Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

New Jersey Bars Sex Offenders From the Internet

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the slash-kickban dept.

The Internet 435

eldavojohn writes "New Jersey just passed legislation making it illegal for sex offenders to use the internet. NJ congresswoman Linda D. Greenstein said, 'When Megan's Law was enacted, few could envision a day when a sex offender hiding behind a fake screen name would be a mouse-click away from new and unwitting victims. Sex offenders cannot be given an opportunity to abuse the anonymity the Internet can provide as a means of opening a door to countless new potential victims.' While they still can search for jobs, this is a major expansion over the prior legislation which barred them from social networking sites like facebook or myspace."

cancel ×

435 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

WTF? (2, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 6 years ago | (#21847404)

Could they be any more ridiculous?

No one has ever been raped, beaten or contracted a sexually-transmitted disease on the internet.
Are they going to ban sex-offenders from using cell phones? From writing letters? From talking?

And of course, like all of the best in stupid legislation, these laws are essentially unenforceable. On the net, no one knows that you are a dog, or a convict.

Re:WTF? (4, Insightful)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 6 years ago | (#21847456)

"No one has ever been raped, beaten or contracted a sexually-transmitted disease on the internet."

I think that statement's a little too broad to be taken as true.

That doesn't mean, though, that I disagree with you in spirit. I'm concerned that 'sex offender' is too broad of term for this to really apply. I heard a story about a guy who was 19 and had sex with his 17 year old girlfriend. According to the laws of that state, there was some flexibility there if the age difference was two years or less. The male was like a year and two days older than the female. The judge banged his gavel, and now the kid is a 'sex offender' that has to register.

If anybody had asked my opinion, I would have said that this was excessive considering the context. The idea of banning him completely from the internet, in my mind, is ridiculous. Not only would this have the potential to effectively prohibit him from working in an office environment, but as the internet becomes more and more integrated into our daily lives, it will become the punishment that continues to keep on punishing. Every year that goes by, his life gets harder.

I don't have a silver bullet for this problem. But I would at least offer the suggestion there should be levels of sex offenders. For example: Somebody convicted of statuatory rape where the age difference is less than 4 years would be a different level than somebody who brutally raped an unwilling person. The person I just described wouldn't be banned from the net, but the sort of person you'd see on "To Catch a Predator" could be.

That suggestion is a bit short-sighted considering my point about the ubiquity of the internet, so it should be taken with a grain of salt. Still, though, nobody (outside of an extreme case) would think of banning a convicted criminal from using a telephone. It won't be long before internet access is just as fundamental to our society.

Re:WTF? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21847530)

I heard a story about a guy who was 19 and had sex with his 17 year old girlfriend. According to the laws of that state, there was some flexibility there if the age difference was two years or less. The male was like a year and two days older than the female. The judge banged his gavel, and now the kid is a 'sex offender' that has to register.
Everyone has heard a similar story, or has a friend of a friend that this happened "personally" to. Problem is, it's all complete bullshit. Show me one credible source that documents someone being labelled as a sex offender for having consentual sex with a younger girlfriend (and before someone bothers quoting statute, yes I am aware that there are laws against such things in most states; I'm asking for a instance where someone has been prosecuted and than placed on a sex offender registry solely for that crime).

And no, random blogs full of hearsay are not credible sources.

Re:WTF? (5, Informative)

Darkon (206829) | more than 6 years ago | (#21847624)

Everyone has heard a similar story, or has a friend of a friend that this happened "personally" to. Problem is, it's all complete bullshit. Show me one credible source that documents someone being labelled as a sex offender for having consentual sex with a younger girlfriend
OK, how about these:

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/stories/2007/10/26/wilsoned_1028.html [ajc.com]

Google for the names mentioned and you'll turn up news reports in credible newspapers, court documents, etc. There's even a report of a girl getting the sex offender label for having sex with a younger boyfriend.

Re:WTF? (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 6 years ago | (#21847634)

I heard a story about a guy who was 19 and had sex with his 17 year old girlfriend. According to the laws of that state, there was some flexibility there if the age difference was two years or less. The male was like a year and two days older than the female. The judge banged his gavel, and now the kid is a 'sex offender' that has to register.
Everyone has heard a similar story, or has a friend of a friend that this happened "personally" to. Problem is, it's all complete bullshit. Show me one credible source that documents someone being labelled as a sex offender for having consentual sex with a younger girlfriend (and before someone bothers quoting statute, yes I am aware that there are laws against such things in most states; I'm asking for a instance where someone has been prosecuted and than placed on a sex offender registry solely for that crime).

And no, random blogs full of hearsay are not credible sources.
http://news.opb.org/article/oregonians-perceptions-statutory-rape-may-be-changing/ [opb.org]

^^ Here's one. Fortunately, the conviction was overturned.

It happens, man.

Re:WTF? (5, Interesting)

Astralmind (120317) | more than 6 years ago | (#21847800)

This one makes for an interesting turn of events.

FTFA:

Salt Lake City - Utah Supreme Court justices acknowledged Tuesday that they were struggling to wrap their minds around the concept that a 13-year-old girl could be both an offender and a victim for the same act - in this case, having consensual sex with her 12-year-old boyfriend.

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_4783650 [denverpost.com]

Re:WTF? (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 6 years ago | (#21847944)

Well that shows that law is screwed up.

Seriously, if they allow adults to have consensual sex with people who aren't their spouses, one night stands and all that, why should it matter if the partners are both 13 years old? Heck their relationship might be a lot more meaningful and last longer than the relationships of many adults.

If adults are allowed such stuff and these two get punished by the court then IMO they would be victims of the court/Law as well. They're just doing what the adults do - they don't know better (the adults should be providing better examples to children).

Maybe they should just make sex with someone not your spouse an offense :).

Re:WTF? (1)

mpe (36238) | more than 6 years ago | (#21847902)

But I would at least offer the suggestion there should be levels of sex offenders. For example: Somebody convicted of statuatory rape where the age difference is less than 4 years would be a different level than somebody who brutally raped an unwilling person.

