3 ms·

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 impos

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.

gadders 14y ago
Why would you think that paedophiles, rapists etc should be allowed online anonymity? If you can't behave by the rules of civilised society, then I don't think it's that big a stretch that you lose some privileges.
- baconner 14y ago
  I'm one of the Californians who voted against this proposition. Why? Because once someone has served their time and their probation the idea is that the state is saying their debt has been paid and the state no longer believes them dangerous. If that's not the case then there's a problem elsewhere and you're just treating symptoms (futilely I might add). An even bigger problem is presented by the "etc." If it was the convicted child molester and rapist list that would be one thing but the etc contains a lot of other offenses that don't justify restrictions designed to stop child molesters from repeat offending. Maybe there should be a proposition to split the lists by the a Specific offenses so at least these measures could be targeted better. This prop also played fast and loose with the definition of sex offender IMO.
  - gadders 14y ago
    > Because once someone has served their time and their probation the idea is that the state is saying their debt has been paid and the state no longer believes them dangerous. I don't think this is strictly true, otherwise an "incurable" paedophile would never be released, regardless of whether they have completed their sentence. I take your point about the "etc". It needs to be serious, predatory offenders, not 15 year-olds sexting each other.
    - groby_b 14y ago
      Even serious paedophiles do have the right to political speech though. The problem is that online identity covers both.
      - gadders 14y ago
        They do, but I'd say they'd lost their privileges to anonymous online political speech, though, in the same way a persistent drink driver can permanently lose their driving license.
  - ineedtosleep 14y ago
    Voted against this as well. My main reason is from an article from the Economist[1] that has still left an impression on me to this day. [1] http://www.economist.com/node/14164614 http://www.economist.com/node/14164614
saurik 14y ago
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.)
- AlexMennen 14y ago
  > 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" They would be wrong. Anyone who has enough resources to get a proposition on the ballot has enough resources to get the legislature to pay attention to them. And something like prop 35 would pass in the legislature for the same reason it passed at the ballot box. But the legislature can make amendments.
  - saurik 14y ago
    The argument being that someone (not the voter in this example) may have specifically wanted that sex offender registration part, but didn't feel that that one single part would be juicy enough, and so instead managed to get it tacked on to a much larger campaign. For whatever reason it was included, however, as an individual voter, if you are for "increased punishment for human trafficking" but against that smaller part about sex offender username registration, you don't really have anything you can do other than decide "on the balance". (To be clear, I went into this in more detail, as I think you were interpreting me to say that the sex offender registration part was the way to push through the human trafficking change: I was attempting to imply the reverse, although I think the argument stands even if the parts are just considered related to many people, as you still must decide what to do if you agree with the first half but disagree with the second half.) As a specific example where I had to do this, I was for the changes being proposed to the California nexus tax formula that were on this same ballot, but was not certain if I agreed with having a large percentage of that new corporate income tax be earmarked specifically for clean energy (locking it away from education, infrastucture, or any number of other number of things it could be used for). However, as that part had a limited time horizon (five years), and as I felt the other change made sense, "on the balance" I decided to vote for that proposition.

gadders 14y ago

Why would you think that paedophiles, rapists etc should be allowed online anonymity? If you can't behave by the rules of civilised society, then I don't think it's that big a stretch that you lose some privileges.

baconner 14y ago
I'm one of the Californians who voted against this proposition. Why? Because once someone has served their time and their probation the idea is that the state is saying their debt has been paid and the state no longer believes them dangerous. If that's not the case then there's a problem elsewhere and you're just treating symptoms (futilely I might add). An even bigger problem is presented by the "etc." If it was the convicted child molester and rapist list that would be one thing but the etc contains a lot of other offenses that don't justify restrictions designed to stop child molesters from repeat offending. Maybe there should be a proposition to split the lists by the a Specific offenses so at least these measures could be targeted better. This prop also played fast and loose with the definition of sex offender IMO.
- gadders 14y ago
  > Because once someone has served their time and their probation the idea is that the state is saying their debt has been paid and the state no longer believes them dangerous. I don't think this is strictly true, otherwise an "incurable" paedophile would never be released, regardless of whether they have completed their sentence. I take your point about the "etc". It needs to be serious, predatory offenders, not 15 year-olds sexting each other.
  - groby_b 14y ago
    Even serious paedophiles do have the right to political speech though. The problem is that online identity covers both.
    - gadders 14y ago
      They do, but I'd say they'd lost their privileges to anonymous online political speech, though, in the same way a persistent drink driver can permanently lose their driving license.
- ineedtosleep 14y ago
  Voted against this as well. My main reason is from an article from the Economist[1] that has still left an impression on me to this day. [1] http://www.economist.com/node/14164614 http://www.economist.com/node/14164614

saurik 14y ago

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.)

AlexMennen 14y ago
> 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" They would be wrong. Anyone who has enough resources to get a proposition on the ballot has enough resources to get the legislature to pay attention to them. And something like prop 35 would pass in the legislature for the same reason it passed at the ballot box. But the legislature can make amendments.
- saurik 14y ago
  The argument being that someone (not the voter in this example) may have specifically wanted that sex offender registration part, but didn't feel that that one single part would be juicy enough, and so instead managed to get it tacked on to a much larger campaign. For whatever reason it was included, however, as an individual voter, if you are for "increased punishment for human trafficking" but against that smaller part about sex offender username registration, you don't really have anything you can do other than decide "on the balance". (To be clear, I went into this in more detail, as I think you were interpreting me to say that the sex offender registration part was the way to push through the human trafficking change: I was attempting to imply the reverse, although I think the argument stands even if the parts are just considered related to many people, as you still must decide what to do if you agree with the first half but disagree with the second half.) As a specific example where I had to do this, I was for the changes being proposed to the California nexus tax formula that were on this same ballot, but was not certain if I agreed with having a large percentage of that new corporate income tax be earmarked specifically for clean energy (locking it away from education, infrastucture, or any number of other number of things it could be used for). However, as that part had a limited time horizon (five years), and as I felt the other change made sense, "on the balance" I decided to vote for that proposition.