Passport mark for US sex offenders law challenged in court

[boomerangutang]

On the surface of it, I like this idea... I do think there is a legitimate public safety interest to know who is a known and convicted sex offender..

However.. I am also concerned about possible misuses/abuses of this -- or the potential for "creep" whereby other crimes that are not sex-offender related later also become "symbol" eligible.

I guess for me I'd just want to be sure that there are proper safeguards in place to reasonably insure that the process will be done in accordance with law... Only because the issue of being labeled a "sex offender" carries a huge social stigma (and rightly so) I want to be sure that it's only applied in correct situations.

BINGO! This is my observation. Under the color of outrage we paint a large "A" across the life of a person who committed a crime, paid a price, and then released into society we stigmatize then and corrupt their blood for life. Good idea or not, the concern is expanding the precedent.

All one needs to do to ponder the slippery slope of such polices/laws is look at how the Obama administration has turned judicial process on its head regarding title IX and colleges. Basically, unless colleges adopt the more liberal, new, Obamaian concept of legal threshold Federal Funds will be withheld. This new threshold is not beyond a doubt or preponderance of evidence, only likely/possible that a sexual crime of sorts may have been committed. Such people will have none of the due process of law, can be permanently stigmatized, kicked out of college, denied access to PELL and other funds, and be labeled for life...for no other reason than the political class fabricating a new standard in law. In other words, under Obama, sexual offenders are created increasingly under a non judicial premise! Absolute fact!

IMO, sex offenders/pedophiles, etc., should be managed as murderers and rarely released but as they are this mechanism has no reference in recent US history to suggest it will not be abused. Already rights to travel, etc.are being leveraged through the State Dept on passport holders for the IRS. The means to travel are increasingly politicized. Yes, we should be concerned.

Also the well posted fact is numerous people are labeled sex offender and they are not remotely near this threshold. In fact, sex offender has become one more example of government diagnosing a swath of America and medicating or labeling them (similar stalking horse as domestic abuse labeling).

I agree with most of the above, but don't see a need to try and blame Obama. He didn't push that legislation through on his own. It took a lot of people to give it momentum. Put the 'blame Obama' 'blame Hillary' sensationalism aside for awhile, and try to see what's really behind the issue.

[boomerangutang]

As many have already mentioned, the term sex offender covers a rather wide range of people who are not in any way a danger to society. Even if you refine the law and define it so it is actually limited to those who have abused children under a certain age, and go further to define a minimum age difference between consenting partners (as you might have cases of 1 partner is 1 day after the threshold age and the other 1 day before), once you have the law in place, it won't be so difficult to broaden the criteria later on.

But that's not the only issue with such a law. What about those who abuse children in a NON sexual way. Are they any better? Are they less of a danger to children and society? What about rapists who rape adults? Why should they be able to travel freely without any warning to the hosting countries? And how about other violent criminals? Be it robbers, murderers? Yes, I know a murderer usually gets a very long jail term, but unless they get the death penalty they, too, will be freed at the end of their sentence and might travel overseas putting innocent lives at risk.

Good point. Speaking of non-sexual abuse. I've spoken with at least a half dozen Americans who are now middle age - all of whom were abused while children. Beatings were common, along with the deep psychological wounds that last a lifetime. Yes, there was sexual abuse, but at least as often there was physical abuse. One guy told me his father beat him, his two brother and sister severely for the smallest infraction (taking a cookie from the father's stash, for example) - and the beatings didn't stop until the father was too tired to continue.

Another American friend told of his father sexually abusing all eleven of his daughters. Even after it was realized and recorded by local cops, the dad was still allowed to gain sole custody of young daughters after he split with the wife. The amount of physical and sexual abuse in US families is phenomenal. Much of it alcohol-driven, though alcohol is not an excuse. However, if the abusers were allowed to smoke pot instead of guzzling alcohol, the abusiveness would likely have been less. Yet, according to the law being discussed in this topic, few parents would be subject to its restrictions. Note, the wife of a man who is abusing his children should be charged with 'aiding and abetting a crime', but that very rarely happens. 99% of the time, the wife is excused, even though she knew of the crimes while they were taking place. Other times, of course, it's the mother who is gravely abusive.

[Trouble]

In some states indecent exposure or public urination can be sex offenses. Some minor offenses by young people could conceivably be included for which they have paid the penalty and been reformed. This is going down a slippery slope in my mind. On might want to do something like this with repeat offenders of certain specific crimes buy by definition different states have different laws for different offenses. Just not a good idea and overkill most likely.

