In 2009, Peter Chapman raped and murdered 17-year-old Ashleigh Hall in England.
Chapman, a convicted double-rapist, coerced Hall into meeting him over Facebook. The catch: Chapman posed as an attractive 17-year-old boy.
To combat this type of crime, Rep. Ledricka Thierry, D-Opelousas, has proposed a bill that would ban convicted pedophiles from social networking.
Before I go on, protecting children is paramount, and there are instances of sexual crimes against children where the perpetrator deserves life.
That said, Thierry’s bill sparks a number of questions about its constitutionality and effectiveness.
House Bill 620 would ban individuals convicted of indecent behavior with juveniles, pornography involving juveniles and computer-aided solicitation of minors, or video voyeurism, from social websites.
The bill defines a “social networking website” as any site whose primary purpose is “facilitating social interaction with other users of the website.”
It specifies that the websites must have capabilities that allow users to create Web pages or profiles about themselves that are available to the general public or other users as a “mechanism of communication.”
A “social networking website” doesn’t include sites that only provide photo-sharing, e-mail or instant messengers. It doesn’t include sites primarily for facilitating commercial transactions, and it doesn’t include ones primarily used for disseminating news.
In February, Chief Justice Brian Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana struck down the bill’s first incarnation, citing First Amendment violations.
Jackson believed the bill went overboard and banned use to most of the Internet.
The bill’s reincarnation – though approved by the House of Representatives – appears to have the same problem as its predecessor.
Because of the bill’s vague wording, it may cover much more than social networking and take away outlets for free speech.
It may cover professional networking website LinkedIn. It also seems to include sites like Yahoo!, which contains e-mail and news and allows users to make a profile.
And will it cover blogging sites like WordPress or iPhone social-networking apps like Foursquare?
At any rate, the bill may still cover a substantial amount of the Internet now that social networking influences new websites across the Web.
These questions need to be addressed before the bill is passed. Unfortunately, Rep. Thierry could not be reached for comment by press time.
Another problem is that the bill will affect more people than needed.
In a 2003 study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, only about 5 percent of nearly 9,700 sex offenders released from jail were rearrested for a new sex crime in three years.
These statistics show the bill ignores that most released offenders aren’t committing future crimes. In fact, the bill assumes all will commit another sex crime – and that it will occur online.
These offenders served their time. Is it right to continue punishing them for the rest of their lives?
The ban will inevitably be more harmful to convicted sex offenders ready to live a crime-free life.
And finally, the law will not affect those criminals willing to commit another crime.
People willing to break the law will break the law – that’s how they become criminals.
Though it may be illegal to register on a website under their real name, convicted sex offenders could register under a nickname if they are going to prey on social networking sites.
If passed, Thierry’s bill would simply say Louisiana is tough on child sex offenders, while creating a new crime only to be committed by those who have served their time – logging on to Facebook or trying to get a job via LinkedIn.
To make the bill more constitutional, Thierry could make the law narrower, possibly including only repeated sex offenders or sex offenders who were originally convicted of using the Internet to solicit sex.
Another suggestion is for Thierry to pass a bill to enhance sex offender rehabilitation rather than a bill to restrict outlets to free speech.
A blanket ban on social media will harm a majority of convicted sex offenders’ rights and keep them from engaging in social networking.
Right now, Louisiana requires sex offenders to register in an online database and have special driver’s licenses, among other duties. Social networking has potential – if used in the right way – to help integrate such criminals back into society, rather than ostracize them further.
Sex crimes against children is a controversial subject. But we cannot let emotions and stereotypes against certain people justify harming First Amendment rights.
There is a compromise to be made.
Why not focus on helping rather than creating lifelong punishments?
Chris Grillot is a 21-year-old English and mass communication senior from New Orleans. Follow him on Twitter @TDR_cgrillot.
 
____
Contact Chris Grillot at [email protected]