Social-networking ban for sex offenders: Bad call?

The just-signed Illinois law banning sex offenders from social-networking sites might seem like a good idea to protect children, but it will have virtually no impact on their safety and could wind up making things worse.

The law, which was signed Thursday by Illinois Governor Pat Quinn, would prevent registered sex offenders in Illinois from using a social-networking service defined as an "Internet Web site containing profile Web pages...that include the names or nicknames of such members, photographs...or any other personal or personally identifying information."

The definition also includes "the ability to leave messages or comments on the profile Web page that are visible to all or some visitors to the profile Web page," which might be interpreted to include news sites, including CNET News, that allow visitors to register and leave comments.

But let's start with the problem the law is trying to solve. It's aimed at adults who troll the Web in search of children to sexually exploit. While such people do exist, they are rarely successful in harming youth whom they meet through the Internet. Every peer-reviewed study conducted by the Crimes Against Children Research Center and other scholarly organizations, as well as the report of Internet Safety Technical Task Force, has concluded that the risk of online predators is greatly exaggerated.

I'm not aware of any cases of a predator harming a prepubescent child whom he met on the Internet, and there are very few publicly known cases of sexual contact between a teenager and an adult they met online. In those few cases where contact has occurred, it is often because the teenager was aggressively seeking the contact and where the teen was also engaged in offline risky behavior. These cases are typically between a teenage girl and young adult male between 18 and 25.

Law enforcement officials and politicians will point to plenty of Internet predator cases, but the overwhelming majority are either sting operations, in which no child was harmed, or child pornography cases which, while horrendous, are not addressed by this law.

A January 2009 analysis of Pennsylvania cases by the Center for Safe and Responsible Internet Use found, during a four-year period, that "only eight incidents involved actual teen victims with whom the Internet was used to form a relationship," compared to 9,934 children who were sexually abused in a single year in that state.

If the law had no negative consequences, I would give it a pass. After all, who cares about the rights of people who have been convicted of sex offenses? Well, I do. Not because I think they're wonderful people but because it's in all of our interest that, if they're not in prison, they be integrated into society to the extent that they can function and be able to find and hold appropriate jobs. Keeping these individuals away from the very types of sites that can help them in their careers is counterproductive to the goal of rehabilitating them.

The other issue is how we classify sex offenders. Not everyone on every state sex offender list is a danger to children. A recent article in The Economist, entitled "Unjust and Ineffective, observes that "Many people assume that anyone listed on a sex offender registry must be a rapist or a child molester. But most states spread the net much more widely."

Citing a report from Human Rights Watch, the article says "at least five states required men to register if they were caught visiting prostitutes. At least 13 required it for urinating in public (in two of those states, only if a child was present). No fewer than 29 states required registration for teenagers who had consensual sex with another teenager. And 32 states registered flashers and streakers."

The article describes the plight of a young woman who, in 1996 at age 17, was charged with having oral sex with a 16-year-old boy. She was given jail time and probation, and wound up on a sex offender list. Should she be banned from having a Facebook account or the ability to publicly comment on posts like this one? I think not.

I'll leave it up to others to debate our sex offender registry policy. Adam Thierer and Robin Sax have just written thoughtful responses to The Economist's article, taking differing points of view, but I do think that we need to be careful about not indiscriminately shutting down social-networking access to all registered sex offenders. Some probably yes, but not every one of them.

Another reason to question this law is that it can lead to more than one false sense of security. To begin with, the most dangerous sex offenders aren't necessarily the ones who are registered but the many who haven't yet been caught and convicted. And if we focus exclusively on predation, we're likely to lose track of the most dangerous aspects of youth online behavior, which are mostly either kid on kid--such as bullying, harassment, and impersonation--or self-imposed risks such as sexting or posting information that could be embarrassing later in life.

CBSNews.com's Declan McCullagh has also weighed in on this case.

[mrcjacobs]

This is just another "feel good" bill that will have no effect at all. You can lump it with bills that banned talking on a cell phone while driving. In twitter parlance #HB1314Fail

[Renegade Knight]

On top of that the sexual predators lists are somewhat worthless anyway. Mardi Gras generates more than a few "new predators" because of beads and not any real harm. I also don't need to know about the 19 year old guy dating a 17 year old gal in a normal relationship.

[only_buy_FLAC_4_quality]

It's right up there with gun banning. It will work about as well as banning murder.

@ the dim masses

This is not an endorsement for sexual predation.


If sex offenders should not be released from prison keep them there. Do not release them, signifying they have paid their debt, and then continue to punish them.

Sexual preditors of children ought be castrated.


When the rights of a few are trampled so are the rights of the many.

[only_buy_FLAC_4_quality]

@Renegade Knight

"because of beads "

No. That is caused by licentiousness.


"real harm"

Harm is not limited to physical damage. A state can be damaged as well.

