Friday, September 18, 2009
We have a mailing address now!
Thursday, September 10, 2009
CFC Maine mentioned in article
State law set to change city's sex offender ordinance
http://www.keepmecurrent.com/american_journal/news/article_e2946838-9e46-11de-8b21-001cc4c002e0.htmlPlease feel free to leave comments
Westbrook police Detective Dan Violette says there's a reason the number of sex offenders living and working in the city hasn't changed much in the past two years.
Since the City Council adopted one of the strictest ordinances in the state prohibiting registered sex offenders from living or working in most of the city, Violette has had to force people out of their new apartments and make them quit their jobs.
According to the detective, who said he spends about 25 percent of his work week keeping track of sex offenders in the city, about 37 registered sex offenders live in Westbrook and an additional 16 work there.
"The number hasn't fluctuated very much," Violette said.
But that could change when a new state law goes into effect Saturday, nullifying Westbrook's ordinance.
The City Council will vote Monday on whether to adopt the state's new maximum allowable restrictions on where sex offenders can live. If passed, the 2,500-foot buffer zones around all places children frequent will be replaced with 750-foot restricted areas just around schools. And that only covers residency. The state law says that towns and cities cannot restrict where sex offenders can work.
In a gesture showing their disapproval of the state law, Gorham town councilors last week refused to change the town's restrictive ordinance in order to comply. However, it's still in question what the town's police department will be able to enforce once the law goes into effect.
Though Violette said he'll still spend the same amount of time monitoring sex offenders in the city and notifying neighbors and employers of their whereabouts, the state law takes away some of his authority over sex offenders and a safeguard for Westbrook children.
"It's given me more tools to help make sure sex offenders were in compliance," he said about the old law.
DRAWN TO WESTBROOK
There are no demographics that encompass all sex offenders, Violette said, but because a lot of employers don't want to hire registered sex offenders, many, regardless of their backgrounds and skills, don't have steady sources of income.
"You're a convicted felon. That makes you ineligible to work in a lot of places," Violette said.
Because of that, he believes the amount of low-income housing in Westbrook draws more sex offenders. Though Portland is probably the most attractive city in the area for jobless sex offenders because of its shelters and support services, he said, "we're ripe for the picking as far as increasing our numbers."
However, some say that keeping people out of jobs and homes because of their sex offender status is unconstitutional.
Jane Cantral, who runs Maine Citizens for Change - a local affiliate of the national group Reform Sex Offender Laws - said she and her boyfriend Calvin Shelton, a registered sex offender, didn't have an easy time finding a home in this area of the state.
"We're trying to buy a house and we're looking at maps," said Cantral, a Bridgton resident who was herself the victim of a sex offender.
"It sounds good as a knee-jerk reaction, but if you really thought about it, how much sense does it make?" Cantral said.
She pointed to the fact that students are not in school at night, when most sex offenders are in their homes. She also noted that kids are better looked after in schools and day cares than they are the rest of the day.
"I don't think residency restrictions are needed at all," she said.
Cantral hopes that more efforts will be made on educating parents and children and treating sex offenders rather than on making local or state laws that she believes are ineffective.
IS LESS MORE?
But success is measured in different ways when it comes to sex offender laws.
Violette said he scans the state's sex offender registry about once a week to see if there are any new registered sex offenders living or working in Westbrook. During the past two years, he said, he's had to ask about a dozen people to leave their jobs, usually because of their proximity to day cares. Though he's gotten mixed reactions from employers - some thank Violette for making them aware of the charges, others would rather to keep the workers regardless of them - the sex offenders themselves tend to comply quickly.
"Almost every time, they quit right way," he said.
Other than the case of one registered sex offender Violette had to repeatedly chase out of a Spring Street apartment, he said the same willingness to obey the ordinance was true of sex offenders trying to move to the city. He said he's had to turn down about five or six sex offenders who tried to move into restricted areas of the city from out of town and another half-dozen who wanted to move within Westbrook.
Overall, Violette estimated that about 20 additional sex offenders would be living or working in the city today if it weren't for the ordinance.
"It was working," he said.
PEACE OF MIND
One woman who was an outspoken advocate of the Westbrook ordinance when it was adopted said she plans to speak up again at the council meeting Monday.
Jen Wescott, who has two family members that were sex crime victims, said even with the ordinance in place, as a mother and a day care owner, she's on constant alert, keeping an eye on who's around. The city's law offered extra protection.
"It gives you a little more sense of security," Wescott said.
But creating a false sense of security is one of the arguments opponents have against residency restrictions.
"They have a tendency to drive offenders underground," Sen. Anne Haskell, D-Portland, who sponsored the bill, said in June, when the law was passed. "Then you don't know where they are, which is a more dangerous situation."
Those who support less-stringent residency resrictions say the vast majority of sex crimes are committed by people known to the victims - which was the case with Wescott's family members and with Cantral, as well.
While Cantral argues that over-reaching restrictions violate the rights of former criminals who have paid their debts to society, Wescott and Violette both believe that additional protection against sex offenders can only help to keep kids safer.
"Any buffer you put between a sex offender and our vulnerable children, I think that's a good thing," Violette said.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
CFC Maine Meets
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Editorial- The Yellow Star
Editorial from The Guide
September 2006
The Yellow Star
By French Wall
Sixty-five years ago this September, German Nazis made it compulsory for Jews to wear a yellow Star of David. Holocaust survivor Victor Klemperer, writing in I Will Bear Witness 1933-1941: A Diary of the Nazi Years, recalls the introduction of the mandatory Star as the darkest moment of the entire Nazi regime.
Klemperer suffered countless indignities, saw and endured horrific abuse, and heard of unspeakable atrocities throughout the Nazis' rise to power and their subsequent subjugation of much of Europe. One of a handful of German Jews who escaped the round-ups and deportations to the death camps (his wife Eva was an "Aryan," thus deferring his fate), Klemperer miraculously survived the firestorms following the Allied incendiary bombing of Dresden and then months on-the-run as a destitute and starving displaced person. And yet he remembers the mandate requiring display of the "Jewish Star" with singular abhorrence.