Thing is that "sex offender" is not a synonym for "rape". It's also quite possible that even some actual rapists who have been caught do not wind up on such lists.
The claim that the aim is to "protect the public" makes little sense. It might make a little more sense if vigilantes who use such lists or those who make false accusations of rape (especially resulting in a conviction) had their own names put on them.
Of course the sensible thing to do would be to replace any such lists. If someone is really such a danger either keep them in jail for life or have any lifelong bail conditions made an explicit part of their sentence.

Re:WTF? (4, Funny)

Tx (96709) | more than 6 years ago | (#21847562)

No one has ever [...] contracted a sexually-transmitted disease on the internet.

You've obviously never had the goatse guy burned into your brain.

Re:WTF? (1)

Domini Canes (797151) | more than 6 years ago | (#21847904)

Huh? Just use the brain bleach, will ya?

Re:WTF? (1)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 6 years ago | (#21847582)

The real solution is to give sexual predators the punishment they truly deserve in the first place, which is life in prison without possibility of parole.

I'm sure some people here will spew stuff about how they are 'sick' and need 'help'. Trust me, life in prison is a compromise compared to what I think they should really get. You don't help a rabid dog; you put it down. The same should hold for anyone who sexually abuses children. I'm not talking about the 20 year old/15 year old thing. I mean the real sexual predators.

Those who want to be soft on sex offenders are most likely not parents, and most definitely not parents of a child who has been abused.

Re:WTF? (1)

cyber-vandal (148830) | more than 6 years ago | (#21847846)

Who wants to be soft on sex offenders? I'd like them locked up forever so that they can be studied and hopefully a cure found. I don't want them killed and I certainly don't want them treated like common criminals. They are people as ill as any other criminally insane person and therefore should not be in the mainstream prison system.

Re:WTF? (3, Insightful)

mpe (36238) | more than 6 years ago | (#21847956)

The real solution is to give sexual predators the punishment they truly deserve in the first place, which is life in prison without possibility of parole.

Which may or may not correspond with current lists of "sex offenders".

Those who want to be soft on sex offenders are most likely not parents, and most definitely not parents of a child who has been abused.

Except for those parents who are themselves abusers...

Re:WTF? (3, Insightful)

WhatAmIDoingHere (742870) | more than 6 years ago | (#21847970)

The problem is that so many things are considered sex crimes. Public urination is on that list. Met a chick at a bar who consented? If she realizes you're not as hot as she thought you were, legally she never consented. If you're intoxicated you cannot consent.

It's not black and white, and it never will be.

Re:WTF? (5, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 6 years ago | (#21847632)

Could they be any more ridiculous?
No, I'm not sure they could be any more ridiculous.

This is like forbidding alcoholics from taking public transportation because they might take a bus to a liquor store.

Or, it's like forbidding a horse thief from wearing shoes because they might use those shoes to walk to a stable and steal a horse.

"Protecting the Children" is completely out of hand. It's nothing but politicians pandering to parents who feel guilty that they're so busy working they're not taking care of their kids, who they drop off at day-care or leave with the nanny every day.

Who is a sex offender? (5, Interesting)

hherb (229558) | more than 6 years ago | (#21847782)

In my practice I see a variety of patients who have been convicted for sex offences - ranging from predatory paedophiles to people who made a simple bona fide mistake. The former are people who suffer from a mental illness - they need treatment and not punishment, and should not be released onto society before there is evidence that the treatment actually works. The latter usually get punished way beyond their "crime" and really should be entitled to living a normal life after serving their sentence.

I practice in Australia - another country of puritan heritage, but fortunately not as openly hostile towards sex as the US, and courts here tend to be less "Mickey Mouse" style. Nevertheless, one of my patients fell for a 15yo prostitute and had non-penetrative sex with her, one single time. Independent witnesses all reported they would have taken her for at least 18 if not older. The "perpetrator" had no prior offence and the circumstances were such that he was not actively seeking such connection but it happened spontaneously when she was allegedly actively seeking such relation

For that the man got 5 years of which he served 3. Since he was announced as a paedophile to his inmates when he was jailed, they scalded him badly with boiling water and beat him up badly before they had opportunity of learning the whole story. When he was released, he moved to my town. He is a religious man who confided into a local priest who had nothing better to do than walk from door to door and warn people about the dangerous paedophile who moved into town. A really nasty witch hunt started against him where even otherwise nice and educated people blindly joined in. Is this just? Will it improve anything? Will this protect any children?

The legislation mentioned in this article which deprives so called "sex offenders" regardless of their background of essential human rights is obscene, and the people producing such legislation either ignorant or criminal.

Re:WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21847864)

Agreed, this is ridiculous. Not only impractical. But this will keep them from being productive members of society by limiting there use of the internet to find out more about their own psychological issues and getting help. It will make it harder to get a decent job, communicate with friends and family, etc... Fucking waaaaaay over the top NJ. This is nothing more than a way to legalize bigotry of these people. So people in prison who have commited murder can use the internet all day and night, but these people cant??? WHAT THE FUUUCK is wrong with our fucked up country that this is possible????

It comes down to puritanical protestant hypocrites who would rather watch death and violence on TV that two nude people making love with full frontal nudity.

We cant have nudity on TV even if its in a proper context, but you can show people being killed left and right??????

We cant have a 19yo having sex with 17yos, but 45yos can look at sex with two 18yo's??????

http://www.sparkpeople.com/resource/health_news_detail.asp?health_day=610053 [sparkpeople.com]

Re:WTF? (2, Interesting)

uffe_nordholm (1187961) | more than 6 years ago | (#21847866)

While I agree with you that no-one has been raped, beaten or caught an STD on internet, there is a more important question: has the offender used internet in his/her search for a victim? My reasoning behind the question is that I see very little (none, actually) reason to bar a typical rapist from using internet, since it isn't used to prepare for the crime. He (for it is usually a man) is out in town, gets drunk and assaults a woman on his way home. Though the crime is despicable, I don't see this idiot using internet to prepare for the crime. Not even for cleaning up what traces he might have left on the crime scene. The other typical picture of a sex offender is the husband who rapes his wife. Yet again, what is internet doing to aggravate the crime? Or help in its perpetration? Or help keep the police from finding the criminal? For the sex offender who uses internet as a tool for finding victims I can see a need to forbid this individual from using internet. But at the same time I think the ban should be time-limited. The reason is that people change over time, and everybody does deserve a second chance. Even third and fourth... Only while an offender is in prison do I really believe they should be banned from using internet, and even then only if internet was used to prepare/plan/execute/conceal the crime, or if this ban is placed on all inmates. If a sex offender is such a threat to society as a whole that they merit being banned from using internet, then I claim they should be treated (for whatever condition they have, with whatever treatments are available) in a facility according to their needs. And, if those are the needs, then this facility should be locked, and the offender not let out until experts are certain he/she is not a threat to society.

