Sex Registry Isn’t Problem. The Internet Is the Problem.

In the 1980s visiting any post office had a certain flair of a corkboard usually off to the side with a clipboard of FBI most-wanted individuals. As we migrated towards an internet society, those FBI or most wanted posters seem long gone and replaced by internet variants ranging from mugshot sites to phone apps to keep track of your neighbors. While many argue that the sex offender registry is the most controversial form of public shaming, I would say that the internet, in general, is perhaps the worst offender of all.

A most wanted list, maintained by a law enforcement agency, is a list of criminals and alleged criminals who are believed to be at large and are identified as the agency’s highest priority for capture. The list can alert the public to be watchful, and generates publicity for the agency.

When the internet was first introduced into our homes, it was an open library of content where anything could be researched in the privacy of your own home without much scrutiny or regulations. Most of all, the internet through the assistance of AOL, CompuServe, Netscape, and many others became the forefront of information. At an early internet period, the net was more inclined to be a source of stock traders, news junkies, email, and instant chat well before the established cell or smartphone. However, during the introductory period of the internet era, there was a level of civility and level playing field that everyone respected boundaries and information sharing. There was not a vast data-mining field of information or credit card sharing. But the information about personal lives was kept at a minimum.

Today the internet is not only a necessity but a part of American culture and society. Governments, corporations, businesses, and people rely heavily on social media, data mining, and e-commerce. The internet of long ago has morphed into a large giant that cannot be slain. But the most remarkable part of the internet is that governments can publish anything it wants to publish without much knowledge in the long term of its consequence or destruction. When government leaders publish sex offender statistics or personal information that information is data mined towards reality, property tax, and statistical crime servers that maintain those records for a lifetime. There is no need for businesses to challenge the information because the information is already deemed credible because it comes from a government agency – even if the information is no longer relevant.

For example, if a registered offender moves from Texas to Oklahoma, the old Texas address will continue to display inaccurate information despite a registrant is now living elsewhere. That means two properties are currently undervalued only because a registrant resides at one. Better yet, a registrant may go on vacation in Florida and re-register according to state law but immediately leave. But that data will eventually creep into a server somewhere to be shared and reshared despite the fact that the registrant is no longer in Florida. This will subsequently create a tier of inaccurate economic data that risks devaluation of properties, municipality taxation rates, and could impact revenues because of how the registry is used in a public manner.

According to a new survey, 52.8% of Internet users believe that most or all of the information online is “reliable and accurate.” … That people are gravitating from the television to the Internet, especially for information, is, of course, extremely good news–at least content providers.

It is safe to say that the registry isn’t a problem. Instead, the internet and data mining is the most critical problem because it cannot be regulated on the fairness or accuracy of information. After all, the internet is an entertainment value rather than an educational or informative standard. It is free speech-based and protected as such, whereas it has difficulty in challenges by the courts. Government data is much more regulated and can be sunshine or sequestered at a council meeting. Many advocates have suggested that internet information should have a time-sensitive expiration date before moving into an archive for historical use only. But as long as companies use data without challenge, the expiration data scenario will be either buried in fine print or ignored.

The most wanted posters were a world where danger was credible by allowing the public to alert law enforcement of a wanted and dangerous individual. Today the internet has created a scare tactic that everyone is a potential threat and danger to the community ranging from mugshot to registry websites. It is no wonder that 911 call centers experience the highest number of calls when a new app is released or mentioned by the press. Police resources today are not focused upon deadly shootings in preventative measures because there is too much emphasis on registries and apps that allow a measured value of cyberstalking but in the name of community service.

Perhaps the sex offender registry advocacy ambition to change the minds of politicians has exhausted much of its resource? I would argue that the next phase in criminal justice reforms and managing data accuracy is to begin challenging large internet companies and data corporations that continually allow inaccurate data to be a part of its product and content. Bringing lawsuits to organizations that potentially damage the credibility of market values and revenue streams for governments should be registry advocates and municipalities newest challenge to discover methods to get the information right and maintain that information in a proper format.

