One of the presentations today featured the somewhat recent controversy of Online Sex Offender Registries. The four presenters, Morgan, Mandy, Olivia, and Ellison did a wonderful job explaining the debate on whether or not information on sex offenders should be online (and thus accessed so easily). In my opinion, I agree 100% with online registries to learn about possible sex offenders in your area. The fact that most sex crimes are committed close to your house is enough grounds for the minimum of 15 years (Tier 1) on the Sex Offenders registry. I think legislation like this only helps the safety of one’s community by keeping the constituents aware and the children protected. Regardless, there is much debate as to whether this system is too invasive, unfair punishment for the conviction, or even a medium to facilitate increased identity theft. Please feel free to post your opinions on the presentation and the controversy in general!
The Online Sex Offender Registry debate somewhat feeds into our reading from Quinn’s Ethics for the Information Age on the Child Internet Protection Act. CIPA was the governmental effort that weighed the question of whether the government can require libraries to install a web filter for anti-pornographic and other obscenities on the internet in return for federal funds that granted internet access. Web filters are popular systems used mostly by parents to protect their children from the possibility of opening inappropriate websites. For the most part, parents who use filters pay for it out of their own pocket to be installed on their personal computers. However, CIPA opens an entirely new ethical question that is necessary for the government to consider. If libraries are funded by tax-payer money, the constituents paying taxes should be allowed to voice their opinion on whether they want web filters on public property or not.
The strongest argument for CIPA is that libraries should not be obligated to offer access to pornography when they are not obliged to rent out pornographic movies or magazines. The counter argument is that these web filters would unnecessarily block thousands of inoffensive sites. In addition, the act of seeking out a librarian and asking to turn off the filter is disruptive and presumably embarrassing.
What is your opinion on the ethical dilemma of CIPA?
- Do you side with the Kantian evaluation (aka the counter-argument) that CIPA does not in fact protect children from the dangerous exposure to pornography because the web filters are unable to target all the harmful sites and end up blocking sites completely appropriate for children? Kant would reason that the ends do not justify the means- how would u reason this statement? How could it be broken down?
-Or do you agree with several points of the Act Utilitarian evaluations? First, the act of passing legislation such as CIPA will most likely lessen the amount of children exposed to indecent websites. In addition, tax-payers money should be allocated to systems that are advantageous to society as a whole, and if sheltering children from indecencies is a means to benefit the youth, then it should be enacted.
Taking the example of CIPA and the exploitation aspects of today’s presentation on Online Sex Offenders Registry, can we come up with ethical reasoning as to why or why not certain images and information broadcasted so publically on the internet can be considered innately is right or wrong?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
First of all, I want to address the issue of access to sex offender registries. If we take the Mill Utilitarian approach, we can conclude that in order to serve the greatest good for the greatest number, we must allow the registries to exist. The only person harmed by online access is the individual that committed the crime. The innocent citizens, especially children and concerned parents will benefit greatly from using the tool.
ReplyDeleteAlso, since I am following the Utilitarian model, the CIPA legislation is also beneficial. Protecting children from indecent information at the library is very important. Parents do not have supervision of their children outside of the home, and this would prevent users from accessing inappropriate material while at a public library. If a person wants to access something that is blocked from the filter, then they can do so at home.
The internet is a very open, public forum for communication and information access. However, we must consider the manner of use and an individuals need to view the debated information. For instance, a parent should know if their is a sex offender in her neighborhood, but they probably do not need to know what their favorite movies, books and hobbies are...oh wait, that's what we post on facebook anyway!
I agree that sex offender registries should be available to the public. Someone who has committed a sexual crime should have to pay for their offenses, since it can often be considered one of the more gruesome crimes in our society. Sex crimes are different from other crimes such as burglary or arson simply because it deals with one human being doing something directly to another human being. Therefore, I think it is right that we distinguish these crimes from other crimes and allow the public to see these records.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the sex offender registries being an avenue for identity theft, I do not think that the information that can be obtained from these sites can cause as much damage to the individuals as what is traditionally considered identity theft. You cannot go onto a sex offender registry and obtain someone's social security number or bank account number, which is where most identity theft occurs. Therefore, I do not think the costs outweigh the benefits for public sex offender registries.
