On Hate And Sex Abuse Prevention

Emotional Topic

You probably do not need me to tell you this, but the topic of sexual abuse, particularly prevention, is controversial and emotional for many people. This is because solutions often fly in the face of our deepest beliefs, and the facts challenge established stereotypes about how sexual abuse happens- and why. When our beliefs are challenged in that manner, we cannot help but become emotional. 

Much of this emotion, of course, is directed at abusers. I recently put it out there that I was sexually abused as a child. I also recently put it out there that I have a sexual attraction to children, and I wrote about why that does not immediately make me a risk to children. Those two statements bring up emotion, and they are controversial. 

As For Me...

...I do not hate my abusers. Maybe because my first step towards accepting my childhood and how it shaped me was a step of understanding. I wanted to know why people sexually abuse children. What drives that kind of behavior? How could someone possibly justify it? I believe, as a Christian and as a critical thinker, that I am more than justified in hating what was done to me and the effects it had. However, I do not believe I am justified in hating the people who abused me. Why? 

Because frankly, their evil actions were a handful of acts in an otherwise ordinary set of interactions. While they may be indicative of the thinking of those people at the time, the abusive actions did not represent the entire person. I do not believe that at least two of my abusers meant their actions as abuse, even if that is the effect their actions had on me. 

Cycle Of Hatred

Here in America, and indeed throughout world history, there is an ongoing cycle of hatred that still exists today. In the last two centuries, it was black people and women. Three and four centuries ago, it was black people and indigenous people, in North America and South America. Before that, it was religious warring. 

Hate has been an ongoing part of what it means to be human, and it is noble humans who seek to overcome that hatred and move on from it to love, accept, and include other humans who might be different from them. 

Hate Is Not Just About Race

The kind of hate we have seen in the last week is not about race. It is about our beliefs, and our entitlement to those beliefs. We resent anyone who challenges how we think about a subject, and we believe that we should have the right to hold the opinions and views that we do, and express them. However, this gets messy when other humans with those same rights but differing beliefs tell us we are wrong. Harsh words are exchanged, and violence all too easily ensues. 

Racism is just one expression of how this operates. Another expression is the making of laws: Laws that deal harshly with criminals are almost always the result of empathizing more with the victim than the perpetrator. This is as it should be, and the perpetrator of a crime should be held accountable and make some form of restitution. However, sometimes the laws we have created do not aid in preventing future crimes, and make it harder for criminals to have the means to provide restitution for what they did. 

Sex Offender Laws Do Not Follow Standard Justice

Yes, I am talking about sex offender laws. I do not believe that they are fair. Yes, I used the word fair. Every other criminal, even murderers, have a fixed sentence that they have to complete. In some cases, that is a life sentence, but once that sentence is complete, we consider justice to be served. While we may feel the sentence does not fit what we think happened, we have a system where a judge looking at as much information as possible determines that sentence. Even in this system, there are miscarriages of justice and the facts do not fit what is being sentenced. 

Sex offender laws ignore that. They visit and re-visit the offender's crime against them, often for their entire life. They must register. They must not live X distance from a school or park. They must notify their neighbors of something they did years ago. Their sentence does not have an ending. Some argue that the effects of child sexual abuse are lifelong. I disagree. I am just as worthy of healing and moving on as the people who abused me. 

Hate Against Sex Offenders Is No Different Than Racism

Yes, I just went there. If you hate someone because of the color of their skin, it is the same as hating someone for committing a particular kind of crime: You are judging the person (not their personality, their behavior, or a part of the person) for one single observable fact that you can see, and basing your opinion of that entire person on that one single fact. 

You are assuming to know based on one individual fact about the person that they are worthy of hatred. Regardless of what that one fact is, this hatred defies logic, defies the fact that the other person is human, and is no different than the systematic dehumanization that was practiced by the Nazis during WWII. When you take a human being of any kind and revoke their "humanity" card for one reason, without getting to know the person, you are doing exactly what Hitler did: Judging for yourself that the person is no longer human. 

Hate Impedes Prevention

The hatred of sex offenders and our endless desire for revenge must be separated from our hatred of sexual offenses and our endless desire for sexual assault and exploitation to cease in all its forms. If we want to prevent crime, we must understand the facts, and form policy accordingly. We must be level-headed about the policies we form, otherwise we fall prey to the same hate that we condemn in White Nationalist groups.

