Larry Magid makes some valid points in his article, "Social-networking ban for sex offenders: Bad call?" He wrote this in response to an Illinois law banning anyone listed as a sex offender from participating in social net-working sites. The legislation is an example of a well-intentioned law to protect children but will have little impact. Magid cites sources that indicate that it is unlikely a predator will actually physically meet and harm a child as a result of conversing with them online. He suggests that many cases which involve intimacy are due to teenage girls actively seeking contact with young adult males. In such cases, the young adult males can be found guilty of being a sex offender regardless of whether any intimacy is consensual. Magid suggests that it may be unfair to ban someone under these circumstances from social-networking when the intent was not malicious. Other examples he gives that may be unfair include individuals labeled as sex offenders for silly acts like urinating in public and streakers. Being registered as a sex offender is harsh and carries with it the assumption that it must be for an aggregious act such as child molestation.
I understand the intent of the law, but Magid makes a very valid point that the law has far reaching consequences. The punishment does not necessarily fit the crime and perhaps the law should have been more explicit so that individuals convicted for lesser crimes (public urination, streaking, etc.) would not be banned from participating in social sites.
No comments:
Post a Comment