I would also agree with the Utilitarian model; online sex offender registries are beneficial to society because it is only creates a cost for the one individual who committed the crime. In my opinion, I believe increasing the availability of sex offender registries is perfectly ethical since these registries were always available before in print. By allowing them to be online, people can use these registries like they were intended to be used, just with easier access. I don't believe that we need to be as concerned with the rights of those who personally violated the rights and safety of innocent citizens. Although these offenders may have served their jailtime, that time of isolation does not make up for the negative impacts they have made on others' lives.
ReplyDeleteI agree that online sex offender registries are completely legal and ethical. While they may hinder sex offenders’ reintegration with society and, in some instances, place them in danger, it’s still the greatest good for the greatest number. However, I think it’s incredibly important that the agencies in charge of such registries take extreme care to make sure the information available is 100 percent accurate and up-to-date as it is not a subject to be taken lightly. I also think that it is important to not only designate, but highlight the various levels of offenses to ensure that those caught urinating in public are not easily confused with rapists. There is something to arguments that if these people were dangerous, they’d still be in jail. But, more than likely, they are still in the parole system and this is just part of their punishment.
ReplyDeleteI think the CIPA discussion is really interesting. I agree that constituents should have a say and that libraries are not obligated to offer access to pornography on the Internet, but I am somewhat concerned that the filters will block legitimate content and interfere with innocent research at these public facilities. Perhaps the best solution is to offer both filtered and unfiltered computers. It seems obvious that any computers that are frequently used by children should possess filters, but there’s no reason computers primarily used by adults should have any sort of filter. Maybe users should be allowed to opt-in or out of the filter when they log onto a library computer. That way, those who are easily offended can browse the Internet without fear of stumbling upon an embarrassing display of pornography and those who either don’t mind the content or need to do research that might include some filtered terms (such as research for this topic) can find what they need without having to ask a librarian to disable the filter.
That is a really interesting question you posed about the CIPA and I haven't fully decided which side I am on. On the one hand, I think the filters are a positive thing because they protect minors and non-consenting adults from stumbling on obscene material. Libraries are a public space and I don't think you are entitled to the same privacy rights as in your home. If a person views obscene material in a library, they could expose non-consenting individuals to that material. On the other hand, people should have the freedom to choose what they view. Citizens that use library computers pay taxes and have a right to use public instruments like other tax paying individuals.
ReplyDeleteI too am in agreement with a more Utilitarian approach to CIPA -- taxpayers should be, and are, able to utilize the library computer systems that their tax dollars fund and provide, but ensuring that people have access in public libraries to possibly inappropriate material is simply not something that should be a concern. If I go to a library and am blocked from a site that I know to be completely appropriate, while it may be a slight inconvenience I should not be embarrassed to request access to a legitimate website--protecting adults from possible minor embarassment cannot take precedence over protecting our society's youth from exposure to illicit material that could actually serve to "corrupt" them. Furthermore, I see no valid argument in the idea that because taxpayers supply the funds for these library computers they should be guaranteed the right to essentially look at pornography in a public space - libraries are spaces that are government funded in an effort to be an educational and informational resource for society, not a web cafe for someone who wants to look at naked strangers' photos.
ReplyDeleteBefore hearing the group's presentation on Online Sex Offender Registries I thought it would be extremely difficult for them to argue that registries should not be available online. Therefore, I was very surprised to learn that so many people have been wrongfully categorized as sex offenders. I did not take these people into account when considering if these registries should be available online and it is an interesting argument. However, I feel that the answer to this problem is address who falls into this category instead of what gets published. I thought the solution offered by the group to color code profiles based on the severity of the act was a good idea because most would not consider consensual sex between a 17 year old and 15 year old a sexual offense.
ReplyDeleteWith regards to the issue of CIPA and filters in public libraries, I think that it would be indecent and tasteless for public libraries to know pornography is available on their computers and do nothing to try and block these sites. Just because it is a public library does not mean that they are required to have every single book that someone requests, especially if it is indecent and serves no educational purpose. Therefore, they should not be required to allow access to every site on the internet, since these types of sites have the potential to harm young viewers in any way. I would have to take the Utilitarian point of view on this issue because the consequences at stake, the harmful effects on children, should be one of society's top priorities.
