[an error occurred while processing this directive]
MA Supreme Court allows online sex registry
posted by Adam on 09:47 AM August 4th, 2004
Inequality CJ writes "The same state supreme court (MA) that ruled that the unique institution of heterosexual marriage violated the rights of gays/lesbians, and also denies the natural parental rights of fathers to be involved in their own children’s lives with custodial privileges - today ruled that the right for widespread public access of level three sex offender information on the internet including pictures, names and addresses is “an 'apt fit' to contemporary life.” This was a unanimous decision (7-0) with the understanding that this ruling violated the liberty and privacy rights of a person accused and found guilty of a Level 3 sex crime (and who also served their sentence). It was also noted and accepted that by publishing this information could lead to harassment or even vigilantism. Rulings like this open the doors for the further dilution of liberty and privacy rights of citizens as precedent has been set, and socio-political interest groups have been empowered by this decision. For issues relating to gender, father rights and male citizenship and liberty, this is a milestone ruling as it will likely start trickling down into lower courts. This is not an argument to protect criminals, but rather a statement concerning "what next?" An apt quote: "In Germany the Nazis first came for the Communists and I didn't object because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't object because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't object because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't object because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me." Article here"

Mary Kay Letourneau Update | False accusations (India)  >

  
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Semi-relevant cartoon (Score:1)
by EvilPundit on 06:09 PM August 4th, 2004 EST (#1)
(User #1661 Info) http://evilpundit.com
This isn't really a comment on the article -- though it does have some bearing on the attitudes behind the court's decision. I just thought that some people here might appreciate this cartoon.
-- Evil Pundit of Doom!
agree... (Score:1)
by wjcnf on 06:36 PM August 4th, 2004 EST (#2)
(User #1730 Info)
Sorry but I think sex offender registry is a good idea. As a certain pedophile female teacher shows us, sex offenders are often repeat offenders even after they serve jail time.

It's important to know who your children may be coming into contact with.

Is this really the issue? I don't think so. What we need is to focus on getting female AND male sex offenders listed (are they not already? - I dont know).

AND we need to focus on stopping the false allegations against men who are wrongly labelled sex offenders.

I have no sympathy for rapists or child molesters nor do I have any sympathy for their loss of rights and privacy.
Re:agree... (Score:1)
by Gang-banged on 08:48 PM August 4th, 2004 EST (#3)
(User #1714 Info)
Sadly, too many fathers are being falsely accused of child abuse, simply to prevent them access to their own children after divorce. Allow this to happen and soon we shall see all those fathers listed, albeit probably innocent men.

As you must be aware, 96% of Rape allegations are not proved, and this when they know they will be properly cross-examined. So, knowing they will not have to prove anything in a Family Court, what level of False Allegations do you imagine might be the routine ? ? ?
Re:agree... (Score:0)
by Anonymous User on 09:57 PM August 4th, 2004 EST (#4)
Where is the line drawn with regards to putting someone's information up when they commit a crime? Eventually everyone's name will be up there, and that is a whole lot of people since apparently 3% of the people in the United States are in jail.

There are worse things then putting a penis into a vagina or anus by force it seems. Put their names up there too, so we can all have a greater chance to find someone to be vigalanties to.
Feminists want an expansion to Megan's law (Score:1)
by LSBeene on 11:33 PM August 4th, 2004 EST (#5)
(User #1387 Info)
I understand wanting to stop pedophiles, but consider who gets Level 3 and who doesn't (consider the teacher Mary J Lotourno)

Here is a feminist saying we should expand Megan's Law and Sex Abusers Registries to ALL of those: EVEN THE ACCUSED AND AQQUITTED
http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/08/columns/fl.hilden.m egans.law/index.html

Understand, the feminists use a multi-prong attack. One asks for sex offender registries to be public, while another asks for even the AQQUITTED to be ON the registry.

Give it some thought

Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
Re:Feminists want an expansion to Megan's law (Score:1)
by Konovan on 11:24 AM August 5th, 2004 EST (#7)
(User #1754 Info)
The best proof that feminists are insane is that they want a mere accusation be enough to punish "evil men" and that they want to shift the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused (see this stupid petition).

Their plans will create a "Salem Witch Trial" type of atmosphere. And, remember, it was young girls throwing out accusations against the poor and powerless that caused the whole thing. (People in the "good part" of Salem had little to fear.)
Typical (Score:1)
by LSBeene on 03:39 PM August 5th, 2004 EST (#8)
(User #1387 Info)
They know that men will rarely REPORT it, and even if they do and initiate the divorce they'll likely lose the kids ...

and now they want a change in the presumption of innocence. Did you READ those comments. And they say MRAs are "woman haters" because we "dare" to point out the LAW or that women abuse too.

Typical bullsh*t.

Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
The petition (Score:0)
by Anonymous User on 07:11 PM August 5th, 2004 EST (#9)

Some of the comments on the petition are revealing: see comments #21, #25, #29, and #34. Those who disagree with the petition can talk about it here.

To be sure, the effectiveness of online petitions is very questionable. Even large numbers of names and addresses can be faked. Hopefully nothing will come of this petition.


Re:The petition (Score:1)
by Konovan on 12:12 PM August 6th, 2004 EST (#10)
(User #1754 Info)
I already knew that most online petitions are completely useless. I just wanted to show some of the craziness out there.
Re:The petition (Score:0)
by Anonymous User on 07:07 PM August 6th, 2004 EST (#11)

There was nothing wrong with mentioning the petition. It was a good example of what some people think in terms of extreme ideas.


In the meantime, take a look at signatures #47 and #48 on the petition. Though the comments are long, the latter part of #47 says some interesting things about the idea of special privileges and oppression that can result. Some of those who are signing do not seem to totally agree with the petition...


Steven B's comment (Score:1)
by LSBeene on 08:26 PM August 6th, 2004 EST (#12)
(User #1387 Info)
Was from me by the way.

L. Steven Beene II. = LSBeene

Just saying so we have full disclosure.

I hope it wakes her up.

Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
Off-topic: this is how the quote really goes (Score:0)
by Anonymous User on 02:05 AM August 5th, 2004 EST (#6)
It's one of my favorite quotes, and it's from Reverend Martin Niemoeller:

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

[an error occurred while processing this directive]