[paulej]

Yeah, this is a bad idea. As the article points out, there are some "sex offenders" out there who are really not sex offenders by any reasonable person's definition. Where I live, kids put themselves at risk for sending around child porn via their cell phones. Perhaps it's a national issue, I don't know -- but it makes the news here. These child porn pictures? Oh, it's pictures of themselves they send to their boy- or girlfriends.

There are problems with our laws in this regard all over the US. I believe all states have reasonable laws with respect to "real" rape. However, statutory rape laws vary to a point where in some states it was legal yesterday, but illegal today because one partner just had a birthday. The situation with the 17-year-old girl is one such silly example of how the laws are screwed up.

Now, the government wants to further punish all of those innocent young people who got trapped by some fundementally broken laws that their lives are ruined for the rest of their lives. I feel sorry for folks who have to live with that kind of mess. I think laws like this might be useful for true sex offenses, but very few of those where the "offenders" themselves are children.

[only_buy_FLAC_4_quality]

"These child porn pictures? Oh, it's pictures of themselves they send to their boy- or girlfriends."

Are they children? yes. Are they images designed to sexually arouse the viewer? yes


How exactly does that not-meet the definition for child pornographay?

It does match essentially.



"real rape"

Choice is not justification. Other than the physical-, emotional-, and spiritual risks of harm of fornication there is the clear risk of denial of consent.


"innocent young "


young? yes

innocent? no

[only_buy_FLAC_4_quality]

edit

"denial of consent" == "denial of consent afterwards"

[perfectblue97]

It must be an election year because this is one of the least thought out laws that I've seen in a long time, and I'd like to see how this stands up in the supreme court because I think that it will be struck down as a clear violation of the first and fourth amendments.

By all means ban paedophiles with a history of using the internet to groom children from using social networks where they might come into contact with children, but what good would it do to ban a 18 year old frat boy who pulls a moonie at the wrong person from editing Wikipedia, or from keeping a blog to keep their parents informed during their trek through Thailand.

Given the importance of social media in society today banning people from using it could cause them significant personal harm, and could render them dependant on welfare. Why, well, the above description covers employment agency websites, as well as help wanted message boards. A plumber pees in the wrong place and a kid sees them, and suddenly they can no longer advertize online, or a stock broker gets drunk and goes all the way with an under-age girl in a club who's using a fake ID and suddenly they can't use all of the social media sites and contacts that they've built up over the years. It it completely insane. It's also pretty hard to police. Does this website count as social media? Does my Yahoo email account count, I have a profile with a picture?

[only_buy_FLAC_4_quality]

@perfectblue97

"least thought out laws"

At least it is not 1400+ pages.

The road to somewhere is paved with good intentions.



"the importance of social media "

not much.



" It it completely insane"

Expecting responsible, moral behavior is insane? Do explain that please.

[mark88online]

The so called bill is definitely useless. How can they protect the children and women from molestation, exploitation, rape and gang rape if they can't rid off the roots of all of this?

If the DRUGS and DRUG LORDS are still around which are the roots of all crimes, nothing would be impossible for them. They will ban the Social Networking for sex offenders but do they know easily who are that offenders would be? If they know who are the offenders.... ban them in social networking but they still have cel phones that can do everything same as what they are doing in social networking area.

Are the people in government or in-charge of this bill can easily get rid off them especially if they are using a prepaid sim?

Ban the sex offenders in social networking, they will use another ALIAS and they can do the same thing.....

[oncefallen]

The law has a vague definition of "social networking site" which makes even places like this comment board off limits. This law will ultimately be struck down for vagueness. After all, there are many legitimate reasons to use social networks, such as job hunting, keeping up with long distance family members, or expressing your right to anonymous free speech on a comments board. *ex offender truth @ www.oncefallen.com

[darkebinary]

I agree with all your points except that fact that it will be struck down. Mainstream America and the media are all about do it for the kids these days. This bill will pass and be heralded as a great achievement by the media?. Unfortunately.

[Harrison912]

As a web site owner of safety and security products and a user of social sites to market my site, I'm all for restricting sexual predators access to victims. I'm not sure this bill would actually do that but if we enact this, maybe we should do more to get help parents keep a closer eye on their children while they're surfing the net.

[annoyedinIL]

I normally don't comment anywhere, but I am going to here. I am a register sex offender in IL and I am appalled by this law. I did not serve any jail time and I did a 2 year probation with counseling. I used FB, twitter and LinkedIn. I use them all. FB and Twitter for personal reason, but I use my real name, and i keep it to my friends. I am in my early 30's, so I am not some old creep prowling around to find kids. I learned my lesson. I use it to meet new age appropriate people. I have over 250 friends, and all are people I know. I also use Facebook and LinkedIn for my profession, and I rely on them for it.

