Sexual offense


Georgia goes after sex offender's internet passwords
Stores about sex offenders get my attention. But not for the reason you think.

I'm a naturist, I haven't made any secret of it here. There's enough plant cover in my back yard that I don't have to worry about an audience. It's tough to see in the windows of the house too.

Now if I got arrested for indecent exposure, I'd be labeled a sex offender. I'd be filed along with the rapists and pedophiles. Even though my only crime would have been to shed clothes.

In some places, ordering sex toys through the mail is a crime. In some places, anal sex is a crime. And I haven't even touched on things like BDSM yet.

Sex crimes are incredibly subjective.

I know of a few times when the lady was willing and not because she was drunk. That didn't stop her from claiming rape afterwards. It never happened to me, but I know guys it did happen to.

To hear some people say it, mere possession of pornography is enough to make you guilty of sex crimes.

That's why stories like this worry me.

Privacy advocates are questioning an aggressive Georgia law set to take effect Thursday that would require sex offenders to hand over Internet passwords, screen names and e-mail addresses.

Georgia joins a small band of states complying with guidelines in a 2006 federal law requiring authorities to track Internet addresses of sex offenders, but it is among the first to take the extra step of forcing its 16,000 offenders to turn in their passwords as well.

A federal judge ruled in September that a similar law in Utah violated the privacy rights of an offender who challenged it, though the narrow ruling only applied to one offender who had a military conviction on sex offenses but was never in Utah's court or prison system.

No one in Georgia has challenged the law yet, but critics say it threatens the privacy of sex offenders and burdens cash-strapped law enforcement officials.

"There's certainly a privacy concern," said Sara Totonchi of the Atlanta-based Southern Center for Human Rights. "This essentially will give law enforcement the ability to read e-mails between family members, between employers."

Pay special attention to this bit.

State Sen. Cecil Staton, who wrote the bill, said the measure is designed to keep the Internet safe for children. Authorities could use the passwords and other information to make sure offenders aren't stalking children online or chatting with them about off-limits topics.

Staton said although the measure may violate the privacy of sex offenders, the need to protect children "outweighs a lot of the rights of these individuals."

Got that? "We have to protect the children" outweighs the rights of the individuals.

It's way too easy to be falsely labeled a sex offender.

I wonder if this parent thought about that?

Here's what people forget. Well, actually, there is a whole list starting with "nudity does not equal sex."

This whole "protect the children" thing is a 20th Century invention. It didn't really take hold in America until after World War II.

And it's not universal.

That's very important to remember.

In accordance with this opinion, Augustine referred to the male and female sex organs as obscoenae partes (obscene parts) and viewed all "carnal" desire with barely concealed disgust. Moreover, he was convinced that all decent people everywhere felt the same way. Yet, in actual fact, his attitude was not universally shared even in his own time. There were still tribes in distant parts of the Roman empire who preserved their old "pagan" customs and delighted in group sex and various sexual displays. Thus, Augustine's statement about the "shame attending all sexual intercourse" was not really true. It was only much later, and only through Christian influence, that it became true for most Europeans. Outside of Europe, however, many societies developed very different sexual values. When, after centuries of isolation, Christian explorers finally discovered such societies, they were amazed and incredulous. For example, when Captain Cook came to Tahiti he was greatly surprised to find that the Tahitians had sexual intercourse in public and "gratified every appetite and passion before witnesses". Thus, he reported in his Account of a Voyage Around the World (1769):

“A young man, nearly six feet high, performed the rites of Venus with a little girl about 11 or 12 years of age, before several of our people and a great number of natives, without the least sense of its being indecent or improper, but, as appeared, in perfect conformity to the custom of the place. Among the spectators were several women of superior rank who . . . gave instructions to the girl how to perform her part, which, young as she was, she did not seem much to stand in need of.”

In spite of his consternation, however, Captain Cook apparently kept his composure and did not try to stop the performance. After all, he was not a moral crusader, but a practical Englishman, a seasoned world traveler, and a son of the Age of Enlightenment. It was left to the Christian missionaries of a later time to become outraged and to eradicate the traditional island customs. Indeed, one can easily imagine the effect the sexual spectacle would have had on Augustine, had he been able to witness it. One can also assume that it would not have changed his opinion. Instead of admitting that he had been proven wrong by the "shameless" islanders, he would probably have condemned them all as slaves of the devil.

Obviously I am not suggesting that adults go out and have sex with an 11 year old.

But I am pointing out that in a society that sexualizes girls from a very young age, there's some very screwy stuff going on.

In a country that can get excited because of an exposed nipple shield in a half-time show, somehow everyone forget the song lyrics.

And people are arrested because they have a glass dildo. Or because they dare to be bare.

For this, the State of Georgia wants passwords.

Just who gets to decide what is immoral or not?

See, that was a giveaway. That goes back to our talks on the roots of government power. I say it's not a real crime unless it inflicts measurable harm. Rape is a crime under that definition. Me exposing my hide in the summer sun isn't. And under that definition, most sexual offenders may be sexual but they aren't offensive.

We can't afford to let government make ethical decisions.

And we certainly can't trust them to do the right thing.

— NeoWayland

Posted: Mon - January 5, 2009 at 07:49 AM  Tag


 ◊  ◊   ◊  ◊ 

Random selections from NeoWayland's library


Pagan Vigil "Because LIBERTY demands more than just black or white"
© 2005 - 2009 All Rights Reserved