You cannot change the genetic makeup of another human being by believing they are not, any more than you can change the color of your hair by thinking about it. 

If we are to condemn racism because it treats others differently based on their different appearance, then we must condemn hatred in all its forms: Including the hatred of sex offenders.

Major Wins On Three Fronts

Not Often...

It is not often that I get to report good news in the fight to prevent child sexual abuse... before it can happen. However, there is great news out of Alabama, Pennsylvania, and California that are well-worth celebrating, in addition to the recent win in North Carolina at the Supreme Court of the United States.

Alabama

A case in Alabama is currently before the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals, and the argument is that Alabama has violated the ex posto facto clause of the United States Constitution. In other words, Alabama has violated the United States Constitution by enacting retroactive punishment for a crime committed over 30 years ago. This case is significant and related to a win in Pennsylvania, which is why this case is already being considered a win.

Pennsylvania

A case recently decided by the PA Supreme Court involved a man forced to register for a crime committed in 2007 before the registration requirement applicable to his situation was enacted in 2012. The PA Supreme Court decided that the case violated the same ex posto facto clause and retroactively applied punishment - yes, punishment - for a crime. This is essential, because until now, the sex offender registry has been considered preventative, not punitive according to most state and federal legislation. The ruling in PA makes it likely that the case being considered by the 11th Circuit will be ruled similarly, and gives opportunity for the PA ruling to be cited in the decision. While this has yet to play out, it is also important because of a win in California.

California

In California, lawmakers are being spurred to adopt major reforms to the sex offender registry, essentially treating offenders with lower risk differently than those that are high risk: The lower-risk offenders could eventually be let off the sex offender registry, and the focus for law enforcement and monitoring would be on high-risk offenders instead. These are reforms that are already in place in most other states, but California still has a one-size-fits-all system where every sex offender is required to register for life.

Interestingly, it is criminal justice leaders, such as district attorneys, the ACLU of California, the California Police Chiefs Association, and several others. The bill is currently moving swiftly through the legislature.

Why Is The Registry Bad?

In case you have not heard me say this before, sex offender registration is bad because it focuses on the wrong threat: Sex offenders. Sex offenders are known to commit less than 10% of new sexual crimes in most states, and even less in major states. In New York, that rate is 5%, and in California, that rate is .6%. This focus on sex offenders means that people are focused on those who do not often commit new sexual crimes as if they do, which means the real culprits of sexual crimes, those trusted in the community with no criminal record, fly under the radar.

Research shows that perpetrators of sexual crimes have trauma in childhood, have no criminal record, are predominantly male (though recent research is calling this into question), and are largely trusted by their victim(s). This shows that programs that reach at-risk youth with trauma in their backgrounds can make a substantial difference in reducing sexual crimes before they happen, and shows that our focus must be on preventing the initial perpetration of sexual crimes rather than reacting where they happen.

Is This Foreshadowing?

With these major wins, in addition to the recent social media win at the United States Supreme Court, the it may be that the tide is turning against emotionally-driven policies that feel good but are ineffective in preventing sex crimes. It may be, as the editorial board of the Los Angeles Times puts it, that we are seeing clearer thinking about sex offenders. If so, then maybe we are seeing the beginning of the end of after-the-fact punishment schemes that distract from preventing sexual crimes... before they can happen.

Stand Up For Net Neutrality

You cannot go far today without hearing about it: Several large US companies would like to end the neutrality we currently enjoy, which allows most internet sites you visit to load just as fast as any other, among other things. If you enjoy being able to use the internet, please consider adding your voice to the chorus telling US leaders to keep net neutrality rules.

To learn more about net neutrality and why it matters, see here. Also, consider signing a change.org petition, in addition to contacting the FCC.

Why The Statistic Matters: Part Three, Sex Offenders

This is part of a miniseries about why the statistics on this site, and the upcoming website, should matter to you, not only in your everyday life, but in preventing child sexual abuse... before it can happen.