[arjunadawn]

On the surface of it, I like this idea... I do think there is a legitimate public safety interest to know who is a known and convicted sex offender..

However.. I am also concerned about possible misuses/abuses of this -- or the potential for "creep" whereby other crimes that are not sex-offender related later also become "symbol" eligible.

I guess for me I'd just want to be sure that there are proper safeguards in place to reasonably insure that the process will be done in accordance with law... Only because the issue of being labeled a "sex offender" carries a huge social stigma (and rightly so) I want to be sure that it's only applied in correct situations.

BINGO! This is my observation. Under the color of outrage we paint a large "A" across the life of a person who committed a crime, paid a price, and then released into society we stigmatize then and corrupt their blood for life. Good idea or not, the concern is expanding the precedent.

All one needs to do to ponder the slippery slope of such polices/laws is look at how the Obama administration has turned judicial process on its head regarding title IX and colleges. Basically, unless colleges adopt the more liberal, new, Obamaian concept of legal threshold Federal Funds will be withheld. This new threshold is not beyond a doubt or preponderance of evidence, only likely/possible that a sexual crime of sorts may have been committed. Such people will have none of the due process of law, can be permanently stigmatized, kicked out of college, denied access to PELL and other funds, and be labeled for life...for no other reason than the political class fabricating a new standard in law. In other words, under Obama, sexual offenders are created increasingly under a non judicial premise! Absolute fact!

IMO, sex offenders/pedophiles, etc., should be managed as murderers and rarely released but as they are this mechanism has no reference in recent US history to suggest it will not be abused. Already rights to travel, etc.are being leveraged through the State Dept on passport holders for the IRS. The means to travel are increasingly politicized. Yes, we should be concerned.

Also the well posted fact is numerous people are labeled sex offender and they are not remotely near this threshold. In fact, sex offender has become one more example of government diagnosing a swath of America and medicating or labeling them (similar stalking horse as domestic abuse labeling).

I agree with most of the above, but don't see a need to try and blame Obama. He didn't push that legislation through on his own. It took a lot of people to give it momentum. Put the 'blame Obama' 'blame Hillary' sensationalism aside for awhile, and try to see what's really behind the issue.

Of course the CEO of the company holds responsibility for the polices enacting during his/her tenure. In this case the connection is meaningful because under Obama aggressive policies have been enacted that lower the threshold for what constitutes sexual attack/etc. Under Obama an entire industry of real and contrived college sexual acts now results in penalties and stigma way below the threshold for legal adjudication. Under Obama many young people are leaving college, sans degree, with the label of sex offender and they have never been to court, only Obama standards kangaroo courts at the university level. There is a great push back against the constitutionality of such politicized activism invading judicial domains.

Under Obama other facets of State and Passport penalties have come to pass also, effective 1 January 2016. Obama is the Executive. The remotest charge against him for such things remains valid on its face- the buck is in his office. In the college examples, his inner domain actually contrived the phenomena by lowering the standards to make someone a sex offender to create the constituency to continue the illusion of the war on women.

Obama is the most negative, most abhorrent of all humans- he trades in conflict and division. In this case, he created sexual offenders where there were none, or few. My previous comments were not important enough to warrant additional posts; thanks for thinking otherwise and allowing me to expand. (Edit: Last part sounds too sarcastic. I did not mean to be disagreeable).

Edited March 30, 2016 by arjunadawn

[HooHaa]

Get a clue.

The reason this law is horrible is that in the U.S. you are labelled a lifetime sex offender (ruining your life basically) for offenses as trivial as PUBLIC URINATION.

It would be fine if distinctions were made.

BUT THEY'RE NOT!

Hmmmm, are you sure about that? This is the text of the law:H.R.515 - International Megan's Law to Prevent Child Exploitation and Other Sexual Crimes Through Advanced Notification of Traveling Sex Offenders

I'm not an expert on this law or how one gets labeled a Sex Offender. But I find it hard to believe that one can be prosecuted and convicted for public urination.

They charge someone with indecent exposure which is a sex crime.

Ok, you guys can keep coming up with egregious examples. But if this law helps to keep sex offenders out of Thailand, I'm all for it. Do any of you guys actually know someone who might wrongly have the sex offender label that would be impacted by this law?

