it can lead to dire consequences for you. Maybe it's not as extreme as the Moroccan man who was jailed for 43 days after creating a fake Facebook profile of a prince, but you never know. Just steer clear of it.
Self-Incrimination
Do we really have to explain this? Just look up the shoplifter who posed with her stolen merchandise, the many photos of drunk underage teens, and, most recently, the album featuring a couple who killed and ate an endangered iguana in the Bahamas.
Suicide
Social networking sites has been blamed for a lot of things, fairly and unfairly, but in our opinion, the worst offense has been their indirect involvement in suicides. Obviously, there are a lot of factors responsible in each case, but there does seem to be links between social networking and a rash of suicides, and obviously tehre's the case tragic of Megan Meier, who killed herself after a classmate's mom impersonated a teen boy and harassed her over Myspace.
Murder
We've reported on numerous incidents of people getting in trouble because of their online behavior. Now, people are becoming victims because of what they're doing on the Web too. In England, a man was convicted of murdering his estranged wife after she changed her relationship status to "single." So, be careful of who can see your profile and what you're doing, no matter how harmless it seems.
Nigerian Scammers
Oh, you thought this only happened via poorly worded emails, right? WRONG. Once people got wise to their old ways, these con men are turning to social networking sites for new targets. This time, they're hacking into people's accounts and impersonating them to ask for money, usually with some weird sob story. You can check out a transcript of one of these conversations here.
Cooperation
Even if the law isn't on a case, a victim, his friends, or empathetic strangers might be. Since it's easy to get word out for anything online, people are using blogs, forums, and social networking sites to help track down criminals. In one such case, a vehicle thief was tracked down by a bunch of anonymous car enthusiasts after the victim posted his story on a forum. In the end, they identified the guy through his Facebook profile.
Self-Incrimination
Do we really have to explain this? Just look up the shoplifter who posed with her stolen merchandise, the many photos of drunk underage teens, and, most recently, the album featuring a couple who killed and ate an endangered iguana in the Bahamas.
_thumbnail.jpg "Vintage Keyboards")
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
fanoflite said 10:36AM on 8-14-2009
you know i do thank that is a good ideal.but if a person has did there time .and havent been in no more trouble.with the law .four a while .they shouldnt be marked the rest of there lives.if they did there time .that should be it they change so many laws this is getting stupid. and the people should have some kind of saying about these laws .thats like trying to buy a gun.if you been a felon you cant buy one .. if you write out a bad check four 4 hundred dollar.it is a felony .does that make you a real bad person i dont thank so why should that have any dealings buying a gun .answer that question huh
Reply
Ryoutarou-kun said 11:58AM on 8-14-2009
If they're crims, they deserve to be treated as trash.
ekbackc said 10:56AM on 9-07-2009
If your spelling and grammar weren't so poor, perhaps we could understand what you are attempting to say. Then, maybe someone could indeed "answer that one, huh!"
hello asca said 1:07PM on 8-14-2009
yes the sex offender description needs to be redefined as someof the ways some states define it is just plain stupid urinating in public? come on Im all for keep the real sickos away from kids and good honest people but lets make sure we don't lump good people who did one stupid thing with them
Reply
bob said 1:21PM on 8-14-2009
sex offenders should be banned from the face of the earth
Reply
rstaiconsulting said 2:04PM on 8-14-2009
GREAT IDEA!!!! It should be a Federal Law!!!! Are children need protection from the purverts in social network websites.
Reply
Amanda said 3:15PM on 8-14-2009
Most sex offenses are committed by a person the victim knows and I'm betting most people who are on those social networking sites looking for young girls aren't registered as sex offenders yet. If we're trying to protect our children why not ban all humans over a certain age difference from being around them at all? Because that's crazy. We don't know that the sex offenders being banned from these sites are going to reoffend and yet we prevent them from getting better by limiting everything in their lives. I'm all for protecting the children, but seriously we take the whole sex offender thing way too far. Repeat offenders should be locked away and castrated, but if it was just one offense that wasn't commited by a pedophile then let's give them a chance to be rehabillitated. If you can't trust rehabillitation, don't let them on the streets because registration and taking away everything normal about their life isn't going to stop a true offender and may take away their hope and will to get better since no matter what they do we're just going to tell them they're bad.
Reply
Jack said 6:07PM on 8-15-2009
Doesn't ANYONE read the bills and see what is actually WRITTEN???
In short, FOUR our of FIVE registered sex offenders are NOT AFFECTED by the new law!!
The law only applies to the 20% or so of those registered sex offenders who are currently on probation or parole.
Specifically, the bill does NOT apply to the 80% of registered sex offenders NOT on probation or parole!!
The public is again fooled...
Here is the actual bill:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/96/HB/09600HB1314enr.htm
Reply
AnnoyedIL said 10:03PM on 8-17-2009
I am glad other people have read the actual bill. The law does not change the sex offender registration laws, it just put additional restriction on people on probation / parole. Also, it only effect people convicted after June 1, 2009.
So essentially, if you are convicted of a sex offense after June 1, 2009, you can not use any website designed to connect people if you are on probation, parole, or conditional release.
If you did your time and are registered, then it has no impact on you, at least the way HB 1314 is written.
This was the media jumping on a story before reading what the actual bill states.
If they put restrictions on someone not on probation, parole, or conditional release, it would infringe on the persons rights.
They can require you to register all your online accounts, but can't tell you what you can and can not do. The Social Networks can kick you off their sites if they want, but the state can not monitor that activity, do you know how much it would cost to do that.
Plus they know there is no point and would just cost too much money.
mak said 3:52PM on 8-18-2009
unconstitutional!! why do our lawmakers in this state make up such fear touting,feel good laws ?? they protect no one,we as parents are suppose to monitor and protect,laws like these do no good,protect no one just make sure these law makers feel good about themselves like they are helping but actually hurting,making believe that with these laws and other enacted will protect children,lets see fake names and addresses and such will just be used come on people of this state lets educate ourselves more about sex offenders and work together too protect our children and educate them,this new law is no more affective than the 500 ft residency restriction law,they cant live with in 500 ft of,so you all feel better they cant ? well then how about 1,000, 2,000 ?? worked so well for Iowa nope it didnt,they have restructered there laws,when will Illinois ?? the 500 ft law does nothing to protect,you want to know why,well offenders cant sleep with wives or just sleep there at there homes,but they can go there anytime,that means during the day when school is in or even when its not,they just sleep there when school isnt in session,so this law protects who ?? just like this new one social networking site,when are going too stand up to this lousy government that has done nothing but pass feel good laws and steal and lie and put special taxes on candy just because they coudnt raise state tax,people of Illinois its time we educate ourselves more about these sex offender laws that truthfully dont protect just make everyone "feel" safe but not. thanks
Reply