IN JUNE, THE SUPREME COURT IS SET TO DECIDE ON AN ISSUE
INVOLVING SEXUAL ñ OR SEX OFFENDERS, AND WHAT TYPE OF
ACTIVITY THEY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO TAKE PART IN ON SOCIAL MEDIA.
NORTH CAROLINA PASSED A LAW BACK IN 2008 THAT BARS
REGISTERED SEX OFFENDERS FROM USING SOCIAL MEDIA.
AS A RESULT, A REGISTERED SEX OFFENDER BY THE NAME OF LESTER
GERARD PACKINGHAM HAS BEEN ARRESTED BECAUSE HE BROKEÖ
HE WAS A REGISTERED SEX OFFENDER, AND HE WAS CAUGHT
POSTING SOMETHING ON FACEBOOK THAT GOT HIM ON ñ IN TROUBLE.
HE WAS ADDED TO THE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY IN 2002
AFTER HE WAS ARRESTED FOR HAVING SEX WITH A 13-YEAR-OLD
GIRL AND PLEADED GUILTY.
HE WAS GIVEN A SUSPENDED JAIL SENTENCE, BUT WAS LATER ARRESTED
FOR A FACEBOOK POST IN WHICH HE THANKED GOD FOR NOT
RECEIVING A TRAFFIC TICKET.
SO HIS SOCIAL MEDIA POST WAS NOT ANYTHING THAT WOULD BE ILLEGAL
IF HE WAS NOT A SEX OFFENDER, BUT BECAUSE HE IS A REGISTERED
SEX OFFENDER ñ
VIDEO BUFFERING ñ
BECAUSE IT HAS A SOCIAL NETWORKING COMPONENT.
THAT WAS AN ARGUMENT THAT THE ñ THAT HIS LAWYER MADE IN COURT.
NOW, ROBERT MONTGOMERY, THE SENIOR DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
SAYS, "IT HAS TO BE REMEMBERED THAT THESE ARE SEX OFFENDERS WHO
HAVE BEEN CONVICTED OF SEX OFFENSES, AND THEY SHOULD BE CUT
OFF FROM SOURCES OF INFORMATION THAT CAN USE ñ THAT THEY CAN USE
TO PERPETUATE THEIR CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN.
AND SO THEY ARE BEING CUT OFF FROM THESE PARTICULAR
WEBSITES, BUT THEY HAVE OTHER MEANS IN WHICH THEY CAN
GATHER NEWS, THAT THEY CAN COMMUNICATE WITH FRIENDS,
AND THEY CAN SHARE THEIR PICTURES."
SO THE ARGUMENT IS, WELL, LOOK, IF YOU'RE SAYING THAT SEX
OFFENDERS SHOULD BE ABLE TO USE THESE WEBSITES BECAUSE IT'S
LIKE, A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION THING, THEY CAN USE OTHER SITES
TO GET THIS INFORMATION OR RECEIVE INFORMATION; THEY'LL
NEED TO GO TO FACEBOOK, SNAPCHAT, INSTAGRAM, ETC.
THIS CASE IS GOING ALL THE WAY UP TO THE SUPREME COURT,
AND ALREADY AT LEAST FIVE JUDGES HAVE HINTED THAT THEY ARE
LIKELY TO STRIKE DOWN NORTH CAROLINA'S LAW, AND I THINK
IT'S AN INTERESTING ISSUE, SO LET'S DISCUSS.
I THINK THE REASON WHY WE ARE SEEING A LOT OF THE SUPREME
COURT JUSTICES LEANING TOWARD, AT LEAST IN THEIR OPENING
STATEMENTS AND QUESTIONING, STRIKING DOWN THIS LAW IS
BECAUSE IT'S VERY AMORPHOUS LANGUAGE.
IT'S VERY BROAD STROKES HERE, AND A THINK IT'S POSSIBLE
THAT NORTH CAROLINA COULD REINSTATE THIS LAW, OR SOMETHING
SIMILAR TO IT, BUT WITH STRONGER WORDING THAT IS A LITTLE
BIT MORE SPECIFIC, BECAUSE IT DOES BAR ANY WEBSITE WITH
LIKE, A CHAT ROOM COMPONENT, AND IS VERY BROAD IN THAT SENSE.
IS THAT THE COMMENT SECTION?
YOU CAN'T GO ON YOUTUBE, YOU CAN GO ON NEW YORK TIMES
BECAUSE THERE'S A COMMENT SECTION, BECAUSE FEASIBLY
YOU COULD HAVE ACCESS TO MINORS AND YOU COULD TALK TO THEM.