I have been able to pull myself out of a deep hole I was in and become successful in my my field making over 100k. I have awesome friends and i stay away from falling back into bad habits, but here is the real point. I am using my real identity. I am not hiding. If I wanted to do something malicious I would have a fake name. Also, I am required to register all my internet accounts with the state annually when I register with my local police department. I have let them know I have the accounts, they can monitor my activity. So why must I be banned. Also, LinkedIn is a professional networking site, so I don't think it will be included in this law. Its geared for professionals over 18 yrs of age. Am I wrong in assuming this? There is nothing about it that is social.

But lets hit the bigger point. Most people that get arrested for sex offenses are new offenders. They lurk out there and have not been caught. Do some re offend yes, but if you require them to register the account with the state, and they do, do you really think they are going to use it for looking for a new victim. Some will be stupid but most wont.

So why don't these sites monitor there communication between people of inappropriate ages. If anything sexual is communicated between a user who is 30 and a 15 yr old, it gets flagged and reviewed by the site and turned over to authorities. Wouldn't that protect the children more? State officials should figure out proactive ways to protect people from those that aren't registered, because that is their biggest threat. Implementing a law like this will put a false sense of security with parents thinking they don't have to worry anymore, but that is totally wrong.

Could I live without Facebook, yes, but I am in touch with people from HS and college i would never have talked to again. I stay in touch with acquaintances, who I don't see all the time.

There are plenty of things wrong with the sex offender registration laws, but the lawmakers introduce laws that the public thinks makes them safer, rather then coming up with effective legislation that protects the kids. why not an age identification system required to sign up for internet sites, why not education of the children to report inappropriate activity to their parents?

just a few thoughts from someone who lives this on a day to day basis. It is a pain in the ass, and I do feel I am still be punished for something I did and served my times for. No other crime has to go through this. What about a person who was in a gang, someone who assaulted people, attempted murders, violent offenders, these people are more likely to hurt someone then a sex offender. I do not minimize what I did, but in my case it was a police sting and i did not have a victim, but I know how much this can hurt a kid if they are offended and I want laws that protect them, but also don't hind the rights I have a american citizen.

[annoyedinIL]

One other comment based on the actual verbage of the law.

Well some good news that maybe our state isnt as f'd up as we thought!!! If you read the legislation it pertains resigered sex offenders on probation or parole and only effect people convicted after the date the legislation passed? Anyone else have comment or other insight?

[ToniaInIllinois]

No, you were right in the first place - our state is as f'd up as you know it is. This law will do NOTHING to help protect children, just like most of the other laws geared toward sex offenders. annoyedinil, could you contact me through love-is-not-a-crime.com?

[darkebinary]

The sex offender laws are becoming ridiculous. I know a registered "sex offender" who has to live with this day to day. He lives three houses down from me. This one in particular had sex with a 17 year old when he was 19. The girl was two months from turning 18 and was 18 at the hearing. The parents of this particular girl didn?t like him, so they pressed charges and the DA charged him for statutory rape. He made the mistake of pleading guilty and they made him register. He was immediately expelled from college, cannot find a job, cannot get accepted into any schools, can?t take his 6 year old niece to the park, and the list goes on and on . The same niece is a victim because parents won?t let their kids play with the kid who has the ?pedophile uncle?. Paranoid people in the neighborhood vandalize his property and scream pedophile out their car windows as they drive by. He has no peace and a low chance at ever being a productive member of society all because of some angry parents who were mad their baby girl wasn?t the princess they thought she was. Doesn?t sound like justice to me, it sounds like politicking to giving people a false sense of security, which might be more dangerous than the offenders themselves.

[Sandyport2]

Larry, thank you for this article. It is very well thought out..Thank you especially for stating that "Not everyone on every state sex offender list is a danger to children. A recent article in The Economist, entitled "Unjust and Ineffective, observes that "Many people assume that anyone listed on a sex offender registry must be a rapist or a child molester. But most states spread the net much more widely." and also "because it's in all of our interest that, if they're not in prison, they be integrated into society to the extent that they can function and be able to find and hold appropriate jobs. Keeping these individuals away from the very types of sites that can help them in their careers is counterproductive to the goal of rehabilitating them"

Not many people talk about reintegrating sex offenders in society but as you said it is something we must do I appreciate that you have taken the time to really thing about this..

[clamenza]

Americans are next to Turkey the most religious in the Western world and they also appear to be extremely punitive and vindictive, not to mention selfish and not very interested in dealing with the root causes of societal issues. All the new laws does nothing to protect us and only serves to isolate and "radicalize", just like they did with ex-felons in general, causing huge recidivism and costing taxpayer billions of dollars to lock up half a percent of the population.

[annoyedinIL]

So, all these article seem to be wrong. I have read HB1314 that was signed and it only applies to people placed on parole, probation, and supervison, and applies only during that time. Also, it only applies to people convicted after the effective date of the bill, which is June 1st, 2009.

