More of the Same

[jackofallgeeks]

Related to my earlier post: Federal legislation to Protect the Children, which in part targets convicted sex offenders specifically, but another part also may effect little guys, too.

From the article:
Then, any social-networking site must take "effective measures" to remove any Web page that's "associated" with a sex offender.

A McCain aide, who did not want to be identified by name, said on Friday that the measure was targeted at any Web site that "you'd have to join up or become a member of to use." No payment would be necessary to qualify, the aide added.

Does anyone else think this sounds a lot like denying offenders nearly any and all access to the Internet? Does this make anyone else concerned about how far this could stretch? It sounds an awful lot like censorship and denial of free speech?

Comments

[higheststar.livejournal.com]

Ya commit a felony, you already give up a lot of your constitutional rights! In some states it means you lose the right to vote. In Va, they keep your DNA on file for the rest of your life! This includes minors who commit felonies. Depending on the sex offender, I think it's a decent law. I have already sat through one too many cases where kids were victimized on myspace. I mean yes, I think it is the parents job to keep a better eye on their kid, but I also think that this is not inherently a bad law.

Paved with Good Intentions

[jackofallgeeks.livejournal.com]

as they like to say on Slashdot, IANAL (I am not a lawyer), and you're far closer to one, but:

From Wikipedia on Felony (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony):
In the United States felons often receive additional punishments such as the loss of voting rights, exclusion from certain lines of work, prohibition from obtaining certain licenses, exclusion from purchase/possession of firearms or ammunition, and ineligibility to run for or be elected to public office. In addition, some states consider a felony conviction to be grounds for an uncontested divorce.

Loss of some constitutional rights, such as the right to bear arms, the right to run for public office, and so on make sense for a good number of felonies. Armed robbery, murder, other violent acts. I'm not saying sex offense isn't a violent act. But I do note that it doesn't say felons lose the right to free speech, or peaceful assembly, or any of the other rights that are not likely to lead or assist in further crime. Arguably, 'lead to or assist in further crime,' might apply here. However, it seems at first blush that this law would effectively ban offenders from the Internet. Killing flies with a proverbial sledgehammer, I argue.

And from a related article (http://news.com.com/Chat+rooms+could+face+expulsion/2100-1028_3-6099414.html)
"This bill is well-intentioned, but it is highly overbroad and would create big obstacles to accessing sites that pose no risk to children," said Jim Halpert, a partner at law firm DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary, who is the general counsel for the Internet Commerce Coalition.

And later:

In a statement earlier this month, a representative of MySpace--now owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.--stressed that the company has taken steps this year to assuage concerns among parents and politicians. It has assigned some 100 employees, about one-third of its work force, to deal with security and customer care, and hired Hemanshu (Hemu) Nigam, a former Justice Department prosecutor, as its chief security officer.

Which demonstrates that others who are involved think the same sorts of things: sledgehammer. Yeah, it's the parents' job to watch their kids, but I'll admit that many can't (or don't), and The public has an interest in protecting them to the extent they can. At the same time, it seems that this law is way too broad, doesn't define enough of it's terms, won't solve the real problem (un-convicted offenders), and as such is generally unnecessary. And in my book an unnecessary law is a bad one, by definition.

(Actually, I'm honestly curious -- separate completely from any argument or rhetoric -- of the cases you've sat through where kids were victimized on MySpace how many were the prey of known felons? And -- in general terms because I really don't want to know the details -- how were they victimized? Was it through MySpace per se, or because they met the felon in person?

OK, yeah, that really sounds like rhetorical fishing. I promise I'm not.)

[higheststar.livejournal.com]

Well i worked for the juvenile courts, so I saw their preliminary hearings and and arraignments (actually trials would be across the street at circuit courts where they have jury trials). Since these were preliminary matters, not all evidence is produced. Therefore, i have no idea how many were known felons (that would come in during the trial). But it was both through Myspace and people that they then met or were going to meet from myspace.

[jackofallgeeks.livejournal.com]

So, in the cases of not-met (even if they were going to meet), was it abuse or intent-to-abuse? What I'm really asking is what kind of abuse comes through on MySpace, per se, as opposed to (for lack of a better wording) actual physical abuse that could come from meeting the offender? Mostly because the latter is more-readily solved, I think, by non-technical, offline, real-world solutions, not barring people from the Internet.

[higheststar.livejournal.com]

lets just say the language was extremely explicit. not something i would feel comfortable hearing, let alone a 12 or 13 year old from an adult. usuaully someone would befriend the child and over time the language would become extremely graphic. And the problem is that the internet is just such easy access to kids, especially ones that allow them to have profiles and communication.

[jackofallgeeks.livejournal.com]

Fair enough. Valid points. I think I would still feel uncomfortable with any sort of broadly-worded law, as seems to be the case here -- it would basically ban someone from all forms of social communication, from MySpace to Slashdot to mailing lists according to the articles. If it had some qualifier to denote sites where children could be identified, such as MySpace or Facebook where ages and the like are part-and-parcel of the deal, then maybe I'd be OK with that. Felon or not, I'm still uncomfortable with denying someone legitimate use of websites (even MySpace), especially when you're talking about something that will follow you for years afterwards, regardless of how much you change and fight to overcome your past. Some of the collateral punishments of a felony conviction are reasonable and right, I think, but I'd err on the side of allowing people to change rather than assume they never will.

Mind, all of this, I think, could reasonably be dependent on length of time since conviction and repeat-offender status. If someone has committed a crime recently or repeatedly, they're a higher risk for doing so again.