I THINK IT WILL BE INTERESTING TO SEE HIM MAYBE APPLIES A
PAROLE TYPE CONDITIONS WITH REGARD TO ACCESS TO SOCIAL
MEDIA.
THERE CERTAIN WEBSITES THAT YOU NEED TO HAVE A PROFILE TO
ACCESS, AND SOME THAT YOU DON'T.
FOR INSTANCE, YOU GO ON TWITTER AND LOOK AT DIFFERENT
TWEETS AND SEE WHAT IS GOING ON, WHICH IS A GREAT MARKET
PLACE FOR INFORMATION, WITHOUT HAVING A TWITTER ACCOUNT.
ON FACEBOOK IS A LITTLE BIT MORE DIFFICULT TO ACCESS.
YOU CAN'T ACCESS.
I'VE BEEN ABLE TO SEE THEM.
SOMEONE HAS TO SEND YOU A LINK.
RIGHT, IT'S A VERY ROUNDABOUT WAY, I THINK IT'S
NECESSARY, BUT I THINK THEY, NORTH CAROLINA NEEDS TO GO
BACK AND REWRITE THIS LAW AND BE A LITTLE BIT MORE CLEAR ON
THEIR DEFINITIONS OF WHAT IS WHAT.
YEAH, SO THE WORDING OF THE LAW IS TOO VAGUE AND I'M GLAD YOU
BROUGHT THAT UP, BUT THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES THAT HAVE ALREADY
COMMENTED ON THIS CASE HAVE MADE IT CLEAR THAT THEY ARE LOOKING
AT VERY CLEAR SOCIAL MEDIA SITES, LIKE FACEBOOK AND
TWITTER, AND WHETHER OR NOT IT'S OKAY FOR REGISTERED SEX
OFFENDERS TO USE THESE SITES.
SO NOT ONLY ARE THEY GOING TO LOOK INTO THE VAGUENESS OF
THIS LAW, AND HOW IT SHOULD BE REWORDED IF THEY WANT TO
REINSTATE IT, BUT ALSO WHETHER OR NOT THESE PEOPLE SHOULD BE
ABLE TO USE WELL-KNOWN, COMMON SOCIAL MEDIA NETWORKING SITES.
LET ME GIVE YOU A STATEMENT FROM SUPREME COURT JUSTICE
ALAYNA KAGAN, SHE SAYS, "EVERYBODY USES TWITTER.
ALL 50 GOVERNORS, ALL 100
SENATORS, EVERY MEMBER OF THE HOUSE HAS A TWITTER ACCOUNT.
SO THIS HAS BECOME A CRUCIAL ñ
CRUCIALLY IMPORTANT CHANNEL OF POLITICAL COMMUNICATION."
RUTH PETER GINSBERG SAID SOMETHING SIMILAR, "THESE
PEOPLE ARE BEING CUT OFF FROM A VERY LARGE PART OF THE
MARKET PLACE OF IDEAS.
THE FIRST AMENDMENT INCLUDES NOT ONLY THE RIGHT TO SPEAK,
BUT THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION."
I'M GOING TO ADD ANOTHER WRINKLE TO THIS STORY THAT I THINK IS
IMPORTANT TO MENTION: MANY STATES LIKE NORTH CAROLINA HAVE
LAWS THAT WOULD MAKE SOMETHING LIKE INDECENT EXPOSURE A SEX
CRIME, SO YOU WOULD HAVE TO REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER
IF YOU GET CONVICTED OF INDECENT EXPOSURE.
THERE HAVE BEEN CASES WHERE SOMEONE IS URINATING
PUBLICLY, AND THAT IS CONSIDERED INDECENT EXPOSURE, THEY GET
CONVICTED, AND IF THEY ARE A VICTIM OF THE TWO-TIER
JUSTICE SYSTEM AND THEY DON'T HAVE THE RESOURCES FOR THE BEST
ATTORNEY, THEY CAN GET CONVICTED AND THEY MIGHT HAVE TO REGISTER.
AND IF THEY REGISTER, THEY ARE ON A LIST ALONG WITH PEOPLE WHO
HAVE GIVEN ñ WHO HAVE BEEN CONVICTED WITH RAPE, FORCIBLY
RAPING PEOPLE, AND I THINK THAT'S CRAZY.
