home

Perpetuating the Myth of Sexual Predators and Social Networking

By TChris, Section Crime Policy
Posted on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 11:35:56 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

A couple of state attorneys general are "appalled" that 90,000 registered sex offenders had MySpace pages before MySpace booted them off the site. Never mind that a task force created by the state attorneys general recently concluded that the online sexual solicitation of children isn't a significant problem (sensationalized television shows like "To Catch a Predator" notwithstanding).

The task force, led by the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University, looked at scientific data on online sexual predators and found that children and teenagers were unlikely to be propositioned by adults online.

Among those who disagreed with this reality because it contradicted his practice of fear-mongering was Connecticut's AG Richard Blumenthal, who complained that the report "downplayed the predator threat." Blumenthal failed to appreciate the difference between "downplaying" a threat and recognizing that the threat isn't significant. [more ...]

Attorneys general like Mr. Blumenthal and Roy Cooper of North Carolina publicly accused the social networks of facilitating the activities of pedophiles and pushed them to adopt measures to protect their youngest users. Citing studies that showed tens of thousands of convicted sex offenders were using MySpace, they pressured the networks to purge those people from their membership databases.

Blumenthal and Cooper are the two state AG's who are "appalled" that 90,000 registered sex offenders had MySpace pages before MySpace canceled their accounts. They're following the lead of Ernest Allen, president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, who draws this conclusion from the 90,000 figure:

“This clearly reinforces the fact that there are a significant number of people who seek access to kids online,” Mr. Allen said.

Hardly. All sorts of people are forced to register as sex offenders. Most aren't pedophiles. The fact that a court has ordered someone to register as a sex offender tells us nothing about whether that person is trying to solicit kids online. Scaring parents is nonetheless good for job security if you're a state AG or the president of an advocacy organization that demonizes everyone who's been ordered to register as a sex offender.

Speaking of job security, the company that made the software that helped MySpace locate the 90,000 registered sex offenders is pitching the same software to Facebook, claiming "that Facebook had become a haven for convicted offenders blocked from creating accounts on MySpace." Facebook isn't falling for it. Neither should the public, despite the scare tactics used by AG's Blumenthal and Cooper.

< Dick Cheney's Return to Fear-Mongering | Tidbits >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Perpetuating the Myth of Sexual Predators and Social Networking | 114 comments (114 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I think it's like the (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by andgarden on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 11:38:53 AM EST
    "attacked at the mall" scare story. Most teenagers are chatting online with other teenagers they already know from real life.

    That sure fits with what I remember (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by ruffian on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 11:44:25 AM EST
    about being a teenager. I don't remember 'meeting new people' being a priority. I'm sure they like to collect contacts to get their 'friends metrics' up, but it's hard for me to believe they are really interacting with that many people.

    Parent
    Yeah, but (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 11:55:26 AM EST
    that was face to face, no?  We didn't have Internet when I was a kid.  I think it's a very different world out there now for kids.

    I don't care for scare stories or tactics, but it does happen occasionally and there's really no way of knowing if your kid is going to become a target.  You can monitor their computer use very closely, but kids are pretty bright about getting around that supervision to do what they want to do anyway.

    I don't know what the solution is, but if I had a kid that age, I would very much not want him/her to become one of those "rare" occurrences, however rare they may be.


    Parent

    It's not that different (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by CST on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 12:11:22 PM EST
    With the internet.  For the most part, it's still about keeping in touch with people you already know.

    In the other cases, a basic rule of thumb for all online dealings (especially with teen-agers), is don't meet up in real life.  If you meet someone online, talk to them all you want, and leave it at that.  In some ways it's safer b.c. it ISN'T face to face.  So long as you keep it that way.

    Most teenagers are smart enough to know this anyway, and a basic conversation about it can help.

    It's the same conversation you have when you tell people not to take candy/rides/etc... from strangers.

    Parent

    The problem is in the fact that (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by coast on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 12:17:05 PM EST
    the kids put all sorts of information about themselves on these site, which they don't realize can be used for other purposes.  They will mention where they like to hang out, what school they attend, ect.  Things that if you met a stranger you would likely not include in your conversation.

    Parent
    And you can (none / 0) (#25)
    by CST on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 12:22:37 PM EST
    limit who can view these things.

    A conversation about how much information to provide on a website is also not a terrible thing.

    Also, sexual predators can stalk a school or hang-out just as easily if they don't know who will be there.  And if they find you at your school/hang-out spot, you are most likely surrounded by people, and under no obligation to speak or interact with said stalker.

    Parent

    But don't you know that people (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by andgarden on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 12:25:41 PM EST
    are more dangerous on the internet?!

    Parent
    Again...Parents Job... (none / 0) (#27)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 12:25:48 PM EST
    Parents need to use the same care in teaching their children how to safely use the internet in the same way they use care in teaching them to cross the street or how to interact with strangers.  Use fake names when registering for sh*t, never give out your address...parents need to teach this stuff.

    It's a big bad world filled with big bad people...it is more important to keep it free than it is to try and achieve an illusion of safety, imo.  

    Parent

    What?? (none / 0) (#41)
    by coast on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 12:43:05 PM EST
    "more important to keep it free than it is to try and achieve and illusion of safety"?  I really don't know how to answer that except to say, isn't that what most laws do.  Provide us with an illusion of safety.  They don't guarantee us absolute safey, do they?

    Parent
    They don't.... (none / 0) (#49)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 01:01:33 PM EST
    nothing does... we do what we can without infringing on life and liberty too much.  This is too much infringement, imho.

    I kinda like how the internet is a lawless free for all and wanna keep it that way as much as possible.  

    Parent

    Bingo. (none / 0) (#14)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 12:05:01 PM EST


    Parent
    my buddy who teaches h.s. (none / 0) (#18)
    by Dadler on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 12:13:11 PM EST
    ...tells me that what's in now is simply piling up the social networking "friends" online.  I was a lonely kid in my early teens.  If I'd been able to instantly contact other people (girls, girls, girls) like me all over the country/globe, I would've never moved from the computer.  