Rightly or wrongly is not for me to say, but it would certainly effect that nice gentleman drunken sexter from the other thread.

The margin for error is just too high to justify the mark.

As has been said, US authorities should remove the passports of all offenders considered a threat to others rather than making them wear armbands.

[theguyfromanotherforum]

So, will they stick a special mark in Dick Chaney's passport?

[Morakot]

Apparently this will be the design of the stamp for the passport. Incredible!

Edited March 30, 2016 by Morakot

[BookMan]

This is even worse than it sounds.

Not getting a passport or getting a stigmatized passport isn't that much of a big deal for the majority of Americans.

Being labeled a sex offender for life within the USA for something trivial or unfair ... that in my opinion is a human rights violation that deserves to be protested globally.

What are the overall stats for these trivial offences you keep mentioning?

how many public urinators are classified as sex offenders?

[Jingthing]

This is even worse than it sounds.

Not getting a passport or getting a stigmatized passport isn't that much of a big deal for the majority of Americans.

Being labeled a sex offender for life within the USA for something trivial or unfair ... that in my opinion is a human rights violation that deserves to be protested globally.

What are the overall stats for these trivial offences you keep mentioning?

how many public urinators are classified as sex offenders?

Why are you asking me?

It's also the teens with small age differences, and many other not serious things.

Look it up yourself and post it.

I'd be surprised if such statistics are even available, but go for it.

Anyway, what is really STUPID and galling is that it's clear a number of posters here don't even BELIEVE this is a real thing.

It IS a real thing.

http://www.businessinsider.com/surprising-things-that-could-make-you-a-sex-offender-2013-10?op=1

But sex offender registries can ensnare and publicly humiliate people who haven't victimized anybody at all.

Here are some of the more surprising ways you can end up on a sex offender registry:

3) Peeing in public. At least 13 states require sex offender registration for public urination, according to Human Rights Watch's comprehensive review of sex offender laws in 2007. Two of those states specify that the urination must happen in front of a minor.

Edited March 30, 2016 by Jingthing

[BookMan]

This is even worse than it sounds.

Not getting a passport or getting a stigmatized passport isn't that much of a big deal for the majority of Americans.

Being labeled a sex offender for life within the USA for something trivial or unfair ... that in my opinion is a human rights violation that deserves to be protested globally.

What are the overall stats for these trivial offences you keep mentioning?

how many public urinators are classified as sex offenders?

Why are you asking me?

It's also the teens with small age differences, etc.

Look it up yourself and post it.

I'd be surprised if such statistics are even available, but go for it.

you keep bringing it up as a reason not to have passports stamped.

That's why i am asking you

If you have no idea and stats are not available it is just nonsense scaremongering on your part.

Protect the unjustly convicted and sex offender labelled public urinators.. oh hang on...you dont know if there are any public urinators listed as sex offenders. .. but there might be one...somewhere. ..maybe half a dozen...maybe not

Better stop that law just in case...forget about facts

[Jingthing]

No, dude.

It is real.

Deal with the reality and stop pushing BS that it's not real.

From beach sex to public urination: 9 insane things that will get you labeled a sex offender

http://www.salon.com/2015/05/06/from_beach_sex_to_public_urination_9_insane_things_that_will_get_you_labeled_a_sex_offender/

Edited March 30, 2016 by Jingthing

[arunsakda]

Protecting children overseas from preverts is a decent idea, but this is a bad law.

People get "indecent exposure " charges for pissing in dark alleyways where nobody could possibly see them.

Why are US corporations not sanctioned for polluting overseas, exploting foreign labour and tax loopholes, and doing other things that are illegal in the states?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ronrat]

So if a rockstar or world class sportsman or sportswoman gets a texted photo of a 15 year year old girl or boy showing something inappropriate and doesn't know their age and gets caught reading it or passing it on will they be labelled.With social media these days it is easily done. Surely the law should be changed only to include those that have served a custodial sentence or at worst an offenders diversion program. If having a leak on the side of the road was a reason for being on a sex offenders register then all Australian men who live a 100km from a capital city would be guilty and a 100 percent of all Indian men.

[johnatong]

All the pervs should be presented with a ring.

http://www.suppliesforsmallholders.co.uk/castration-elastrator-rings-500-p-106.html

[Thechook]

The filth should have tattoo on thier forehead

[Bobotie]

This is even worse than it sounds.