Statistic 1: Most Who Commit Sex Crimes Are Not Sex Offender Registrants

You have heard me cite this time and again: 95% of new sex crimes are committed by those new to the criminal justice system, stemming from a study on 21 years of arrest data in New York. Another 2015 study out of California is also significant, finding that just .6% of the 56.1% three-year return-to-prison rate were new sex crime convictions. Unless other criminals are committing sex crimes (which is not supported by the rest of the report, or general trends among sex crimes in general), it is safe to conclude that, nationwide, upwards of 95% of sex crime is committed by those with no criminal background.

Why does that matter?

Well, if the bulk of our policies on "preventing" sexual crimes are aimed at sex offenders, who are not responsible for a very high percentage of sex crimes... and we spend lots of money on these policies... then our policies are simply ineffective, and costing lots of money we could spend on more effective methods. This does not just refer to sex offender registration: Notifications of sex offenders, residency restrictions, civil commitment, and of course, juvenile registration and notification. If it targets sex offenders, the policy does very little to protect communities because it is not registered sex offenders who commit sex crimes.

Statistic 2: Juveniles Commit Sex Crimes Too... 

Specifically, juveniles commit 35.6% of sexual offenses against minors. Researchers such as Elizabeth Letourneau and Jill Levenson have said that half of sex offenders were juveniles during the commission of their sex crime. Regardless of the specific figure, it is safe to say that a statistically significant portion of sexual crimes are committed by juveniles, not adults.

This matters almost as much as the first statistic, because it means that the bulk of our policies are aimed at people who committed their crimes as juveniles. While these crimes absolutely were harmful to the victims, one must wonder if punishing juvenile perpetrators for life is aiding prevention, particularly if most of them never commit another sexual crime (97%, to be precise).

Statistic 3: General Recidivism Is High, But Lower Than Other Criminals On Average

Recidivism is a much-discussed statistic, and before I touch on why a somewhat high recidivism rate for general crime (both sexual and non-sexual crimes) is high, we must first understand recidivism rates. Some studies look at rearrests, which are considered the most liberal picture of recidivism. Some studies look at returning to prison, which are considered the most conservative picture of recidivism. Still others look at reconvictions, which are a middle ground between the two. As with any crime, any recidivism statistic paints an incomplete picture of new crimes committed by offenders.

If you recall the 56.1% return-to-prison statistic from the study mentioned in the first section, it should be noted that most studies find, on average, a general recidivism rate around 30-40% for sex offenders. This means that California has a rate that is much higher than what would be considered "the norm" for sex offenders. While the very term "sex offender" encompasses a wide variety of crimes and offenders, this also means that specific types of offenders that commit specific crimes have varying rates of recidivism specific to that type or crime.

This matters, because it means there is room for much improvement in rehabilitating and successfully reintegrating sex offenders back into our communities. It means there are barriers for successful reintegration, and a need to change how we treat criminals in general. While recidivism statistics can be interpreted in a wide variety of ways depending on the study, offender, and offense, it is safe to say that in most cases, sex offenders do not reoffend, whether that is with a sexual crime or any other crime.

Statistic 4: Population Of Sex Offenders, Victims

According to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (whose figures are somewhat disputed among some advocates and state leaders), there are 861,837 registered sex offenders living in the United States. That is 264 sex offenders per 100,000 people. If you have followed the rest of the statistics to this point, then you can probably guess what I am about to say: Focusing our policies on nearly 1 million Americans to protect children, when most of those .862 million people are not responsible for further sex crimes means that we are creating much more damage than we are solving. How do I figure that? The math is simple.

Restated from part two, child sexual abuse, according to this source, there are 73.8 million children in the United States, and the known victim-reported prevalence is pegged at 8% for boys and 19% for girls, which translates to roughly 3,011,040 boys and 6,870,780 girls, or 9,881,820 children. The estimates that attempt to account for underreporting translate to 6,273,000 boys and 9,040,500 girls, or 15,313,500 children. In other words, our best data and estimates indicate that 13.39-20.75% of children are sexually abused (which is a big deal).

Running the estimates, 494,091-765,675 children are sexually abused by registered sex offenders, or repeat sex offenders, in other words. If somewhere between .6% and 5% of these 861,837 sex offenders are repeat offenders, that means that there are between 5,171 and 43,092 sex offenders that are repeat offenders.

This means that there are between 818,745 and 856,666 sex offenders who are being needlessly registered, and if we assume that each of them have 5 family members and 10 friends, that is 12,281,175-12,849,990 people that are affected by the sex offender registry without sufficient basis. Compared to the 494,091-765,675 children that are victimized by repeat sex offenders, that is a very disproportionate number, and while sexual abuse is not trivial, this means that we punish and indirectly affect about 12-14 times the number of people we need to. When you remember that somewhere between 35-50% of these people are juveniles at the time of the offense, you get an appalling number of children that are being harmed by the very laws that were formed to protect them.

Closing Thoughts

I have re-written the overview of sex offenders for the website three times now, and each time, I wonder if I am covering all of the bases or giving an overly simplistic view of sex offenders. Even writing this one post has taken me two weeks for similar reasons.

"Sex offender" is a term that encompasses a wide variety of crimes beyond rape and crimes against children, though together, these crimes make up the majority. However, the mere commission of these crimes, as discussed in the first and third statistics, does not mean the person committing them is an ongoing danger to children. Even the commission of a "child sex crime" would not appear to indicate such a danger because most such crimes are committed by first-time offenders. Covering each segment of restrictions against sex offenders is likewise complex.

Thus, any attempt to tackle the issue of sex offenders from any angle, research-based or journalist-based, will lead any reader to misleading conclusions about sex offenders.

A Simplified Review Of Finkelhor's "The Prevention of Childhood Sexual Abuse"

Who?

David Finkelhor is a child sexual abuse preventionist and sociologist. Since 1977, he has contributed research into the psychology of how child sexual abuse happens and how it can be prevented. If you wish to read more about this pillar of abuse prevention, please do so. As this is a method of simplifying his study, The Prevention of Child Sexual Abuse (2012), I will not focus as much on the details. It is a fairly short read at 19 pages, but the average person will find it dry and boring even with a dictionary handy.

Reductions In Incidents Of Child Sexual Abuse (p. 16-17)

One surprising fact is that sexual violence against children has been on a downward trend since the 1990's, though the reason for this decline is unclear. The evidence for this decline comes both from self-report surveys and crime data trends. This downward trend was also associated with several other areas, such as reductions in general crime, teen pregnancy, teen suicide, and drug abuse. While one review mentions some possible reasons for these declines, there is no causal evidence that connects a solid reason for the downward trend in incidents of child sexual abuse.

His Review Of Current Strategies, By Topic

I said this was simplified, right? Well, here is a list for you, then, with the topics he covers and what he concludes about each. If you wish to know more about a particular topic, you can find the page number at the beginning of each topic. I am breaking down his reviews by broad category.

Criminal Justice Strategies

1. Sex Offender Registration (p. 5-6)
1. Mixed, but not promising: There has been inadequate research into sex offender registration policies, and many studies also include community notification, which is a separate topic. Crime has been in decline since 1990 or so, and it is unclear if the studies that have been done are finding drops in crimes because of registration, or because of the downward crime trend. Possibility for collateral consequences like stigma on offenders, negative effects, and limited effectiveness, but also a possibility for public confidence in authorities and a sense of safety (even if false).
2. Sex Offender Notifications (p. 6)
1. Limited studies and negative effects: You can always tell that more research is badly needed when a high-level researcher opens his remarks with saying, "No high-quality studies exist, and the correlational studies have mixed results." He observes that community notifications of sex offenders seems based on the myth of stranger danger, and that notifications are not favored by law enforcement and can significantly interfere with an offender's ability to rehabilitate and reintegrate into society.
3. Background Checks (p. 6-7)
1. False sense of risk: Surprisingly, Dr. Finkelhor observes that not only have there been limited research into the benefits and costs of background checks, but that doing so would be pointless because of how mainstream they are. He states that research is "badly needed" regardless because the true risk that individuals with backgrounds pose is unclear, and may be weeding out perfectly competent workers or employees who pose little to no risk.
4. Sex Offender Residency Restrictions (p. 7)
1. Note: These are restrictions that prevent sex offenders from living near day cares, schools, and other places frequented by children. Several studies done into their effectiveness (very limited since 2012) show little to no effect. One study done in 2007 in Minnesota found that not one of the 224 re-offenses studied would have been deterred by such policies. There appears to be studies that Finkelhor was not aware of when writing this summary.
2. Supremely stupid: Not only have residency restrictions been enacted with no research into their effectiveness, the research that has been done on how offenses happen and the effect these policies have in theory shows that they are not worth adopting if the goal is to protect children. He points out that, "law enforcement and sex offender management authorities do not have the credibility or evidence base to temper or thwart misguided populist legislation on sex offender policy."
5. Civil Commitment and Lengthening Sentences (p. 7-8)
1. No evidence, does not reduce risk: While many different policies have lengthened the sentences of sex offenders and many states have formed procedures to essentially incarcerate sex offenders past their criminal sentence. The basis for these policies is a deterrent effect, and reducing those capable of committing new offenses, both of which have not been studied. It is noted that sentence length appears to have no relationship with the risk of reoffending, and that the evidence supporting these policies is extremely limited and unclear.
6. Increasing Detection and Arrest (p. 8-9)
1. Note: This is defined as when detection and arrests are increased on the law enforcement side of things, not to be confused with attempts to get victims to report abuse. The focus here is on more staff to detect and investigate abuse for criminal arrests and prosecutions, in the hope of deterring potential offenders and controlling existing offenders through the effects of being arrested.
2. Mixed: He notes that no studies have tested for the presence of a deterrent effect on sexual offending against children, but that other studies do support deterrents for domestic violence, drunken driving, and robberies. Instead of deterring potential abusers, increased detection and arrests seem instead to deter caught abusers from acting again. It is noted that general research not specific to sexual abuse, "tends to confirm that offenders are deterred more by an increase of getting caught than and increase in the severity of the likely punishment." 
7. Mental Health Treatment (p. 9-10)
1. Mostly positive: While many abusers lack access to adequate treatment, the research shows that treatment (particularly cognitive-behavioral therapy) reduces sexual re-offenses by up to 37%, which is significant because the likelihood of sexual re-offenses are already low. Because this research appears non-experimental in terms of its methodology, some experts are reserved in endorsing mental health treatment for adults and more research into this area is needed. While the strength of the research for adults is convincing, the research around juvenile offenders is even more so because it does use experimental designs.
8. Community Reintegration and Supervision (p. 10)
1. Promising, but needs research: Of note is Circles of Support and Accountability, an innovative program originating in Canada which provides a support system for offenders. The idea here is to focus on successfully reintegrating the offender through social support and employment opportunities. While Circles is noted to reduce reoffending by 70%, more research is needed. 

Wrapping Up Criminal Justice

Dr. Finkelhor notes that tremendous energy has gone into criminal justice policies, and that the biggest weakness of this approach is that most molestations are not perpetrated by those with a record of sex crimes. In other words, "Even strategies that are 100 percent effective in eliminating recidivism among known offenders would reduce new victimizations only a little." 

He does recommend four areas to improve upon: Detecting offenders not yet known to law enforcement, focus only on the high-risk offenders, develop better risk-assessment tools, and determine low-intensity strategies for youth, family, and other low-risk offenders. 

Educational Programs (p. 11-14)

Here, Dr. Finkelhor overviews programs that teach children boundaries, dangerous situations and when to get help, safe/unsafe touch, along with the underlying message that victims are not to blame. These programs have drawn criticism: They may be too difficult for children to grasp, they may impede a child's trust in adults, and (as I have said before in other terms), "children cannot be reasonably expected to foil... adults bent on molesting them and... it is morally misguided and perhaps psychologically harmful to place the responsibility of preventing abuse on the shoulders of children."

Research shows that these programs can improve child-parent communication and that children do indeed learn the concepts being taught, particularly at younger ages. Research also shows very limited unintended consequences, and report positive outcomes like more positive self-esteem. Such educational programs have also been shown to reduce risk factors for victimization (in some studies but not others) and can increase bystander intervention. Much to my own surprise, there appears to be no basis for concerns that educational programs have negative consequences on children who experience these programs and are then abused: Instead, research supports the idea that such programs increase victim disclosure and reduce self-blame. Rather than causing more trauma to a victim, prevention programs seem to ease their burden.

Dr. Finkelhor recommends expanding these programs to include dating violence, statutory crimes, and new sexual crimes that are made possible by the internet.

