Setting A Standard For Sex Offender Advocacy

If you have been cyberstalked, cyberbullied, or fallen prey to the donation scams in the “name of advocacy”, I encourage you to contact your local law enforcement

Ever since the inception of the sex offender registry personal information of whereabouts, vehicles, jobs, schools, and other sensitive information is for the public to use at a cost that could leave registrants and family members vulnerable towards predatory behaviors by those that choose to use the registry as a cyberstalking tool. Recently I encountered trolling that quickly developed into a criminal cyberstalking incident that authorities alerted my family and me. Because it was a personal matter, there was no need to involve organizations or others. However, local deputies and authorities from other states suddenly changed that narrative as it came to my attention that organizations had been contacted with threats of intimidation made – and continues today. I brushed most of the noise off and went back to business as usual. But it was my family, my university, and my friends that saw significant safety concerns and decided to escalate the issue much further by contacting police to file a formal complaint.

Ethical Standards. Principles that when followed, promote values such as trust, good behavior, fairness, and/or kindness. There is not one consistent set of standards that all companies follow, but each company has the right to develop the standards that are meaningful for their organization.

Local law enforcement authorities sat me down and began asking lots of questions about my memberships with various registry organizations. It was then I started to take notice that something wasn’t quite right. I felt as if the mood was shifting that the very organizations I choose to represent may have aggressive or perhaps criminal behaviors associated with them? My complaint was quickly handed over to federal agents that peppered me with questions. I felt as if my association with advocacy had taken a wrong turn to become involved with a criminal organization meant to harm individuals. At least that was the perception I was presented. The information, evidence, and pages upon pages of graphic details dating back almost a decade were enough to make me think critically that perhaps some within advocacy wish to intimidate both externally and internally. Unlicensed, unregistered, fake company names with many pseudo names changed over the years to cyberstalk, cyberbully, and disruption of organizations. But it didn’t stop there. The same tactics were and are being used to target advocates from within the organization. If federal authorities were presenting this as a warning along with internet protocol addresses with locations, then the information provided by other organizations, people and a university was eye-opening as well into the criminal behaviors and practices that tarnish the reputation of law-abiding advocacy organizations and its membership. It was a very sad moment to learn a consistant pattern of cyberstalking and cyberbullying actions from within the registry community bringing an agenda of harm and harrassment fellow registry advocates.

Cyber-bullying is when a person is tormented, threatened, harassed, humiliated, embarrassed or otherwise targeted by another child, preteen, or teen using interactive and digital technologies, such as the Internet or through phones. It has to have a minor on both sides, or at least have been instigated by a minor against another minor. Once adults become involved, it becomes cyber-harassment or cyberstalking

Companies and organizations have a responsibility for maintaining a code of ethical and responsible behavior both for its officers but also its membership. If a person claims to be a member but hasnt ever maintained membership then isnt it the responsibulity of that organization to halt bad behaviors or fraudulent claims of being an active member? It is an open-ended question but presents a candid discussion as to membership criteria and perhaps separating a cult-like establishment branding. But when personal actions skirt a fine line between organizational and individual requirements, then it becomes a liability to the organization for not pushing back to protect its corporate integrity guidelines and active members. Organizations that fail to address improper or unethical behaviors are accepting the burden of the association not by membership, but by the actions of its members that perhaps sends the wrong message that illegal practices are acceptable – as long as we don’t know about it, or pretend not to acknowledge it. When law enforcement agencies paint a picture that some within registry advocacy borderlines hate speech can support it with documentation, facts, and evidence, then it creates a thin wedge “am I on the right side of advocacy?” It presents a surreal moment that perhaps questions why there are many divisions, factions, groups, posing under differing names but mainly under one or more umbrellas? To be on the right side of advocacy organisations must embrace member standards and conduct. Without such standards organizations cannot produce a standard to be reasonably heard or visible and allows leadership to become tainted by outside influence. I may be a member of the ACLU or other organizations, but I dont overstep my bounds by speaking on their behalf. Instead, I allow credible appointed professionals to do that leg of the work so that the message is consistant and reflects a good image upon the organization. I don’t belong to advocacy to press one-sided issue or to become a part of a cult-like experience. I belong and commit to advocacy so that both sides have equal representation of compromise and the best possible solution for all.

For now, I am allowing local and federal investigators to do their job and determine the next steps which appear to be rapidly moving. Naturally, law enforcement always has my support because of my faith in democracy as a nation of laws where we follow them. My biggest fear and concern is that there will be unintentional victims that are associated with select individuals. However, people choose to follow whomever they wish – but perhaps at a significant cost by association. Additionally, as a retired Army veteran, I support and defend our constitution, which includes free speech. But when that speech is impaired to mask or inflict cowardly harm or discourse, then it is safe to deem such predators as organizational terror cells intent on not standing up for justice, but hiding behind aliases similar to the mentally disturbed or radicalized individuals. If your message is more about the person rather than the cause, then perhaps you are in the wrong advocacy program? Lastly, I am not a John Doe and have mentioned for the sake of advocacy that I do not wish to be an anonymous figure. I do not have alias accounts or screen names – and never have. I do understand the need for privacy for those still living in shame, guilt, or vulnerable circumstances for the protection of self, family, and loved ones. Typically, it is these people that deserve our best foot forward ensuring that we are providing them a credible voice by the restoration of good ethical behaviors by working in their best interests to make their lives better – not worse by micromanaging every word or quote seeking to control their speech or particular advocacy.

Radicalization is a process by which an individual, or group comes to adopt increasingly extreme political, social, or religious ideals and aspirations that reject or undermine the status quo or contemporary ideas and expressions of the nation.

I believe in our nation and believe that our system, despite its flaws, has the best intentions of being protecting all Americans. I do not perform acts to desecrate our nation’s flag by referring to it as a “rag.” I don’t apply women in derogatory misogynistic methods just because I don’t get my way. I refuse to enlist others to support a one-sided conversation. I have a political compass that is personal and not introduced in my day-to-day professional routines. Lobbying may have its political leanings, but advocacy takes no firm stance on political ideology. Therefore I treat all my professional encounters equally. I am an LGBT member and take a personal stance on ensuring my and the rights of others are not hindered. As a person with ADHD, I am cognitive of mental health and social issues and believe that many registrants with such diagnosis are widely overlooked and not a recognizable introduction of motive or other circumstances. Therefore, I also advocate for ADHD among autism based organizations but only in a supportive, non-professional, role. I converse in a respectful tone even when I disagree, and I certainly don’t abuse a system for my benefit. I am a Christian but recognize others for their beliefs and respect their choices. I wont stoop to lows such as support for methods of cyberbullying or cyberstalking of opponents or allies. Those on the sex registry are not at war with our country. Instead, registrants should choose to become active participants in civic duties by contacting legislators, the press, religious, and other civic causes to have an amplified voice of diplomacy, discourse, and recognition. But to become credible, we must be trustworthy too. The childlike behaviors of fake screen names, fraudulent companies, false banking methods, fake charities, maybe false disability claims, and sometimes phony victimization won’t help causes if we allow select people to ruin the standard of advocacy by setting a higher standard. There have been too many past lawsuits levied to individuals not playing by the simple rule of discourse within the sex offender advocacy mission. Until national and local groups can clean up its act and tackle the stain by specific individuals, advocacy won’t have a viable voice among society because it embraces the wrongs rather than the pursuit of the right. Nobody ever claimed advocacy would be easy. But the art of public policy and support must be met with civility, patience, and respect. I would expect such poor displays of behavior from middle or high schoolers; not professional advocacy organization members? So much for people acting their age?

In law, fraud is intentional deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or to deprive a victim of a legal right. Fraud can violate civil law, a criminal law, or it may cause no loss of money, property or legal right but still be an element of another civil or criminal wrong.

I will maintain cautious advocacy towards lawful and transparent legislation. The current climate of various political criticisms has polarized our nation, municipalities, and organizational framework. However, I am an individual that may occasionally expect profound discourse from opponents. But at no point would I ever expect personal attacks and the lack of parliamentary professionalism from within advocacy work? Perhaps it is time for advocacy organizations to implement and hold accountable individuals that pose more harm to others than protecting them? Sooner or later the toll that one bad actor brings upon an organization which will eventually leak into to the mainstream media may be a setback for advocacy without the hope of recovery because it is deemed as criminals continuing to support criminal behaviors. Registrants certainly would never allow authorities to abuse the voice, liberty, and rights? Why on earth would registrants be fearful or live in fear from one of their supposed allies? That seems to be the standard dilemma organizations must directly address for the sake of growth, expansion, and a safe-space of getting the message out. It is not a perfect system, but it seems to be filled with imperfections that are stifling others by hate-filled anger laced tactic that must immediately stop before someone gets hurt. It is this instablity local and national advocacy MUST address – and soon. Otherwise, I forecast that national advocacy organizations will be be burned from both ends without a care in the world because it would leave only one person remaining to carry on his/her personal agenda at the cost of so many affected by the registry. As police and other advocates have suggested, it is the perfect “gaslighting” strategy which is especially sad because police do rely upon advocacy groups as support mechanisms within communities. (yes, police can be helpful even if laws they are sworn to uphold are unpopular among registrants)

There are nearly one million individuals listed on sex offender registries. But less than micro percent of registrants belong to or support advocacy groups to meet their needs or concerns. Perhaps one reason is that registrants are uncomfortable at being vulnerable, exposed, publically shamed, cyberbullied, or cyberstalked by others within the organizational framework.

If we are to be advocates of helping to craft sound public policy and rational laws, then it might be helpful if we practice what we preach? Otherwise, recidivism rates will venture towards another arena that will maintain the stigma of predatory behaviors and make restrictions worse for those that DO obey and respect laws, people, and boundaries.

Footnote: I have a very supportive and large family, a robust network of good reliable lifelong friends, a wonderful university department that has been beyond supportive, and a partner of over seven years active that has always been there for me. It is these pillars of support that have introduced and advocated for myself to stamp out cyberbullying and predatory behaviors by others. It is also these support pillars that are the ones that assist in helping about a specific individual that targets, harasses, and uses the internet as a predatory tool rather than a resource for good. But some people cannot be rehabilitated and perhaps the best solution is for them to be placed in lifetime civil commitments for their own protection and for the good of society? It is these pillars of support that will do all means not only to protect myself from harm but others by civilly and criminally charging those that skillfully commit wrongful conduct but play out the victim card. My family and support system are more insightful and eager to handle the bad elements of society using it for personal gain and exploiting others for entertainment purposes. Personally, I appreciate all the offline concerns and support to stamp out this self-proclaimed-self-absorbed “Beetlejuice” government abuser and facilitator of misogynistic hatred under the guise of sex offender advocacy. If you have been cyberstalked, cyberbullied, or fallen prey to the donation scams in the “name of advocacy”, I encourage you to contact your local law enforcement authorities to file a formal complaint or charges. Allow law enforcement to work for you for a change and stop this criminal behavior.

Fake or Credible Internet?

Executives from Facebook, Twitter, and Google appeared today before Congress to discuss issues of possible Russian election interference. What I learned from that discussion was that internet providers are not as transparent as they claim to be. It has been a long-standing unwritten policy that the internet will not be controlled by anyone or any company. What we perceptively learned today was that the big internet giants have an interest in revenues and public image. Naturally, they do not wish to be labeled as “controllers of free speech.” But what about television, mail adverts or newspaper media flyers. They are regulated by many rules and regulations, and the deliverables of that particular irregularity or false product could be held liable for distribution not to mention investigators will be serving search warrants and filling up evidence boxes for later court dates. Such false advertising or false production is similar to snake oil pitches. Eventually, the salesman and the product can be banned and criminally charged if it causes harm.

The internet can be a dangerous place. It does have a unique mystique about it, and the data it collects and shares can be compared to a diamond mine depending on how one desires to implement a plan. But the internet today is not the porn hub central that once was deemed the 1990’s deviant playground. Today, the internet has become a part of our connected world with ala carte news and home appliance device connectivity. This is a differing contrast to European and foreign markets that protect user information. The internet has become dangerous because we have created conditions for it to be hazardous. Without fundamental enforceable law and boundaries, we have allowed the internet to be policed by not companies and people but instead analytics and software. This is not to imply a conspiracy theory of artificial intelligence taking over the world. Alternatively, the implication is that software is not human enough to determine what is real versus what is not. But to take that argument a bit further, many Americans have difficulty in distinguishing between fake or credible.

Based on that little snippet of discovery it will be hard-pressed for any prosecutor to effectively rule on the Russian election hacking issue. Not because of evidence, but because of the complexities of election laws differing across state lines and internet data servers that typically reside outside the United States as a form of redundancy and backup qualities. Let’s not mix up collusion with election tampering. Collusion is a secretive path to data where tampering is a physical adulteration of data. But I think it is equally important to ask tech giants to disclose to government or a branch of oversight how it maintains its secretive or propriety paths. For example, today I performed a random search of Kevin Spacey and Anthony Rapp separately. What I quickly discovered was that Spacey had all the press information while Rapp had similar linkage. There was not one negative search story about Rapp to include alternative viewpoints or discussions. Why? Is it that analytics immediately point to what is deemed credible or is it what tech giants want us to read?

Overall, it is very complicated, and any legal ramifications about internet tampering will ultimately set a new precedent of how we or others police credible data. Another question to ask ourselves “does metadata exclude opposite viewpoints on purpose because it deems them as false?” This would be the argument I would introduce because not one blog or publication raised issues with Rapp. I am not attempting to slam Rapp. I am only using this as a prime example of how information seems adulterated and selectively scrubbed while searching for it.

The bottom line is that tech giants have an agenda and we the people are its product. Naturally, there won’t be much transparency from tech giants because that would remove a large slice of income and data collection from its grasp.  Google, Facebook, and Twitter currently monopolize our data where we do not own ourselves or our privacy any longer. Until someone breaks up the monopoly or peels back the onion of these companies, we will continue to witness distortion and snake oil pitches that seem all too real. Perhaps the internet and another nation adulterated our recent election by creating emotional harm. At what point will it become perilous where many people die or are harmed because the internet has succeeded credible standards seemingly no longer used because it’s not technical or high speed sufficient?

Word Extremism

In recent weeks we have heard about “fake news” or “alternative facts.” Let’s be honest with ourselves. Blown out of proportion headlines and misleading information has dominated our televisions, mailboxes, homes, and workplace for decades. While all cameras and microphones turn towards Donald Trump, perhaps we should reflect a moment and ask ourselves if we have ever had a Trump moment in our lives.

When I read headlines of “serial spree” or “massive demonstrations” or other colorful and perhaps misleading rhetoric, then I sometimes think that sort of talk is similar to what Trump says on a daily basis. People tend to exaggerate the facts and replace them with almost folklore comment to raise the quality or excitement level. Another problem is that our news and daily conversation does not seem balanced or centered. In fact, our language is emotional in nature to persuade our listeners. It is similar to those that claim “I am swamped with work overflowing on my desk” when in fact the desk is clean but the data to be entered in the computer is backlogged a bit.

Another issue is how we take our daily language as if we are skilled attorneys. When I hear sexual assault, breaking and entering, or violent activity then I quickly assume that the crime is a horrible event. However, if you drill down and take a closer look you may be amazed to learn that the sexual assault was a slap on the butt and the breaking and entering was someone opened what was intended to be a locked door. There is nothing at all violent, but we are presented information to believe it was. Another reason our court system is clogged with minor situations deemed as crimes but in hopes that the accused will take a plea deal. Again, this is where fake news becomes lubricated.

In essence, we are all a bit like Trump. We use words we do not mean to get our point across; perhaps not as excessive as he does. However, as a capitalistic society, we do attempt to push our agenda ahead of others with sometimes false data and misleading words. Our sets of beliefs are under scrutiny today because we are not using the correct words, timeline, and events to tell an accurate story. We love pizzazz and entertainment value. After all, that is Trump. What I’m afraid of is that we will eventually become a little like Trump if we fail to become a bit more realistic and tone down the word extremism.

%d bloggers like this: