Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Culture

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

Katherine Mangu-Ward | 8.14.2009 2:49 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

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. 

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Are Health Insurers the Enemy?

Katherine Mangu-Ward is editor in chief of Reason.

CultureScience & TechnologyInternetSex
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (26)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. brotherben   16 years ago

    Is that a fishnet body stocking!

    Oh My ???

  2. Boston   16 years ago

    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.

  3. Sandi   16 years ago

    I took a shit in Illinois once.

  4. BeesinTheBrain   16 years ago

    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.

  5. Griff   16 years ago

    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

  6. I knew it!   16 years ago

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

  7. Barry-O the ASL Ape (transcrib   16 years ago

    BARRY-O HATE CLICK CLICK TOUCH TOUCH

    MOVIE SPACE MAN LOVE KID FACE MESSY MESSY BANANA

  8. brotherben   16 years ago

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

  9. brotherben   16 years ago

    arrrrgggggh

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

    The RNC site?

  10. jtuf   16 years ago

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

  11. jtuf   16 years ago

    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.

  12. jtuf   16 years ago

    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.

  13. I knew it!   16 years ago

    H&R.

  14. Drunkenatheist   16 years ago

    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.

  15. EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy   16 years ago

    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.

  16. Michael Ejercito   16 years ago

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

  17. Matt   16 years ago

    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.

  18. The One   16 years ago

    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 @ http://www.oncefallen.com

  19. Internment camps   16 years ago

    "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?

  20. John   16 years ago

    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.

  21. Art-P.O.G.   16 years ago

    Is that a fishnet body stocking!

    Yeah, Predator's a kinky mofo, NTTAWWT.

    Predator or Predatress?

  22. Jim Walsh   16 years ago

    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...

  23. raaghu   16 years ago

    hai

  24. SOIssues   15 years ago

    http://sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com

  25. dan   15 years ago

    With residency restrictions of sex offenders, I'm surprised no ones tested their constitutionality in the courts under the idea that by forcing sex offenders to live in a more constrained geographical area, the law is putting a larger and undue burden of risk on the children that live in the same geographical area.

    Meaning, that by passing laws to protect children in one neighborhood or town, they are increasing the per capita of sex offender to child in another, and subsequently putting those children at an increased risk.

    I would expect that poorer cities, or neighborhoods would have less infrastructure (parks, schools, day care, etc) and would make sex offender residency attractive to those who the laws apply. The ultimate affect being, that the poor, or disadvantaged are being put in an increasing level of risk by proxy of the fact they are disadvantaged. While children, and citizens of more influential cities, or neighborhoods that have extensive infrastructure would be given a buffer simply because they are wealthier.

    I know residency restrictions in some states have been challenged on of property rights and ownership, but I don't know if anything like this has ever been tested.

  26. Facebook of sex   15 years ago

    Apparently in some states actuality bent with a pro agency you accept to be active up for the sex blackmailer registry. I agnosticism Illinois is one of them.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Brickbat: Cursing Ain't Allowed in School

Charles Oliver | 5.19.2025 4:00 AM

Are the News Media in Their Onion Era?

Joe Lancaster | From the June 2025 issue

Alton Brown on Cultural Appropriation, Ozempic, and the USDA

Nick Gillespie | From the June 2025 issue

James Comey's Deleted '86 47' Instagram Post Is Obviously Protected by the First Amendment

Billy Binion | 5.16.2025 4:48 PM

New Montana Law Blocks the State From Buying Private Data To Skirt the Fourth Amendment

Joe Lancaster | 5.16.2025 4:05 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!