Coming Soon! (5, Insightful)

Spad (470073) | more than 6 years ago | (#21847408)

People convicted of drug offences banned from the internet, because they might use the internet to buy drugs
People convicted of fraud banned from the internet, because they might use the internet to defraud someone
People convicted of disturbing the peace banned from the internet, because they might use the internet to disturb people
And so forth.

Re:Coming Soon! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21847608)

People posting on Slashdot is banned from the Internet because they might become a troll.

Re:Coming Soon! (0, Offtopic)

theurge14 (820596) | more than 6 years ago | (#21847610)

Sex offenders banned from World of Warcraft, because they might OMGPWNRAPE noobs.

Totally unworkable... (2, Insightful)

Ckwop (707653) | more than 6 years ago | (#21847410)

A totally unworkable, probably unconstitutional waste of time. A legislative brain-fart if you ask me.

While this is obviously about the United States, it's a problem everywhere. The criminal legislation velocity in the United Kingdom is totally out of control. There's a bill every couple of months that criminalises some silly action. I recon that the criminal code should only be adjusted by bills put to referendum. This would reduce the volume of legislation and protect the people from totally stupid laws, unenforceable laws.

Simon

Re:Totally unworkable... (1)

ahkitj (237143) | more than 6 years ago | (#21847448)

Unconstitutional or not, whether it's a good idea or not is another question for me. What I wonder about it isn't it like trying to ban someone from using the phone system (or the postal system) when they can easily go out and get an untraceable mobile handset and simcard?

Oh well, perhaps worth a shot anyway.

Re:Totally unworkable... (1)

Hal_Porter (817932) | more than 6 years ago | (#21847554)

It's not a bad idea. Before people talked about "b& [urbandictionary.com] and v& [urbandictionary.com] ", now you get permabanned after you get vanned. Pity they can't give pedos an IRL permaban while they're in the Party Van [urbandictionary.com] really.

Odd coincidence, as I was writing this Bill O Reilly said "if there isn't a hell, I'm gonna be real disappointed. Because those Internet People, you know...".

Re:Totally unworkable... (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 6 years ago | (#21847638)

The same kind as the jury of your peers that think you should pay $10,000/song for sharing it on P2P (ok, that was US)? Or do you mean the extremists on either side that'll keep proposing bills, bills and more bills until the average person is too sick and tired of it to vote? It's nice to think things would be different but in the UK you don't even have the duopoly excuse that the US has, if people wanted to vote differently they most certainly could. Unfortunately, I think the easily manipulatable sheeple would get just as duped as before, if not by politicians then special interest groups, media, religious groups, astroturfing campaigns, flash mobs and so on. Maybe I've become more of cynic lately but I just don't believe in that simple "if only people could directly vote" anymore.

Re:Totally unworkable... (1)

mpe (36238) | more than 6 years ago | (#21848002)

A totally unworkable, probably unconstitutional waste of time. A legislative brain-fart if you ask me.

What's new there...

While this is obviously about the United States, it's a problem everywhere. The criminal legislation velocity in the United Kingdom is totally out of control. There's a bill every couple of months that criminalises some silly action.

Or even something which was already illegal in the first place.

I recon that the criminal code should only be adjusted by bills put to referendum. This would reduce the volume of legislation and protect the people from totally stupid laws, unenforceable laws.

Another idea would be that any new law must have a "test group" for at least a year before it applies to everyone. That test group being MPs/Congressmen/etc.

The US is the laughing stock of the world. (4, Insightful)

JackMeyhoff (1070484) | more than 6 years ago | (#21847418)

Really, its become LoonyLand.

People are ashamed of the US, people don't want to travel there, people don't want to support American companies, people don't want to even listen to them.

They are a case of "do as we say, not as we do".

Re:The US is the laughing stock of the world. (1)

master_p (608214) | more than 6 years ago | (#21847764)

Is it true that in some US states I can get in trouble with the law if I am caught doing sex in 'illegal' ways?

Re:The US is the laughing stock of the world. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21847930)

Not Really. [sodomylaws.org]

However, I'm sure we have other stupid laws that you could find.

Re:The US is the laughing stock of the world. (1)

nguy (1207026) | more than 6 years ago | (#21848032)

The laws still exist, but they were ruled unconstitutional.

But there are still plenty of former British colonies that have such ridiculous laws.

In USA, they came first for the... (1)

Iloinen Lohikrme (880747) | more than 6 years ago | (#21847934)

"In USA, they came first for the pedophiles, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a pedophile;
And then they came for the sex offenders, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a sex offender;
And then they came for the sexual minorities, And I didn't speak up because I didn't belong to a sexual minority;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."


Anonymous Coward, Stories from the United Talibans of America, AD 2030?

world-wide Micky-Mouse mindset (1)

nguy (1207026) | more than 6 years ago | (#21848008)

This sort of bullshit is going on all over the world. Some European countries force you to pay hundreds of dollars a year to the government just to access the Internet (in addition to ISP fees). In the UK, you are being watched and recorded wherever you go and lifetime memberships to the upper house are handed out by corrupt politicians in return form money. The EU took DMCA and carnivore-type programs and made it even tighter. Censorship in Asia is even more severe. Chances are that your country is infringing on personal liberties even more than the US, and chances are that its citizens are such herd animals that they aren't even bothering to complain about it.

So, what country are you from that you think you can point fingers? Come on, we want to know.

Moderate legislation (5, Funny)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 6 years ago | (#21847420)

I moderate this legislation -1 unenforceable

Re:Moderate legislation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21847918)

I moderate it -2 flamebait

Re:Moderate legislation (1)

nospam007 (722110) | more than 6 years ago | (#21847988)

I moderate this legislation -1 unenforceab

Just let the waiter in the restaurant give him a SIPphone and after he's said 'hello', you arrest him and put him away.