SO, MAKING PEOPLE REGISTER AS SEX OFFENDERS FOR URINATING
PUBLICLY IS BAD ENOUGH, BUT THEN HAVING LAWS LIKE THIS THAT
PREVENT THEM FROM USING SOCIAL MEDIA, IT JUST ADDS AN
EXTRA LAYER TO IT.
SO I FEEL LIKE THERE'S SO MANY FLAWED COMPONENTS OF THIS STORY.
THE VAGUENESS OF THE LAW THAT WAS PASSED IN 2008.
INCLUDING PUBLIC URINATION ALONG WITH OTHERS IN THIS
REGISTRY OF LIGHT, VIOLENT CRIMINALS.
IT'S ALSO FLAWED.
AND WE'RE SEEING THIS MORNING MORE THAT WE NEED TO START
RE-EXAMINING THE LAWS THAT WE HAVE IN PLACE AS TECHNOLOGY
ADVANCES, AS SOCIAL MEDIA ADVANCES AND BECOMES MORE
FAR-REACHING THAN IT EVER HAS BEFORE.
I THINK IT IS NOT BEYOND SOMEONE WHO IS CONVICTED OF SEXUAL
ASSAULT, MAYBE A VIOLENT SEXUAL ASSAULT, OF HAVING TO MAYBE
TURN IN THEIR SEARCH HISTORIES.
THERE NEEDS TO BE MAYBE MORE EFFORT WITH OVERSIGHT, BUT I
DON'T ñ I DON'T THINK WE CAN TAKE AWAY SOCIAL MEDIA AS IT
IS SO INGRAINED IN UNDERSTANDING THE WORLD AROUND YOU.
THERE WAS AN ARGUMENT THAT WAS MADE THAT ESPECIALLY SAYING
THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TO CONSUME INFORMATION AND MEDIA, I KNOW IT
SEEMS LIKE WE NEVER LIVED IN AN AGE WITHOUT TWITTER BUT WE DID.
I THINK THAT'S AN INTERESTING ARGUMENT TO MAKE, BUT LOOK
AT THE PRESIDENT WE HAVE, HE'S TWEETING ALL THE TIME.
YOU'RE GOING TO SAY SOMEONE CAN ACCESS INFORMATION FROM THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES?
YOU MIGHT BE DOING THEM A FAVOR.
I THINK IN THE FOLLOW-UP TO THAT STATEMENT HE MENTIONS, ANY
CHANNELS OF COMMUNICATION THAT WERE AVAILABLE AT THAT TIME
HAVE BEEN TAKEN AWAY.
SO HE EVEN ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THERE IS NO PRECEDENT FOR
TAKING AWAY YOUR PHONE, WHEN IN FACT YOU CAN ACTUALLY CALL UP A
13-YEAR-OLD
PERSON WITH YOUR PHONE IF YOU WERE A REGISTERED SEX OFFENDER.
SO, LIKE YOU SAID, BECAUSE TWITTER, AND SOCIAL MEDIA NOW IS
BECOMING A VERY REAL PART OF OUR LIVES AND A PART OF HOW WE
COMMUNICATE, AND FIND OUT NEW INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT'S GOING
ON IN THE WORLD, IT'S ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO COMPLETELY SHUT
OFF ACCESS TO IT.
AND HAVING SAID THAT, BY THE WAY, ON TOP OF THAT, I DO SEE
THE OTHER SIDE'S ARGUMENT, BECAUSE IT'S VERY EASY TO BETRAY
SOMEONE WHO HAS BEEN CONVICTED, ESPECIALLY OF A VIOLENT SEXUAL
ACT AGAINST MINORS, IT'S VERY EASY TO PAINT A PICTURE THAT
THEY ARE INHUMANE AND DON'T DESERVE THESE, LIKE ACCESS TO
TWITTER, FUCK THEM, THEY DON'T DESERVE IT, AND THAT'S WHY THEY
ARE MAKING THAT ARGUMENT.
RIGHT, AND MAYBE YOU DON'T NEED TO BE ON OKCUPID AND
TINDER, AND THAT'S WHY WE NEED TO GO BACK AND REWRITE SOME
OF THESE POLICIES, BUT BLANKET STATEMENTS LIKE NO SOCIAL
MEDIA, THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.
IF COULD BE YAHOO!
NEW YORK TIMES, FOR MY MOM IT'S AOL.
SHE IS NOT A SEX OFFENDER.
DAMMIT GRACE, MY MOM IS A SWEET WOMAN.
SHE IS A SWEET WOMAN.




For more infomation >> La Sexta Extinción Masiva - Duration: 8:39. 


Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét