MySpace, Facebook Unfriend 3,500 Sex Offenders
| Wed Dec. 2, 2009 8:00 AM PST
As long as there have been screennames, there have been perverts with screennames. If you happen to be a registered sex offender in New York State, you can bet the Attorney General's office is watching yours like a hawk.
Despite the internet's reputation as the last bastion of anonymity and a safe haven for nefarious things, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo announced Tuesday that his office has wiped 3,500 sex offenders from social networking platforms MySpace and Facebook. Or as he put it, "purge(d) them from their online worlds."
Under the new Electronic Securing and Targeting of Online Predators Act (e-STOP), New York offenders must register their email addresses and usernames, in addition to their physical addresses with the state. So far, only Facebook and MySpace have agreed to help the state, but that's kind of like saying only Apple and Microsoft have signed on.
It's unclear from the attorney general's statement whether the sweep actually caught anybody attempting to do something illegal, but the e-STOP law is pretty stiff. Depending on offenders' parole status and the nature of their crimes, some offenders are barred from ever opening a profile. Which to someone like me who came of age in the aughts, sounds like the best way to keep the online Humberts and Lolitas of the modern world apart, and also just a teensy tiny bit Orwellian.
If social networking is a privilege you think sex offenders should universally forfeit (and I'm not necessarily disagreeing), consider this: only about 8,000 of New York State's nearly 30,000 sex offenders are registered under Cuomo's internet database. If, as America's Most Wanted host John Walsh said in the press release, "social networking websites have become the private hunting grounds for sexual predators," someone might want to start, you know, collecting those screennames.
What do you think? Should more states take New York's no-tolerance line? Is purging an offender's Facebook profile going too far? In a world as slippery as the internet, will offenders just find a work-around?
Advertisement
Advertisement
Comments
Would that include
Submitted by dSquib (not verified) on Wed Dec. 2, 2009 9:29 AM PST.
Would that include exhibitionists?
Not totally off the mark but....
Submitted by zbex (not verified) on Wed Dec. 2, 2009 10:33 AM PST.
...definitely more than a "teensy" bit Orwellian. It seems like overreaching to me, given that 1) not every "sex offender" is a threat to children 2) by and large the only people you'd be able to find on facebook are people you already know and 3) the use of online communication and social networks is quickly becoming the defacto rule for interaction among individuals, corporations, and even the government. Perhaps if I wasn't constantly assaulted by a barrage of solicitations by my credit card issuers to go "paperless" I would have more sympathy for the NYAG. But he and John Walsh are acting like the only reason someone has an email address is to engage in illicit, predatory acts. Saying that you cannot participate in online social networks is akin to outlawing someone from talking to their friends and colleagues in the real world. No one would suggest that someone, even a convicted criminal, shouldn't be able to chat with other adult friends and acquaintances.
Sex Offenders
Submitted by fer (not verified) on Wed Dec. 2, 2009 10:34 PM PST.
I read an interesting article the other day regarding a large amount of people registered as sex offenders are eighteen year old boys who had sexual relationships with their seventeen year old girlfriends. There really should be a "grading" system.
The whole sex offender system
Submitted by ga73 (not verified) on Thu Dec. 3, 2009 10:44 AM PST.
The whole sex offender system is a disaster for civil liberties. Of course, changing it would require lawmakers to be brave and face the wrath of voters when opponents will say that so and so voted to allow sex offenders as your neighbors.
This will be ruled
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri Dec. 4, 2009 7:35 AM PST.
This will be ruled unconstitutional eventually. No way around it.
effective?
Submitted by rejoov on Sun Dec. 27, 2009 11:44 AM PST.
I guess if facebook is going to ban their IP I could see it having some impact, but the reality is if you want to get online and pretend to be someone else it's not that difficult. Especially if this has become a large part of their life. Ever tried getting a sixteen year old off the computer. If they want to participate enough, they'll find a way. It's good publicity and good politics, but not sure how effective. Better than doing nothing, I guess.
--------------------
building muscle
SEX OFFENDERS...
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed Jan. 27, 2010 6:04 PM PST.
It is MY BELIEF along with many other Victims of these Sexual Preditors, that "THEY CAN'T HELP THEMSELVES"! I am Not speaking of the 18 year old young man dating a 17 year old young woman! Not by a LONG SHOT! I am speaking to you about the "REAL SEAXUAL OFFENDERS", THAT I BELIEVE NEED TO BE ON A LIST FOR EVERY MOTHER, FATHER, NEIGHBOR TO SEE, ALONG WITH A ...FACE!!! They LOST THEIR RIGHTS WHEN THEY DECIDED TO TAKE EVERYTHING, ...EXCEPT THE LIFE FROM THEIR VICTIM(S)!!!
Can someone/anyone tell me just how is it that Legislation can so justify any rights these monsters "should be given"? The percentage that repeat the offense(s) is 95-98, due to the fact that ,"they are INNOCENT"!!SLAP ME AGAIN, PLEASE! I DONT ONLY THINK , I KNOW THAT AFTER READING AND WATCHING A BUNCH OF SEXUAL OFFENDERS SUE .THEN WERE ABLE TO HAVE THERE NAME AND FACE REMOVED FROM THE REGISTRY(AS LONG AS THEY MET THE CRITERIA), MAKES ME ABSOLUTELY SICK!EVERYONE..EVERYONE..SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW WHO YOU ARE, WHAT YOU HAVE DONE, (NOT TO MENTION, ALL THAT YOU HAVE DONE /AND ARE DOING,YET YOUR VICTIMS STILL TO AFFRAID,ASHAMED..OF YOUR WRONG DOING!!!) SO...LEGISLATION ,OH YES, AND YOU BELIEVE YOU HAVE BEEN DONE WRONG! I think maybe it's time THEY HEARD THE VOICES OF ALL THE VICTIMS!!! WHAT IS THIS WORLD COMING TO?
Then you make strict
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon Feb. 15, 2010 10:53 PM PST.
Then you make strict legislation you can't pick and choose which crime you treat unconstitutionaly. The people to blame is the legislators people have problems I am pretty sure they didn't choose from a menu (for the most part) make mistakes and the ones who didn't learn and they could have put those away for good. But of course when it came time to vote they couldn't use the fear of the sex offender to get ur vote. Its the sane as drugs on the street to bag em and use them as a trophy this is just a fear they love to play on. The fear is real they make it surreal. The registry is out there and adults should teach the kids to use it.
No one picks their problems,
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue Feb. 16, 2010 1:22 PM PST.
No one picks their problems, if that were the case, I am pretty sure Sex offenders would have chose another one . People have to deal with the hand they are dealt. And for the people who haven't offended yet, but are trying to deal with the problem, we don't make it easy for them to get help do we? We stand almighty and bash sex offenders treating them like they sat in a room and prayed for the problem so they can get on with the party. Let's face it, we are all fortunate not to have such a problem, however, the constitution doesn't set out which crimes are more heanious than the other so, if we are to go by it, it is straight accross. It is not a Mcdonald's menu, (in this day's age, it seems that way) all crimes have taken the victims rights away, there are murderers out there that haven't gotten caught, of course their victims can't speak, and their families hurt as well.
Post new comment
MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback
We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.