The Uncivil War On Sexuality

The sex offender registry and draconian laws aimed at offenders has destroyed lives of individuals and families. Today a new form of offender registration has transpired. This new offender registry creates life sentences using the internet as its delivery method carefully skirting libel and slander policies under the blanket of free speech. Naturally, this is not a registry, but social movements are utilizing social media platforms to quasi-create a public registry with no hopes of being removed or deleted, and it’s creating more harm than good.

A recent news segment mentioned an R&B superstar named R.Kelly. Kelly is one of pop music’s best-selling artists, with hits including “Ignition,” ”I Believe I Can Fly,” ”Step in the Name of Love,” ”Same Girl” and “Bump N’ Grind.” He has also written hits for Celene Dion, Michael Jackson, and Lady Gaga. He was acquitted in 2008 of child pornography after a video circulated appearing to show him having sex with a teenage girl. However, as he continued to score hits and sell out stadiums, more women have come forward in recent years accusing him of sexual misconduct. Kelly had been scheduled to be among the performers at popular concert venues but was dropped as efforts by organizers of #MuteRKelly gained attention with support from Hollywood’s Time’s Up campaign. Overnight Kelly has been the target of an issue 10 years old creating a delayed response or condition. Many are wondering if the #metoo campaign has gotten out of control?

Society is witnessing improved tactics to create and facilitate registry styled methods using constructive hashtags and meme styled photos comparable to police lineups. All these methods are protected by free speech rights. There are disturbing trends with guilt by association tactics using political individuals seen in pictures or appearances with individuals accused but never charged with sexual improprieties in guilt by association tactics. The same strategy is being used on individuals as a result of news and information shifting from regular publishing sources to social media.  Social justice movements have designed strikingly similar registry models by combining low-level offenses with significant offenses presenting an appearance of guilt for anyone mentioned. Additionally, to be associated with the accused, guilty, or suspected has created a panic based fear that will eventually become more violent as anger and social stigma increases. Does this imply that we should stop listening or supporting Elvis Presley because he dated a 14-year-old girl? Moreover, does it suggest that hearing or being an Elvis fan makes you a supporter of statutory rights? The question is, “when does the conversation begin?” or is this electronic vigilantism stirred by social movements with no real agenda or cause? Are freedoms of choice under assault? Arguably there is enough evidence to present a spiraling out of control agenda with taking no prisoners mentalities. It is excessively dangerous with no end in sight.

If the sex offender registry was not enough to restrict movement and liberties, then the internet has an interesting way of making life nearly as difficult for those not on the registry. Spotify and Pandora are sizeable online streaming music services. They recently removed artists from its collection where fans must search for specific content. Movies starring accused or guilty offenders have been quickly removed from major content providers. Art has recently been removed from galleries because corporations or entities do not wish to be spotlighted with pressure from social movements. Most interesting, social movements or mob justice campaigning efforts are shaming those that listen, watch, or support such artists. That has many inquiring who is the bully or aggressor in this case? It has become an uncivil war on sexuality.

Social movements do attempt a subtle effect on placing the spotlight on specific issues – and should be commended for bringing a problematic issue forward. However, at the same time, such causes have a responsibility to educate and allow occasional discourse to remedy problems from becoming out of hand.  Those that differ should have an opportunity to be heard. Sex offender registries have harmed individuals, families, and supporters. The same stratagem occurs with social justice campaigns damaging artists, fans, companies, and the innocent. Just as offender registries lump all into one category, social movements are incidentally and sometimes purposely doing the same creating additional harm because emotion and sometimes interpretation is a contributing factor. While #metoo and #timesup campaigns initially were valid, that effect has morphed into anger, antagonism, and losing focus on the opportunity for open dialog and discussion. Maybe its time to stop and take a moment to #ListenToMe where a constructive dialog helping shed pain, frustration, and integrity are reintroduced?