Community Prevention of Offending (p. 14-15)

Here. Dr. Finkelhor overviews small-scale efforts to educate a small community to identify potential abusers with mental health help and an awareness that sexual behavior with children is wrong. Confidential phone numbers are provided in this approach. While there is limited evidence that these practices realistically prevent abuse, there is evidence that potential abusers come forward for help. At the very least, those with concerns about their behavior or thoughts are coming forward for help. It is mentioned that the current environment can reduce the ability of these programs to truly offer confidential help, and that alone can be a significant hindrance to these approaches as policies.

Separately, another approach is bystander intervention to detect and intervene when abusive situations are actually or potentially happening. There is more evidence supporting bystander intervention, and the research in that area is more developed. This research shows that bystander intervention can change community attitudes, reduce bullying among children, and has the potential to reduce peer abuse or dating violence.

Harm Mitigation (p. 15-16)

Harm mitigation is the use of counseling and family intervention to reduce the effects of abuse on victims, and the use of child advocacy centers to reduce the impacts of disclosure on victims through a variety of means. He specifically mentions that not all victims suffer the same level of harm or symptoms from sexual abuse, and he also mentions that there must be sensitivity in discovering the needs of a child victim and forming the most appropriate intervention. He points out that trauma-focused therapy is excellent for victim, and that child advocacy centers can point to or offer this particular therapy.

While there are other options mentioned, they are essentially miscellaneous tactics that do not have much attention in research. These options can be found on page 16.

Conclusion And Five Promising Areas For Study (p. 17-19)

Dr. Finkelhor concludes by indicating that there is no strong evidence pointing to a single strategy in preventing child sexual abuse, but proposes looking into several areas for further study and research:

1. School-based child-focused educational programs
2. Evidence-based policy and therapeutic practices around criminal justice
3. Making cognitive-behavioral therapies standard and widely available

He closes his remarks by expressing optimism that with further research, we can make greater and more numerous accomplishments in reducing child sexual abuse. 

News Outlets That Conflate Sexual Abuse And Sexual Attraction

Why Is This An Issue?

As you have heard me illustrate many times, terminology matters to preventing child sexual abuse. Using "sex offender" instead of "sexual abuser" gives the impression that those who abuse have been caught before, that the biggest risk is from recidivists. However, the reality indicates the opposite: First-time offenders are the biggest risks. In other words, improper terminology spreads myths about child sexual abuse, and myths enable sexual abuse to happen.

Likewise, confusing the sexual attraction to children (similar to heterosexual attraction, but directed towards children in some form) and the horrific sexual abuse of a child gives the wrong impression that child sexual abuse is perpetrated out of sexual pleasure.

It also gives the wrong impression that those with a sexual attraction are a risk, where the facts and logic say otherwise. It places an unfair stigma on a group of people, through no fault of their own, have a sexual attraction to children. This can, in turn, increase child sexual abuse by driving people into corners where poor decisions and mental illness thrive. The results of confusing pedophilia and child sexual abuse, or pedophiles and child rapists, make child sexual abuse harder to prevent.

Minimizing Child Sexual Abuse

As you have heard me say many times, confusing these terms minimizes child sexual abuse. Why is that? Well, it is like referring to stealing as kleptomania, or a brutal murder on a highway as road rage: It is referring to a horrific act as if it is the result of a feeling, rather than as a conscious choice to harm a child, and that sends an unacceptable message.

Stigmatizing Sexuality

Confusing sexual abuse with a sexual attraction to children also places an unfair and frankly slanderous label on those who have never hurt a child in their life. When people use the word "pedophile", it should only be to mean someone with an attraction to children. Otherwise, it places the label of child rapist on those who, according to estimates and statistics, do not rape children. It is just as serious as posting on Facebook that someone is a child rapist: If they are not, it can land the accuser in hot legal water very quickly.

News Outlet List

I think it is high time for a list, given the amount of articles from specific major news sources that confuse terminology around child sexual abuse. This list is current as of June 17, 2017, and was formed through many weeks of viewing news reports with specific keywords flagged: Pedophile and pedophilia. Many more minimize the issue by referring to child sexual exploitation material or sexual abuse images as "child pornography," as if the images are legitimate pornography where the child can consent, is paid, and is actually acting.