Banning Sex offenders (1)

zoomshorts (137587) | more than 6 years ago | (#21847432)

I tend to agree, because the internet was made for porn.
Porn, porn, porn.

We ALL know where THAT leads...

possibly even to /.

Re:Banning Sex offenders (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 6 years ago | (#21847492)

I tend to agree, because the internet was made for porn.
Porn, porn, porn.

We ALL know where THAT leads...

possibly even to /.
What do you think we do... AFTER... Hmmm?

social networking sites (1)

Edie O'Teditor (805662) | more than 6 years ago | (#21847436)

While they still can search for jobs, this is a major expansion over the prior legislation which barred them from social networking sites like facebook or myspace.
But it's still OK for us, er, them to post on slashdot, right?

Yeah, this'll be overturned soon (5, Insightful)

Kierthos (225954) | more than 6 years ago | (#21847442)

1) Sex offender applies for job which requires internet access/use.
2) Sex offender doesn't get job because of this law. (and also possibly because they're a sex offender)
3) Sex offender sues NJ for silly-ass law.

And what about those sex offenders in NJ who already have jobs that require Internet access/use?

Re:Yeah, this'll be overturned soon (1)

Kierthos (225954) | more than 6 years ago | (#21847444)

Wait, missed it on the first read-through. If it's for a job or for an employment search, the sex offender can still use the Internet. Otherwise, they can't.

I still don't think it's really enforceable.

Re:Yeah, this'll be overturned soon (2, Insightful)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 6 years ago | (#21847566)

My job involves emailing people from time to time, and downloading work related information from websites. I expect a lot of people have jobs like that. A sex offender wouldn't be allowed to do my job.

Re:Yeah, this'll be overturned soon (1)

knewter (62953) | more than 6 years ago | (#21847856)

-1 didn't read the damn article.

It has specific exemptions for work use.

Re:Yeah, this'll be overturned soon (5, Insightful)

Stanislav_J (947290) | more than 6 years ago | (#21847896)

Sex offenders have no rights -- didn't you know that? "Paying one's debt to society" has no meaning here -- once you're branded a sex offender, you're a pariah for life. We will make you leave your home if it's too close to a school, a playground, or a school bus stop (that probably didn't even exist before they found out you lived there). We will make it almost impossible for you to hold a steady, decent job. We will make sure that your name and photo are splashed all over the Internet and signs and posters so everyone will know to avoid you. We'll make you homeless, jobless, and an utter outcast. And, somehow, this is supposed to make us all safer.

Why are these dangerous people roaming the streets (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21847446)

If these sex offenders are all so heinously dangerous that they need to be stripped of things like using the internet, moving to a neighborhood without angry mobs with pitchforks driving them out, etc. -- why are they out on the streets? Shouldn't dangerous people be locked up or executed? Make up your damn minds - either lock 'em up (or execute them), or set them free. You can have your cake and eat it.

Irrational bordering on hysteria (4, Insightful)

TheLink (130905) | more than 6 years ago | (#21847450)

What makes sexual offenders so much worse than violent nonsexual offenders (who are allowed internet access)?

There are a fair number of sexual offenders who aren't actually violent.

I believe sex crimes include stuff like indecent exposure, "Lewd and lascivious conduct", consensual (but illegal) sex, etc.

I guess the Wars Against Drugs, Terror, Iraq etc are not enough, have to start a War Against Sex Offenders too.

Oh well I suppose that makes most voters in New Jersey feel safer.

Re:Irrational bordering on hysteria (4, Insightful)

EvilNTUser (573674) | more than 6 years ago | (#21847472)

"I guess the Wars Against Drugs, Terror, Iraq etc are not enough, have to start a War Against Sex Offenders too."

Nope, that's just the War Against Sex. It's been going on for a long time.

Re:Irrational bordering on hysteria (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 6 years ago | (#21847826)

Then they should make stuff like adultery an offense (apparently it's still an offense in some US States just not prosecuted).

It seems rather incongruous to treat adultery lightly while making a big fuss about the other stuff e.g. people looking at pictures of naked people.

If people don't have sex out of marriage (that includes premarital sex) stuff like HIV become a lot less of a problem.

Yes I know this is Slashdot and adultery is not likely to directly affect most of us, but humour me OK? ;)

New Jersey 'wins' at the expense of others (1)

Bananenrepublik (49759) | more than 6 years ago | (#21847838)

The question is not "are sexual offenders more dangerous than other offenders?", the question is, who can we stigmatize with the people's support. The advantage to New Jersey of having this legislation is that sex offenders will be more likely to leave the state, as they can't work any office jobs there any longer. The disadvantage to every other state is that they might well fall out of all security rosters.

This is totally ridiculous (1)

Layth (1090489) | more than 6 years ago | (#21847884)

Absurd! I agree. But to answer your question, sex offenders are much more likely to be repeat offenders.
We can't lock them up for life, because we haven't quite stooped to the level of "PRE-CRIME".
Yes, they will probably re-offend.. but that is still a probably, and as a free nation we're still required to give them that chance.

That's the reason that they have sex offender registries, and mandate that you reveal your past to your neighbors.

Also, another thing that makes them worse is the psychological impact it has on their victims.
If your car gets stolen, or if you get punched in a bar you aren't likely to suffer post traumatic stress disorder like a rape victim would.
On the same hand, I acknowledge what is labeled as a "sex offense" these days is rather loose.. and this law is indeed rather cruel and unusual.

Re:Irrational bordering on hysteria (3, Insightful)

Stanislav_J (947290) | more than 6 years ago | (#21848000)

What makes sexual offenders so much worse than violent nonsexual offenders?

Very simple -- that horrible little word "sex." Since the first pilgrims landed on our shores, the Puritan spirit has never been totally eradicated in the U.S. While on one hand we probably consume more porn per capita than anywhere else, at the same time there are scads of folks who still find sex of any kind icky and shameful.

Take the opening monologue to "Law and Order: Special Victim's Unit." (Don't misunderstand, BTW -- I like the show.) "Sexually based offenses are considered especially heinous." Really? Why? If a guy kidnaps and tortures a young girl, then bashes in her skull and dismembers her body, that's not "heinous" enough? But, if somewhere in the midst of all that horror he also rapes her, now it becomes something truly heinous?

Make no mistake -- many people still have a very visceral negative reaction to anything sexual. If a man stabs a woman, or breaks her bones, or burns her, or physically assaults her in any way, and he is tried and convicted and eventually serves out his sentence and gets out on parole, no one tells him "you can't live in these areas" or "you can't use the Internet." But once the woman's vagina has been breached, all of a sudden he goes from merely evil to something of unspeakable horror that must be marginalized and driven out of town at any cost. Yes, rape is a terrible and inexcusable crime, but why is it so much worse than any other physical assault on someone's person? Because it involves SEX -- that horrible little word.

Cue the endless.. (-1, Flamebait)

PatrickThomson (712694) | more than 6 years ago | (#21847458)

Cue the endless hyperbolic posts about 17-18 couples with grudge-holding parents, or guys who get pulled up on public urination to meet a sex offender quota.. Yes, I'm sure some people have been unfairly branded with this label. I'm also sure some people on death row are innocent. Tell me, which ones?

Re:Cue the endless.. (4, Insightful)

FroBugg (24957) | more than 6 years ago | (#21847514)

So are they a threat to society or not? If they are, then keep them in prison. We have a court and parole system dedicated to making this decision on a case-by-case basis.

When you tell someone they have to make a living for themselves but can't live anywhere and can't do this and can't do that, what are they going to do? Accept it and try to live a miserable life or run away and hide from the system?

Oppressive restrictions like this only make things worse.

Am I the only one (-1, Flamebait)

MarsDefenseMinister (738128) | more than 6 years ago | (#21847460)

I don't see the problem with this law. Using the Internet isn't a right, it's a privilege, and with due process privileges can be taken away. The due process here is the law.

Sex offenders are wildly out of control, and we should make sure that we have the right to protect ourselves. Think of the victims here, and think of making it harder for these scumbags to find innocent families to victimize.

Re:Am I the only one (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21847580)

Really, a privilege? Guess I must have missed the part in the constitution where it says "anything not invented yet is automatically forbidden, unless the government decides otherwise". I could've sworn there's even some sort of, I dunno, amendment with some verbiage to the contrary. Must be my bad.

If these people are dangerous scumbags, fine, lock em up forever.

If you set them free, at least let them live a normal life. Not being allowed to use the internet is a bullshit restriction. You might as well tell them not to read. Equally inconvenient and disruptive to normal daily life, equally unlikely to stop deliberate pervs from doing it again, and equally unenforceable.

But yeah, feel-good legislation for subscribers to Internet Tough Guy Magazine.

Re:Am I the only one (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 6 years ago | (#21847598)

Yes - however we have three problems. We are getting both a variety of unusual punishments designed to take petty revenge instead of any sort of protection of society, we are branding more and more people as outlaws with an expectation that little punishement will befall those that commit crimes against the outlaws and we have lowered the bar for the burden of proof and due process for these crimes. I suppose a backlash was expected someday with such a low number of rape trials in the USA for instance proceeding despite physical evidence, but running around doing busy work to show they care about the problem (eg. stupid stuff like this) is really not going to acheive anything other than petty revenge beyond what the judges decide.

It really is not due process - it is politicians playing with the lives of people under arbitrary conditions and sidestepping the legal process instead of the formality of a trial. If they want this stuff they should re-try the offenders and see if the evidence makes it worth this extra penalty. Retrospective laws can be nasty - paticularly since those who are caught with minor offences (eg. public urination) would be caught up with this too

Re:Am I the only one (1)

michelcolman (1208008) | more than 6 years ago | (#21847600)

This would be OK if we were talking about real rapists or other dangerous sex offenders (like people who actually used the internet to meet victims), but for example a mother breastfeeding her child in public and being arrested for it by some overzealous idiot of a police officer is now also going to lose her right to have an internet connection. There are lots and lots of "sex offenders" that really did nothing wrong, or did something totally unrelated to actual sex. 15-17 couples, people urinating outside, streaking,... It's bad enough already that these people are barred from many jobs (teaching, for example), but now they are even going to be kicked off the internet? What's next? They shouldn't be allowed to visit libraries anymore? Stay 1 mile away from any playgrounds or sports facilities visited by minors?

Re:Am I the only one (4, Insightful)

n dot l (1099033) | more than 6 years ago | (#21847606)

Ridiculous. If they've paid their debt to society and are deemed reformed they should be treated like any other type of criminal. If they're considered a danger to society they should be locked up for life or simply shot. Creating a class of almost-persons is, IMHO, well within the definition of cruel and unusual punishment.

Re:Am I the only one (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21847894)

I hope you're the only one, but experience tells me you're probably not (sigh).

Why is using the Internet a privilege? Who says so? You? What makes it so? Because you want it to be?

The US Constituion, Amendment 9: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

That one gets ignored a lot by all 3 branches, and it's high time to put an end to that nonsense. It's THE answer to the "you don't have a right to do that because the Constitution doesn't say you do" crowd, spelled out in rather plain language.

Interestingly, the word "privilege" appears in the Constituion 4 times that I counted on a quick search. Three times it's used basically a a synonym for "right" (in that it refers to things that shall not be taken away), the fourth referring to the fact that you can't arrest Congresscritters on their way to and from a session of Congress (which you also can't take away). Language differences between centuries, I'm sure, but basically the Constitution lacks the concept of this "privilege" nonsense that people drag out a lot in reference to things like driving, and now this.

Re:Am I the only one (2)

potat0man (724766) | more than 6 years ago | (#21848016)

I don't see the problem with this law. Using the Internet isn't a right, it's a privilege

WHAT!?!?!

And here I was thinking people had the right to do anything so long as it wasn't disruptive to other people's right to do the same.

Silly me. I guess I ought to be sending thank you cards to society-at-large for being kind enough to grant me the *privilege* of using a networked computer or whatever the hell else it is that I do all day and night.

IMO (5, Insightful)

Duncan Blackthorne (1095849) | more than 6 years ago | (#21847464)

I have no sympathy for sex offenders, but at this rate why not just put sex offenders to death and be done with it? If you crowd an animal into smaller and smaller cages, starving it and/or torturing it, eventually the meekest, most mild-tempered and balanced animal is going to develop neuroses and sooner or later it'll either lash out viciously, or just lose it's will to live. Keep them in prison permanently, or put them to death, or find a way to "cure" them so they're safe to be living out in the world, but don't continually punish them once they're released from prison. It's just senseless violence and abuse in a different form.

Oh and by the way would someone define "sex offender" in the context of this article? If you use a broad definition of "sex offender" then someone who was arrested and prosecuted for streaking in their college days or for public urination may meet the criteria as a "sex offender".

Re:IMO (1)

Phroggy (441) | more than 6 years ago | (#21847630)

My thoughts exactly. Isn't rehabilitation one of the purposes of prison? Sex-related crimes (such as public urination) are basically getting mandatory life sentences now - a couple years in prison, then the rest of your life shunned by society with no opportunity to turn over a new leaf. If we were just talking about repeat-offending child molesters and rapists here, the situation would be different, but we're not.

Re:IMO (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 6 years ago | (#21847636)

You've attached your real name to mindless death threats against thousands of people? I suggesting getting another UID, realise that there is no appeal from the grave so death penalties are stupid, read a newspaper, get outside, talk to people, grow up or SOMETHING that will make you aware that the legal system is not perfect.

Re:IMO (1)

n dot l (1099033) | more than 6 years ago | (#21847756)

Talk to people, grow up or SOMETHING that will make you aware that people sometimes use hyperbole to illustrate a point and that not every statement should be taken literally.

Re:IMO (1)

haakondahl (893488) | more than 6 years ago | (#21847848)

Way to argue on a tangent! An argument for the death penalty is no more a "death threat", as you put it, than an argument against the death penalty is a "rape threat" in view of the absent deterrent effect.

Your next point about the lack of appeal from the grave does nothing to argue against the death penalty--it argues for it. The fact that death is final is the whole principle of the strongest deterrent. People really do pay more attention to threats to their own lives than they do to annoyances, which is fundamentally what prison is. They don't remove your arms, they don't pull out your teeth, they just make your life incredibly tedious.

But buried in your advice to the GP is a conceited fallacy which is common in anti-death-penalty argument: the idea that the legal system needs to be perfect before it takes a life. Wrong. Nothing is perfect. Mistakes will be made. Suck it up. But we abandon such obviously good ideas as "do away with those who are not fit to live" to the peril of our society. Should we argue that humanity needs perfecting before we abolish the death penalty?

Didn't think so.

Mod Parent Up (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21847758)

That is the worst part of this law. Not the unconstitutionality, or the fact that its unenforceable. How can you expect a person to re-enter society these days without the internet? I have an uncle who is finishing up a 8 year term in prison on a sexual charge... yeah he did something sick and stupid... but hes also been a geek his whole life, and I was looking forward to showing him all of the tech that came out in the past 8 years, and all the websites he should check out on a daily basis (this being one of them).

Seriously, you're telling me this man can't use the internet? This guy who will have FINISHED his debt to society and is square with the house, who spent 20 years before his imprisonment fiddling with breadboards, he can't check out slashdot? You already banned him from facebook and myspace, that wasn't enough?

P.S. We both live in NJ, and I vote here. I also don't agree with Megan's law. You fuck up the lives of THOUSANDS of people re-entering society, who have paid their debt, and you save, what, TWO lives a year?

See, maybe I think a little differently from the mainstream, but not everything these days should be saving lives. Kids don't have any fun toys any more cause a few kids eat things they shouldn't and die. Great, you save a couple lives, and the rest suffer. I say let a few die and let the millions of others have decent toys.

Yeah !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21847476)

THIS IS MY STATE ....

All things considered... (3, Funny)

sykopomp (1133507) | more than 6 years ago | (#21847484)

I'm a proponent for freedom and privacy and all that... ...but these are convicted sex offenders, not your average joe or script kiddy. I admit I have to agree with the decision, even if it's not reliably enforceable. Please keep in mind the popularity of online chat rooms as far as finding young kids goes, and the use of the internet to spread child porn. Even if it doesn't work perfectly, I can't disagree with it. Please, Think of the children!

Re:All things considered... (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 6 years ago | (#21847508)

I'm a proponent for freedom and privacy and all that... ...but these are convicted sex offenders, not your average joe or script kiddy. I admit I have to agree with the decision, even if it's not reliably enforceable. Please keep in mind the popularity of online chat rooms as far as finding young kids goes, and the use of the internet to spread child porn. Even if it doesn't work perfectly, I can't disagree with it.
Please, Think of the children!
I can't tell if you're kidding or not, especially after the 'think of the children' line. In case you're not being funny: I have a friend that is a 'sex offender' because he got pissed off at his neighbor and flashed her during an argument. She pressed charges, and now he has to register. What he did was stupid... but kicking him off the net? That's the same level of offense as a brutal rape?! I'm glad we don't live in NJ.

Re:All things considered... (1)

Jonner (189691) | more than 6 years ago | (#21847552)

If you'd read TFA (and not just its misleading headline), you'd realize that since your friend probably didn't use the Internet to help him flash his neighbor, this law wouldn't apply to him even in NJ.

Re:All things considered... (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 6 years ago | (#21847688)

If you'd read TFA (and not just its misleading headline), you'd realize that since your friend probably didn't use the Internet to help him flash his neighbor, this law wouldn't apply to him even in NJ.
Busted. You're right, I apologize. As you've pointed out, I was dumb enough to run with the sensationalist headline.

If it's one thing that scares me in this world, it's the thought of a justice system that doesn't permit a proper shot at rehabilitation. I am paranoid that the US is headed in that direction, all for fears of what might happen. If you ask me, that's a sure-fire way to land us in a police state.

Re:All things considered... (1)

Jonner (189691) | more than 6 years ago | (#21847720)

I do agree that this new law seems silly and maybe harmful. However, it's not as extreme as some in this discussion think it is. I suspect it'll end up being more of a waste of time and money than either being very helpful or very harmful. There are far too many laws already and far too many things are crimes, so this is just one more on the heap.

Re:All things considered... (1)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 6 years ago | (#21847774)

Let's just save time and money for the taxpayers. If someone rapes a child (under the age of 13), toss them into a large incinerator. I am serious.

Re:All things considered... (1)

Jonner (189691) | more than 6 years ago | (#21847844)

Even if that were a good idea, it wouldn't be directly related to this discussion, since New Jersey defines sex offenders [sexcriminals.com] much more broadly. Notice that people can even be registered sex offenders for offenses similar to the specific ones listed, though it's not clear how it's decided whether an offense is similar. Also, minors can be sex offenders. By the way, what's so special about child rapists that they should get their own type of execution?

Ridiculous (4, Insightful)

FroBugg (24957) | more than 6 years ago | (#21847494)

This is all getting ridiculous. Here in South Florida, sex offenders are prevented from living within 2,500 feet of a school, parks, and other places where children gather. This puts all but tiny slivers of entire counties off-limits, and of course there's no housing available in those slivers.

So what have they done? Parole officers are telling their parolees to live under a bridge. As many as 20 sex offenders at a time live under this one bridge connecting Miami and Miami Beach, where they have no power or running water or even reliable shelter from the weather.

And they wonder why some of them disappear from the system entirely.

Either sex offenders are a threat to society and should be in prison or they're not and should be released. This crap about releasing them and making it impossible for them to live a normal life does nothing but encourage them to break the law.

Re:Ridiculous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21847572)

You've hit the nail on the head there, and that's precisely what those passing these laws WANT to happen. You've got to keep the population scared, you've got to have scapegoats, and you've got to be able to distract everyone while you hand out pork and political favours, so politicians - naturally! - aren't interested in actually integrating people into society again.

T-Mobile Phones? (1)

PHAEDRU5 (213667) | more than 6 years ago | (#21847506)

Doesn't T-Mobile market a phone that switches to WiFi when WiFi's available? Could a sex offender violate this law simply by making a phone call?

Re:T-Mobile Phones? (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 6 years ago | (#21847544)

Doesn't T-Mobile market a phone that switches to WiFi when WiFi's available? Could a sex offender violate this law simply by making a phone call?
Not if he has a decent lawyer, no. I don't think you could convince a judge that placing a call, even if the signal uses an internet connection, is the same as web browsing. That said, though, it would be a bad idea for him to have a Treo or an iPhone.

We'll have this obesity epidemic kicked in no time (1)

nzodd (836093) | more than 6 years ago | (#21847522)

Wait so... instead of letting these guys sit around on the internet all day where they're essentially harmless, those in the sex offender registry who are there for a legitimate reason (as opposed to for say... pissing on somebodys lawn at 3 AM or being 17 while getting a blowjob from a 15 year old) will now need to go outside and "interact" (i.e. molest for those of you you are clueless--namely, legislators) with real people to get their rocks off. Good job New Jersey. You sure solved that problem. Make sure all the child molesters go outside and play instead of sitting around in front of the computer at all hours. Maybe it'll help out the kids too. 'Cause they get some more exercise trying to run away. We'll have this obesity epidemic kicked in no time. That WAS the problem they were trying to solve right?

Whatever happened to the notion... (4, Insightful)

n dot l (1099033) | more than 6 years ago | (#21847528)

...of serving your time and paying your debt to society?

At this rate we may as well just cut to the chace and sentence convicted sex offenders (and whoever else is out to get your children) to lifelong destitution. We can brand them or something so people know to hate and fear them because, really, they can't possibly have reformed...and it would save neighbors and employers the bother of looking them up in the registries (heaven forbid people actually do something about their own security).

TFA implies this only affects the worst of the worst. Let's at least hope that's accurate.

Re:Whatever happened to the notion... (1)

MLease (652529) | more than 6 years ago | (#21847750)

Part of the problem is that child molesters have a psychological compulsion to prey upon children. This makes it difficult to act as if they're done paying their debt to society once they're out of prison, because odds are, they're going to do it again.

My daughter was accosted by a man who masturbated in front of her; he was caught, had offended before and was given probation. He offended again, and was given probation again, plus put on some kind of drug therapy. A year or 2 ago, we got a call from the district attorney's office, asking us to read our victim impact statements from that trial in court, because he'd offended yet again and they wanted the judge to hear about his history. Well, his attorney trotted out all kinds of character witnesses to tell the judge what a great guy he really was, and a doctor that said the previous course of treatment failed; but golly, this time for sure treatment will keep him from offending again! And the judge gave him probation yet again, stating something to the effect that her job was not to do what will make his victims feel better, but to find a way to keep him as a productive member of society.

Damned if I know what the right answer is, but these people are a threat. Would prison have deterred him from re-offending? I don't know, but it would have deprived him of the opportunity to commit several of his offenses.

-Mike

Re:Whatever happened to the notion... (1)

ddrichardson (869910) | more than 6 years ago | (#21847796)

...of serving your time and paying your debt to society?

The problem is we are confusing two different situations - one where the law does not reflect society and one where there is a very genuine need to protect the public and of course the entire gamut in between.

Some crimes are so abhorent and so damaging to the victims that the question is where do you set the debt? I know it's an emotive issue but if someone is raped at best it will take the victim many years to come to terms with and at worst make them take their life [rochester.edu] .

If such crimes are commited to a very young victim, especially by a family member and over a long period of time, that victim can become an offender themselves in later years [ncvc.org] .

In any event, is it enough for someone to repay a debt if they are likely to offend again?

Re:Whatever happened to the notion... (1)

Daimanta (1140543) | more than 6 years ago | (#21847820)

If somebody has a high risk of being an offender another time, why let him go? Where I live, those people are locked up until they are deemed cured. And if that's impossible, they are never released again.

$Yuo Fail it!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21847542)

4.1BSD piroduct, [goat.cx]

Not Fair (1)

Exile1 (746114) | more than 6 years ago | (#21847550)

Really, it isn't the sex offenders that are on probations, its the repeat offenders, and the people that are doing it that they don't know about that are the real problem. this just takes away peoples right, it's like say you fscked up, and were then labeled as a sex offender, you loose everything, and you have to earn rights back, but those people should be left alone for their one bad act. what good does it do to punish them for life? is taking the car away from the achohalic fair? how about telling the people who got busted smoking pot that they can't do something? each law after another is forseing the population into a black whole, where some feel fuck it I might aswell kill myself, because life is pointless. what about the sex offender, that got killed, and he didn't deserve death. but due to some parent thinking oh I don't want this guy near my family, he was killed. http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/07/12/11/1330257.shtml [slashdot.org] -- right there. doing this is just another hook on the line.

