Fred Invited You to Join the Facebook Group "Illinois Sex Offenders"

Katherine Mangu-Ward | August 14, 2009

On Tuesday, Illinois made it a felony for sex offenders to sign up for social networking sites. 

The law will go into effect almost exactly one year after the release of a comprehensive report from Harvard which found that there is no increased risk of predation for kids on social networking sites. Period. 

Getting a job can be tough already for registered sex offenders—harder now, because they'll be blocked from many effective job search tools thanks to the law big blowzy definition of "social networking." The same goes for finding housing.

To be sure, some sex offenders are child raping scum. But if we really think such people can be trusted to do normal things in normal society, well, isn't that what prison is for?

And, as Reason has frequently noted, the list of sex offenders is an awful lot broader than your run-of-the-mill child raping scum. Restrictions placed on sex offenders too often miss their mark, thanks to an overly broad legal definition of the term. The Illinois social networking ban (or similar bans in other states) could include, for instance, teens who happened to get caught sexting, a 13-year-old who hooked up with a 12-year-old (she's not only an offender, she's also a victim!), public urinaters, and people who were simply accused of an offense.

But mostly, the ever-longer list of restrictions on who offenders can associate with, where they can live or work, and what they can do with their free time means a ever-larger number of ways to screw something up and wind up back in jail. In some cities, sex offenders are rounded up on Halloween to prevent them from preying on trick-or-treaters. Fail to show and you're in serious trouble. So now, in 2025, when the 13-year-old girl with the 12-year-old boyfriend innocently joins some future manifestation of Facebook before her high school reunion to laugh at how fat he has everyone has gotten, she could wind up in the slammer.

The definition of "social networking site in the law's language is sweeping:

“Social networking website” means an Internet website containing profile web pages of the members of the website that include the names or nicknames of such members, photographs placed on the profile web pages by such members, or any other personal or personally identifying information about such members and links to other profile web pages on social networking websites of friends or associates of such members that can be accessed by other members or visitors to the website. A social networking website provides members of or visitors to such website the ability to leave messages or comments on the profile web page that are visible to all or some visitors to the profile web page and may also include a form of electronic mail for members of the social networking website."

The folks over at Tech Liberation Front (happy fifth birthday guys!) see the bright side, hoping that a law targeted specifically at bad actors will stave off more onerous requirements for the rest of us, like tech mandates or age verification. True enough, but they must have been feeling especially optimistic due to their upcoming happy hour. 

Comments

|8.14.09 @ 3:18PM|#

Is that a fishnet body stocking!

Oh My ø¿ø

Boston|8.14.09 @ 3:35PM|#

Apparently in some states being caught with a pro means you have to be signed up for the sex offender registry. I doubt Illinois is one of them.

Sandi|8.14.09 @ 3:38PM|#

I took a shit in Illinois once.

BeesinTheBrain|8.14.09 @ 3:40PM|#

The law will go into effect almost exactly one year after the release of a comprehensive report from Harvard which found that there is no increased risk of predation for kids on social networking sites. Period.

It might actually be kinda handy if you read the Harvard report and not just a NYT summary. The report went out of its way to state that research into the threats were understudied and that more research was needed. It did however state that the threat seemed to be overblown.

|8.14.09 @ 4:05PM|#

I seen that dude in Chris Hansen's living room before...talk about an awkward silence.

"what the hell are you doing"

"what..the hell...are you?"

cue explosion

I knew it!|8.14.09 @ 4:06PM|#

So by that definition, this here is an antisocial networking site?

Barry-O the ASL Ape (transcrib|8.14.09 @ 4:24PM|#

BARRY-O HATE CLICK CLICK TOUCH TOUCH

MOVIE SPACE MAN LOVE KID FACE MESSY MESSY BANANA

|8.14.09 @ 4:43PM|#

So by that definition, this here is an antisocial networking site?

|8.14.09 @ 4:44PM|#

arrrrgggggh

So by that definition, this here is an antisocial networking site?


The RNC site?

jtuf|8.14.09 @ 5:08PM|#

The Economist had a cover article this week calling for reformation of our sex laws.

jtuf|8.14.09 @ 5:11PM|#

But if we really think such people can be trusted to do normal things in normal society, well, isn't that what prison is for?

In prison, they are removed from society. If the government lets them out but makes it impossible for them to establish normal lives, then politicians ready supply of weakened citizens to attack for political gain.

jtuf|8.14.09 @ 5:12PM|#

In prison, they are removed from society. If the government lets them out but makes it impossible for them to establish normal lives, then politicians have a ready supply of weakened citizens to attack for political gain.

I knew it! |8.14.09 @ 5:54PM|#

H&R.

Drunkenatheist|8.14.09 @ 6:01PM|#

LOL

So, Michael Vick has "served his time" and the mere suggestion of additional criminal or social punishment is just omg! awful, but some drunk dude who pissed on the side of a building deserves jail time, placed on a "we swear we're not doing vigilante's work for them" list, and now should be forbidden from contacting his friends and family via facebook? What fucking sense does this make?

This kills me. I've seen multiple friends and acquaintances simultaneously support keeping sex offenders off the internet while decrying anyone who voices a negative opinion about Vick (based on the dogfighting charges). That Venn Diagram of idiocy makes me want to gouge myself in the eyes so I will never again have to expose myself to it.

EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy|8.14.09 @ 6:32PM|#

Never read the Harvard eport, don't kno what's in it, but...

The report went out of its way to state that research into [TOPIC was] understudied and that more research was needed.

Every grant funded report every written has this paragraph in it. It's only meaning is "please send more money".

Trust me on this.

Michael Ejercito|8.14.09 @ 9:53PM|#

Why can not sex offenders be relocated to ann internment camp in California's Owens Valley?

Matt|8.14.09 @ 10:14PM|#

Some sex offender laws are insane. I have a friend who tends to get wasted and take a piss in public.

If he gets caught one more time he's a sex offender, no different than the guy who touched your son or daughter (I assume there are classifications, however, I don't think your neighbor is going to be cool with ANY kind of sex offender around their kids).

He's a good guy and a smart kid, he's just a huge drunk.

The One|8.15.09 @ 11:42AM|#

The law has a vague definition of "social networking site" which makes even places like this comment board off limits. This law will ultimately be struck down for vagueness. After all, there are many legitimate reasons to use social networks, such as job hunting, keeping up with long distance family members, or expressing your right to anonymous free speech on a comments board. *ex offender truth @ www.oncefallen.com

|8.15.09 @ 11:45AM|#

"Michael Ejercito | August 14, 2009, 9:53pm | #
Why can not sex offenders be relocated to ann internment camp in California's Owens Valley?"

Why can't we relocate idiot posters and MySpace users to internment camps?

John|8.15.09 @ 2:07PM|#

To be sure, some sex offenders are child raping scum. But if we really think such people can be trusted to do normal things in normal society, well, isn't that what prison is for?

No, apparently it's to lock up non-violent drug users.

Art-P.O.G.|8.16.09 @ 4:24AM|#

Is that a fishnet body stocking!

Yeah, Predator's a kinky mofo, NTTAWWT.

Predator or Predatress?

|8.16.09 @ 6:44PM|#

The law will go into effect almost exactly one year after the release of a comprehensive report from Harvard which found that there is no increased risk of predation for kids on social networking sites.

None of which really matters; the advocates jumping up and down yelling, "Megan Kanka! Megan Kanka!" is enough to trump these inconvenient facts...

raaghu|10.23.09 @ 3:22AM|#

hai