Registered Sex Offenders On YouTube

[LJay]

Me and a buddy of mine were talking about a story that popped up recently where an RSO re-offended and was thrown back in Jail. This particular scumbag was on his second re-offense AFTER registering as a sex offender. Now if you don't know, RSO's (in the united states) are limited to functioning in society depending on where they live. What I mean by that is that they must do and cannot do certain things like be alone around children, sometimes not own vehicles, have to alert their neighborhood of their status, cannot own or operate a computer, put certain RSO notifications on their homes or cars, attend certain events and so on and so forth.

In this conversation with this pal of mine I brought up YouTube and how this would affect an RSO who owned and operated a YouTube Channel like many of us do here. My pal argued that it shouldn't matter and what happened in the past should stay in the past. I felt that the status of being an RSO mattered very much so especially if your audience is compromised of kids and teens. A sex offender does not register just for fun. It's a mandatory thing. It's to keep track of said offender and let others know so they are aware. Depending on where you live, RSO status is permanent and other times it goes away. The re-offending statistics for sex crimes AND possibility of a sex offender being a repeat offender is frighteningly high.

So yes, I very much do think an RSO should at least have to put a disclaimer on his YT page or in his description box (its what RSO's have to do in some states on particular websites anyway) saying he is or was an RSO.

What do you think? Would it matter to you if a YouTuber you watch HAD to reveal that they were or are an RSO? Should RSO's not even be allowed to operate and own YouTube channels? I personally feel RSO's should NOT be allowed on the Internet due to the fact it's a place that the Male Predators love to use and browse to pick their targets for sex crimes. What is your take on RSO's and the Internet/YouTube?

 

[WolfWraith]

I think being registered as a sex offender is not punishment enough (with respect to those who are registered under "odd" circumstances), so a message on their channel? Nah, they shouldn't be allowed to have a channel in the first place. Being an RSO is basically a slap on the wrist.

 

[JohnKenShow]

Well depends on the situation.. Here me out..
I have 2 friends who had to register as sex offenders.. the first was dating his now wife he was 20 she was 16.. Her dad reported him.. They are now married.. have kids he is now 40 she is 36.. but for years he had to register as a sex offender. His Father in Law saw the light eventually and helped petition to get him off the list.

The other was a friend from college, who as a joke walked out of the house naked to freak out his roommate.. as luck would have it, a school bus full of children came bay.. The bus driver called the cops he was arrested and then charged with a lewd and lascivious act involving a minor. The Judge wanted to make an example so he was shown no mercy.. and bam sex offender.

I do agree with harsher punishments for repeat offenders or those of a vicious nature (not just physically but mentally).

It would be hard to regulate this on YouTube as different countries have different laws, as well as states.

 

[Adam_Fitz]

I don't agree with them not been allowed to own a channel, I dont know why
It just dosnt seem like it should be youtubes problem even though their audience may be young teenagers
BUT i do agree that they should be punished, definitely
I feel like those on youtube should be encouraged greatly to address the issue and let people know

 

[WolfWraith]

I have 2 friends who had to register as sex offenders.. the first was dating his now wife he was 20 she was 16.. Her dad reported him..

This is what I meant by those "who are registered under "odd" circumstances". I remember hearing a story/reading an article of a 19yr old guy who was at a party and ended up sleeping with a girl, not the type of person to randomly just sleep with underage chicks, the girl was old enough but obviously easily mistaken for an adult and didn't say anything until after the situation, even the judge was annoyed because she said she didn't want to make the kid register but under the laws there, she had to because sexual intercourse had happened.

It would be hard to regulate this on YouTube as different countries have different laws, as well as states.

YouTube functions and bases their policies under US laws, otherwise there would be so many loopholes for copyrights. When you use YouTube you follow their policies, so if they were to say no registered sex offenders on YouTube in their terms of service, then regardless of country and law, people would have to comply.