Here is a link to a Senators site that summarize the bill: http://www.senatorcronin.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=97:this-week-in-the-illinois-senate-&catid=3:latest&Itemid=50

Internet Safety (HB 1314): Prohibits a convicted sex offender from accessing a social networking Internet Web site while on parole, mandatory supervised release, probation, conditional discharge or supervision.

Also, Here is the full text of the bill:

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?GAID=10&SessionID=76&GA=96&DocTypeID=HB&DocNum=1314&LegID=&SpecSess=&Session=

I am not sure why all the reporters have not read the bill before writing articles such as this.

[larrymagid]

I did read the bill. I never said it was a life time ban.

[annoyedinIL]

yeah its only during the time the person is on parole or probation. Not the entire time they are registered.

I was on probation for 2 years, during that time I couldn't have a computer or internet at work.

[Dr_Zinj]

Such laws are worse than useless.

1. It violates the constitutional rights of free speech of the citizen.

2. It does nothing to stop the person from using a false identity to optain the services.

3. Like the studies say, it's blown completely out of proportion. Sting operations are deliberately set up to entrap the weak by pretending to be those very type of aggressive pre-adults who seek out older men and women. Sure there are sexual predators on-line. But their rate of felonious sexual assualt is smaller than nearly any other sort of violent crime. This is the equivalent of burnign down the house to kill a cockroach.

4. It sets a precedent to increase censorship, violating the rest of our rights to free speech.

5. It wastes tax payer money and increases our deficits. All legislation has a firm financial cost, including obsolete and ineffective laws.

[rbf072858]

In a deal with 49 state attorneys general last May, Facebook agreed to identify and remove ?profiles of all registered sex offenders.? Presumably this policy covers all profiles on Facebook, regardless of who created them.

How much would it cost Facebook to license the Sentinel screening technology? I asked Cardillo, and he said ?fractions of a penny per user.? With 150 million users, he said that would come to under $1 million.

Until the above type of extralegal action stops, it doesn't matter what laws are on or off the books or

[rbf072858]

In a deal with 49 state attorneys general last May, Facebook agreed to identify and remove ?profiles of all registered sex offenders.? Presumably this policy covers all profiles on Facebook, regardless of who created them.

How much would it cost Facebook to license the Sentinel screening technology? I asked Cardillo, and he said ?fractions of a penny per user.? With 150 million users, he said that would come to under $1 million.

Until the above type of extralegal action stops, it doesn't matter what laws are on or off the books or what people think

[Rwb67]

unconstitutional!! why do our lawmakers in this state make up such fear touting,feel good laws ?? they protect no one,we as parents are suppose to monitor and protect,laws like these do no good,protect no one just make sure these law makers feel good about themselves like they are helping but actually hurting,making believe that with these laws and other enacted will protect children,lets see fake names and addresses and such will just be used come on people of this state lets educate ourselves more about sex offenders and work together too protect our children and educate them,this new law is no more affective than the 500 ft residency restriction law,they cant live with in 500 ft of,so you all feel better they cant ? well then how about 1,000, 2,000 ?? worked so well for Iowa nope it didnt,they have restructered there laws,when will Illinois ?? the 500 ft law does nothing to protect,you want to know why,well offenders cant sleep with wives or just sleep there at there homes,but they can go there anytime,that means during the day when school is in or even when its not,they just sleep there when school isnt in session,so this law protects who ?? just like this new one social networking site,when are going too stand up to this lousy government that has done nothing but pass feel good laws and steal and lie and put special taxes on candy just because they coudnt raise state tax,people of Illinois its time we educate ourselves more about these sex offender laws that truthfully dont protect just make everyone "feel" safe but not. thanks
also Illinois does not put any research,studies or anything to justify the uncommonsense laws Illinois,our lawmakers arent protecting us from anything,not even them,lets get together and stop this BS thet keep on passsing,your kids wont be protected from any of these laws,lets all do research on it and let them know we are all concerned and they should be as well here are a couple of names DR. JS LEVENSON ON RESIDENCY RESTRICTIONS -
2:47 PM, 8.18.09 Rwb67 and COREY YUNG- FROM JOHN MARSHALL SCHOOL OF LAW- RESIDENCY RESTRICTIONS,people there is more and more research and facts on why these wont work and why they could put kids in more danger this is not just propaganda these are professionals who studied and recieved lots of praise from other professionals,please look up sex offender research on government sites ,you will be suprised who protests and also thinks these laws need to be changed,Jacob Wtterling foudation,police cheifs,educational person who work for governmant,Illinois knows nothing,doesnt do the research needed to know the truth and facts,please people of Illinois do the research and eduacte yourselves and your kids and lets change these laws here in Illinois before it becomes Iowa or Florida thanks