Not getting a passport or getting a stigmatized passport isn't that much of a big deal for the majority of Americans.

Being labeled a sex offender for life within the USA for something trivial or unfair ... that in my opinion is a human rights violation that deserves to be protested globally.

What are the overall stats for these trivial offences you keep mentioning?

how many public urinators are classified as sex offenders?

Why are you asking me?

It's also the teens with small age differences, etc.

Look it up yourself and post it.

I'd be surprised if such statistics are even available, but go for it.

you keep bringing it up as a reason not to have passports stamped.

That's why i am asking you

If you have no idea and stats are not available it is just nonsense scaremongering on your part.

Protect the unjustly convicted and sex offender labelled public urinators.. oh hang on...you dont know if there are any public urinators listed as sex offenders. .. but there might be one...somewhere. ..maybe half a dozen...maybe not

Better stop that law just in case...forget about facts

Agreed, some very good and relevant points made, previous poster is scaremongering

Fact is the discussion is whether the law should be enacted, not whether the law is being applied properly.

As mentioned previously I don't believe laws goes far enough when it comes to nonces, stamp their passports, tattoo their foreheads, castrate them as well if it stops the vile disgusting animals that they are.

[arunsakda]

If certain offenders are a danger to children overseas target them. Not every bloke who had to pee.

Many are also unjustly convicted.

Supposedly paedophilia is incurable, so keep nonces on legal probation for life hold their passport if they have one and restrict travel.

Judges are not unintelligent people but when politicians get involved mandating rubbish and the typical prosecutorial overreach of District Attorneys the results can be very unjust. I know of a guy who was caught in his girlfriends college dorm room after visiting hours. Convicted of some degree of "criminal trespass". This is for life, does not go away, and any employer, agency, or policeman at a traffic stop who can pull it up look at him like he burgled the crown jewels of the United Kingdom.

Edited March 31, 2016 by Scott

[Jingthing]

Yeah, that's what people don't seem to be getting.

If convicted of any kind of "sex" crime including the absurd ones noted above in links (STATE LAWS VARY A LOT) you get the same lifetime stigmatizing label: SEX OFFENDER. Period. End of story.

Not SEX OFFENDER (never mind because it was for something irrelevant and stupid)

A passport law would not distinguish on whether the conviction was for something absurd or something very serious.

Get it now?

Good.

As far as knowing people, I had a friend who was caught pissing in an alley in "liberal" San Francisco in a state where presumably you wouldn't get labeled SEX OFFENDER for that offense because like I said STATE LAWS VARY A LOT. He was, however, in jail for over a month for that.

Edited March 31, 2016 by Jingthing

[boomerangutang]

This is even worse than it sounds.

Not getting a passport or getting a stigmatized passport isn't that much of a big deal for the majority of Americans.

Being labeled a sex offender for life within the USA for something trivial or unfair ... that in my opinion is a human rights violation that deserves to be protested globally.

What are the overall stats for these trivial offences you keep mentioning?

how many public urinators are classified as sex offenders?

The issue is not the number, the issue is "what acts constitute 'sex crimes'?" Today the Moral Brigade has one set of parameters. Tomorrow, their holier-than-thou crusade could readily expand to include masturbation and/or looking at photos of teenagers (clothed and unclothed), and/or who-knows-what's-next ?!? see my comment below.....

Agreed, some very good and relevant points made, previous poster is scaremongering

Fact is the discussion is whether the law should be enacted, not whether the law is being applied properly.

As mentioned previously I don't believe laws goes far enough when it comes to nonces, stamp their passports, tattoo their foreheads, castrate them as well if it stops the vile disgusting animals that they are.

Did you know that masturbation is considered a sexual crime in some parts of the US ? Some famous people (music and movie stars) have been caught masturbating in semi-public places like public restroom stalls or dark xxx movie houses. Should they also be stigmatized for the rest of their lives? In many US districts, soliciting a prostitute is considered a sex crime. Again, many millionaire Americans and Europeans (some famous household names) have been caught doing that. Would you have them castrated also? At least one of them was a grown man caught soliciting an early-teenage boy. You better sharpen your knife, because there will be a lot of castrations if you get your way.

[Berkshire]

Yeah, that's what people don't seem to be getting.