 

[CynicalChinchilla]

Me and a buddy of mine were talking about a story that popped up recently where an RSO re-offended and was thrown back in Jail. This particular scumbag was on his second re-offense AFTER registering as a sex offender. Now if you don't know, RSO's (in the united states) are limited to functioning in society depending on where they live. What I mean by that is that they must do and cannot do certain things like be alone around children, sometimes not own vehicles, have to alert their neighborhood of their status, cannot own or operate a computer, put certain RSO notifications on their homes or cars, attend certain events and so on and so forth.

In this conversation with this pal of mine I brought up YouTube and how this would affect an RSO who owned and operated a YouTube Channel like many of us do here. My pal argued that it shouldn't matter and what happened in the past should stay in the past. I felt that the status of being an RSO mattered very much so especially if your audience is compromised of kids and teens. A sex offender does not register just for fun. It's a mandatory thing. It's to keep track of said offender and let others know so they are aware. Depending on where you live, RSO status is permanent and other times it goes away. The re-offending statistics for sex crimes AND possibility of a sex offender being a repeat offender is frighteningly high.

So yes, I very much do think an RSO should at least have to put a disclaimer on his YT page or in his description box (its what RSO's have to do in some states on particular websites anyway) saying he is or was an RSO.

What do you think? Would it matter to you if a YouTuber you watch HAD to reveal that they were or are an RSO? Should RSO's not even be allowed to operate and own YouTube channels? I personally feel RSO's should NOT be allowed on the Internet due to the fact it's a place that the Male Predators love to use and browse to pick their targets for sex crimes. What is your take on RSO's and the Internet/YouTube?

You can be put on the register for picking up a prostitute! In the UK at least. This register is just seen as a paedophile list and most people are too ignorant to see it covers more than child abusers. Having it as means to form up a local militia group to hound the person out the area is only a creating more of a problem.

I don't think it's anyone else's business about somebody's private life, whatever they've done. All these lists do is promote reactionary behaviour. And the online world is NEVER reactionary is it?

Hateful comments and vile attitudes exist in everyday internet use, even for the most harmless experiences - having RSO emblazoned on a YouTube channel would only incite negative responses to anything the person did. How would this be helping anyone?

If people were brave enough to share their past, so be it. But you don't force people.

 

[MarkRodriguez2012]

Wow...... I would think they wouldn't even be allowed to touch a computer.... which by default also means no Youtube channel for them.

 

[Kaleido]

You realize there are a LOT of crimes that fall under sex offenses that aren't just molesting children? I knew someone who had to register because he took a p**s in a public park at night while he was really drunk. You can also get registered if you 'sext' as a teenage (or have consentual sex with a teenager while you are a teen too). There are a lot of extenuating circumstances for the registry and you're being really close-minded about this.

Also, not being able to use the internet at all? Are you f*****g kidding me? How are they supposed to find jobs, apartments, exist in society at all? Is that how you want to rehabilitate people that have a psychological issue? By ostracising them from society entirely? Because that's how you get fringe societies that kidnap people and s**t like that. We should be helping people with psychological problems, not ostracizing them. The majority of people who perpetrate crimes against children do so because they were abused themselves and can't help but continue the cycle because they haven't recovered from their trauma. Shouldn't we be helping people like that instead of demonizing them?

It's very easy to demonize someone and consider them a monster/sub-human and ostracize. The problem is, evil isn't real. No one is fundamentally evil. NO ONE. We are all capable of doing terrible things, given certain circumstances. Perspective is everything. In fact, you're doing it right now, you're considering sex offenders as sub-human. This is how evil gets perpetrated. The Nazis who gassed the Jews said they were "just doing their jobs" when they had to answer for their crimes against humanity after the war. Does that seem like a reasonable excuse to you?

The re-offending statistics for sex crimes AND possibility of a sex offender being a repeat offender is frighteningly high.

Is it? I would LOVE a source on that, because the California Department of Corrections says 95% of people on the registry don't re-offend. NINETY FIVE. Are you really willing to trash that many people's lives for the 5% of people that are problematic?

 

[LJay]

You realize there are a LOT of crimes that fall under sex offenses that aren't just molesting children? I knew someone who had to register because he took a p**s in a public park at night while he was really drunk. You can also get registered if you 'sext' as a teenage (or have consentual sex with a teenager while you are a teen too). There are a lot of extenuating circumstances for the registry and you're being really close-minded about this.