Note To Media:
If you would like your organization removed from this list, then please use the contact widget on the right-hand side of this page to request it. Please be aware that you will need to demonstrate at least three months of organization-wide content that refrains from minimizing child sexual abuse by conflating it with a sexual attraction to children and calls sexual abuse and sexual abusers by proper terms. Absent this content, your request will be denied.

• Associated Press
• Many times, other news organizations will borrow reports from the Associated Press, so they may not come up directly as "Associated Press" in a news feed, you have to actually read the article.
• The Australian
• RT
• New York Post
• The Sun
• Daily Mail
• CNN
• The Daily Caller
• The Barrie Examiner
• The News Tribune
• The Times Of Israel
• Israel News Nation
• CNBC
• Collective Evolution
• The Star Tribune

Supreme Court Decides Sex Offender Social Media Use Is Free Speech: Why This Matters

Say What?

A sex offender posted a win in defeating a parking ticket, on Facebook where North Carolina forbids sex offenders from being on social media. He was arrested, and his case went all the way to SCOTUS. The best analysis I have seen for this so far is here.

In short, the Supreme Court decided unanimously in favor of the sex offender, ruling that his access to social media constitutes free speech and cannot be restricted. While I am still working through the decision in its entirety, you can read the complete decision and an outline of the case.

What Does This Mean?

This ruling means, to quote the decision, "...the State may not enact this complete bar to the exercise of First Amendment rights on websites integral to the fabric of modern society and culture." The decision was not limited to social media, and the decision essentially holds for the entire internet, insofar as it is used for free speech. While I am no legal expert, this ruling may well set the stage for a number of internet and technology-related issues that come before judges.

Why Is This Related To Primary Prevention?

The argument of North Carolina was, in part, that restricting sex offenders from social media sites was a virtual extension of banning them from schools, parks, daycares, and other places children gather. They claimed that banning sex offenders from such places, and from certain internet sites, was in the interest of protecting the community.

Logically, their argument falls short, because sexual offenders do not pose the most significant risk to children: Those new to the criminal justice system who are trusted in the community are. The SCOTUS did not buy the legal argument of North Carolina because, in part,

"By prohibiting sex offenders from using those websites, North Carolina with one broad stroke bars access to what for many are the principal sources for knowing current events, checking ads for employment, speaking and listening in the modern public square, and otherwise exploring the vast realms of human thought and knowledge. These websites can provide perhaps the most powerful mechanisms available to a private citizen to make his or her voice heard."

Social Media Helps Reintegration

Another essential part of why they ruled against North Carolina, that was quoted in many articles on the subject, was,

"It is unsettling to suggest that only a limited set of websites can be used even by persons who have completed their sentences. Even convicted criminals—and in some instances especially convicted criminals—might receive legitimate benefits from these means for access to the world of ideas, in particular if they seek to reform and to pursue lawful and rewarding lives."

This issue is closely related to primary prevention, because it allows sex offenders the right to use social media and have a bigger voice in politics, as well as use the internet to reform themselves (which, by the way, includes yours truly).

Concerns About Restrictions On Those Having Served Their Sentence

One concern outlined in the court's decision, and was also shared in one of the news articles discussing the decision, was that the law is imposing restrictions on convicts and ex-convicts after the completion of their sentence. This concern was briefly mentioned in the court's decision:

"Of importance, the troubling fact that the law imposes severe restrictions on persons who already have served their sentence and are no longer subject to the supervision of the criminal justice system is also not an issue before the Court."

This suggests that the court may take up the issue again in the future, and a growing number of civil rights advocates are have been concerned about similar issues. I posit that scaling back these restrictions may well reduce recidivism, and can have collateral consequences well beyond what their intent was.

One Item Of Concern...

I do have one item of concern regarding the court's decision: Their claim that sex offenders pose a serious risk for recidivism, and that the internet can all too easily be used by a sex offender to commit a new sexual crime against a child. The court cites a wide range of examples in airing this concern that, frankly, would give many would-be offenders ideas on how to commit such a crime and get away with it.

I am concerned by this, because not only does the concern of sex offenders committing new sex crimes have no basis in research, the ruling is such that their statement that runs contrary to said research may be cited in future decisions regarding the issue. I worry about broadly announcing the fact that social media can be used to stalk, sexually exploit, and sexually abuse children in specific ways, and this ruling appears to do just that. We need to avoid giving people ideas.