What was it about a bit of "yellow cloth, at the center in Hebrew-like lettering [the word] 'Jew,' to be worn on the left breast, large as the palm of a hand" that seemed worse than beatings, worse than confiscation of all one's property, worse even than the fate awaiting those who disappeared after a visit from the Gestapo?
The Star was meant to mark its wearer as "other," a non-citizen. The Star signaled to hooligans and vigilantes that its wearer was a sanctioned target for torment. The Star made it impossible for its wearers to go about any civic life without constant fear of violence and death, for themselves and any of their companions. The Star meant abandonment by employers, neighbors, and friends-- all legitimately fearful of what their association with a known "enemy of the Reich" would mean to them and their families. The Star signaled that its wearer was a de facto "outlaw," fair game for anyone wanting to indulge their sadism or anti-Semitism.
In short, the Star was mean to denote that its wearers were sub-human, deserving no more consideration or legal protection than "the vermin" that they-- according to relentless state propaganda-- were.
It may be true that those ignorant of history are destined to repeat it, but current events confirm that knowledge of history is no guarantee of avoiding repetition of past tragedies.
Enter a post office, police station, registry of motor vehicles, or other civic office in today's United States and you will likely be confronted with posters of so-called "sex offenders," required to register, often for life, with the state. Faces, addresses, and employment locations are all prominently displayed. You will read signs telling you that even more information about these men (and women, mostly garden variety prostitutes) can be found on the internet, part of the new nationwide effort supposedly to protect the Homeland and its children from such "predators."
But of course, "protection from predators" is not the goal of sex-offender registries, any more than "protection from Bolshevism" (the stated excuse for promulgation of the 1941 Yellow Star regulation) was the Nazis' purpose. If public safety were truly the goal, why list those whose "crime" was offering a blowjob-for-hire to a willing adult? Or those who were caught masturbating in the woods near a highway rest stop? Or those who never violated another's consent nor did any physical harm? If "protection" were the real aim of tracking and publicizing offenders and their whereabouts, wouldn't it make more sense for registries to list arsonists rather than flashers? Why should society need protection from those who suck teenagers, but not from those who kill them?
No, the goal of sex-offender registries is not protection-- just the opposite. Sex-offender registries, like earlier Yellow Star regulations, are intended to create outlaws stripped of jobs, housing, family, and friends. Such state-created monsters can then be targeted for vigilantes' violence and self-serving politicians' self-righteous invective.
Today's sex-offender registries signal, as did the 1941 Yellow Star decree, a breakdown in the rule of law. For those fighting to rebuild a US Constitution and Bill of Rights so shattered in these past years, no greater sign of progress will be than the abolition of sex-offender registries and their odious effects.
Published: The Guide; www.guidemag.com
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Beware the Sex Offender Hysteria is Spreading to Those Not on the Registry
NEW ORLEANS (CN) - A man claims Terrebonne Parish and a Houma police officer warned school districts that he was "essentially a child predator" because the cop saw him resting after a 2-mile run on a public jogging path near a school.
Ronald Stuard, 47, says he took a break after a 2-mile run on a public jogging path near St. Gregory's School, where students were playing sports. Stuard says a teacher asked him what he was doing and though he told her "he was merely resting between running intervals on the public track, the teacher called police."
Stuard says Houma city police came and told him not to go there again. Then, he says, Houma police, including defendant Officer Angela Domangue, sent his photo, birth date and information about the car he drove to "several schools in the parish."
"The communication also indicated that Mr. Stuard had been 'watching school children outside.' It further indicated that if Mr. Stuard was seen near the recipient's school, he or she should contact the Houma Police Department," Stuard's complaint states. "The communications further indicated that the police department recognized that Mr. Stuard was not a registered sex offender, but that they wanted to 'keep the kids safe' and 'be in his face' if he was near a school.
"These actions by the defendants resulted in Ronald Stuard being named and published as essentially a child predator."
Stuard demands damages for defamation and privacy invasion. He is represented in Federal Court by R. Glenn Cater.
Ever notice How far some will go in the name of Keeping Children Safe? This quote is taken from Nazi Germany's plan to rule the minds of people....
“The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as thegovernment is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure
almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation”
We must stop having a knee jerk reaction to the media and politicians when they say they are protecting the children or if it protects one child. We must ask ourselves hard questions. Does what they are saying make sense? Is this the best way to protect children? Will what they are proposing hurt other children i.e. collateral damages? Do these people have some other motivation other then protecting children, like selling newspapers or getting votes!? Lets stop letting them cow us into blindly excepting their word for what will protect the children, let's step up, stand up and let our voices be heard!
On Finding Work
Finding Work, A How To Option
I know how hard it is for some out there to find jobs.
So, I am going to tell everyone how I, an RSO have been able to make a six figure income and NEVER had a problem finding a job.
This is not something new to many out there. But for some of you it may be something you are completely unaware of.
Are you unemployed?
Is it only because of being a felon on the SOR?
Want a great job that pays good?
Here is what you do.
Start your own small business. NO it does not cost too much! I started my first business when I was 17 years old. I had NO money.
First you need to decide what you want to do for a living.
Let me give you some ideas.
Office Cleaning. Night work. Pays $25.00 to $50.00 per hour.
Handy Man. Anything from yard care to light carpentry. Pays $25.00 to $100.00 per hour.
Auto detailing. Easy work. Pays $20.00 to $50.00 per hour.
Computer repair. Pays $45.00 per hour.
So how do you go about this? Decide what you want to do. Determine if there is a need for the work you desire. If there is then go after the work. You will need to get some Proposals from a printers. Cost about $25.00
You may need some tools. Start with the bare minimum. Keep your cost down.
Next you will need to make contacts. For cleaning, go to office buildings. Small offices are best as they will not do background checks.
For handyman services. Run a free ad in a local paper, if that is available in your area. If not a one line ad for 30 days is cheap!
Auto detailing. I have a friend that goes to small auto dealerships. He does ok at that.
Computer repair. Again, a free or low-cost ad will do the trick.
Be imaginative.
In many instances you can become a subcontractor.
I own and operate a construction company. When I started out, I went from jobsite to jobsite bidding on work as a subcontractor. Within two years I had the second largest construction company in my town. In the third year it was the largest and people were coming to me for subcontracts.
