Unjust and Ineffective Sex Laws Move Online

http://www.flickr.com/photos/metrix_feet/ / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

I was in the doctor’s office last week (I injured my shoulder) browsing the magazines, and the cover story of The Economist caught my eye. The story was “Sex Laws: Unjust and Ineffective” and it’s an in-depth look at how we classify and punish sex offenders in this country. And, as the title suggests, we don’t do it that well.

As I mentioned in a previous entry, I have a BA in Criminal Justice. Although it’s not the main focus of my work these days, I maintain more than a passing interest in the issues regarding the law, the courts, and the prison system.

It’s never been popular to be against sex offender laws. Certainly, no politician could ever get elected (or re-elected) by being against them. But thankfully I am not a politician. And I am, for the most part, against the current laws most states have regarding sex offenders.

There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of terrible stories about children being harmed by real predators — including Megan Kanka (for whom Megan’s Law is named after) and Adam Walsh. But just as real are the stories of people who are branded sex offenders for what most people would believe are minor offenses. According to the Economist:

A report by Sarah Tofte of Human Rights Watch, a pressure group, found that at least five states required men to register if they were caught visiting prostitutes. At least 13 required it for urinating in public (in two of which, only if a child was present). No fewer than 29 states required registration for teenagers who had consensual sex with another teenager. And 32 states registered flashers and streakers.

These are not violent offenders. These people are not harming others. And they are certainly not harming children. Yet most people automatically assume that all sex offenders are violent child rapists and molesters. And why wouldn’t people paint all sex offenders with the same big brush? Their government and laws certainly do. Again from the Economist:

The Georgia Sex Offender Registration Review Board, an official body, assessed a sample of offenders on the registry last year and concluded that 65% of them posed little threat. Another 30% were potentially threatening, and 5% were clearly dangerous.

Yet there they all are, lumped into one big pile and treated as if they are all the same. And in most states (and thanks to a 2006 law passed by the US Congress, soon all states) these registries are available online for anyone to peruse, map, and generally freak out over. This is also ultimately ineffective. More from the Economist:

Publicly accessible sex-offender registries are intended to keep people safe. But there is little evidence that they do. A study by Kristen Zgoba of the New Jersey Department of Corrections found that the state’s system for registering sex offenders and warning their neighbours cost millions of dollars and had no discernible effect on the number of sex crimes. Restricting where sex offenders can live is supposed to keep them away from potential victims, but it is doubtful that this works. A determined predator can always catch a bus.

So, at this point you’re probably asking yourself why, outside of just stating my opinion, this is on my blog. It’s because of all the hysteria surrounding sex offenders on social networks like Facebook and MySpace. It’s about Facebook removing registered sex offenders from its registrations. Which, on the surface, sounds like a good idea. We want to keep kids safe online, right?

Well, no. Because again, it’s very easy to get on the registered sex offender list for something as simple as urinating in public. And most of the offenses that land a person on the sex offenders list have nothing to do with children. And most of the people on sex offender lists pose little threat.

But it’s more than that. The bias and fear-mongering are right there in the words they use to describe the situation and the reasoning for it.  From MSNBC:

“The message … is [that] Facebook has an equal stake in solving this problem of protecting children,” said Blumenthal, who along with North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper has led an effort remove sex offenders from the social networking Web sites.”They have an equal stake in the predator problem and its solution.”

What they won’t tell you is that registered sex offenders make up approximately the same percentage of Facebook and MySpace registration databases as they do the general population. Barring all registered sex offenders from social media won’t protect children any more than requiring someone who was caught visiting a prostitute to live 1000 feet away from a school protects children. But none of that sounds like good PR.

I think we all genuinely want to keep children safe from predators. But we have to do what reasoned research tells us is right, instead of taking the shotgun approach that we have in the last few years. We need to act logically, not out of panic or outrage. Treating all registered sex offenders like lepers and cutting them off from the online world is just not the best way to achieve the goal, and it’s incredibly unfair to the people who get lumped in along the way.

Moderation: When Good Tools are Used for Bad Reasons

Disemvoweling has been around since Teresa Nielsen Hayden invented it in 2002, although it’s only gained popularity in recent years. The concept is simple — remove the vowels from a profane, hateful, or otherwise dis-allowed comment in order to take the “heat’ out of it. The original post remains, and you can get the sense of what it originally said without needing to endure it in its entirety.

It’s one of the popular tools of moderation, but like all moderation tools, it’s not right for all situations, all reasons, or all communities. A tool is just a tool — what matters is how you use it. What matters more is WHY you use it.

As I was reading Consumerist this afternoon, I came across a story about Hearst telling a blogger to stop using the disemvoweling tool they have on their blogs. What struck me at first was that there was a lawyer somewhere in Hearst making an argument against using this tool. This seemed odd to me, so I clicked the link in their post that went to the blogger’s entry on being told to stop disemvoweling people, to see what his reaction was. What I found was a whole second layer to the story, and the real lesson here.

In his TimesUnion.com blog, Matt Baumgartner discussed why he was told to stop disemvoweling, and why he doesn’t want to do it.

For the record, I like taking away people’s vowels when they have something negative to say about me or someone else.  It feels empowering.  And it’s one of the few joys this blog brings me.  When I see someone get even more angry after they see their vowels were removed, I laugh and then dance around my room.

And, here’s the real problem. A good tool used in the wrong way. Disemvoweling a post for breaking the community standards/rules of posting/whatever you call them. (You do have some sort of community standards, right? If not, get some ASAP.) But taking any negative moderation action on a comment or post simply because they disagree with you or say something negative about you is just wrong. If you are that thin skinned, and especially if negative moderation is one of the few joys you have, then you need to take a step back and decide if blogging/posting/moderating/community management is really right for you. It’s not about revenge or power, it’s about creating a good interactive space for everyone to participate in.

You will get way farther with people who disagree with you and think negatively about you by engaging them head-on in your own space. I’ve seen people start out to be harsh critics and turn out to be raving fans, and all it took was a little interaction and reassurance that someone’s listening.

We all have our bad days and our pet peeves. I’d be lying if I said that I’ve never smiled and giggled as I’ve banned someone from a community because I was so happy to see them go. But it’s about wielding the power fairly and equally, and not getting drunk from the power. Which Mr. Baumgartner clearly has on his TimesUnion blog.

The tools you use don’t matter as much as the people using them.