Government Subpoena of MySpace

[Hearsay]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,272153,00.html

 

I am troubled by this. I would like everyone's thoughts.

[scooterbob]

I would agree that it is somewhat troubling to me. However, I come down on the side of protecting the vulnerable. Convicted sex offenders are, with few exceptions, still very dangerous predators on society. When it is all weighed, I believe that certain groups should, because of their past conduct, forfeit some of the basic rights that are preserved for the rest of our citizens.

 

In other words, if you commit the act, you pay the price. And let me add that I don't buy into the argument of those who would say that this is merely opening Pandora's Box. That argument has no credibility and somewhere along the line we must protect the innocent.

[02Ram54]

My problem is that our 'Registered Sex Offenders' laws treat child molesters and guys that go streaking one night in college as identical cases.

[scooterbob]

My problem is that our 'Registered Sex Offenders' laws treat child molesters and guys that go streaking one night in college as identical cases.

 

 

Should one be able to use the excuse that he is not really a threat to society because he only murdered one person rather than thirty-two like the boy at VPI?

 

I would use the principle of assumption of the risk.

[02Ram54]

Should one be able to use the excuse that he is not really a threat to society because he only murdered one person rather than thirty-two like the boy at VPI?

 

I would use the principle of assumption of the risk.

I can't believe you're even comparing it.

[scooterbob]

Actually, I am not comparing the two. I am using an extreme example to make a point.

 

You missed the point so I'll try another. One is not a little bit pregnant. She is either pregnant or she is not pregnant. If she is pregnant, she assumed the risk and, I believe, gave up her "freedom of choice" at that time. She must, or should, live with the consequences of her act.

 

I would also question your analogy. I don't believe that, in reality, very many "streakers" are convicted as sex offenders. Your example is, shall we say, as extreme as is mine in regard to murderers.

[02Ram54]

That's a complete botched job of an argument.

 

You've thrown out a wild analogy (two now, actually.) I've offered a concrete example of a crime that lands you as on a sex offender registry. That's not an analogy at all.

 

The fact is, if the law impedes civil liberty, then we have to consider the ramifications, despite the cries for 'full speed ahead' from well meaning but ill-informed people.

 

And what do you think streakers get convicted of? They get convicted of indecent exposure.

[Hearsay]

I would like to return to the Pandora's Box argument. I am not troubled by the seeking out of registered sex offenders. What I am troubled by is the 1) COMPELLED disclosure 2) from a private entity 3) of information as of yet UNKNOWN to the government 4) for purposes that do not appear to be clear.

 

Let me create my own analogy:

 

I make a threat on BGP to overthrow the government. Is the threat real? Is it immediate? Who knows? However, the government, claiming the heightened state of security since 9/11, seeks to compel the Guru to disclose my identity. Online protection of identity I submit is as central today as it was when Ben Franklin wrote under nom de plum during the Revolution.

 

Or another, we'll call it micro-analogy, this one closer to scooterbob's heart. We all agree (well, at least from a legal standpoint) that recruiting is "BAD." 237 people around the state claim that attempts were made by Trinity High School to recruit innocent children. The victims appeal to the Governor, who issues a subpoena duces tecum to Trinity to disclose copies of all correspondence mailed out to anyone during the past three years, so they can search randomly to see if any such letters were mailed. Simultaneously, the Governor's office queries Trinity as to what "efforts" it has made to patrol its supporters.

 

Talk amongst yourselves.

[HHSDad]

What they're asking for is just plain goofy. Do you even have to give your correct name and address to get on myspace? Its an unnecessary and inefficient request by the states.

[scooterbob]

We can all post analogies. Most, including mine, are immaterial to the issue. The issue deals with convicted sex offenders who are on the registry of sex offenders. I am confident in saying that intoxicated college sophomores who "streak" across the football field while under the influence of JTS Brown or JW Dant are not included as convicted sex offenders appearing on the registry of such offenders.

 

In this instance, I fully support the proposition of protecting the innocent, most of whom are children, from these convicted sex offenders. I don't give a tinkers you know what about protecting the freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of expression, privacy rights, or any whatever other right you may mention or create for these individuals.

 

I don't ask anyone to agree with me although I suspect that many in society do so.

 

I have often argued in various venues, formal and informal, of the need to put a little less concern on "rights" and a little more concern on "responsibility". I submit that such an approach would greatly benefit this country and its citizens.

 

As for Heresay's recruiting analogy, I must admit that I don't personally oppose recruiting. However, I do understand that such practices violate the rules of KHSAA. Of course, as with the rest of life, some get caught and punished, most do not get caught and thrive, and still others seem to be above the law. Very much like life in general. But, then, that is another discussion which may well require a production of documents.:thumb:

[02Ram54]

We can all post analogies. Most, including mine, are immaterial to the issue. The issue deals with convicted sex offenders who are on the registry of sex offenders. I am confident in saying that intoxicated college sophomores who "streak" across the football field while under the influence of JTS Brown or JW Dant are not included as convicted sex offenders appearing on the registry of such offenders.

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:eylies1q7nQJ:www.appa-net.org/revisitingmegan.pdf+mooning+%22sex+offender+registry%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4&lr=lang_en

In another example from Michigan (where juvenile sex offenders are registered), an 18-year-old male, who engaged in a "senior prank" of "mooning" the school principal was convicted of indecent exposure, had to register with the state for 25 years, and has his name, address, and crime publicly posted (Rosenberg, 2000).

[scooterbob]

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:eylies1q7nQJ:www.appa-net.org/revisitingmegan.pdf+mooning+%22sex+offender+registry%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4&lr=lang_en

 

In my opinion, Freeman-Longo's article is more of a commentary seeking to influence opinions rather than an article relating factual information. I am not familiar with Freeman-Longo so, although I have suspicions, I can't fairly conclude that he has an agenda. However, on the one hand, he severely overplays the mistreatment of "innocent people".

 

Nonetheless, I am neither impressed nor moved by his commentary. I still come down firmly in support of the protection of children over the rights of convicted offenders.

[BoondockSaint]

What they're asking for is just plain goofy. Do you even have to give your correct name and address to get on myspace? Its an unnecessary and inefficient request by the states.

The only valid item you have to present is an email address for confirmation of your registration with the site.

[sportsfan41]

Should one be able to use the excuse that he is not really a threat to society because he only murdered one person rather than thirty-two like the boy at VPI?

 

I would use the principle of assumption of the risk.

 

Yeh man that's kinda a rough assumption. I did go streaking once, on a beach over spring break, after a few too many drinking games. I would hope someone wouldn't put me in the same category as a "crazy drunk" or even worse a sexual predator, perhaps I'm wrong though.

[scooterbob]

When all is said, I suppose it just depends on which group we wish to protect, which group we wish to regulate, and whose "rights" should receive priority.

 

Although those concerned about streakers are, I believe, overreacting, if we "inconvenience" a dozen or so of them (and it would be no more than an "inconvenience" assuming they are not guilty of worse crimes) in order to save one child from a real sexual predator, I would say the end clearly justifies the means.

 

As I said before, I support civil responsibility far more than civil rights.