    The medium is not only the message, but we also, increasingly, become the medium.  From fire, to the wheel, to movable type, to radio, television, and now the internet, the spread and usage of the newest modes of existence far outpace our abilty to understand the way they influence our evolution as a species.  Although, in certain ways, it hearkens back to the days of courting by letter priot to meeting in person and possibly dating.  

    Aw hell, it's like anything, it will be used for much good, some bad, and a lot of compteley useless frivolity.  But it will, no doubt, forever change the way we relate to other people and the plane we exist in -- which is now wider that it has ever been in terms of finding other people to consider.

    Parent

    wellll (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by jedimom on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 11:48:00 AM EST
    as a mom of a teenager, they really dont have a frakin clue who they are talking to or who is stalking them frankly

    I will be on the unpopular side of this I am sure, but if my MINOR child has a page and I call the provider and want access, they should be REQUIRED to give it to me, period.

    they dont want to deal with that? then dont let people sign up under 18, you like the kids boosting business? fine then deal with the parents who find it harder and harder to protect their kids..

    Do you listen to their phone calls too? (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by andgarden on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 11:54:18 AM EST
    9 times out of 10, strangers don't even enter into it.

    I think after 14, any child is rightfully going to feel that his or her privacy was invaded if what you propose happened. If they're smart enough, and most of them are, they'll just set up a different account that you'll never know about.

    Parent

    Are you advocating? (none / 0) (#7)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 11:58:04 AM EST
    "Oh well, they're going to do it anyway, so we should just let them do whatever they want"?

    Doesn't seem like a good idea, since 14 year-olds are not known for exhibiting good judgment.

    Parent

    I'm arguing that (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by andgarden on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 12:01:13 PM EST
    a) you likely can't stop them and;

    b) any attempt to stop them is likely to be ineffective and foster bad will.

    I think if, at 14, my parents were acting like the Stasi, I'd have rebelled.

    Parent

    I take it you don't lock your car or home (none / 0) (#32)
    by Manuel on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 12:32:19 PM EST
    Sometimes, all you need is to slow them down so they have time to reflect.

    If the rules are set in advance and the reason for the rules are explained, kids are more likely to follow them.  Sure they might feel like there are times to disregard the rules but they will do it consciously.  Knowing when to set aside the rules is an important part of growing up.

    Most of the time there is no reason for kids to hode what they are doing online.  Openness is the key.

    Parent

    Openness is fine (none / 0) (#35)
    by andgarden on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 12:37:22 PM EST
    but a demand to review everything a child is doing online is invasive, and likely to be met with bitter resistance.

    Parent
    It would not be a demand (none / 0) (#45)
    by Manuel on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 12:55:26 PM EST
    It's more like an expectation.  It also has to go both ways.  My kids aren't there yet but I am hoping our communications will be open and honest with little need for secrecy on either side.

    Parent
    Rules (none / 0) (#36)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 12:37:23 PM EST
    Are you suggesting that the government should be in charge of locking our cars and homes as well as protecting kids from the wiles of the internet?

    Parent
    I'm confused, where did anyone say anything (none / 0) (#40)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 12:40:55 PM EST
    about gvt being in charge? Seriously, did I miss it somewhere?

    Parent
    Uh (none / 0) (#44)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 12:50:52 PM EST
    That is the topic of this thread.

    A couple of state attorneys general are "appalled" that 90,000 registered sex offenders had MySpace pages before MySpace booted them off the site.



    Parent
    Right, so my question remains, (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 12:55:42 PM EST
    where did anyone say anything about the gvt being in charge?

    Certainly not your quote and certainly not any of the posters here who you keep pestering with the same question...

    Parent

    Reading Comprehension (1.00 / 1) (#51)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 01:04:42 PM EST
    The point of this post is that the Gov is using fearmongering to leverage the public into pressuring FaceBook et al to enforce limits that correspond with sexual predator lists.

    In case you missed it sexual predator lists are political hay and hardly effective, save for helping pols get elected.

    The next step is legislation. First fearmongering, then fear then votes for the pol that promises the most to allay bedwetters fears.

    Sorry you are having trouble reading today. Must be your ideological bent is affecting your vision.

    Parent

    Shorter squeaky answer: (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 01:11:41 PM EST
    "No one here was suggesting the gvt be in charge - neither the TChris quote nor any of the posters I was pestering."

    Parent
    Wow (1.00 / 0) (#56)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 01:14:33 PM EST
    Rather obtusely thick headed today. I guess your attempt to jusify the validity of sexual predator lists is really clouding your thinking today.

    Parent
    More (none / 0) (#66)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 01:53:53 PM EST
    Attorney General Richard Blumenthal today announced that in response to a subpoena from his office MySpace revealed it has identified about 90,000 convicted registered sex offenders on the site, 40,000 more than previously acknowledged.

    [snip]

    "I will continue to fight for reforms and safeguards at MySpace and other social networking sites to protect children, including age and identification verification. I urge MySpace and the social networking industry to end their resistance to age and identify verification -- vital to barring predators and protecting children from inappropriate content.

    link

    Nothing to do with government regulation?


    Parent

    Not at all (none / 0) (#43)
    by Manuel on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 12:50:34 PM EST
    I am suggesting that you lock your car not because it really stops car thiefs (it doesn't) but because it makes it more likely that they'll move on to easier prey.  Similarly, it s important to foster in a child the desire to share and be open about online communication (perhapw even by sharing some of your own).  It is the kids without supervision and without open, trusting relationships that are more likely to get in trouble.  Government can't provide this easily (though better educators, adoption services, social workers, and foster parent services would help).