I couldn't agree more that parents should be given access to information about sex offenders. My only problem is the amount of information about these offenders that is displayed on these websites. The current system gives no room for these individuals to show that they have the capacity to change. People make mistakes, and in these cases really bad ones, but what is the point of the judicial system of America if it doesn't allow for true individual change. Not only that, these registries really make it difficult for offenders to get jobs and go back as contributing members of society. This is all very hard to say because I know if I had children I would regard sex offenders in such a different regard. With that, I truly don't know where I stand on this issue. It's highly controversial and very good for debate.
ReplyDeleteI agree that sex offender registries are good to have, so that parents are more aware of the environment that their children are in, but they should be used with caution and only in the most necessary cases such as rape and child abuse. Not when someone is caught nude in public or is 19 dating a 16 year old.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the Act Utilitarian theory because I think if we can keep as many children away from these offensive websites, we should. However, trying to block the offensive websites could also block non-offensive websites. At my high school, we had filters like this on our computers, but more often than not they blocked the non-offensive websites that students needed. The filters seemed to block the websites we needed for projects and papers, so we were unable to do our research at school. Instead, we would have to wait until we got home where there were not as many filtered websites. So, I do think that libraries should be obligated to allow accesses to offensive websites, but I do think they should come up with better filters that allow access to non-offensive websites.
ReplyDeletei think the sex offender discussion is a very interesting one and is incredibly complex. Like most of these debates, it boils down to a conflict of interest several parties. On the one hand, there are parents who can better protect their children by having this information at their fingertips. But on the other hand, there are undoubtedly people who have been wrongly convicted of a sex crime, or, like someone else pointed out, were convicted of something less threatening. If i remember correctly, i think streaking would now be considered a sex crime and you'd land on the registry (i might be wrong). I'd certainly hate to imagine sacrificing a child's safety, but i also can't imagine having to live with the stigma of being a sex offender for 15 years for going streaking once.
ReplyDeleteI understand the need for sex offender registries, but I believe that the information listed needs to be considered somewhat more sensitive. In class on Monday we watched the short documentary on information and how little it takes to steal identity. I understand the need for safety with sex offendor registries and wanting to know who lives in your neighborhood but yet we have to realize that some people on there were only listed because of a relationship they had when 17 or because they made the poor decision of urinating in public, which most college males do at some point. It seems outrageous to not have filters listed as to their danger level as well as personal information is personal.
ReplyDeleteAs everyone above has said, I agree that sex offenders should be exposed to the population and especially to those around them. I agree with Evt above concerning the content that the offense must be precise and 100% accurate. This comment reminds me of yesterday's class video of the man who is detained only above 1/3 of the time he goes through the airport due to his nationality. This man is obviously an educated, well respected member of society and he is being violated by having to endure these airport attacks. What is even scarier is that he isn't stopped every time. Can we trust computer programs to take the place for human instinct? If someone appeared to be creepy in the airport or appeared to be a danger to society, would officials fail to stop them solely because the computer didn't flag them? These are valid questions we must consider when we put our reliance on computers. I think it should be the number one priority to have accuracy and consistency when categorizing sex offenders and those who are dangerous to society. Different degrees of danger should also be included.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Molly about taking the Utilitarian approach to CIPA. I personally don’t have children to protect from pornographic or other potentially explicit websites, but I do think it is entirely appropriate to place limitations upon information that is viewed in public libraries. I know that I have much less of a problem with walking up to the library counter and asking for permission to explicit websites (in the event that my next research paper is on porn) than I do with sitting next to a 7 year old who is freely surfing pages of inappropriate material. As for the argument about taxpayers having the freedom to view whatever they want because the funding is essentially coming from their pockets…that’s like saying that the ultimate power to decide anything funded by taxpayers money is up for open discussion. We all know that’s not the case. That type of legislation is dealt with through people we choose to represent us. These very people speak out for the greatest good; that is how they got the job after all (majority vote). I think you’d be hard pressed to find enough people in support for public porn viewing rights to outweigh all the people who have children or have enough concern for living in a moral society.
ReplyDeleteIn response to your first point about Online Sex Offender Registries, I completely agree with you. In class, someone mentioned that it would be more beneficial to have a registry like this for more violent crimes like murder. I did not speak up at the time, but I think most of us can agree that rape is generally always violent. No one ever consents to be raped. There is not an online registry for people who have committed murder because they are most likely still in jail or prison. It is very creepy/scary to look up your address on the online sex offender registry, yet it is important to know the dangers that surround you and your family.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, in regard to CIPA, I feel that a public library is not an appropriate place for people to be looking at pornographic websites. I imagine a library as a learning environment and a not a place for porn to be shown. I like your point about how libraries should not be obligated to offer access to pornography when they are not obligated to rent out pornographic movies and magazines.
I agree that tax- payers have the right to decide, but the argument is very back and fourth especially since young children tend to frequent libraries. I do not think the legislation will stop kids from finding pornographic websites. However, I believe that most parents would support the legislation because it will benefit their children from stumbling upon vulgar websites that they should not see.
I agree with Lea - if we follow Mill, it really is about the greatest good for the greatest number. And I also agree with Emily's comment that it should be 100% accurate. This information is important to our safety, but it's not about embarassing the offenders.
ReplyDeleteIf there is a sex offender in a neighborhood with a lot of children, the parents definitely have the right to know. There are different types of sex offenders, though. I agree with Yuen in the fact that the type of sex offender really matters. The new neighbor that parents are worried about could just have been convicted because when they were 18 years old they were dating a 15-year old. That would be a personal mistake rather than an instance where they were harmful to society, and I don’t think they should have to suffer for the rest of their lives by being labeled as a “sex offender” on the open internet. If the person was convicted for rape of child abuse, then I would not be concerned about their privacy rights at all. They should have thought about that before they committed such a heinous crime.
ReplyDeleteI agree that this can be a very touchy issue, but I don't see how parents having access to a better understanding of where and who these sex offenders are can be a bad thing. You see many examples of a sex offender in a neighborhood where a day care is being run. How don't you know that the sex offender didn't purposely move there? You don't and that is why a parent should have the right to check out information on the area before they decide to drop their kids off everyday. I know if I had children I would want to be confident in where I lived, where they were being taken to day care etc so allowing a parent to see this information is only going to help keep children more safe.
ReplyDeleteIt seems agreeable that the benefits of sex offender registries greatly outnumber the consequences for greater society. This being said, the material on such sights should be absolutely accurate and very clearly defined. If an 18 year old high school senior commented sexual acts with a consenting 16 year old classmate, he or she should not be amongst the same 'tier' as those who have committed more disturbing offenses. The tier system could be further defined to alleviate the potential for he or she to be ostracized from a community compared to a more offensive offender. Likewise, I think it is important for the community to know the location of the individual but not information that would assist in identity theft. Protection of the communities’ children should be the top priority; however, all individual's rights must be considered.
ReplyDeleteLike Autumn said, I had not taken into account the issue of people who may be wrongfully accused. Also there is the fact that one might say, they did their time therefore should not still be penalized but I still agree for my own safety and for the safety of my community I think we should definitely have these registries. Just like c.davis said, the benefits greatly outweigh the consequences, just like greatest good for the greatest number in the Mill Utilitarian approach Lea mentioned. Just like most of the others said we just need to make sure it is 100 percent accurate because it could destroy the reputation of someone innocent which would be unfair to them and their community.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Lea's post, that the Utilitarian Theory should be applied to the Sex offender registry and in context to the CIPA. On a whole, these initiatives can do the greatest good in protecting the greatest amount of people. Our children are the most important thing in consideration and we want to do all we can to protect them. Therefore, sex offender registries should be required, however, those regulating them should make sure that they are valid and up to date. CIPA should also be required, the simple fact is, if you want to look at porn on the internet (or anywhere), do it in the privacy of your own home.
ReplyDeleteI completely believe that registeries help the community because the benefits do outweigh the conequences. However, at the same time, I have seen where a past sex offender is always bothered and cannot live a normal life after they have paid their dues. However, it is also important that the information is kept to a minimum and in context to the CIPA.
ReplyDelete