This does work!
You can do what you know, almost anything.
What about registering. Well in many states the requirement is for an RFSO to list their employer. I do, it is my company. Same address as my address. It is legal. I do not have to list every house we build or ever remodel we contract. That is not required. One employer, ME!
Everyone can do this. It does take effort but you WILL make more working for yourself than working for someone else. You will have to keep good records for taxes. You will need to set up a bank account just for your business. You will need to set some money aside for taxes. But you will be FREE to set your own hours, work where you want, and earn what you want.
What if you have nothing to start with?
I started with a hammer, tin snips, and a nail pouch I borrowed from my Dad. He drove me to a construction site and I talked with the contractor. I explained that I really need a chance. He gave me that chance. After that I did work for that man for over 20 years until he retired.
A word here. I do not go broadcasting that I am a felon or that I am on the SOR. What I do tell the people is why I am qualified to do their job. And I do a better job that the next guy. I am trusted with the keys to their homes because I DO NOT steal from them.
I have worked for movie stars and sports figures and never once has the SOR issue came up.
Always be honest, work hard, go the extra step and you will succeed.
Here is a link to get free business cards to get started.
http://www.vistaprint.com/vp/pSearch/topDeals.aspx?GP=6%2f8%2f2009+10%3a37%3a23+PM&mk=Businees+Card+Free&ad=broad
Any other questions, just ask!
My answer, I too have been self employed so added some more ideas.
Awesome post!
I work for myself as a photographer, business is slow but since I am trying to get myself off disability I can take my time and build it up. I know most RSFOs could not photograph children as I do but there are many other ways to use your camera to obtain work, for instance photographing items for e-bay sellers. I have had many requests from other small start up business owners to photograph their items for brochures and their internet sites. This is an area of great need all it takes is a decent camera and an inexpensive set-up that allows you to filter the flash, I have even used a homemade set up with clamp lights.
If you can cook/bake how about making items for small restaurants? Like bread or desserts, I have done both. You need to get your kitchen inspected but other then that it's easy. Make your items up and set up an appointment with a local place and bring things for them to taste. They often have no place or time to do this kind of baking. I even had people who ordered breads on a weekly basis. They gave me their orders and we set up a time for them to pick them up. I got about $5 a loaf for something that cost pennies to make. That business started because I loved to bake a friend had a gluten intolerance and asked me if I could bake her a bread that she could eat. I did some research and found one she liked. Then her friends asked me to make other things, rolls, cinnamon buns, biscuits, different kinds of breads, even some cakes and pies. I was making around a $100 a week extra income, while going to college and working other part time jobs and raising my kids. If I had had the time to devote to it I could have done a lot more, in fact towards the end I had to turn people away.
How about car repair? website building? or something you can make? Such as candles, book shelves, miniatures for railroads and dollhouses, stained glass the list goes on. Find some niche where you have something unique and market yourself.
There are free classes you can take that teach how to get yourself set up, write a business plan etc.
In This Fight Together
This e-mail came to me in response to another e-mail giving us the story of a 29 year old Police Officer who had relations with a 16 year old and didn't even lose his job. Story here.
Many of our young men and some young ladies have been sent to jail and are being forced to Register, often times for life. And they were even closer in age then this police officer and his 'victim'. I personally feel that no one should be on the Registry for a consensual relationship. The Registry should only be for those who are truly dangerous, rapist and pedophiles, not for non violent, non abusive situations. But I agree with the mother who sent the story to us that if it's against the law for her son to be with a 16 year old girl when he was 19, then this Police Officer should have had to face the same law. We need to change the laws! Here's what webmaster@sodefnd.org answered, (used with his permission)
Due to this situation, now it is even more imperative that we stick together and fight this. There is motivation going on, people are starting to see that the law is flawed, we must stay strong in our efforts to combat this. The more this hits the new, the more people are going to be looking for ways to put an end to this. We need to be ready and available to assist these people in all ways. We know the registry is bullshit and that its ineffective. Lets use this against them. We now have ways to communicate. Mail a letter to some people around you that are on the registry. Let them know there is help available. Let them know they are not alone in this fight. The more people we have standing on our side, the better our fight will be. And just because there are people on the registry doesn’t mean they don’t have family and friends that will join in the fight for change. We have avenues that we can explore, and we have the knowledge and the talents to make this possible. Every voice in this fight has there own entity in there talents and attributions. Everyone can contribute something. I know two people in my area that are forced to register for life because they were drunk and urinated on the side of a building. These two people happen to be very prominent speakers and writers. They have submitted several pieces to the local media stations, who refuse to give their greifs any public attention. This is due to the fact that it is frowned upon for anything to be aired that speaks against the registry. A lot of my states funding comes from the money given to run and maintain the registry. This is wrong, and an atrocity. The point still remains, WE NEED TO STAND TOGETHER AND FIGHT THE FIGHT, NOT EACH OTHER. One voice will not be heard, the voice of many cannot be ignored
Monday, June 8, 2009
The Latest News on LD 1157 & LD 385
The report says he is "leaning" towards signing them. Small steps.... but steps in the right direction. A last minute amendment was defended that would have allowed some towns with existing Residency Restricts to be grandfathered.
Legislature Makes Changes to State's Sex Offender RegistryBack
June 8, 2009 Reported By: A.J. Higgins
Two bills that will change policies regarding convicted sex offenders have been enacted by the Legislature and are being supported by the governor. Under one measure, certain offenders would be able to have their names removed from Maine's online Sex Offender Registry if they can prove that they have not committed any crimes since their initial conviction. Another provides a uniform policy for municipalities seeking to impose residency restrictions for sex offenders living near schools.
From Gov. John Baldacci's perspective, LD 1157 balances public safety with the concerns of convicted sex offenders who were swept retroactively onto Maine's online Sex Offender Registry. Baldacci says the onus to get off the registry will fall squarely on the offenders. "Not to wipe their slate clean, but force them to come back and have the burden of proof on them," he says.
Problems with the Sex Offender Registry -- an online site maintained by the state that provides pictures and residency details on Maine's sex offenders -- arose after the Legislature voted four years ago to include registration requirements for offenders who committed their crimes between 1982 and 1992. Many of those offenders claimed they had led law-abiding lives for 20 years and shouldn't be subject to retroactive registration.
Baldacci says LD 1157 should address the concerns of the Maine Supreme Court, which is hearing appeals from offenders swept up in the retroactive inclusion on the basis that the registry amounts to an additional punishment. Baldacci says the new change should eliminate the potential for the court to throw out the entire retroactive provision of the law.
"We have agreed to make those people who were on the prior list and got caught in the change of law still have to petition the public safety department and the state and give us the credentialing that would give us the sense that they're meeting the points of law, so that they wouldn't have to be on the list," Baldacci says.
Under the bill, offenders that were placed on the registry as a result of the retroactive law can petition the commissioner of the Department of Public Safety to have their names removed if they have committed no crimes since finishing their sentences.
In addition to that revision, Baldacci is leaning toward signing another bill on its way to his desk that will establish a standard for municipalities that want to pass residency restrictions for convicted sex offenders. That standard, the Legislature has decided, would require that a convicted sex offender live at least 750 feet from a school. Some cities and towns have established sex offender buffer zones ranging from 500 to 1,000 feet, or more.
State Sen. Jonathan Courtney, a Republican from Springvale, asked the Senate to approve an amendment to give two of his communities an exemption. "What it would do, it would have preserved the local ordinance in two of my communities, Waterboro and Lyman -- they went through this process, and have a 2,500 foot setback requirement. The state has superceded it, to 750 feet, which is totally unacceptable to my communities."
State Sen. Debra Plowman supported Courtney's amendment, partially because she says the state needs to take a different approach to dealing with sex offenders. "If we had a civil committment in the state of Maine, we could civilly commit these people and make sure that our children don't need to have to kept 2,500 feet from a predator. They'd be put somewhere where a panel or a judge decides if they're safe enough to be on the street. In the meantime, when the young girl in the park, or the schoolyard, is within 750 feet of someone who just can't resist, I don't think 750 feet is enough."
"If you want to give your children protection, tell them where these people live, show them where these people live, tell them not to be around these people, but for God's sake, let's not send them under bridges to live and so that we lose track of them entirely," said Sen. Stan Gerzovsky, a Brunswick Democrat, who led the oppostion that defeated Courtney's amendment, arguing that differing community standards would send offenders underground. "Let's keep them on probation where they belong, let's keep an eye on them."
Both sex offender bills are now awaiting the governor's signature.
http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=210952460331&h=rASgs&u=d6hnt&ref=nf
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Good news from a Massachusette Judge
Click here for the orginal website
Mass. court: board must weigh sex offender's acts
BOSTON -- The Massachusetts Appeals Court has ruled the state must weigh the entirety of a sex offender's life, including what role alcohol might have played in the original crime, when determining if he must register as an offender for life.
The case involves a man convicted of assault with intent to rape in 1984 after leaving a Quincy bar. Since then the man, not identified in court papers, has given up drinking and stayed out of trouble.
The Sex Offender Registry Board argued the man should be required continue to register with police as a level one sex offender, but the man argued he no longer poses a risk.
The court ordered the board to reconsider its decision, taking into account the man's life since his arrest, before determining that he is still a risk.
If the board again concludes the man presents an ongoing risk to commit another sex offense, it must show what facts support that conclusion, the court said.
The mere fact of the original offense is not enough to require the man to continue to register more than two decades later, according to court.
The court said the board should consider a number of factors before making its decision, including the man's past troubles with alcohol and his efforts to turn his life around, before determining if he presents an ongoing risk, the court said.
"These include, for example, the role alcohol may have played in the offense (and Doe's subsequent abstinence); the fact that Doe has no previous or subsequent history of sex offenses; his medical, vocational, and living situation; and any other factors that would bear on the predictive value of Doe's twenty-five year old crime," the court ruled.
Ultimately, the sex offender board must show that the man presents a "cognizable risk of re-offense," not merely a "hypothetical or speculative potential risk," the court said.
If the board determines the man has a low risk of re-offense, and therefore should be required to register, it must define what "low" means and show some evidence to back up that finding.
"The term 'low' must be given a reasonable interpretation; it should not be taken to mean 'anything more than no,"' the court said.
The decision further chips away at the state's 1999 sex offender law, which requires anyone convicted of a sex crime to register with police for the rest of their lives.
The Supreme Judicial Court last year ruled that low-level sex offenders convicted before the law was enacted have the right to a hearing to show they are no longer dangerous. That ruling came in the case of a man convicted of rape in 1979. He served two years of probation and committed no other crimes. In 2003 he was told he must register as a level one sex offender every year for the rest of his life.
The court found applying the law retroactively to a man whose crime occurred two decades earlier violated his constitutional rights.
The lawyer for the man in the most recent case, Elizabeth Caddick, says the Appeals Court decision goes a step further by giving Sex Offender Registry Board hearing officers discretion when deciding if someone must continue registering.
"The court is saying now that hearing officers can ignore the law and follow the state constitution," Caddick said.
The crime occurred July 2, 1984 after the man left the bar and began following a woman he did not know.
After she turned down his offer to walk her home, the man pushed her into some bushes, tried to kiss her as she struggled, slapped her several times, pinned her down and reached under her shirt and tore her bra. The woman was able to free herself and passers-by alerted police.
The man pleaded guilty to assault with intent to rape and indecent assault and battery and was sentenced to a year in jail.
After the assault, according to court papers, the man attended a detoxification program and has not had a drink for more than two decades. The man has worked as a pressman for a Massachusetts newspaper since 1983 and has maintained good relationships with his children.
(Copyright 2009 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Follow Up Message from Peter Cumming on His Sexting Speech
I have now put the following note and a link to my conference paper at the top of the RESEARCH AND PUBLICATIONS page of my York University - Faculty of Arts - Peter Cumming - Faculty Website page. Here is the link that I would encourage you to share with people interested in accessing the whole of my conference presentation: http://www.arts.yorku.ca/huma/cummingp/research.html .
Conference Paper About Teen "Sexting" (May 26, 2009)
- On May 26, 2009, as part of a panel on Youth, Sexuality, and Technology, a joint session by the Association for Research in Cultures of Young People (ARCYP) and the Association of Canadian College and University Teachers of English (ACCUTE), at the 78th Congress of the Humanities and Social Sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa, I delivered a paper, "Children's Rights, Children’s Voices, Children’s Technology, Children’s Sexuality." The paper has received considerable legitimate media attention, but it has also "gone viral" around the Internet and so around the world. Unfortunately, in doing so, many of my ideas have been taken out of context and misrepresented.
- A conference paper, in my opinion, is a "test drive" of ideas, an opportunity to encourage public discussion, debate, and even disagreement. It is in that spirit I presented this paper. While I have met many wonderful, caring, thoughtful people from various walks of life--lawyers and workers in children's justice and rights, law enforcement officers, social networking workers, activists working on behalf of children--through the rapid spreading of my arguments through various media (newspapers, radio, and television) and the Internet, selective readings of parts of my conference paper have led to violent and abusive reactions from some quarters. This has ranged from a questioning of my motivations to ridiculing of the name my parents gave me to personal attacks. Rather than engage in civil discourse, some parties have chosen to make public and private ad hominem attacks.
- For people interested in vital issues related to youth, sexuality, and technology, I am making available here the complete conference paper as presented in Ottawa--so that people can respond based on more complete knowledge than is available in press releases, interviews, and wire copy. Although I prefaced my presentation by indicating that "children's voices" were not in the presentation as I had originally planned and hoped, the written copy of the paper below is a full and accurate reflection of the presentation I made.
- All I would ask of anyone downloading this paper is that they leave it complete, including my name, and that they link to the article here if wanting to refer the article to others. (I would like, for example, to post a complete bibliography with the paper as soon as possible.) Download "Children's Rights, Children's Technology, Children's Sexuality."
Peter
Miami Mayor Tries to Evict Homeless RFSOs
Now the Mayor has written a letter asking the state to remove them because a small island owned by the city is within the 2500 feet restriction, saying the park is considered a place that kids gather. By doing this he reveals the true intent of the law which is to banish all RFSOs from the city. I am sure when they developed the plan they never expected that there was anyplace for the RFSOs to go so they would have to leave.
In spite of the research that where someone lives has nothing to do with whether they re-offend and that these kind of laws may actually cause more harm because people being released from jail need stability to go straight. Being homeless does not allow people to have any source of stability.
I wish we lived closer I would advocate a protest march on Miami's city hall. What can we do? We can write to the ACLU both here in Maine and in Florida, urging them to fight for their human rights. We can write letters to the Miami papers, the Mayor, the Governor of Florida and even the President! I am collecting e-mail addresses, snail mail addresses and anything else we might need to wage a campaign against this inhumane treatment. Stray animals are treated better then this in the USA today! Also if you can contribute anything to help the people living under the bridge I have an address for you to send donations to. The money would go to buying tents, providing clothing, blankets and other needed items. They are often dropped off with only the clothing they wore out of jail. Send me an e-mail at ladyfurebear@yahoo.com for more information.
Link to the news article http://www.miamiherald.com/news/miami-dade/story/1078655.html
Monday, June 1, 2009
Why we must speak out!
Why do RSO's just sit there and do nothing but complain? Either do something or quit complaining!
I have heard from many people who have been reading and leaving comments on this blog, saying how nobody wants to listen to RSO's or their families, and they say "Why try?"
It's that kind of reasoning why nothing is being done. And that is what the public wants, for RSO's and their families to sit back, shut up, and do nothing. So you are letting them win.
Either stand up and fight for your rights, or continue to sit there, saying "poor me" and suffer the consequences.
I cannot stand people who sit there, bitch, moan and whine about how they are being punished, yet they do nothing about it. Either shut up, or do something about it!
Many say, I don't want to expose myself to harassment, etc. Well, you are probably on the registry, so it's already occurring. Many have thought the same way, they'd rather hide in the shadows and hope something changes. Well, you will be waiting a very long time. So that is why you must act now and speak out now, don't wait, do it now. Harassment comes with the territory, I cannot tell you how many emails and other threatening comments I have received here, in emails, on video sites. Now I just archive the comments for my own records, delete them, ignore them, and move on, continuing the fight.
AGAIN, YOU MUST FIGHT FOR YOUR FREEDOM!!!
Send legislature a fax, snail mail, email or the best bet, set up and appointment with them, and meet them in person. Prepare notes beforehand, so you are prepared, and let your voice be knows. Don't just sit back and hope some "SUPERMAN" comes to your rescue, it's not going to happen.
Join the other organizations like SOSEN, ROAR FOR FREEDOM, and the others forums, prepare letters, donate money to help the cause, FOR GOD'S SAKE DO SOMETHING!!!!
I cannot stress the above enough, again, do something about it, or sit back, suck it up, and enjoy the punishment! http://sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com/2009/05/why-do-you-view-this-blow.html
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Five Safety tips From The Jacob Wetterling Resource Center
This site has a lot of really good information for families and community members. I highly recommend visiting them and reading what they have to say. They advocate being SMART not scared.
Help Keep Kids Safe: Five Tips for Parents and the Community
By Nancy Sabin, Executive Director, Jacob Wetterling Resource Center
1. Set the tone Use a calm, vigilant and reassuring tone. When people are scared or stressed out, they don't think and act as smart as they otherwise could. Children pick up our cues, so if we’re scared, they’ll be scared. We need to act SMART, not SCARED so we make the choices that are in our best interests. When news is difficult, children need reassurance that "We’re doing everything we can to make sure you’re safe."
2. Talk about the rules for your family. Tell your children:
* Don’t go with any adult who asks you for your help....adults should ask other adults for help, they shouldn't ask kids.
* Most of the people in this world are good, but some are not. I want you to stay away from dangerous situations and behaviors, not certain kinds of people, just because they’re strangers. Remember on the first day of school when you met strangers who were your bus driver and your new teacher? They turned out to be good people who helped you. Remember that some people are strangers, most of them are good and they can help you too when no one else is around. A child is most likely to be sexually exploited by someone they know or have seen. They don’t think of them as a stranger such as a priest, a coach or a neighbor. Throw out the word, "stranger" because kids just don’t understand what it means.
* It's ok to keep surprises, but never keep a secret. Surprises don’t hurt others and are usually for just for a short time. Secrets are usually kept for a long time and they often hurt people. If someone asks you to keep a secret, tell your parents right away.
If you’re separated from me (the parent or caregiver) in the Mall or somewhere else, try to find a mom who has children and tell her you’re lost. Never leave the building with ANYONE except me, your caregiver.
* Let's hold hands wherever we go in public, because then people know I’m taking care of you. Don't go off to play by yourself unattended.
* Check first with me, your caregiver, before going anywhere with anyone or before accepting anything from anyone.
3. Play interactive "what if" games throughout your child or teen's life, in order to continuously reinforce personal safety. For example, ask your child when you're in the Mall, "What if we got separated, who would you run to for help? Why would you pick who you did?" Again, one of the safest bets is to run to a mom with children.
4. Reassure and regularly communicate with your children at all stages in their lives. Communicating only in times of crisis doesn't encourage children to come forward with needs and concerns in everyday situations. Ask them to show you how to go online and where some of their favorite places are.
5. Report any unusual activity that you witness, related to children or adults within your community. If your intuition or "guts" tell you something is odd or wrong, it probably is. Speak up. Check things out further. Trust your instincts and tell your kids to do the same! When trying to head off "risky situations", look for these types of Red Flags:
* Don’t go with any adult who asks you for your help....adults should ask other adults for help, they shouldn't ask kids.
* Adults who want to spend time with your child in unique or isolated situations
* Children who suddenly withdraw from other children and want to spend more of their time with a particular adult
* Children who are receiving unexplained gifts, cell phones, event tickets, clothes, etc.
* Adults who take children to special places where they do not take other children or adults
* Adults who spend long periods of time alone with a particular child in private places (i.e., long trips, overnights, secluded parks/buildings)
Let these five steps be your beginning to helping us create a safer world for our children.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Complete Speech on Sexting, By Peter Cimming
Please feel free to share my paper for non-commercial uses with individuals provided you leave the paper complete with my name on it and the context in which the paper was presented. (I may post it on my own Website so that more people can access the full argument directly rather than merely seeing threads of it on the Internet.
As I mentioned, it is a conference paper--an opportunity to test out ideas and encourage discussion and even agreement; it is not a referreed article in which every last fact has been checked and double-checked. Unfortunately, I haven't yet had the chance to develop a full bibliography for the paper from my research notes; however, there are markers in the paper itself for sources of information quoted or borrowed. In fact, my paper was largely about how decisions are being made about "sexting" without reliable research and knowledge. Rather than everyone repeating "20% of Teens are Sexting" from a single, online survey that included 18- and 19-year-olds as "teenagers" (I know that literally they are teens, but under laws, including child pornography laws, they are adults!) and used as its definition of "sexting" the sending of "nude or semi-nude photos via cellphone", we should simply say, "We don't know how many teens are sexting. We don't know exactly of what that sexting consists. We don't know how many private exchanges become public. We don't know what sexting means to teens themselves." Moreover, our obsession with a purported epidemic of teen sexting obscures the fact that "young adults" (20-26) are doing this far more frequently than teens, and we don't have any knowledge whatsoever of what "adult adults" are doing vis-a-vis sexting.
Best,
Peter Cumming
It was nice to hear someone of his stature speak out with a voice of reason. It is so hard to have rational discussions when it comes to these issues especially when it comes to teens and sex.
His speech in full follows.....
Roundtable on Youth, Sexuality, Technology
Joint Session of Association for Research in Cultures of Young People (ARCYP)
and Association of
Congress 2009,
May 26, 2009, 10:30 – 11:45 a.m.
Children’s Rights, Children’s Voices, Children’s Technology, Children’s Sexuality
by Peter Cumming
The title of today’s panel, “Youth, Sexuality, Technology,” sounds like a recipe for moral panic. And it is moral panic about a recent phenomenon, a purported epidemic of young people’s “sexting,” I wish to respond to briefly today. In particular, I want to contextualize teen sexting and adult responses to it by highlighting significant gaps in children’s rights discourse, particularly the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, in relation to children’s provision rights to healthy sexual exploration and expression and children’s participation rights as determinants of their own sexual being and behavior. Finally, I visit these issues as an embodied human being with his own distant history of childhood and sexuality—even if this occurred considerably before the invention of “digital technology”—though I fear that those of you came to this paper because of the abbreviated abstract’s promise that the author would contrast his own “childhood experiences exploring sexuality in 1950s rural Ontario with those of tweens in 2008” will be sadly disappointed at the few and tame revelations to come (while those of you who didn’t read the abstract and stumbled here because you thought this was a Geography panel may be equally relieved to hear this reassurance).
First, who are these “children,” including teenagers, adolescents, young people, young adults, about whom I am speaking, and why do I insist on calling them “children” in a panel on “youth”? The Convention on the Rights of the Child defines “children” as human beings under the age of 18: and it is to all these “children” I am referring. For better or worse, people under 18 all live in the confines of children’s rights discourse and child pornography laws. While there may well be significant distinctions to be made between prepubescent children and post pubescent youth, they are not distinctions I want to assume or reinscribe regarding sexuality and technology in relation to sexting: Following Freud, I recognize both children and youth as sexual beings, whatever that means differently to both, and I have no doubt that both children and youth (and adults, for that matter) are using digital technologies as part of their sexual repertoire.
Second, what is this “sexting,” which so neatly brings together the “sexuality” and “technology” dimensions of this panel (and to which, I believe, the third paper on this panel will also speak)? “Sexting,” a 21st-century combination of “texting” and “sex,” has been defined variously as the sending of nude or semi-nude photos or videos and/or sexually suggestive messages via cellphone texting or instant messaging. Although the word “sexting” is only a few years old, a handful of recent incidents in the United States, some misplaced and heavy handed legal overreactions charging children exchanging consensual nude photographs of themselves with the production, dissemination, and possession of child pornography, a single recent American online survey commissioned by the unusual alliance of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy and CosmoGirl magazine, a media feeding frenzy, and even a May 6, 2009 episode of Law and Order have all served to create the impression that in the past few months there has erupted an epidemic of sexting among youth and that this is a thoroughly bad thing.
Although depicted in the media as a “nationwide” epidemic, in the last year or two there have been major police prosecutions for sexting with a limited number of individuals in at most a dozen U.S. states. There have been no cases of that kind in Canada. (I’ll leave the Australian cases for our colleague from Australia; significantly, I have not found instances from Europe except a single reference surmising that “the practice is not thought to be prevalent in Britain” (Times Online). Thus, the “epidemic” of sexting consists, according to breathless print and online sources, of four Grade 6 and 7 students in Alabama; three Pennsylvania girls (aged 14 and 15) and three male classmates (aged 16 and 17) (Wikipedia); 14-year-old Michael Harmon who received a photo of a classmate which showed her bare breasts (GASP); a 14-year-old Florida boy who sent a photo of his genitalia to a female classmate because he was “bored” (YAWN) (Macleans); a teenage boy in Indiana (Wikipedia); a 15-year-old Ohio high school girl —from the questionably named Licking Valley High School (“Porn Charges for ‘Sexting’); a 17-year-old Ohio girl; “two Ohio teenagers who had nude photos on their cell phones of two 15-year-old classmates” (Wikipedia); “dozens of white-faced 12- and 13-year-olds and pimply 14-year-olds with twitchy legs” in Colorado (“’Sexting’: A Disturbing”); two 16-year-old girls who took side-profile pictures of themselves naked after taking a shower (“’Sexting’: A Disturbing”); a group of 11- to 17-year old boys who traded photos of semi-nude or nude teenage girls (Sexting Girls); a 14-year-old New Jersey girl who posted 30 explicit nude pictures of herself on MySpace.com (Sexting Girls); six 12- to 14-year-olds from Massachusetts (Sexting Girls); a Texas eighth-grader who spent the night in a juvenile detention center after his football coach found a nude picture that a fellow student sent him on his cell phone (“’Sexting’ Shockingly”); a Wisconsin 17-year-old (“Sexting Craze”); a New York 16-year-old (“Sexting Craze”); and 18-year-old Phillip Alpert of Orlando, Florida who received unrequested naked pictures of his 16-year-old girlfriend but who mass-emailed the photos to the girl’s relatives when they broke up.
One of the major problems with public reactions to “sexting” is a complete conflation of nudity with sexuality and pornography. Thus, snapshots of two Pennsylvania 13-year-old girls which showed the teens “in their white bras” resulted in threats from a district attorney of charges of child pornography (Sexting Girls Facing). The photo of a 17-year-old in the same case showed “her just out of the shower, with a towel wrapped around her waist and her breasts exposed” (Sexting Girls). As the American Civil Liberties Union pointed out in its suit against the overly eager District Attorney, “Neither of the two [pictures] depicts sexual activity or reveals anything below the waist” . . . However, according to ACLU, “The district attorney told a group of parents and students … that he has the authority to prosecute girls photographed in underwear . . . or even in a bikini on the beach, because the photos are “provocative” (ACLU). Clearly, these photos do not fit under Pennsylvania’s child pornography law, which defines this felony based on photos “of a minor engaged in sexual activity, ‘lewd exhibition of the genitals,’ or nudity that is meant to titillate” (Sexting Girls).
Legal responses to teen sexting in the U.S. have been sledgehammer-like, including production and possession of child pornography, a felony which in some states can result in these children being labeled as registered sex offenders for decades; felony obscenity; being declared an “unruly child”; contributing to the delinquency of a minor; “sexual abuse of children… or open lewdness” (District); possessing and distributing material of a child in a sexual act (Sexting Girls); and disseminating indecent material to a minor and endangering the welfare of a child. The 18-year-old Florida man who sought revenge by emailing nude photos of his 16-year-old girlfriend to her family was convicted of transmission of child pornography, resulting in jail time, a label of “sex offender” until he is 43, which results in his inability to live with his father because his father lives near a school and with him having to attend classes with convicted sex offenders (Commentary, Mike Galanos, CNN). As Lithwick concludes, “the criminal justice system is probably not the best venue for addressing the sexting crisis. . . prosecutors have charged the senders of smutty photos, the recipients of smutty photos, those who save the smutty photos, and the hapless forwarders of smutty photos with the same crime: child pornography. Who is the victim here and who is the perpetrator? Everybody and nobody. (“Textual”).
In fairness, there has been some pushing back against this legal overzealousness. The ACLU was successful in making its case that the teenaged girls in question did not consent to having their pictures distributed, their images were not pornographic, and that the photos were protected under First Amendment speech (Sexting Girls). Several states have recently moved towards aligning their laws more closely with teenagers’ practices in relation to sexuality and technology, Vermont legalizing consensual exchange of graphic images between people 13 to 18 (Wikipedia) and Ohio and Utah reducing sexting from a felony to a first degree misdemeanor. Although one online writer has argued that “case law has not kept up with the impact of digital media on teenage behavior” (“Sexting Craze”), I would argue that this has the order reversed: case law has not kept up with the impact of teenage behavior on digital media. Or, more precisely, as David Oswell argues in “Ethics and Techno-Childhood,” “Childhood is never disclosed in isolation; it is always accompanied by technology. Technology makes childhood visible as a problem. In doing so both technology and childhood, like leaky vessels, leak into each other. I refer to this as techno-childhood: the interrelation between, and the mutual constitution of, technology and childhood” (170). When Toronto criminal lawyer Edward Greenspan quips that “the only way to stop teens from sexting is to take away their cellphones, and teens would sooner give up a lung,” he unwittingly recognizes this tight connection between children and technology, technology being what Nick Lee calls “an extension of childhood.”
What interests me most about the purported dystrophic epidemic of sexting is how these widely publicized legal cases—cautionary tales writ large—and a single online survey about teens, young adults, and sexting have fuelled and shaped a media frenzy resulting in articles with titles such as “The Sexting Scare,” “Sexting Craze Leads to Child Pornography Charges,” “20% Chance Your Child May Be a Sex Offender!,” “Sexting Poses Risk to Teens’ Health,” “Sexting Teens Face Prison and Sexual Predator Status for Nude Photos,” “Want to Stop Sexting, CyberBullying & Digital Disease?,” “Textual Misconduct: What to Do About Teens and their Dumb Naked Photos of Themselves,” and “ Technology Fuelling Sexting Craze.” Not to mention a Website: sextingisstupid.com.
In spite of these headlines, as Macleans magazine rightly notes, “the statistical proof of a sexting epidemic is scant: one lone survey.” Indeed, a much more careful reading of the “Sex and Tech” survey is called for. . . . It was conducted completely online; its commissioners no doubt have vested interests in the results; it is clearly not directly applicable to Canada; its definition of teens as ages 13 to 19 and young adults as 20 to 26 may fit the literal definition of “teenager,” but it also perversely skirts legal definitions of “childhood” including those in relation to child pornography, thus skewing statistics about teen sexting accordingly; most importantly, the very broad category of “nude or semi-nude” photos used in the survey questions recognizes no distinctions between nudity, sexuality, and pornography. However, even if we accept the survey data, there is much more to learn than most media reports suggest. Article after article expresses shock that 20% of teens sext, none recognizing that that implies a more amazing fact—that 80% of teens do not. The survey shows that far more young adults (33%) than teens (20%) are sexting, yet no comparable alarm about young adults has emerged. The survey indicates that twice as many teens and young adults send sexually explicit text messages (39%of teens; 59% of young adults) as send nude photos (20% of teens, 33% of young adults), yet all media attention focuses on visual images. According to the survey, more girls sext than boys: 22% of teen girls vs. 18% of teen boys; 36% of young adult women vs. 31% of young adult men. Although most accounts explain this as boys pressuring girls to sext, more girls in the survey consider sexting “fun and flirtatious.” (51% of teen girls give pressure from a guy as their reason for sending, while 66% of teen girls and 72% of young adult women claim the activity to be “fun & fliratious.”) Children’s and particularly girls’ sexual agency are not generally or comfortably acknowledged in North America, and the findings of this survey call out desperately to be analyzed in terms of girls’ sexual agency in relation to sexting.
While Canadian media responses have generally been more muted to the sexting epidemic, they too easily fall into the trap of assuming that what is true in the United States will necessarily be true here too. And so, the Vancouver Province says that sexting “has Canadian officials on the alert” even though “there have been few [no?] publicized cases in Canada to date.” “Cpl. Annie Linteau, the RCMP B.C.’s spokeswoman, said she hadn’t heard of the trend. “But I’d be surprised if it wasn’t happening here,” (O’Connor). Indeed, there may be critical differences between sexting in Canada and south of the border. It is not a crime in Canada for consenting young people under 18 to exchange nude photos, for example. And in Vancouver, “… local school officials said unlike their American peers, they would be reluctant to report sexting as a crime to police.”
There are a few sane voices in the furor over sexting. JSS writes in an online column “Sexting Hysteria,” “the hysterical and infectious drive to stem sexting among teens and to put it on the level of child pornography has accelerated in just a few weeks. . . . Nothing has actually changed except that the kind of adults who do not engage in sexting, themselves, found out that teen-agers were doing it….Teen-agers fumbling with their sexuality and technology is not something that should scare anyone into legislation, and schools shouldn’t be overreacting either.” (jss, “Sexting Hysteria”). Indeed, one could argue that in some ways virtual sexual activities are safer for teens than actual ones: nobody ever got pregnant or received an STD directly from an online exchange. In “Is ‘Sexting’ Same as Porn?,” Goodman writes, “There is nothing particularly new about young people taking pictures of themselves. It’s as old as the Polaroid.” In fact, I’d argue it’s older than that. Goodman also argues that “The panic not only erases the line between stupid and criminal, it dilutes the real horror of child pornography.” Lithwick raises concerns that girls are being punished disproportionately, being charged with producing while boys were merely charged with possessing pornography. Clearly, a key danger in sexting is not in the initial exchange of nude photos between two partners or potential partners but in the dangers of losing control of those images in the powerful, immediate, omnipotent, eternal, digital world. In a blog, Dann writes, “these kids don’t get the idea that everything you do online becomes a digital tattoo. ….Sexting is a dumb thing to do, not only because it effectively gives your body away to everyone else, but because you have no control over what happens after you hit the send button.” (Dann’s Blog) .
To contextualize youth sexting we should remember our own sexual histories as young people. Apart from digital media’s power to disseminate information quickly and broadly, there may be nothing radically new about sexting. The closest I ever came to being expelled from school was in Grade 2, when I was hauled before the authorities for looking up girls’ dresses. In 1957, in an
Perhaps, then, adult alarm about technology and youth sexuality is a red herring—except insofar as it relates to cyber-bullying and sexual harassment: one 18-year-old American woman committed suicide when a nude photo she sent to her then boyfriend came back to haunt her. Are there, for example, significant differences between teens learning to kiss while playing “Spin the Bottle” face-to-face and teen “chicks” and “dudes” going online to “Espin.com” to “spin the bottle and start flirting!” with “Over 4 Million Hotties”? Are there differences between youth playing face-to-face versus online “Strip Poker,” or between children investigating each other’s body parts while playing “Doctor” and teens sharing cell phone images of their naked bodies? As one Macleans reader writes, “Young people are showing each other their naked bodies! When did that ever happen before?”
Child pornography laws arise out of human rights legislation, particularly the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. However, children’s rights advocates have been more preoccupied with “protection” and “prevention” than with “provision” and “participation” rights in relation to children and their sexuality. The
Is nudity pornography? Not necessarily. Are consensual exchanges of naked photos between young people child pornography? Not in the first instance. Should child pornography charges be leveled against young people sharing naked photos of themselves? Definitely not. Can young people get into trouble by sharing sexually suggestive digital text, images, or video? Yes. Can this have real world consequences? Absolutely. However, teenagers have no monopoly on foolish choices and devastating consequences. Think, for example, of the infamous, intercepted cellphone conversation between the future King of England and his paramour in which he fantasizes about being a tampon so he can “live in her trousers”: no doubt that would have been sexting had the technology existed. When, we must ask, in Western culture, did nudity become pornography, youth sexuality perverse, digital technologies the tail wagging the dog, and when and how and why have we forgotten children’s participatory rights as sexual beings?