Illinois Bans Sex Offenders From Social Network Sites
On Tuesday, Illinois made it a felony for sex offenders to sign up for social networking sites.
The law will go into effect almost exactly one year after the release of a comprehensive report from Harvard which found that there is no increased risk of predation for kids on social networking sites. Period.
Getting a job can be tough already for registered sex offenders—harder now, because they'll be blocked from many effective job search tools thanks to the law big blowzy definition of "social networking." The same goes for finding housing.
To be sure, some sex offenders are child raping scum. But if we really think such people can be trusted to do normal things in normal society, well, isn't that what prison is for?
And, as Reason has frequently noted, the list of sex offenders is an awful lot broader than your run-of-the-mill child raping scum. Restrictions placed on sex offenders too often miss their mark, thanks to an overly broad legal definition of the term. The Illinois social networking ban (or similar bans in other states) could include, for instance, teens who happened to get caught sexting, a 13-year-old who hooked up with a 12-year-old (she's not only an offender, she's also a victim!), public urinaters, and people who were simply accused of an offense.
But mostly, the ever-longer list of restrictions on who offenders can associate with, where they can live or work, and what they can do with their free time means a ever-larger number of ways to screw something up and wind up back in jail. In some cities, sex offenders are rounded up on Halloween to prevent them from preying on trick-or-treaters. Fail to show and you're in serious trouble. So now, in 2025, when the 13-year-old girl with the 12-year-old boyfriend innocently joins some future manifestation of Facebook before her high school reunion to laugh at how fat he has everyone has gotten, she could wind up in the slammer.
The definition of "social networking site in the law's language is sweeping:
“Social networking website” means an Internet website containing profile web pages of the members of the website that include the names or nicknames of such members, photographs placed on the profile web pages by such members, or any other personal or personally identifying information about such members and links to other profile web pages on social networking websites of friends or associates of such members that can be accessed by other members or visitors to the website. A social networking website provides members of or visitors to such website the ability to leave messages or comments on the profile web page that are visible to all or some visitors to the profile web page and may also include a form of electronic mail for members of the social networking website."
The folks over at Tech Liberation Front (happy fifth birthday guys!) see the bright side, hoping that a law targeted specifically at bad actors will stave off more onerous requirements for the rest of us, like tech mandates or age verification. True enough, but they must have been feeling especially optimistic due to their upcoming happy hour.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
Im not opposed to castration either if its the only way to stop them so blocking them from internet is minor compared to what Im prepared to do if they hurt anymore children ! Harsh but how can we discourage this kind of behaviour unless we get harsh?
“Harsh but how can we discourage this kind of behaviour unless we get harsh?”
This is the problem. It is easy to hate child molesters, to feel good when the law comes down hard on them. But our system of justice is not designed around revenge; it is designed around justice and fair treatment.
A ban on those proven to be violent offenders is all well and good, but the sex offenders list is so broad in it’s definition that it is not a useful guide. Does someone who pees in public deserve to be on that list? What about a 14 year old girl who has sex with a 13 year old boy? Or someone who has been falsely accused of their crime ?
equate adult convicted rapists on the same level as chidren who experiment with sex...sick country we have become...this is what is wrong with the hearts and minds of American men they have become altogether so blurry they are unable to differential between right and wrong or else have been so screwed up by mens clubs and organizations to think that all crimes are the same or else us they are just red herring it as an excuse to cover up a real crime by making all crimes appear equal.Equality is their motto. This is a tactic used my homosexual radicals; ie make the crime appear common place. Wont work!
Stop convicted molesters from oogling our kids on line! Or castration ! That ought to do it!
You are correct, it does take a certain kind of mindset to criminalize innocent behavior... the same mindset that leads to declaring the activities of homosexuals as criminal.
It is all well and good to say "stop convicted molesters from oogling our kids online"... but what does that mean? Banning them from the internet will not work, and a permanent ban on using social networking sites seems extreme as well.
It is easy to hate child molesters, but we cannot allow our anger to get away from us.
...With this picture is the broad legal definition of the term "Sex Offender". I don't think that sex offender list laws were ever intended to include teen sexting , etc. They were to enable parents to protect their children from molesters.
I understand that one caught mooning would be put on the list also and treated the same as a child rapist.
Laws such as the ones specifically listed in the section of the story describing the broad legal definition of the term seem petty and not worthy of placing someone on the list.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
Solar Sanitizer I think your right on this one
We need a better definition on sex offenders.
Indeed, it is far to 'easy' to end up on the sex offender list... a 14 year old girl sending a topless photo to her boyfriend can end up on that list, or someone convicted of indecent exposure (like peeing in public).
This dilutes the importance of the list by flooding it with individuals who are not really dangerous... making it harder to track those who are.
It also seems to act as 'punishment' for sexual predators... beyond the that offered by their original conviction, which I find highly unsettling (cruel and unusual punishment).
Part of the problem is that sex offenders are an 'easy target'. A politician looking to score points can always come down harder on sex offenders, without fear of criticism... and any politician looking to reform the laws would face charges of 'going easy on sex offenders'
On the one hand the media promotes sexual freedom on the other it punishes anyone who exercises that freedom. Broad legal definitions not only trivialize the problem caused by real sex offenders but leads to selective prosecution.