so instead of parents taking responibility for their children and watching what they do, they punish people who may be well on their way to recovery? that makes no sense, and just shows how stupid our government has become. this is not a government issue, it is a parental issue.

More political grandstanding to garner votes - lynching measures that understand neither the problem nor the limitations of technology, nor yet the nature of the internet; this kind of 'purge' fosters a false sense of security among the web-illiterate and actually DAMAGES less selfishly-motivated efforts to protect kids online.

Once again, the system is attempting to fight something which needs to be fought, but failing to implement much in the way of common sense and using an ineffective approach.

First off, a registered sex offender, creating a profile on any social networking site and using that site and profile in a legitimate manner should be allowed to do so. After all, believe it or not, they also have friends and family and may well use social networking to keep in touch.

The real key and purpose of enforcement should be aimed at illegal activity, not just the "shotgun" approach.

Injecting a bit of common sense, it would be difficult to imagine a registered sex offender creating a profile, using their own name and specifics, with the intent of perpetrating illegal activity. Common sense would say they would most likely create a bogus profile....false name, age and so forth. Listing one's self as a 45, 50 or 60 year old male is hardly going to attract many underage kids. On the other hand, creating a false profile indicating that one is 13 years old probably would. Likewise, a male sex offender stalking young boys would probably get further by creating a profile indicating they are a teenage girl.

Of course, there are probably way more "sex offenders" out in cyberspace who have not been caught nor registered, thus avoid the Sentinel Safe program. One needs to follow very little news to see that nearly every week, some "solid upstanding citizen," often a school teacher, police officer, clergy, doctor, politician or someone who works with children is caught in a sting operation.

Therefore, the practical and effective approach to fighting the problem lies in taking two steps. First, require verification when someone creates a profile. Sure, that's going to require some effort, but it's necessary if we want to make social networking safe. Secondly, postings need to be monitored for signs of potential illegal behavior patterns. If our telephones can be tapped and our mail read, certainly that wouldn't be an invasion of privacy.

Just because someone is a registered sex offender does not mean that they are automatically doing anything illegal. Just because someone is an "upstanding" member of society (who has not yet been caught) does not mean they are not doing anything with illegal purpose.

If we want to make the social networking sites safer, let's concentrate our efforts on specific activities and not just single out specific groups of individuals.

just intend, they never deleted them yet, right?
______________________
DVD to iPhone
http://www.iphoneconverter.com/dvd-to-iphone/

Someone can this spammer.

innocent until proven guilty. not innocent until proven guilty a couple of times

After a 3 year stint in a correctional facility I consider myself fully rehabilitated. Further persecution from the community and barring from sites such as MySpace is tantamount to a slap in the face to the judicial system and my right to fully re-enter the community.

Unless the conditions of your release are to adhere to certain rules then it isn't against their "right to re-enter the community".

They lost alot of their rights by committing the crime to start with. They have to earn their rights back by completing their punishment. If they were released with many conditions, and they break those conditions, then they should loose their freedom.

They aren't looking for someone that has completed their punishment successfully, they are looking for those that are on probation and parole. See the last paragraph.

Thank you very much, this is EXACTLY what I needed.

Betanews and your ISP should be expecting a Supina and eventually yourself can expect a libel case though the post. I have a lawyer who is interested in taking this up.

See you in court.

hahah nice try, you know how many cases of internet libel have actually been one dont you? you might as well just track him down and beat him senseless.

II. LEGAL REMEDIES FOR INTERNET LIBEL AROUND THE WORLD

A. THE UNITED STATES

Libelous messages placed on the Internet in the United States is upheld to the same level of scrutiny as other forms of communication. However, the ease in which a person can keep their identity secret frequently poses a problem for finding a responsible party. Recent trends indicate that the owners and operators of on-line services will sometimes be held liable for what is placed on their services. Recent case law in the United States considering the liability of owners and operators of on-line services for items posted upon bulletin boards exemplify the evolving area of computer law. The courts have looked upon on-line libel with an eye upon traditional libel law and also recognizing the uniqueness of on-line circumstances.

The liability of the owners and operators of on-line systems for the posting of defamatory statements depends on whether they are considered by the courts as a distributor of information or a publisher of information. These two categories, publisher and distributor are treated differently in traditional libel law. The distributor of information, such as libraries, newsstands, bookstores, telephone and telegraph operators are not normally held liable. Publishers, such as newspapers and publishing houses are held responsible for the materials that they print. (Internet and the Law, p. 164). Thus, in the Internet world, if the accused is considered to be a distributor, then no liability will be found unless the individual had personal knowledge of the contents of the material. However, if the operator or owner is considered to be a publisher, then liability will be found.

right, but it would be quite hard to pin anything on him/her/it, even if we would like it to be so. i am a bit fuzzy on the subject but i believe that the majority of internet libel cases get shot down.

The problem is proving ownership, the "I left my computer logged on" or "someone hacked my wifi" story...

Still I can make it a very expensive process for someone in the meantime, with regards to lawyer costs...

and big brother is still watching you