Judge blocks California’s new ban on anonymity for sex offenders

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/11/california-judge-blocks-voter-approved-ban-on-anonymity-for-sex-offenders/

by shawndumas • 14 years ago

46 19 14 years ago

rubyrescue• 14 years ago

What is so interesting to me is that it passed with 81% support. Seems to be a class example of the "think of the children" argument run amok in that it's impossible to enforce and vague enough to mean that every convicted sex offender is breaking it every day.

saurik4• 14 years ago

The brunt of the proposed law was about "harsher punishments for human trafficking" and that is how it was described on the ballot (from the official voter's guide: "HUMAN TRAFFICKING. PENALTIES. INITIATIVE STATUTE."); the part about sex offenders having to register their usernames on all of the online services that they use was tacked on the end, related by way of pointing out that the "sex crime" classification that then requires sex offender registration "includ[es] some crimes involving human trafficking".

Many voters, thereby, probably did not even realize that this other aspect was a consequence; those that did may have not cared enough to think about it (as it doesn't affect them personally), and those that cared may have decided "on the balance, in this flawed democratic system where I have to vote on this as a single unit, I think the result is better despite this consequence" (I often wish I could vote "I agree with these specific diff hunks" as opposed to "I agree with this changeset" ;P).

(I say this not to defend the law, but as a way to try to explain why 81% of the people in my state apparently voted for it; when I saw the number I was thereby depressed, but not really surprised: human trafficking "sounds bad". Also, the official "CON" argument blurb was "I provide erotic services, and this (might) incorrectly label my son", which probably turned off a lot of conservative voters in addition to being an argument many would call "far fetched", even if it totally ends up happening.)

throwit1979• 14 years ago

Another aspect is that there was exactly $0 in campaign funding to oppose the proposition, whereas there was $3.7MM in favor of it.

Campaign contributions are public record, and nobody wants to be seen to be supporting sex offenders. Instant social suicide.

Ref: http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition...

AlexMennen2• 14 years ago

> those that cared may have decided "on the balance, in this flawed democratic system where I have to vote on this as a single unit, I think the result is better despite this consequence"

They would be wrong. Anyone who has enough resources to get a proposition on the ballot has enough resources to get the legislature to pay attention to them. And something like prop 35 would pass in the legislature for the same reason it passed at the ballot box. But the legislature can make amendments.

annableker• 14 years ago

That's what I did--voted for it, because it was packaged together with "human trafficking", the main advertised piece.

I'm somewhat regretting voting for it now, after more careful research. The only "deal breaker" for me, at this point, is that this law (I think) doesn't take into account the difference in acts that constitute "sex offense"--i.e., peeing on the side of the highway and raping someone both fall under the same category here.

So that poor dude that got taking a drunk leak might have to expose his screen names.

gadders3• 14 years ago

Why would you think that paedophiles, rapists etc should be allowed online anonymity? If you can't behave by the rules of civilised society, then I don't think it's that big a stretch that you lose some privileges.

baconner• 14 years ago

I'm one of the Californians who voted against this proposition. Why?

Because once someone has served their time and their probation the idea is that the state is saying their debt has been paid and the state no longer believes them dangerous. If that's not the case then there's a problem elsewhere and you're just treating symptoms (futilely I might add).

An even bigger problem is presented by the "etc." If it was the convicted child molester and rapist list that would be one thing but the etc contains a lot of other offenses that don't justify restrictions designed to stop child molesters from repeat offending. Maybe there should be a proposition to split the lists by the a Specific offenses so at least these measures could be targeted better. This prop also played fast and loose with the definition of sex offender IMO.

greenyoda• 14 years ago

This looks like a dangerous slippery slope. This year, it's sex offenders who have to register their on-line identities with the police. But once they get their database going, someone will have the bright idea to also add people convicted of identity theft (who arguably pose an even more direct threat on the internet), or mail fraud or securities fraud. And, of course, convicted drug dealers might also try to sell drugs to kids on the web, so no anonymity for them. In a few years, anyone convicted of the heinous offense of illegal file sharing might also have to register their identities.

Also, the definition of "sex offender" is very broad in the U.S. An 18 year old guy who received a nude photo of his 16 year old girlfriend on his phone could be a sex offender. We're not just talking about rapists and child molesters here.

jhermsmeyer• 14 years ago

Right to anonymity? Convicted felons lose their right to own a gun. Some might never use one to commit a crime, but they still lose that right.

This is no different. It is not reasonable to call this a slippery slope. These people were convicted of predatory crimes against children, and those of us who do not commit such crimes have nothing to fear as regards our anonymity until and unless we commit similar crimes.

Not all punishments end when you're let out of prison. Nor should they.

Judge blocks California’s new ban on anonymity for sex offenders

Related Stories