December 29, 2007
Tech folks concerned about NJ law banning sex offenders from internet
It is intriguing, but perhaps not surprising, to see a number of tech-orieted website discussing — and mostly complaining about — a new New Jersey law that bans sex offenders from using the internet (noted here). Specifically, check out some of the commentary and comments in coverage from Slashdot and from E-Commerce Times and from Ars Technica (though I suppose you'd better just sign off if you are a sex offender in New Jersey).
December 29, 2007 at 08:05 AM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Tech folks concerned about NJ law banning sex offenders from internet:
hmmm, maybe people are starting to realize the absurdity of some of this sex laws. When half of all sex convictions involve people under the age of 18, I think politicians should drop the whole "For the Children" rethoric. I wonder when is the media going to open their eyes and report the other side of the coin.
(I posted this in another topic by accident)
Posted by: EJ | Dec 29, 2007 11:51:15 AM
I would think this might also impinge on the defendant's 1st Amendment rights. Can they also preclude access to a library, or a bookstore, or a news stand, or having a TV? There would seem no limit here.
Posted by: bernie kleinman | Dec 29, 2007 12:57:22 PM
Not just a slippery slope, but a greased tightrope. What of McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission?
"Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society."
Doh. Rumor has it there is going to be a Tea Party in Boston. (I'd say in 2084, but that is too far away even if it has a nice literary ring to it.) Federalist and Kent and other Torries are not invited.
Posted by: George | Dec 29, 2007 2:32:08 PM
Once again, George comes through with insightful commentary.
Posted by: federalist | Dec 29, 2007 2:44:54 PM
"When half of all sex convictions involve people under the age of 18"
Do you have a cite for that, EJ? It's an interesting statistic, but one I've never heard before.
Posted by: JDB | Dec 29, 2007 7:27:55 PM
I read it in an medical articl a few months ago. I'm trying to find it right now, but i'll try to post it as soon as i find it.
Posted by: EJ | Dec 29, 2007 9:36:03 PM
here is the article, where I found this information.
This one is also interesting:
It says that the average age of child molesters is 13. I think the article was influenced by the researcher's needs to seek financing, but nevertheless the statistics are interesting.
Also, here are other article that might help understand how 13 became the average age of child molesters. What was once resolved by the parent's belts, is now being resolved by government, in a more cruel way.
In this last case the boy plead guitly and is currently a sex offender, and if you look at his picture you will find many old men in there but also, other boys convicted around the same age and for almost the same crime. However, it's been like almost two years since i first saw the story of the boy and his picture in the Sex offener Registry, so I cannot provide a link.
Posted by: EJ | Dec 29, 2007 11:47:36 PM
Geo., I noticed I was not on the excluded list for the Tea Party. I will bring the war paint, and tomahawks.
Posted by: bernie kleinman | Dec 30, 2007 11:40:47 AM
bernie, the bigger the party the better, and I forgot it was a costume party. Thanks for the reminder.
Evidently there is a point that can put even federalist in a partying mood. Join the party hearty club, federalist!
Posted by: George | Dec 31, 2007 10:24:56 AM
Thanks, EJ. I'll look into those.
Posted by: JDB | Dec 31, 2007 10:43:28 AM