This is myyyyyyyy state (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21847558)

NJ is the FIRST State that has bannned the Death Penalty which makes it a progressive state in line with Europe.

Now they go and do this!!

I don't get it

Jail for life... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21847584)

Why not just keep them in prison for life, or set up a penal colony with a big minefield around it, and make them live there, in a single sex environment, with only other paedophiles, for the rest of their lives?

Because many of the top judges, policemen, and politicians, are PAEDOPHILES, that's why, and they want to be able to get out of jail after a couple of years, for raping children...

You think you know what a Sex Offender is? (5, Informative)

renbear (49318) | more than 6 years ago | (#21847614)

I've seen a number of vitriolic posts talking about those horrible sex offenders, as if they knew exactly what one was.

You don't. Trust me, you don't. Yes, it includes rapists, child molesters, etc... but the actual set of offenses that cause someone to be called a "sex offender" also includes stupid little things like flashing, victimless crimes like newlyweds making hanky-panky in a technically-public area, questionable crimes like public urination... all sorts of things that infuriate the puritanical elements of our society. It makes a nice, easy-to-administer Scarlet Letter for everyone the puritans hate.*

I would not have as much problem with this law if it actually applied only to the rapists and child molesters. Unfortunately, it does not.

* The label is also often used to repress closeted gays... "Those durned fagnits, having sex in the parks! This'll learn 'em!"

But... (1)

Symbolis (1157151) | more than 6 years ago | (#21847618)

the internet's going to be so quiet with all the sex offenders gone. :(

NOOOOOO (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21847674)

How are they going to post on Slashdot NOW!?

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...............

The manufacture of madness (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21847686)

The Manufacture of Madness: A Comparative Study of the Inquisition and the Mental Health Movement (Paperback)
by Thomas Stephen Szasz is an interesting book. The author makes the point that if something is simultaneously a sin, a crime, and a mental illness what you are really dealing with is societies prejudice. This has been true of drug use, homosexuality, and sex offenders.

No point putting them in a hostile environment (1)

tobby (229444) | more than 6 years ago | (#21847692)

Ultimately its about society and individuals. How comfortable are you with having sex offenders living in your neighborhood. Would your opinion change if you had kids? This is a balance of rights and clearly some people are nervous about having sex offenders living in their neighborhood. The question is is this a legitimate concern, lots of people will be nervous, paranoid about lots of things so where does legislation step in.

By limiting their rights to the internet what the system is essentially saying is these people cannot be trusted, they are not reformed. So ideally they should be in a prison or some other institution where they can be reformed and if they can't then they shouldn't be out. By having them live in a hostile society, which is exactly what happens when you have laws like this, you are infact wronging them.

Good intentions gone bad (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21847694)

Though I applaud the intent this will only lead to further situations such as Dibbs Vs California [dwarfurl.com] [ca.gov]resulting in tragic circumstances

RTFA: (2, Interesting)

daedalusblond (1037302) | more than 6 years ago | (#21847736)

The bill applies to anyone who used a computer to help commit the original sex crime.

This seems to make slightly more sense than how the summary portrays it. If they were convicted of molesting someone through myspace et al, why not take their weapon away from them? On the otherhand, if you didn't know she was underage at that party, from the sounds of things you should still be able to read slashdot.

Can slashdot comments have one of those EULA style things that pops up and asks you to check that you've RTFA'd?

Or maybe some kind of captcha that makes you answer questions about TFA? :P

Re:RTFA: (1)

WizMaster (974384) | more than 6 years ago | (#21847778)

But then it wouldn't be /. I admit this works me up but at least it has some sensibilities in it. I believe that once you paid your debt to society you shouldn't have to be bothered anymore. If society believes they are still dangerous, keep them in jail. That's the point of jail, keeping the bad elements of society (if only politicians fell under this category legally) in a "safe" environment away from everyone else. Also, what happens to the dude that meets someone online and doesn't know they are underaged. Wasn't exactly using "the internetz" as a weapon in that case.

is it 2007 or 1807? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21847792)

Considering the ubiquity of the internet today, and how much more important it will be in the near future,
this reminds me of slavery-era laws prohibiting slaves from learning how to read, which were legislated
because of fear of a slave rebellion. Specifically, slaves that could not read and write could not
effectively communicate to coordinate a rebellion.

Makes you wonder who these legislators really fear for.

Prügelknabe (4, Insightful)

Rumagent (86695) | more than 6 years ago | (#21847854)

In a world where the vast majority of sexual offences are committed by friends and family, it seems odd that so much energy is wasted fighting "the stranger on the Internet" and so little energy is spent rescuing the woman and children being abused and intimidated within their own home.

This might be impopular but..... (1)

darqit (1040654) | more than 6 years ago | (#21847910)

instead of banning sex offenders from the internet because it is the same as lurking at playgrounds, maybe parents should educate their kids about the dangers of the internet. Society becomes increasingly digital and this requires some education from the adults, not extended punishment for people who under the law paid for their transgressions. I was taught not to accept anything from strangers when I was little. I think the same applies here. The people in NJ are running away from their responsibilities as parents. What's next sex education using porn sites???

Bro Rape (1)

Layth (1090489) | more than 6 years ago | (#21847922)

This is a true story.. I knew a guy for almost a year, and one day he tried to forcibly rape another one of my guy friends.
What the fuck! I never saw it coming.

The offender is no longer welcome around anyone I know..

What's strange is that he is actually a good guy.. I just think of it like somebody with a sickness.
You can be a good person, but if you have a serious drug habit you'll steal from your children.

Honestly the guy can't be trusted.
...but I still wouldn't ban him from the internet. WTF!

It seems to me if you can't download porn and :fap: :fap: on your free time, all that energy is just going to get built up.
Shouldn't we be ENCOURAGING these people to release that tension in the privacy of their own homes, not taking an outlet away?
(NOTE: I am not endorsing the legalization of child porn. I think that's a different story altogether)

Meet the new scapegoats (1)

downix (84795) | more than 6 years ago | (#21847936)

Nowadays,pedophiles are the new "untouchables" the new (insert derogitory racial or sexual orientation statement here). Neighbors fear their new "pedo" neighbors, are encouraged to spy on, report, or even injure said party. What is the difference between a cross burning and a door to door "warning" in the end? Both give the same message of hate.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>