Judge strikes down part of Patriot Act

[GaryC 7]

No wonder they are so passionate about protecting other scumbags rights..

Someone could probably find child porn on your computer if they really wanted to find it.

Are you saying you've never browsed a porn website? Are you sure all the girls you saw

were 18 and older?

No I don't and no you wouldn't find kiddy porn on my computer.

That's what you think.

Hehe, I bow to your omnipotence God.

[mawilson 2,133]

Hehe, I bow to your omnipotence God.

You can go to a "normal" porn site and sometimes get popup windows with pictures of

young girls. Even if you don't look at them and close the windows right away, the browser

still saves the images on your hard drive.

[GaryC 7]

Hehe, I bow to your omnipotence God.

You can go to a "normal" porn site and sometimes get popup windows with pictures of

young girls. Even if you don't look at them and close the windows right away, the browser

still saves the images on your hard drive.

Since I don't EVER go to porn sites then it isn't something that I can have happen to me.

ETA... I don't get popups, as they are blocked and my firewall blocks such things.

Edited September 6, 2007 by GaryC

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

Child molesters have the same rights as you and me.

are you referring to convicted or accused?

Accused, as well as those who have been convicted and released from incarceration .

not true. those convicted and released must, in many states, notify the police of their current address.

last i knew of, joe average citizen does not have to do that.

[mawilson 2,133]

Child molesters have the same rights as you and me.

are you referring to convicted or accused?

Accused, as well as those who have been convicted and released from incarceration .

not true. those convicted and released must, in many states, notify the police of their current address.

last i knew of, joe average citizen does not have to do that.

I know and I think that's wrong.

[mawilson 2,133]

Since I don't EVER go to porn sites then it isn't something that I can have happen to me.

Most people do, however.

"According to comScore Media Metrix estimates, pornographic sites had 70,689,000

unique visitors in April 2005, which compares with 164,961,000 total unique visitors

to the Internet that month."

"Insight Express conducted an online survey of more than 200 consumers about their

perceived usage of online porn. Amazingly, 67 percent of the respondents acknowledged

visiting adult websites. Interestingly, the split was much higher among men (85 percent)

than women (50 percent)."

"Nearly a fifth of all Internet usage involves pornographic content."

publications.mediapost.com

Since I don't EVER go to porn sites then it isn't something that I can have happen to me.

ETA... I don't get popups, as they are blocked and my firewall blocks such things.

They are not really popups per se - they usually open when you close your current window.

You close the window, a new one opens. You keep closing them and new ones keep

opening. The only way to get rid of them is to kill the browser process in Task Manager.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

Child molesters have the same rights as you and me.

are you referring to convicted or accused?

Accused, as well as those who have been convicted and released from incarceration .

not true. those convicted and released must, in many states, notify the police of their current address.

last i knew of, joe average citizen does not have to do that.

I know and I think that's wrong.

i don't see anything wrong with it. perhaps you can explain why you think it's wrong.

[mawilson 2,133]

i don't see anything wrong with it. perhaps you can explain why you think it's wrong.

I think it's wrong that a person has to register annually and carry this stigma

for the rest of his life, even though he might have done something as harmless

as sleeping with his 17-year-old girlfriend when he was 21.

I'd be ok with it if the registration was mandatory for, say, 5 or 10 years - to

make sure the person does not reoffend, but there has to be a limit.

It's one of the reasons for the vicious circle of persistent offending. A person

who is stigmatized, segregated or excluded is more likely to engage in further

deviant activity or join subcultural groups of similarly stigmatized outcasts than

someone who is allowed to reenter society.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

i don't see anything wrong with it. perhaps you can explain why you think it's wrong.

I think it's wrong that a person has to register annually and carry this stigma

for the rest of his life, even though he might have done something as harmless

as sleeping with his 17-year-old girlfriend when he was 21.

I'd be ok with it if the registration was mandatory for, say, 5 or 10 years - to

make sure the person does not reoffend, but there has to be a limit.

It's one of the reasons for the vicious circle of persistent offending. A person

who is stigmatized, segregated or excluded is more likely to engage in further

deviant activity or join subcultural groups of similarly stigmatized outcasts than

someone who is allowed to reenter society.

and what if it is not a case like that you cite above - 17 yo girl 21 yo guy? specifically, expand the difference in ages a bit or more and you'd still be ok with that?

if you had kids, would you want to know if your next door neighbor was a convicted pedophile?

even if you don't have kids, do you not consider it to be your civic duty to know where they are so you'd be more aware of things in your neighborhood - such as a neighbor not watching their kids very well and meanwhile, those same kids are playing in that person's yard?

Edited September 6, 2007 by charlesandnessa

[mawilson 2,133]

and what if it is not a case like that you cite above - 17 yo girl 21 yo guy? specifically, expand the difference in ages a bit or more and you'd still be ok with that?

If you want my opinion, 14 and younger I have a problem with. In this day and age,

15-year-old girls are old enough to sleep with whomever they want, including dirty

50-year-old men.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

i don't see anything wrong with it. perhaps you can explain why you think it's wrong.

I think it's wrong that a person has to register annually and carry this stigma

for the rest of his life, even though he might have done something as harmless

as sleeping with his 17-year-old girlfriend when he was 21.

I'd be ok with it if the registration was mandatory for, say, 5 or 10 years - to

make sure the person does not reoffend, but there has to be a limit.

It's one of the reasons for the vicious circle of persistent offending. A person

who is stigmatized, segregated or excluded is more likely to engage in further

deviant activity or join subcultural groups of similarly stigmatized outcasts than

someone who is allowed to reenter society.

and what if it is not a case like that you cite above - 17 yo girl 21 yo guy? specifically, expand the difference in ages a bit or more and you'd still be ok with that?

if you had kids, would you want to know if your next door neighbor was a convicted pedophile?

even if you don't have kids, do you not consider it to be your civic duty to know where they are so you'd be more aware of things in your neighborhood - such as a neighbor not watching their kids very well and meanwhile, those same kids are playing in that person's yard?

Do you consider it your civic duty to know where every repeat offending criminal is living in your neighbourhood?

[Caladan 19]

i don't see anything wrong with it. perhaps you can explain why you think it's wrong.

I think it's wrong that a person has to register annually and carry this stigma

for the rest of his life, even though he might have done something as harmless

as sleeping with his 17-year-old girlfriend when he was 21.

I'd be ok with it if the registration was mandatory for, say, 5 or 10 years - to

make sure the person does not reoffend, but there has to be a limit.

It's one of the reasons for the vicious circle of persistent offending. A person

who is stigmatized, segregated or excluded is more likely to engage in further

deviant activity or join subcultural groups of similarly stigmatized outcasts than

someone who is allowed to reenter society.

and what if it is not a case like that you cite above - 17 yo girl 21 yo guy? specifically, expand the difference in ages a bit or more and you'd still be ok with that?

if you had kids, would you want to know if your next door neighbor was a convicted pedophile?

even if you don't have kids, do you not consider it to be your civic duty to know where they are so you'd be more aware of things in your neighborhood - such as a neighbor not watching their kids very well and meanwhile, those same kids are playing in that person's yard?

We've had this on threads before, but I think the list serves to heighten hysteria more than it leads to any practical goals. I doubt very much that people would encourage their children to take candy from strangers or play alone in the neighbor's house in the absence of such a list. Plus, stranger rape is very, very uncommon. Most abuse is done by someone known well to the parents and the child; if you're serious about preventing child abuse, worry less about the strangers in the alley and more about friendly uncle Tom or daddy's hunting buddy or mommy's new boyfriend.

It's not being soft on crime. If the person is honestly that dangerous that they're likely to re-offend, then they shouldn't be allowed out of jail. (Because all it means is that they'll move to neighborhoods where people don't pay attention. I think child abuse is a problem generally, not just when it's in my neighborhood.) Period. If they're not that dangerous, then they've done their time and their past is no more my business than it would be had they been convicted of a drug crime or car theft.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Wondering if anyone else saw that Kate Winslet movie Little Children, or read the book...

[Peikko 1,575]

We've had this on threads before, but I think the list serves to heighten hysteria more than it leads to any practical goals. I doubt very much that people would encourage their children to take candy from strangers or play alone in the neighbor's house in the absence of such a list. Plus, stranger rape is very, very uncommon. Most abuse is done by someone known well to the parents and the child; if you're serious about preventing child abuse, worry less about the strangers in the alley and more about friendly uncle Tom or daddy's hunting buddy or mommy's new boyfriend.

It's not being soft on crime. If the person is honestly that dangerous that they're likely to re-offend, then they shouldn't be allowed out of jail. (Because all it means is that they'll move to neighborhoods where people don't pay attention. I think child abuse is a problem generally, not just when it's in my neighborhood.) Period. If they're not that dangerous, then they've done their time and their past is no more my business than it would be had they been convicted of a drug crime or car theft.

Good points and very well made. Just to add, our glorious media is probably responsible for this idea that having lists of criminals somehow make us safer. Rather sad in my opinion.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

We've had this on threads before, but I think the list serves to heighten hysteria more than it leads to any practical goals. I doubt very much that people would encourage their children to take candy from strangers or play alone in the neighbor's house in the absence of such a list. Plus, stranger rape is very, very uncommon. Most abuse is done by someone known well to the parents and the child; if you're serious about preventing child abuse, worry less about the strangers in the alley and more about friendly uncle Tom or daddy's hunting buddy or mommy's new boyfriend.

It's not being soft on crime. If the person is honestly that dangerous that they're likely to re-offend, then they shouldn't be allowed out of jail. (Because all it means is that they'll move to neighborhoods where people don't pay attention. I think child abuse is a problem generally, not just when it's in my neighborhood.) Period. If they're not that dangerous, then they've done their time and their past is no more my business than it would be had they been convicted of a drug crime or car theft.

Good points and very well made. Just to add, our glorious media is probably responsible for this idea that having lists of criminals somehow make us safer. Rather sad in my opinion.

More specifically, its raised what is a relatively rare crime (again more from the 'evil stranger' POV) to a national epidemic.