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#46)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 12:55:39 PM EST
    Parents need to do their job. The bedwetter mentality has already gotten us into deep international and financial trouble by giving government authority to do whatever it takes to make us less scared.

    For parents to lobby the government to protect their children by limiting the internet, songs, videos, library books etc is wrong headed and rather lazy imo.

    Parent

    There is the broken window theory (none / 0) (#55)
    by Manuel on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 01:12:05 PM EST
    which I think does have some validity.  If the evironment for minors is filled with material which is lewd and/or abusive beyond community standards, parents are entitled to expect regulation from the government.  It seems reasonable for zoning not to allow a strip joint next to a school (though I personally have no problem with it).  I am not sure online social networks are at that point.

    Parent
    COnsidering (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 12:03:51 PM EST
    THat by far most sexual abuse comes from a family friend or relative, why don't you investigate all of them first if you are truly worried about your child.

    Is it because it is much easier to have the government act as a nanny for you?

    Seems to me the monitoring should start at home, not the from the government.

    Parent

    Exactly... (none / 0) (#20)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 12:16:55 PM EST
    if any parent is that worried about online predators, don't buy your kid a computer or let them use one without supervision.

    I definitely don't think turning Myspace and the like into deputies is a good idea...lots of totally innocent people will be denied the use of the networking services, not to mention the "registered sex offenders" whose only crime was public urination or some such nonsense.

    Parent

    I don't think the effect will be great (none / 0) (#38)
    by Manuel on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 12:37:44 PM EST
    Lots of innocent people won't be denied.  One way or another those who want access will get it.  This is an example of "feel good" checkmark rules that has no real effect.  The only thing it does is that it sets up something they can point to after the fact.  I.e. "You violated the terms of service".

    Parent
    But not all parents care. (none / 0) (#33)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 12:32:55 PM EST
    Yep, I am saying that happens. A friend of my neighbors son loves her My Space. She got talking to a 20 yr old Marine from NYC. Then they got talking on the phone. Please understand, the Mother drinks quite a bit. The Father is remarried and has thrown up his hands because he can't deal with the Mother anymore. The 15 year girl has no curfew or rules and likes it that way. So the Marine gets her a bus ticket to NYC from NEPenna. He sends her the scanned copy but does not send it. He sends her the C/C receipt copy. And she is going to go for Christmas. Luckily she tells the kid and we put a stop to it. She had plans to just say she was staying at a friend's house. With cell phones, parents sometimes just check with the kids that way. The kid could be 5 states over. The parents are showing trust. So, I feel that there are a lot of kids that do not get the supervision. This girl's Mother does not check on her. My other friend checks on her daughters site with the daughters. They understand that it is for safety reasons and that not all chatters are 15 year old kids like themselves. There is no resentment if done right. Please understand.  The rules are different for every child. Some are mature and know better and some just fall for any kind of attention that they can garner.

    So if there are registered sex offenders chatting up with young teens, I don't want them doing so. I would have to say there are many unregistered ones out there too. I was grabbed as a 6 year old by a man looking for a small puppy. I was saved by someone who saw it happening. I had no clue there were bad people out there. I can say Florida had a lot of them back in the late 50's. Protecting or even over protecting the young kids might save a child's life. I would rather read that then see a Amber Alert and a sweet child's face on CNN that had too short a life.

    Parent

    You have (none / 0) (#8)
    by SOS on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 11:59:01 AM EST
    the right idea. The internet is a dangerous place on many levels. I could show parents things that would give them a freaking heart attack if they saw what kids are being exposed to and are participating in.

    It's not that kids are not bright. It's kids don't have experience, or discretion. Predators and con artists know that and take full advantage of those weaknesses.

    Parent

    Hmmmm.... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 11:56:01 AM EST
    Doesn't this line from the article bother you?

    In the cases that do exist, the report said, teenagers are typically willing participants and are already at risk because of poor home environments, substance abuse or other problems.

    Most teenagers (depending on state law) can't consent to actual sex with an adult, and the description of this report's findings make it sound like, "oh well, this really only involves cases of willing kids who are troubled anyway."

    Even if the problem isn't supposedly as big as some people think, it's still a problem.

    Whether or not (none / 0) (#11)
    by TChris on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 12:03:45 PM EST
    they can legally consent, the fact remains that much of the internet-generated sexual contact between teenagers and adults is initiated by the teenagers (who often lie about their ages). That's a far cry from what we hear about adult predators "grooming" innocent children on the internet.

    Parent
    60,000 registered sex offenders? (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 12:03:59 PM EST
    Gives me pause, and I don't have any teenagers to worry about at present.

    90,000. (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 12:06:29 PM EST


    Parent
    I can't read Danish. Sorry. (none / 0) (#16)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 12:11:18 PM EST


    Parent
    90,000 gives me pause and 1/2. (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 12:20:21 PM EST
    Seriously 90,000 RSO's have/had FaceBook pages.

    Parent
    A friend who counsels (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 12:25:54 PM EST
    federal probationers and parolees says they also use eHarmony and other Internet dating sites.  

    Parent
    Now THAT (none / 0) (#31)
    by CST on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 12:31:44 PM EST
    Is something else.

    I confess I don't "get" the whole internet dating thing.  It does seem a bit like you are asking for something shady to happen.

    However, I believe most dating sites do not allow minors.

    Parent

    No different (none / 0) (#34)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 12:35:40 PM EST
    than meeting a stranger in a bar who could tell you anything you want to hear.

    Parent
    And then some. (none / 0) (#37)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 12:37:43 PM EST


    Parent
    well (none / 0) (#39)
    by CST on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 12:40:33 PM EST
    I don't really "get" that either... but to each his/her own.

    In both cases, there is a minimum age though.

    Parent

    As is usually the case (none / 0) (#72)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 02:38:25 PM EST
    with these threads, there will be a strong correlation between those who want protective laws, those who have children, and those who have experienced or witnessed sexual predation. And there will also be a strong correlation between those who don't have children and those who advocate anything goes or no restrictions.