If convicted of any kind of "sex" crime including the absurd ones noted above in links (STATE LAWS VARY A LOT) you get the same lifetime stigmatizing label: SEX OFFENDER. Period. End of story.

Not SEX OFFENDER (never mind because it was for something irrelevant and stupid)

A passport law would not distinguish on whether the conviction was for something absurd or something very serious.

Get it now?

Good.

As far as knowing people, I had a friend who was caught pissing in an alley in "liberal" San Francisco in a state where presumably you wouldn't get labeled SEX OFFENDER for that offense because like I said STATE LAWS VARY A LOT. He was, however, in jail for over a month for that.

According to the article:

[Kathryn Wyer, an attorney for the Department of Justice, said federal agencies notified other countries about registered sex offenders' travels even before the new law.

"If it's going to be the same, where's the imminent harm to your clients if what they're going to do is the same as what they have been doing," Hamilton asked Bellucci.]

The intent of the law is: ".....to address cases where people evade existing notifications by traveling to an intermediate country before going to their final destination."

So again, I don't get why some of you are getting so squeamish about this new law.

[BookMan]

Yeah, that's what people don't seem to be getting.

If convicted of any kind of "sex" crime including the absurd ones noted above in links (STATE LAWS VARY A LOT) you get the same lifetime stigmatizing label: SEX OFFENDER. Period. End of story.

Not SEX OFFENDER (never mind because it was for something irrelevant and stupid)

A passport law would not distinguish on whether the conviction was for something absurd or something very serious.

Get it now?

Good.

As far as knowing people, I had a friend who was caught pissing in an alley in "liberal" San Francisco in a state where presumably you wouldn't get labeled SEX OFFENDER for that offense because like I said STATE LAWS VARY A LOT. He was, however, in jail for over a month for that.

The passport mark is there to identify sex offenders, most who would be genuine sex offenders

I'd rather see the majority of these pathetic deviants identified, than to see the majority protected to spare a very small minority.

Do you think these sex offenders travel to Cambodia and Thailand and Philippines etc. to visit temples and hike mountains?

No, they go to abuse dozens, scores, hundreds of young boys and girls...changing lives forever.

So, a few people who were Masturbators get Passport identified...small sacrifice to maybe save thousands from predatory abuse.

It is arguments like yours which allow sex offenders to continue doing what they like to do, outside their home jurisdictions. Even then, nearly all sex offenders re-offend in their own country.

Edited March 31, 2016 by BookMan

[Jingthing]

What a crock of BS. We don't know the percentage with that label that did serious crimes. Now it's proclaimed as a tiny minority that didn't based on NOTHING.

Edited March 31, 2016 by Jingthing

[torpedo1970]

I find the whole discussion rather pathetic.....

They should just ban them from getting a passport.

Getting a passport is a privilege given by a country and not a constitutional right !

No passport for public urination? Seriously?

You are bringing up a different legal matter,

i just merely pointing out that sex offenders should not get a passport.

what would make you a sex offender is totally a different legal can of worms..... but off topic

[boomerangutang]

Yeah, that's what people don't seem to be getting.

If convicted of any kind of "sex" crime including the absurd ones noted above in links (STATE LAWS VARY A LOT) you get the same lifetime stigmatizing label: SEX OFFENDER. Period. End of story.

Not SEX OFFENDER (never mind because it was for something irrelevant and stupid)

A passport law would not distinguish on whether the conviction was for something absurd or something very serious.

Get it now?

Good.

As far as knowing people, I had a friend who was caught pissing in an alley in "liberal" San Francisco in a state where presumably you wouldn't get labeled SEX OFFENDER for that offense because like I said STATE LAWS VARY A LOT. He was, however, in jail for over a month for that.

The passport mark is there to identify sex offenders, most who would be genuine sex offenders

I'd rather see the majority of these pathetic deviants identified, than to see the majority protected to spare a very small minority.

Do you think these sex offenders travel to Cambodia and Thailand and Philippines etc. to visit temples and hike mountains?

No, they go to abuse dozens, scores, hundreds of young boys and girls...changing lives forever.

So, a few people who were Masturbators get Passport identified...small sacrifice to maybe save thousands from predatory abuse.

It is arguments like yours which allow sex offenders to continue doing what they like to do, outside their home jurisdictions. Even then, nearly all sex offenders re-offend in their own country.

