4 ms·

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

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

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