    Parent
    Not just about (none / 0) (#77)
    by CST on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 02:59:53 PM EST
    not having children.

    It's also about remembering what it was like to be a teenager b/c we aren't that far removed from it.  And we also have more experience with some of the social networking sites in question.

    I wouldn't assume we haven't "experienced/witnessed" sexual predation though.

    Parent

    Fair enough (none / 0) (#100)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 07:54:58 PM EST
    But statistically speaking, my observation of these strong correlations in these kinds of threads holds true.

    Parent
    True (none / 0) (#108)
    by CST on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 09:55:46 AM EST
    There is usually a kids vs. no kids correlation.

    I guess I wouldn't assume the "no kids" people don't know what they're talking about though.  I haven't had to raise any kids, but I have seen a lot of the results of various parenting "techniques" up close in ways that parents probably never will until it's too late.  And helicopter parents (stole that from andgarden) create over-dependent kids who don't know how to take care of themselves when they get older.  I know that not from raising them, but from going to school with them.

    Just trying to point out the benefit of different points of view, and that there is truth, and something to learn, on both sides.

    Parent

    Perhaps (none / 0) (#89)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 03:31:25 PM EST
    Although I would maintain that there is a greater correlation between those who are interested in protecting civil liberties, and constitutional rights and those who could care less.

    Oddly it translates to a disproportionate of Republicans cheering on expanded sex offender lists, as opposed to democrats. The Adam Walsh Act was of course Sensenbrenner's bill.

    Must be that GOPers have more kids.

    Parent

    Oh. Good one. (none / 0) (#114)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 01:55:19 AM EST


    Parent
    Why does it really matter (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by coast on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 12:13:36 PM EST
    if 90,000 registered offenders are not allowed on a social networking site?  I could care less what they are registered for.  This will not keep them from pursuing a job or being productive in soiciety.  As a parent of two children, I say bravo.  We need all the help we can get.  By the way I don't take much from any study that concludes "its not a significant problem" when it come to the wellbeing of my children.

    How 9 million (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by koshembos on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 12:18:28 PM EST
    There is little doubt in my mind that the number 90,000 is way greater than the number pf pedophiles and sex offender. Although, I didn't perform a statical analysis, my best guess is the number is, at most, in the low thousands.

    We have a tendency to extremely exaggerate threats and crime. We fight terror as if every tenth person in the country is a terrorist, we see pedophiles hiding behind every tree.

    The McMartin case is an excellent exmplae

    "The reality is there are 700,000-plus" (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 12:26:27 PM EST
    "The reality is there are 700,000-plus sex offenders living in the streets of America," Mr. Nigam said.
    More than 1 out of 10 rso's (90K/700K = 13%) have FaceBook pages? Why?

    Parent
    I've got a pretty good idea why. (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 12:28:54 PM EST


    Parent
    They're people... (none / 0) (#57)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 01:14:53 PM EST
    as well as sex offenders...I guess they like saying "whats up" to their friends online as much as non-sex offenders.

    I just can't picture some sicko sitting at home thinking "It's getting so hard to find kids to bugger these days, I think I'll join Facebook."...but as always, I could be wrong.

    Parent

    10 years ago the fear mongering (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by ThatOneVoter on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 01:18:51 PM EST
    was over strangers who might nab your child in the mall, or even on the streets of your neighborhood.
    Now it's about the internet, based on what evidence?
    I think the evidence... (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 03:28:16 PM EST
    would lead parents to keep a closer eye on their place of worship, their school, and their extended family since the vast majority of sex crimes against children come from those three places, and not the random internet sicko.

    So leave Myspace alone and harass your priest/pastor/preacher/rabbi/iman/principal/gym teacher/creepy second cousin...if you must harass somebody to feel safer.

    Parent

    Are you under the impression (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 03:39:48 PM EST
    that parents don't keep a close eye on their place of worship, their school, and their extended family?

    Parent
    Not really... (none / 0) (#93)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 03:55:48 PM EST
    Some parents, err some people, walk around all day thinking someone is out to get them.  A woman I work with is a single mom, she is practically obsessed with this stuff...she cruises the registries and police blotters for local pedophiles like I surf Talkleft.

    I just don't get it...her son is never left unattended...why make yourself nuts, especially considering the odds.  It is akin to being sick with worry every time it rains because your kid might get hit by lightning.

    Then again, we've all got our boogeymen, no on eis immune...I think the state is out to get me, while the odds of my being arrested are pretty small.  We're all susceptible to hysterics...we can only try to be concious of it and minimize hysteria.

    Parent

    why make yourself nuts, especially considering (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 04:20:27 PM EST
    why make yourself nuts, especially considering the odds.
    What are the odds?

    I have no statistics except the conversation I had with a dozen or so guys in my dorm freshman year.

    More than 1/2 the guys sitting there had been molested as kids by adult guys.

    Clearly not statistics that anyone can responsibly use, but clearly also the odds of such abuse are not like getting struck by lightning.

    Parent

    After reading through the comments, (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 02:53:41 PM EST
    I think how you feel about sexual predators and what can and should and is being done in the interest of protecting others from them, depends a great deal on whether you have children, how old those children are, and what you think you know about them - who their friends are, where they are when they're not with you and how much ability they have to circumvent whatever parental controls you impose upon them.

    In other words, if you have kids, probably in the age range of 9 to 17, there are aspects of social networking that scare the bejesus out of you; throw in the possibility of a sexual predator trolling for whatever, and it's a wonder your hair is not in constant danger of spontaneously combusting.  

    Statistics are just numbers; your kids are real people.  Statistics can lead you to think that the chances of your kid being killed in a car accident on prom night are relatively small, you know from the things you see in the news and in the paper that if it can happen to other people's kids, it can happen to yours.  How is the danger of sexual predation any different?

    As parents, we are constantly trying to balance our fears with the need for both ourselves and our children to lead normal lives not crippled by fear.  It's tough to do when you know people who did all the right things, had all the right rules, and still suffered some unspeakable tragedy, or even had a close call.  

    So, to all of you who have a very live-and-let-live, sex-offenders-are-people-too, laissez-faire attitude, who want to mock and minimize the dangers, come back and talk to us after you have children; I can pretty much assure you that it will be a whole new world.

    Not all parents think alike. (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by TChris on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 03:06:25 PM EST
    And while parents may be more susceptible to fear-mongering than non-parents, many parents are able to base their opinions on actual facts, not on irrational fears.

    Parent
    Chris, sometimes the whole (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 03:14:46 PM EST
    having children thing is not something that can be reduced to "facts," and it's a little offensive, frankly, for you to have made a value judgment that parents who do have those fears are somehow less rational than those who rely on statistics.

    Parent
    Allowing one's emotions (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by eric on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 03:17:34 PM EST
    to rule over one's reasoning is pretty much the definition of irrational.  Sorry, but it's true.

    Parent
    Like I said - (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 03:44:35 PM EST
    talk to me when you have children.

    Let me say one other thing: I may have given you the impression that I was so consumed with fear that my children lived in an ivory tower, I should assure you I was not, and "ivory tower" was not the way we did things.  

    There's an elemental truth that one cannot, no matter how hard one tries, protect one's children from any- and everything - those who think they can, and set out to do so, will need serious medication, in pretty short order.

    But, it's also important to understand that emotion most definitely plays a role in the parent-child relationship - and it should.  I would not want to be the child of someone who operated only from facts and reason, without emotion.  Besides, I think dealing from fact and statistics only leaves you wide open to losing the "but all the other kids are doing it" argument, don't you think?

    Listen, parents are not all the same and neither are kids; we wear a lot of hats as parents and the job we do is multi-faceted.  I have to use my best judgment about how best to keep my kid safe - and I would appreciate having help on the other end of things when it is called for.  

    Imagine, if you will, that you live on a fairly well-traveled street.  Because you have kids, and you are conscious of the fact that other kids live on the street, you are careful to observe the speed limit and exercise caution.  But suppose a lot of the traffic on your street is from people just driving through, and a lot of them drive too fast and aren't as aware of the possibility of a kid running out into the road.  Can you honestly tell me you wouldn't want some help seeing to it that the speed limits were enforced?  Would it bother you that some of those drivers were operating on suspended or revoked licenses?

    Or are you more of a mind to place all of the responsibility on your kids to be careful, and not at all worried because the statistics say that the chances of your kid getting run over are small?

    Parent

    Hey, statistically you have about zero chance (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 03:48:58 PM EST
    of getting in a car accident today after you pick up your kids from school, must be those pesky irrational emotions that make you make sure your kids' seatbelts are on.

    Parent
    I understand your points (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by eric on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 04:58:15 PM EST
    I am just saying that I don't think that emotion has any role to play in good reasoning.  Do you think about different things and have different values if you have kids?  Possibly, but that is perfectly rational.  Protecting one's children is rational.

    However, I reject the idea that one should favor or not favor some policy because of emotional reactions.  Either something is good policy, or it isn't.  Having a child should not affect one's judgment.

    Parent

    Irrational fears (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by coast on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 03:18:00 PM EST
    My child is playing near a road.  The statistics show that the likelhood of my child getting hit by a car are remote.  Is the fear irrational?  No.

    Parent
    I would be very (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by eric on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 03:13:48 PM EST
    disappointed in myself if, after I had children, I let some kind of emotional reaction interfere with reason.  I know it probably happens to people, but it isn't something to excuse or aspire to.  Emotion clouds judgment.

    Parent
    Eric, I don't have any children and (none / 0) (#94)
    by vml68 on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 04:17:37 PM EST
    I used to feel exactly the way you did. Now I help care for my young neices and I totally understand where Anne is coming from.
    When you are responsible for a young child you start to look at things a little differently.

    Parent
    In other words, YOU term it 'emotional' (none / 0) (#97)
    by andrys on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 06:04:43 PM EST
    while you have no children you're responsible for.

      The reason most children have only a remote chance of being maimed playing near a road is because they have parents who alert them to dangers, teach them about that, and keep them safer as a result.  And, yes, drivers should observe speed limits in residential neighborhoods, and the speed limits should be monitored and enforced by external authorities (within the usual 5 mph latitude given for instrumental differences).  Limits on behavior that can have a negative effect on others.  

      I have no children and yet even I know that.  And one of the worst things I see in my readig is people who are not in the same situation who yet apparently love to call others' concerns "emotional" only.  


    Parent

    Well said. (none / 0) (#76)
    by coast on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 02:59:28 PM EST


    Parent
    I agree, Anne (none / 0) (#85)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 03:20:25 PM EST
    I do not have children, and have never been abused, but I am definitely on the side of parents on this.  Actually, I'm in the minority around here because I think the registries should only be the starting point when it comes to sexual predators,   and that there should be more punishment and higher sentences for sexual assaults (especially on children). And, I lean towards castration for violent rapists (which is redundant).

    Parent
    Do you have (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by eric on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 03:27:16 PM EST
    any personal experience with what the penalties are for "sexual predators".  People have been pushing this "more punishment and higher sentences"  mantra for so long that, guess what?  The penalties ARE harsh.  And the registration pretty much ruins your life.

    I understand that there may have been a time when this type of offense wasn't treated as seriously as it should have been, but, despite what all those Lifetime movies might teach us, this is no longer the case.


    Parent

    I think (none / 0) (#88)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 03:30:36 PM EST
    Laws that punish 18 year old boys for having sex with their 16 year old girlfriends are stupid.