You seem to know a lot about the numbers of people and the severity of their crimes. If people break the law, ok, haul them to court and hope they get a fair trial. If they're convicted, then there should be a penalty commensurate with the crime. Once they complete the penalty phase, they should be allowed to carry on with their lives. There are lots of laws and lots of lawmakers. The issue on this topic seems to hone in on one set of laws, yet the parameters are not clear. Who decides on the parameters? A group of Bible-Thumping right wingers? .....or a group of liberal sociologists? Perhaps a group of Nixonian veterans who criminalized 1/4 of all Americans via the failed ''War of Drugs'?

If Bible Thumping octogenarians decide on who gets stigmatized, will they include public urination? masturbation? looking at pornographic pics? It's already a given that Bible-Thumping right wingers will exempt their preacher buddies (Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Baker, etc) from being stigmatized. They'll probably also exempt congressmen, like the one who was caught soliciting gay sex at an airport bathroom. Who else? Oh, if they have a personal favorite movie star, like Rock Hudson or a music star like Liberace, they'll want to skirt the law for those types. You see the pattern here? The law is subjective, and only stigmatizes one sort of law-breaker. What about convicted murderers? Is it ok to not mark their passports? What if they go overseas to murder? If the law gets instated, who's going to stop them from expanding it to include gay people (considered a grievous crime in many countries), or people who look at online porn? Would that include you?

[boomerangutang]

Are all sex-crime convictions sound? It's been proven that murder convictions are sometimes based on false data (from investigations years/decades after conviction). Could the same happen with sex offenses? What if someone hated or was angry at another person. Is it enough (to convict) for the angry person to point a finger and call the other a paedophile? In some countries, that's enough to convict. Perhaps the US is going that route.

In the real world, I've known and heard about dozens of paedophiles. Regarding ratios, nearly all of the people I've heard about (accused of being paedophiles) are Bible-Thumping evangelical Christians.

Is that a factor? You tell me. Perhaps US passports should come in two colors: Orange for Christians and blue for everyone else. That could serve as a warning when a Christian enters another country, ....as a sort of warning to officials - to beware of possible harmful activity.

[BookMan]

What a crock of BS. We don't know the percentage with that label that did serious crimes. Now it's proclaimed as a tiny minority that didn't based on NOTHING.

I would rather see thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of children protected from molestation than worry about if maybe or maybe not one person was unfairly labelled a sex offender.

EU should introduce a similar law

[Jingthing]

I find the whole discussion rather pathetic.....

They should just ban them from getting a passport.

Getting a passport is a privilege given by a country and not a constitutional right !

No passport for public urination? Seriously?

You are bringing up a different legal matter,

i just merely pointing out that sex offenders should not get a passport.

what would make you a sex offender is totally a different legal can of worms..... but off topic

Wrong.

It is completely ON TOPIC.

Just because it's an inconvenient truth that there are many ways to get on the SEX OFFENDERS list that are basically trivial, doesn't make it off topic.

This is basic.

Getting stigmatized for almost nothing is a very big deal.

[Jingthing]

What a crock of BS. We don't know the percentage with that label that did serious crimes. Now it's proclaimed as a tiny minority that didn't based on NOTHING.

I would rather see thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of children protected from molestation than worry about if maybe or maybe not one person was unfairly labelled a sex offender.

EU should introduce a similar law

Now it's ONE person.

Doubling down on the CROCK.

You're not seriously debating here. Just piling it on.

IGNORE LIST time.

Edited March 31, 2016 by Jingthing

[BookMan]

What a crock of BS. We don't know the percentage with that label that did serious crimes. Now it's proclaimed as a tiny minority that didn't based on NOTHING.

I would rather see thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of children protected from molestation than worry about if maybe or maybe not one person was unfairly labelled a sex offender.

EU should introduce a similar law

Now it's ONE person.

Doubling down on the CROCK.

You're not seriously debating here. Just piling it on.

IGNORE LIST time.

Well you give a figure then

Does it matter if it is one, ten, one hundred, one thousand, ten thousand?

What is your threshold ?

[BookMan]

Wrong.

It is completely ON TOPIC.

Just because it's an inconvenient truth that there are many ways to get on the SEX OFFENDERS list that are basically trivial, doesn't make it off topic.

This is basic.

Getting stigmatized for almost nothing is a very big deal.

Seriously?

It is worse for someone to be stigmatized (and that's a maybe only) than to look at protecting children (and women in general) against sex offenders?

Which is the bigger deal?