Also, not being able to use the internet at all? Are you f*****g kidding me? How are they supposed to find jobs, apartments, exist in society at all? Is that how you want to rehabilitate people that have a psychological issue? By ostracising them from society entirely? Because that's how you get fringe societies that kidnap people and s**t like that. We should be helping people with psychological problems, not ostracizing them. The majority of people who perpetrate crimes against children do so because they were abused themselves and can't help but continue the cycle because they haven't recovered from their trauma. Shouldn't we be helping people like that instead of demonizing them?

It's very easy to demonize someone and consider them a monster/sub-human and ostracize. The problem is, evil isn't real. No one is fundamentally evil. NO ONE. We are all capable of doing terrible things, given certain circumstances. Perspective is everything. In fact, you're doing it right now, you're considering sex offenders as sub-human. This is how evil gets perpetrated. The Nazis who gassed the Jews said they were "just doing their jobs" when they had to answer for their crimes against humanity after the war. Does that seem like a reasonable excuse to you?


Is it? I would LOVE a source on that, because the California Department of Corrections says 95% of people on the registry don't re-offend. NINETY FIVE. Are you really willing to trash that many people's lives for the 5% of people that are problematic?

First of all, chill. Second of all, chill. I'm not being close minded about anything. You are trying to vilify me for assumptions you have made about my post when I haven't even expanded on the topic or replied to any of the other responses I have gotten on this thread WHEN IN FACT I agree with most of what has been said.

Firstly, as JohnKen pointed out, I feel that the bad Sex Offenders who end up becoming repeat offenders should be dealt harsh punishments. It's not about rehabilitating these particular guys because some choose NOT to be rehabilitated especially when they are so willing to defy the law by going out and harming someone after already becoming an RSO. In Addition, I know about how simple and stupid it is to become an RSO. I wasn't talking about those particular individuals who do something as harmless as urinating outside or flashing their friends in broad daylight and a school bus of children manage to coincidentally drive by.

Secondly, depending on how bad a Sex Offender is or how bad his crime was I feel that the question of whether he/she should be able to access the internet has merit. Online Predators are a prime example of this. You can get a job and socialize with other human beings without the Internet. I understand that is hard for you to comprehend but there are many people out there who can function without the Internet and have done so for many years. If we are talking about a man or woman who molests children, steals pictures/videos of people and puts them online, who makes a hobby out of harassing people online sexually, who is known for cat phishing or known for messing with kids and teens in an inappropriately sexual manner well It is my belief they should at the very least have limited access to the internet.

On the subject of rehabilitation I do believe we as a society should work strongly towards that. The fact of the matter is that evil doesn't truly exist but bad people do. For the most part you cannot help willfully bad people like the RSO's who end up becoming repeaters or any other bad person in society like a serial killer or drug dealer or thief. RSO repeaters are the ones that I had in mind when I created this topic.

Furthermore, I never classed RSO's as sub human. You are again making very extreme assumptions. I believe it's a good thing we a have registry to make sure we know what kind of extreme case might be moving into my neighborhood and it makes me feel safer not only for myself but also for my family knowing that my local law enforcement agency takes this particular matter seriously.

If you want my sources and information I suggest you look up the Sex Offender portion of the Department of Justice's website. I've also used Megan's Law as well. I also want to throw in that just because an offender doesn't get caught or arrested, doesn't mean they are not committing crimes.

As for demonizing these RSO's I have been talking about I'm not for that. That is up to each individual to decide for themselves whether or not they want to force a Sex Offender out of their neighborhood or vilify them in real life or online. I can't change anyone's opinion on the matter just how this long winded post of mine won't convince you from believing the assumptions you made out in the post I am replying to.

 

[markkaz]

It depends on the terms of their probation or sentence. If somebody has done their time and they are allowed to be online, then they should be allowed to do so.

Many people have made criminal mistakes. it doesn't mean that they always have to be punished for a lifetime.