    I think rape or child molestation should be treated like murder and you shouldn't get to walk out of a jail cell (which would make the point of registries moot).  Not a popular opinion to hold around here, but as a single woman who lives alone, you bet I check the registry ever so often of my locality.

    Parent

    The internet (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by eric on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 03:01:03 PM EST
    is very scary.  Why?  I don't know, but people lose their minds when some otherwise normal activity is done on the internet.

    Send a note to a friend?  That's fine.  Send a note to a friend on the internet?  SCARY.

    Chat on the phone with a friend?  Fine.  Chat with a friend on the internet?  SCARY.

    Send a photo?  Make a friend?  Purchase something?

    All very SCARY on the internet.

    A friend's daughter did (none / 0) (#98)
    by andrys on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 06:07:35 PM EST
    arrange to meet someone she didn't know and met on the Net.

      A smart, normally sensible child, she was enchanted by this unknown person.  Let's just say this was not a good situation.
    I suspect it happens often.  She kept it from her parents.


    Parent

    On that study (none / 0) (#9)
    by brianj52 on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 12:00:31 PM EST
    Apophenia, who's PhD thesis was on teens use of social networking sites, was part of the group that did the study cited in this post. She wrote a very interesting blog post about the storm surrounding said study, with links to the Executive summary and the study itself, available here. I think it would be quite enlightening to read along with this post.

    The link was good, although (none / 0) (#48)
    by hairspray on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 12:57:30 PM EST
    I couldn't find the executive summary.  I guess it says that kids need help and the internet is not as dangerous as some say.  I can accept that. But its like the 'behaviorism' which is it? The stimulus or the response?  To me they both have a role in this. A parent's role is to keep their kids safe until they know better. At what age do they know better? Parents want help on the streets as well as in cyberspace. I do agree however, that the term sex offender is way too broad to have much meaning.

    Parent
    The links (none / 0) (#73)
    by brianj52 on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 02:42:44 PM EST
    Just for the record, the links are towards the bottom of the post, but to make it easier;

    Executive Summary

    Full Report

    And I do agree with your overall points. What interests me is an overall use of fear. With the rise of the politics of "Tough on Crime," fear has become the rule for our society. Not only does the phrase sex crime have no meaning, like you say, but the very fear of "sexual predators" is based on a lie called recidivism. In an article here on the over all sense of panic, it's pointed that the only large scale studies done on the subject show that sex-offenders have slightly lower recidivism rates than the general prison population.

    Of course, the overall problems of sex panic and fear based crime politics is that even with the studies I mention here (and there are probably others) is that it seems to immune to fact based refutation.

    Parent

    But (none / 0) (#75)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 02:57:35 PM EST
    In an article here on the over all sense of panic, it's pointed that the only large scale studies done on the subject show that sex-offenders have slightly lower recidivism rates than the general prison population.

    The supposed lower recidivism rate is a different thing than an actual re-offense rate.

    Parent

    Indeed. (none / 0) (#80)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 03:09:11 PM EST


    Parent
    Yes, but no (none / 0) (#99)
    by brianj52 on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 07:33:59 PM EST
    While you're basic statement is true, it doesn't matter to the degree that the arguments surrounding sex crime laws (registration, domicile restrictions, internet restrictions, etc.) have consistently been founded on a spurious argument about recidivism and not re-offense. Well meaning people have consistently argued to me that sex crimes must have special treatment because of recidivism rates.

    However, I decided to google recidivism vs re-offense, and in the first 3 pages of hits, everyone of which dealt with sex crimes, even though I didn't limit the search, recidivism is essentially treated as interchangeable with re-offense rates. If you know of any studies showing differences, I'd love to know about them.

    Parent

    Logic. (none / 0) (#101)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 08:01:56 PM EST
    Those "recidivism" rates are based on the statistics of those who re-offend and are convicted.

    Clearly those are not recidivism rates, those are re-conviction rates, mislabeled.

    Many offenders and re-offenders are never charged nor convicted.

    Parent

    What logic (none / 0) (#103)
    by brianj52 on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 08:44:52 PM EST
    What you are arguing is not logic, but fear. While it is true that there are those who commit crimes and don't get caught, it is impossible to base any sort of policy on that. What are the statistics of these crimes? If they are not caught, how can you even know that they have re-offended? What is the proportion of unsolved sex crimes to the over all occurrences? And again we must also come back to a theme running through out these comments, what is defined as a sex crime?

    Your simple statement cannot help in any discussion of the problems at issue except to continue the policy of fear.

    Parent

    The facts are that (none / 0) (#105)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 10:21:57 PM EST
    the re-conviction rate does not equal the recidivism rate. Have any opinions you want, but accept the facts.

    Parent
    The facts (none / 0) (#111)
    by 1980Ford on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 01:58:23 PM EST
    Your argument is misleading because even if many crimes go unconvicted, the same is true for other offenders, so the rate of recivism is porportational, and still lower.

    Ohio did a 10-year follow up study, Ten-Year Recidivism Follow-Up Of 1989 Sex Offender Releases (pdf):

    The baseline recidivism rate of sex offenders followed-up for ten years after release from prison was 34%. This rate was comprised of:
    Recommitment for a New Crime
    22.3 %
    Sex Offense
    8.0 %
    Non-Sex Offense
    14.3 %
    Recommitment for a Technical Violation
    11.7 %
    Sex Offense
    1.3 %
    Sex Lapse
    1.7 %
    Non-sex Related
    8.7 %
    The total sex-related recidivism rate, including technical violations of supervision conditions, was 11.0%.

    While 8% may still be too high for many parents to accept, it is a far cry from the 90% used to pass many laws. That is what makes it fear mongering. Want tough laws? Fine, but base them on facts.

    Parent

    Your argument is misleading (none / 0) (#112)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 02:15:58 PM EST
    Your argument is misleading because even if many crimes go unconvicted, the same is true for other offenders, so the rate of recivism is porportational, and still lower.

    My argument is not misleading at all.

    My argument is and was only that any proclaimed "recidivism" rates are not actual recidivism rates, but, rather, re-conviction rates, and reconviction rates are obviously less than actual recidivism rates because many offenders and re-offenders are not convicted.

    I made no argument about what SO recidivsm rates are nor did I compare them to any other crime's.

    Parent

    Upcoming: new condition of (none / 0) (#21)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 12:16:59 PM EST
    probation.  Thou shalt not post on any social networking site on the internet.

    Conditions of probation (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by TChris on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 01:17:12 PM EST
    for sex offenders typically include "no internet" or even "no computer use," which makes it darn near impossible for sex offenders to find a job since nearly all employment requires some computer access.

    Parent
    most jobs (none / 0) (#104)
    by diogenes on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 09:27:10 PM EST
    Most jobs don't require internet access; some companies even block the internet from employee computers. Some parole officers could work with an employer whose computers are blocked from the internet.

    Parent
    when having (none / 0) (#42)
    by cpinva on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 12:50:08 PM EST
    Seriously 90,000 RSO's have/had FaceBook pages.

    your fly unzipped in public, by accident, can land you on a sex offender list, in some states, i'm not surprised at all.

    coast, you know this how, exactly?:

    This will not keep them from pursuing a job or being productive in soiciety.

    i don't know that it will or won't. neither do you. unless, of course, you have something you'd like to share with the rest of the class?

    tell me, do you hear voices and see dead people also? this sometimes follows in the wake of "knowing" things.

    i have a 15 year-old daughter. neither her mother or i have ever intentionally lied to her, we don't plan on starting now. she also doesn't go anywhere without our knowledge (most likely, one of her parents has taken her there). she doesn't go off to the mall, with her friends, just to "hang out". not done in this house.

    i don't really give two nanny goat sh*ts who she chats with online, because she isn't meeting them in real life, unless one of us knows about it in advance.

    all this is called "being a parent". pain in the butt? you betcha! necessary? absolutely! it's also the responsibility her mother and i freely accepted, when we decided to have children.

    coast, i wouldn't presume to tell you (or any other parent) how to raise your children. do me the courtesy of NOT presuming to tell me how to raise mine.

    bingo! i believe we have a winner folks!:

    Scaring parents is nonetheless good for job security if you're a state AG or the president of an advocacy organization that demonizes everyone who's been ordered to register as a sex offender.

    it's even better, if you plan on running for higher office, or seeking more donations for your "non-profit".

    as always, follow the money.

    This is completely untrue, but you knew that. (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 01:04:34 PM EST
    your fly unzipped in public, by accident, can land you on a sex offender list, in some states, i'm not surprised at all.

    Here are the first three RSO's listed in my office's zip code:

    Date of Birth: 09-14-1932

    288(a) LEWD OR LASCIVIOUS ACTS WITH CHILD UNDER 14 YEARS

    Date of Birth: 08-10-1928  

    288(a) LEWD OR LASCIVIOUS ACTS WITH CHILD UNDER 14 YEARS

    288a(c) ORAL COPULATION WITH PERSON UNDER 14/ETC OR BY FORCE/ETC

    Date of Birth: 07-17-1939

    288(a) LEWD OR LASCIVIOUS ACTS WITH CHILD UNDER 14 YEARS



    Parent
    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by TChris on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 01:20:26 PM EST
    Lewd and lascivious sounds very much like an unzipped fly.  If there had been any actual contact it would have been a sexual assault, not an L&L.

    Parent
    Unzipped fly doesn't at all sound like: (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 01:35:32 PM EST
    LEWD AND LASCIVIOUS CONDUCT

    Every person who willfully and lewdly, either:

        1.  Exposes his person, or the private parts thereof, in any public place, or in any place where there are present other persons to be offended or annoyed thereby; or,

    especially when one willfully and lewdly exposes his privates to children who aren't even 14 y/o.

    But, hey, he wasnt convicted of actual contact so I guess it's all good.

    Parent

    Just because a jury says.... (none / 0) (#67)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 01:57:48 PM EST
    a guy exposed himself on purpose, as opposed to on accident, doesn't make it true.
    And vice versa.

    Man I hate these registries...so many questions, so much doubt, so much grey area...and in spite of it all the state slaps 'em with the scarlet letter for life.  And now pressuring private internet bueracracies to do the same.  


    Parent

    Is it just (none / 0) (#68)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 02:05:15 PM EST
    sex-offense trial juries you don't trust? Or is it all of them?

    Parent
    They all make mistakes.... (none / 0) (#70)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 02:15:49 PM EST
    and their word decides who goes free and who gets caged, who is branded with the scarlet letter and who ain't.

    It's probably the best we can do, and I understand the need for cages for those that give us no choice...the need for registries is not great enough to look past the inevitable mistakes and subsequent injustices, imo.  

    Parent

    The problem with registries (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by CST on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 02:25:23 PM EST
    Is that people commit crimes, they do their time, and then we let them go.

    If someone has already received the alotted punishment for the crime, why must we continue to brand them after the fact???  There is a reason we have sentancing guidelines.  A lot of these guidelines probably need to be re-visited, but a "registry" isn't the solution.

    Criminals who have done their time should get a second chance.  Otherwise we are fooling ourselves, and giving them life w/o parole.  Even if they can walk around, they can't get a job, can't live in certain neighborhoods, etc... It still sounds like a form of prison to me.

    Parent

    Actually (none / 0) (#69)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 02:08:28 PM EST
    (at least legally)...if a jury says it is true, then it is true.  They are triers of fact.  Do they make mistakes?  Yes.

    And I don't think the internet is considered "private".

