
Judge blocks California’s new ban on anonymity for sex offenders - shawndumas
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/11/california-judge-blocks-voter-approved-ban-on-anonymity-for-sex-offenders/
======
rubyrescue
What is so interesting to me is that it passed with 81% support. Seems to be a
class example of the "think of the children" argument run amok in that it's
impossible to enforce and vague enough to mean that every convicted sex
offender is breaking it every day.

~~~
saurik
The brunt of the proposed law was about "harsher punishments for human
trafficking" and that is how it was described on the ballot (from the official
voter's guide: "HUMAN TRAFFICKING. PENALTIES. INITIATIVE STATUTE."); the part
about sex offenders having to register their usernames on all of the online
services that they use was tacked on the end, related by way of pointing out
that the "sex crime" classification that then requires sex offender
registration "includ[es] some crimes involving human trafficking".

Many voters, thereby, probably did not even realize that this other aspect was
a consequence; those that did may have not cared enough to think about it (as
it doesn't affect them personally), and those that cared may have decided "on
the balance, in this flawed democratic system where I have to vote on this as
a single unit, I think the result is better despite this consequence" (I often
wish I could vote "I agree with these specific diff hunks" as opposed to "I
agree with this changeset" ;P).

(I say this not to defend the law, but as a way to try to explain why 81% of
the people in my state apparently voted for it; when I saw the number I was
thereby depressed, but not really surprised: human trafficking "sounds bad".
Also, the official "CON" argument blurb was "I provide erotic services, and
this (might) incorrectly label my son", which probably turned off a lot of
conservative voters in addition to being an argument many would call "far
fetched", even if it totally ends up happening.)

~~~
throwit1979
Another aspect is that there was exactly $0 in campaign funding to oppose the
proposition, whereas there was $3.7MM in favor of it.

Campaign contributions are public record, and nobody wants to be seen to be
supporting sex offenders. Instant social suicide.

Ref:
[http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition...](http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_35,_Ban_on_Human_Trafficking_and_Sex_Slavery_\(2012\))

~~~
saurik
Interestingly, with the vast majority of that (especially so once you factor
out some portion of the contributions that had been made to multiple
simultaneous campaigns, which ballotpedia can't separate), came from a single
person: Chris Kelly (former Chief Privacy Officer of Facebook).

------
greenyoda
This looks like a dangerous slippery slope. This year, it's sex offenders who
have to register their on-line identities with the police. But once they get
their database going, someone will have the bright idea to also add people
convicted of identity theft (who arguably pose an even more direct threat on
the internet), or mail fraud or securities fraud. And, of course, convicted
drug dealers might also try to sell drugs to kids on the web, so no anonymity
for them. In a few years, anyone convicted of the heinous offense of illegal
file sharing might also have to register their identities.

Also, the definition of "sex offender" is very broad in the U.S. An 18 year
old guy who received a nude photo of his 16 year old girlfriend on his phone
could be a sex offender. We're not just talking about rapists and child
molesters here.

------
jhermsmeyer
Right to anonymity? Convicted felons lose their right to own a gun. Some might
never use one to commit a crime, but they still lose that right.

This is no different. It is not reasonable to call this a slippery slope.
These people were convicted of predatory crimes against children, and those of
us who do not commit such crimes have nothing to fear as regards our anonymity
until and unless we commit similar crimes.

Not all punishments end when you're let out of prison. Nor should they.

