Banning Sex Offenders [Double Entry Journal #11]

In this article, the author, Larry Magid, is saying that the Illinois law banning anyone on the sex offender list from all social networking sites will be ineffective and is not just. He points out that many people on the list aren't what most people would call a "sex offender" and that the law should worry more about the ones that haven't gotton cought.

The edivence he provides is substantial. He lists some of the more ridiculous reasons a person might be considerd a "sex offender" and states that only 8 cases out of 9,934 of children who were sexually abused started out online.

When you hear "sex offender" you automatically think "rapist!" But, as this article points out, this is not always the case. Two teenagers engaging in sexual activity can be registered (29 states), as can someone who flashes or streakers- which is not unusal on a college campus like WVU (32 states). Should those people be banned from websites because of one night when they went a little crazy? I think the real issue here is not about banning sex offenders from social networking sites, but what classifies someone as a sex offender. When the definition of "sex offender" becomes more realistic and accurate, the laws regarding such things will be made more appropriate. Instead of debating about should sex offenders be banned, it should be what makes someone a sex offender. In my opinion, it's not someone who urnitates in public - how many guys do you know that have done that? (13 states) I mean, come on now.

Magid, L. (n.d.). Social-networking ban for sex offenders: Bad call? | Safe and Secure - CNET News. Technology News - CNET News. Retrieved November 3, 2011, from http://news.cnet.com/8301-19518_3-10309421-238.html