    Parent

    I believe the poster is correct. (none / 0) (#53)
    by ThatOneVoter on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 01:09:42 PM EST
    A student at a local university was listed as a RSO after being caught engaging in "lewd and lascivious conduct" with himself while looking at p05n in the student computer lab.


    Parent
    A) How does some kid (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 01:24:54 PM EST
    jacking himself off to p05n in a student computer lab = fly unzipped in public, by accident? For cripe's sake.

    B) And for every "my brother's wife said her cousin read on the internet that..." story we get, there are 1000's of actual, factual facts like this:

    The first three rso's from Beverly Hills, CA (90210):

    261(a)(2) RAPE BY FORCE/FEAR/ETC
    290.005 REQUIRED TO REGISTER BASED ON OOS REGISTRATION REQUIREMENT [not sure what the heck that is]
    Date of Birth: 04-15-1942

    288(a) LEWD OR LASCIVIOUS ACTS WITH CHILD UNDER 14 YEARS



    Parent
    Laws vary by state---duh. (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by ThatOneVoter on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 01:28:48 PM EST
    A teen who has sex with someone under 18 can be classified as a sexual predator in some states. The example I gave, if correct, is a ludcrious criterion for RSO.
    If the category of RSO's is to be used, the definition needs to be greatly restricted.

    Parent
    I agree, actually. (none / 0) (#65)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 01:46:26 PM EST
    I assume you are correct that some states can and do list rso's for rather benign acts, although in all the times this has been discussed here on TL no one has never been able to point to a specific state that does.

    Regardless, I would very much like to see the rso category restricted and standardized from state to state. It should be restricted to the worst of the worst.

    Parent

    Wow (none / 0) (#62)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 01:28:29 PM EST
    For someone who is arguing that the government regulation has nothing to do with this thread you sure are bringing up quite a bit of government regulation.

    Parent
    Proof of what? (none / 0) (#110)
    by 1980Ford on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 01:47:35 PM EST
    You keep posting these listings as proof of something, but all it proves it that only the more serious offense are listed on the Internet in California. But all the less serious offenses are subject to the same sanctions as the more serious offenses, which now includes banishment from living in certain areas and GPS monitoring for life.

    Parent
    Well, if you can provide some proof for the (none / 0) (#113)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 02:29:59 PM EST
    comment I was responding to, I'd love to see it.
    your fly unzipped in public, by accident, can land you on a sex offender list, in some states


    Parent
    Do tell (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by coast on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 01:08:11 PM EST
    how I told you how to raise you child.  My post stated that I don't believe that not allowing suspected rsos the use of a social networking site in anyway hinders their ability to pursue a normal life, which is where many arguements lead when the discussions turns to limiting what rsos are allowed to do.  If you are arguing that it does please explain.  As an employer I have never found an applicant through MY Space or any other social networking.  I'm fairly certain I'm not in the minority on that.

    Parent
    coast, i'll be happy to: (none / 0) (#106)
    by cpinva on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 09:13:40 AM EST
    Do tell how I told you how to raise you child.

    by demanding that certain things, in a private arena, be prohibited, to ALL, solely to protect YOUR child, you are, in effect, telling me the correct way to raise MY children.

    let me draw you a simple analogy:

    a school puts a book in its library. one parent, who doesn't want their child to read, or even be exposed to said book, demands it be removed. should the school acquiesce, that one parent has determined, for every other parent, how they will raise their children, by determining what books all the children in that school will be exposed to/read, from the school library.

    that's the same thing you want done on myspace, just with people, not books. you, because of your (legitimate) concern for your child's welfare, want everyone else's children to be restricted in who they can chat with on there.

    that's arrogant and presumptious of you.

    Parent

    Therefore (none / 0) (#107)
    by coast on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 09:43:07 AM EST
    you are opposed to restriction on where adult books store should be placed.  I guess one should be allowed right next your childs school.  Its a private business being prohibited to locate where it wishes soley to protect your child.

    In addition, unless your child's friend with whom he/she is chatting with MySpace is a registered sex offender, then he/she is not being restricted at all.

    Parent

    Latitude (none / 0) (#102)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 08:16:05 PM EST
    Those parents who are concerned with sexual predators can rest assured with the new google product Latutude:

    Google's new Latitude application was built to find and track people wherever they are in the world via smartphones and personal computers. And it's already got some folks concerned about privacy issues.

    link

    Hook em up with a smartphone and you will know where they are at all times. Better not mention it though, they may figure out how to disable it.

    With TChris, a rare exception (none / 0) (#109)
    by Sumner on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 12:28:25 PM EST
    With all of the billions of dollars spent by the New World Order on programming your minds, the People are not even capable of objective reasoning on these issues any longer. The repetitive conditioning is far too replete, it is wholly inculcated. Weasel-word terms such as "sexual predator" aren't even questioned, (a predator is an animal that kills and eats other animals), but simply accepted as fact. BTW, has anyone bothered to ask how many child pornography images or videos Ernie Allen has viewed, and why that has not made him a raving sexual predator?

    The entire divide-and-conquer pogrom against inclusion of youth having full humanity, including sexuality, could have been averted except for our egregiously dysfunctional US Supreme Court, which serves de facto to bolster corporate power and monied interests while the Peoples' rights languish, and which are generally simply grist for the mill.

    When Wendy Murphy reguritated the figures that child pornography is a $40 billion annual industry, narry anyone had the simple reasoning skills left intact, to challenge that ludicrous assertion.

    Child pornography became the Great Scare of the Ages. Now the New World order, would have us believe it is social networking.

    Actually, there are still social networking search engines out there, which have not yet been completely government-sanitized like Google has, that still find what's left on the 'Net, such as www.ubbo.com, if anyone still has the courage left to check.

    "Freedom is the sure possession of those alone who have the courage to defend it." - Pericles

    "Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently." - Rosa Luxemburg

    Perpetuating the Myth of Sexual Predators and Social Networking | 114 comments (114 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment