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

[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.