In my #metoo experience from my childhood, I have learned how to cope, educate, forgive, and advocate for myself and others. What seemed like years of pain was a reality of several instances. I cant spend my entire life with an agenda to destroy another person because I want justice. If anything, sharing my personal experiences openly and candidly is the real #metoo movement. It is vital so that victims do not feel alone and non-victims become educated advocates.

Who is Milo Yiannopoulos?

In all honesty, I have never read or looked at the conservative Breitbart website. Another blog follower recently sent me a YouTube clip from a Breitbart Editor named Milo Yiannopoulos. At first, my fine-tuned gaydar went off, but I was thinking to myself “a gay conservative?” I kept listening and actually couldn’t believe my ears. But then I stopped myself short of becoming somewhat like sheep and falling into the trap of listening to sound bites to sought out more of a full speech site to make my final determination.

 

Folks, it is no hidden fact that I am very liberal. But in certain situations, I cannot follow the party line all of the time. I remember my time as a college student senator where I vehemently voted against an expensively overpriced Talley Student Center. I was the liberal that was trying to save students money and stop a student government organization and faculty from continually practicing campus cronyism (which continues to practice). My lone ‘no’ student senate vote was squashed because the “sheep” of student government wanted to impress school leadership and its compeer relationships disregarding a popular vote against funding a new Talley Center. I remember distinctly hearing other student senators and campus faculty advisors that wanted to control, accuse, intimidate, or impeach me because I didn’t follow the majority in student government and campus administration. An apparent blow to democracy and similar to those that protest Yiannopoulos at his campus events. Back to Yiannopoulos.

When I heard this guy speak I couldn’t help but think he is lecturing in an unfiltered manner. Of course, he is popular because he is voicing and rallying against the very institutions that have created safe spaces or the practice of becoming sheep before the slaughter. Do I support everything Yiannopoulos says? No. However, I do subscribe that he brings an excellent and compelling argument that both sides should have an opportunity to be heard. Do I think Yiannopoulos is a member of the Alt-Right or supports white supremacy? Emphatically no! What I do think he does, and efficiently but perhaps not academically, trigger what we have hidden as our inner voice and begin to reassess if that voice is not being challenged effectively. Naturally, Yiannopoulos has a trolling way of inciting a discussion and keeping his cool. What seems to occur on nearly a frequent basis is opposing audience members fall prey to appearing self-centered in hopes they are viewed as social justice warriors with poor to sad results. One thing I will say positive about Yiannopoulos is that his assessment of the Republican and Democratic U.S. parties are spot on. He has plausible arguments about Title IX laws (as I previously blogged about). I can see where he has an active following. But let me be clear, Yiannopoulous doesn’t represent either major political party in the United States. Instead, he focuses on the whitewash of policies that may have strayed from the original design that favor particular groups or interests. The design of system policies should avoid fluctuating for protected classes. Rather policy should be designed to equally and adequately safeguard and preserve all matters with the same level of scrutiny.

 

A problem for liberals like myself is that a majority of those that represent the left fail to properly listen to the opposing side and try to learn from its perspective. I, on the other hand, seek to follow my conscience and levels of compromise to look for a middle ground. This is the art of diplomacy and something we should learn to re-engage with. Sure it’s heated. Sure it’s divisive. Yes, sometimes it becomes personal. But hopefully, we walk away after the debate that we can build a bridge towards compromise or understanding. Yiannopoulous said something rather interesting in one of his videos. He mentioned that two of the top billed comedians wouldn’t appear on college campuses because “college kids are too politically correct.” He is right that we have become a society of censorship and liberalism with its importance of equality and creativity is being redefined as an a la carte safe space where laughter is punishable. This concerns me and should concern you. I am still a liberal and human with good intended qualities. My hope is that you will be human too and allow speech to continue regardless of our differences.