Blogroll of nominees for the Annual Shiitake Awards, which spotlights the dumbest "sex offender-related stories of the year." The Shiitake Awards is a project of Once Fallen. For a full description of the Shiitake Awards and its mission, or to learn how to submit a nominee, click on the "About the Shiitake Awards" tab. Articles on this site fall under Fair Use Doctrine (Copyright Act of 1976, 17 USC 107) for purposes related to news, information, and social commentary.
Of course this came from the New York Post, the paper so bad that using it to line birdcages should get you arrested for animal cruelty.
As a side note, if our election system had integrity, we would not have two presidents in the 21st century put in office despite losing the popular vote.
EXCLUSIVE: Dozens of locked up sex offenders among those granted conditional pardons by Gov. Cuomo so they can vote
By KENNETH LOVETT
| ALBANY BUREAU CHIEF |
JUL 23, 2018 | 4:05 AM
|
ALBANY — Dozens of convicted sexual predators deemed too dangerous to be returned to the community after their release from prison are among the thousands who received conditional pardons from Gov. Cuomo, giving them the right to vote, the Daily News has learned.
At least 77 sexual predators sent to civil confinement in state psychiatric hospitals after their prison time was up are affected by the widespread pardons, various records show.
While the names of those in civil confinement are often shielded, a comparison of records showed the 77 predators shared one of two addresses — both of which happened to be upstate mental hospitals that house the civilly confined. One of the predators is Hector Aviles, 61, who was known as the “voodoo rapist.” Aviles was convicted of second-degree rape in Westchester County in 2008 after telling three of his victims — the oldest of whom was 16 — that if they participated in a sexual “ritual” with him, he could help them with their problems. If they didn’t, he said, bad things would happen to them and their families.
The rest of the list of 77 is littered with ***** and rapists and other violent sexual abusers. All were granted conditional pardons from Cuomo under a new policy designed to give back the right to vote to those who leave prison.
“This is hands-down the most egregious public policy misstep Andrew Cuomo has made in his eight years as governor, and it shows that he will do virtually anything for a few extra votes,” said Senate Majority Leader John Flanagan (R-Suffolk County).
“This policy rewards the worst of the worst sexual predators and lowlifes in our society and undermines the integrity of our voting system in every way, shape and form,” Flanagan added.
The governor announced in May that more than 24,000 parolees in the first round were issued the conditional pardons.
The Daily News reported at the time that one beneficiary was convicted cop killer Herman Bell, who was granted parole earlier this year over the objections of the law enforcement community, some state lawmakers and the slain officer’s family.
Cuomo aides have argued that the wholesale pardons are automatic once someone is paroled or released from prison and they are in good standing.
“The order was straightforward and put New York on par with Washington, D.C., and 18 other states — including such liberal bastions as Utah” that either never take away voting rights from convicts or restore them upon their release from prison, Cuomo spokesman Richard Azzopardi said with some sarcasm.
He noted that all other conditions of parole or release are upheld.
“It’s unfortunate that some are using the issue of restoring voting rights to fearmonger,” Azzopardi said.
MARCH 2, 2018 · 2:10 PM ↓ Jump to Comments
NOW Monica Lewinsky Says She Was Abused And Sexually Harassed
I called it!
Remember in December when I had this exchange on NPR during a panel about sexual harassment and political figures in the early states of #MeToo?
ME : A hostile work environment means that the recipient of this has to feel hostility. They don’t like it. So, for example, if somebody – I have a hypothetical that I’m sure has happened, where someone is grabbed by Donald Trump back when he’s a celebrity, and she comes home. And she’s kissed, and she tells her roommate, “That was cool! Donald Trump kissed me.” And then when everybody she knows detests Donald Trump, she suddenly says …”I was harassed.”
BUTLER: COME ON!
HOST MICHEL MARTIN: OK. Yeah, I think we’re going to go to a different…All right. All right, Jack, you’ve had your say on that. And I think there are a lot of people who would want to argue with – I’m going to let Paul speak his piece on this. What do you say to that?
But the professor didn’t go beyond his interjected cheap shot, and went on to his own agenda, leaving the impression that my exposition on the strangeness of sexual harassment law was off-the-wall. It wasn’t, though. I was 100% correct, and NPR listeners, thanks to a grandstanding law professor whom I suspect wasn’t up on sexual harassment (he’s a criminal law professor who concentrates on race issues), were left less-informed than when they tuned in.
My point was and is valid: nothing stops an object of sexual attention in questionable propriety and taste from treating it as welcome at the time, then choosing, months, years or decades later, when there are non-ethical motivations to vilify or harm her one-time suitor, to withdraw her consent and “welcome,” and claim, retroactively, that she was harassed and abused.
This is exactly what Monica Lewinsky has done.
From the moment the scandal broke, Lewinsky insisted that her relationship with President Bill Clinton was fully consensual and welcome despite the disparity in their position and age. This assisted the defense of the President’s unethical conduct “To Lewinsky’s credit, she never portrayed herself as any kind of victim of Clinton’s advances,” Jeffrey Toobin wrote in his 2000 book, “A Vast Conspiracy: The Real Story of the Sex Scandal That Nearly Brought Down a President.” Later, in a much-ballyhooed piece for Vanity Fair in 2014, Lewinsky again asserted that she felt abused by special prosecutor Kenneth Starr, but not by sexy Bill. “Sure, my boss took advantage of me, but I will always remain firm on this point: It was a consensual relationship.”
Suddenly, however, Monica woke up “woke.” In a new Vanity Fair essay, she writes, “Now, at 44, I’m beginning . . . to consider the implications of the power differentials that were so vast between a President and a White House intern…in such a circumstance the idea of consent might well be rendered moot.” She now believes the affair was “a gross abuse of power,” and is claiming her “#MeToo badge as a victim.
Had I chosen Bill Clinton as my example rather than Donald Trump—I admit, on NPR I was reluctant to be that provocative—this would have been my hypothetical come true.
Legally, Lewinsky was not sexually harassed, and no, she cannot fairly turn it into sexual harassment now to get another 15 minutes of fame. However Clinton had such power over her as her employer and President—the hypothetical I raised on NPR did not involve the workplace—that it was not a consensual relationship, and Clinton did engage in an abusive relationship based on his misuse of power and position.
Convenient retroactive decisions that what once were welcome sexual advances are welcome no longer after a decade or two has marked the #MeToo witch hunt from the start, with Al Franken being the most obvious victim. It’s no surprise that Monica Lewinsky figured out which way the metaphorical wind was blowing.
I know most of you are wondering what this trashy thing is on my website. This idiot is known by a few names, including Danielle Bregoli (presumably her real name), Bhad Bhabie (her trashy stage name), but is mostly known as the "Cash me ousside girl" (based on her lispy trash talk on the Dr Phil show). When not getting continuing to get in trouble with the law for fighting and drugs, she claims to be a rapper.
This video (which also includes other scumbags like TY dollar sign and misandrist Bella Thorne) promotes vigilante violence as they set up an online sting to attack someone.
Sadly, I had to subject myself to three minutes of this filth just to make sure it is real. With vigilante violence against registered persons being real, even celebrity bullshit promoting vigilante violence should be blasted for being allowed to exist.
The scumbag who wrote the article below is worthy of a Shiitake mention for the disgusting article she wrote.
Danielle Bregoli & Bella Thorne Catfish A Child Predator In Shocking New Music Video – Watch
By Courteney Larocca
Bhad Bhabie’s latest music video will give you chills. The 15-year-old rapper dropped a visual for her track ‘Trust Me’ which shows her and Bella Thorne trying to catch a pedophile.
Danielle Bregoli won’t end up on an episode of Catfish. The 15-year-old, who goes by the stage name Bhad Bhabie, dropped a new music video on July 26 for her song, “Trust Me.” It’s definitely not your typical visual, though. The plot starts out with Bregoli being catfished by an older sexual predator, but it’s soon revealed that the rapper knows exactly who the man texting her is.
She then sets up a meeting at a park, where the pedophile finds Bella Thorne disguised as the teenager. Bregoli then jumps out and drugs the creep, and then ties him up in some secret lair where he inevitably gets exactly what was coming for him. Oh yeah, and Ty Dolla $ign also has a verse on the song. So, yeah, it’s quite a wild ride from start to finish, and you’ll just need to check it out yourself.
The video certainly focuses on a dark subject matter, but TMZ learned that Bregoli chose the concept because she saw it as a way to connect with her young fans while informing them about the dangers of online sexual predators. Honestly, as many goosebumps as this vid gave us, we’re kinda digging the whole Criminal Minds vibe that it’s got going on. Seriously you just need to watch it already – trust us.
___________________
If you really want to see the video, I suggest you mute it while playing, the song is an assault on the ears.
House Judiciary Committee Falsely Claims Credit For Stopping 90% Of All Sex Trafficking Because Of FOSTA
from the where-did-they-pull-that-stat-from dept
Say That Again
by Mike Masnick
Tue, Jul 24th 2018 9:39am
For no clear reason at all, the Republicans* on the House Judiciary Committee released a video on YouTube earlier this week praising themselves for stopping online sex trafficking via FOSTA/SESTA. It's... quite something.
The video makes a number of blatantly false claims from various members of the House Judiciary, but let's focus mainly on the claims of Ann Wagner, whose original bill kicked off the process that became FOSTA/SESTA. She's been spreading moral panic nonsense about sex trafficking and the internet for ages, so it's no surprise that she continues to do so. But, at one point in the video she states:
"We have shut down nearly 90% of the online sex trafficking business and ads."
She kind of swallows that last "and ads" bit so you could miss it, but either way it's utter and complete nonsense. I looked all over for any evidence of the claim that 90% of online sex trafficking has been stopped and there doesn't appear to be an iota of support for that. The only stat I could find that is possibly being twisted to make this argument is that when Backpage was seized earlier this year -- notably before FOSTA/SESTA was signed into law -- a Reuters report claimed that 90% of Backpage's ads were for "adult ads."
But, that in no way translates to Wagner's nutty claim for a whole long list of reasons:
Backpage was not the entire online market for sex trafficking ads (amusingly, Wagner admits this earlier in the same video, in which she falsely claims that there were "hundreds and hundreds of websites selling our children with impunity" < -- narrator: "there were not, in fact, hundreds and hundreds of websites doing so, and they were not doing it with impunity."
Many of the adult ads on Backpage were not for sex trafficking at all
Backpage stopped hosting adult ads a year and a half ago in January of 2017, over a year before SESTA/FOSTA became law and over a year before the site was seized by the feds.
And, again, Backpage was seized before SESTA/FOSTA was even signed into law.
So, where, exactly is Wagner getting this stat of having shut down 90% of online sex trafficking and ads because of FOSTA/SESTA?
There's other nonsense in the video as well. Wagner's other whopper was:
"If it's a crime offline, by golly, it's a crime online!"
Uh, yes. But that's always been the case. FOSTA/SESTA didn't change that. All it did was create a series of new crimes for third party tools and services used by not just sex traffickers, but sex workers. Sex trafficking was already illegal and this bill did absolutely nothing to change that. It is simply wrong to imply that FOSTA/SESTA suddenly made something illegal online that had been legal online before but illegal offline. It's not true.
Then there's Mimi Walters' who brought the amendment that combined FOSTA and SESTA, making both bills worse. Her credibility on this whole thing is already suspect, given that after the feds took down Backpage, she took credit for it falsely saying it was because of FOSTA/SESTA even though that bill was not law yet. But, here she is in the video spewing more nonsense:
"This legislation will now make it illegal to sell people online and give those survivors the opportunity to seek justice."
Except it was always illegal to sell people online (and offline!) and nothing in FOSTA/SESTA changed that. All it did was create a new crime in which tools and services used by traffickers could also be found to be criminal in addition to the people who were doing the actual selling of people (while also making it harder for law enforcement to find those people -- but we'll get there). She continues:
"Websites that knowingly facilitate sex trafficking are no longer immune from legal action."
Except they were never immune from legal action. Facilitating sex trafficking is a federal crime and nothing in CDA 230 contained immunity for federal crimes. It really makes you wonder why the primary "authors" of the bill seem to feel so hard pressed to flat out lie about what their own bill does. Why would they do that?
The video also has Judiciary Committee Chair Bob Goodlatte with more of his nonsense as well.
"The provisions of this law are already making the internet safer."
[Citation needed] Amusingly, right after Goodlatte says that, the video in an effort to support this claim flips to a news report about the shutdown of Backpage... which (and I know I'm repeating myself here) was taken down without the helps of FOSTA/SESTA since it wasn't even signed into law.
Also, the evidence to date leans heavily against the claim that it has made the internet safer. Indeed, already we've seen reports about sex workers being killed and pimps being empowered now that sex workers can't use sites like Backpage to screen clients. And a big study has highlighted how a lack of such services likely leads to a massive uptick in murder of women (not just sex workers, but women in general). And, lest we forget, police departments themselves are now complaining that they can no longer find sex traffickers thanks to the law.
Notice that the video addresses none of those effects (all of which were widely predicted). It just insists that the internet is safer. This is legislative fantasyland.
Of course, there's another oddity here. Why the hell is the House Judiciary Committee Republicans suddenly putting out such a video? The bill has already passed and it's already doing lots of damage. So why is Congress spending taxpayer money on a professionally edited video talking up a bunch of nonsense? Perhaps, as many have suggested, a key part of FOSTA/SESTA was always about grandstanding about how these politicians are "tough on sex trafficking" even if that's not accurate at all. And now that we're heading towards election season, I guess they have to milk that grandstanding bullshit for all its worth. Go spend your constituents hard-earned tax money by lying to them! What a job!
Of course, another reason for all of this may be the recent lawsuit claiming that FOSTA/SESTA is unconstitutional. While we've written about it already, the stories of some of the plaintiffs in that lawsuit tell the real story of how FOSTA/SESTA is harming people. Among those suing are a national alliance of Asian massage stores, who note that, thanks to FOSTA/SESTA their completely legitimate businesses are now being blocked from advertising, because some falsely assume that any Asian massage stores must be engaged in the sex trade.
...many Internet sites and review platforms flatly refuse content from or about Asian massage providers, DiBenedetto indicated. “Since it’s assumed we’re in the sex trade because we have Asian women offering Asian massage, platforms that used to run our ads and carry our reviews all the time now want nothing to do with us.”
The loss of those online outlets is devastating to providers of Asian massage services, said DiBenedetto. “They are unfairly cutting our stores off from the consumers we need to attract in order to stay viable. The business model of the typical Asian massage store requires a continual inflow of new customers. That inflow is heavily disrupted by us being profiled.”
DiBenedetto said Asian massage studio owners and masseuses now, “go to work every morning wondering if today will be the day their livelihoods vanish because all the doors have been slammed in their faces. This is so demoralizing, not to mention dehumanizing.”
So, to summarize, the House Judiciary Committee appears to be spending taxpayer money on a video celebrating a law that doesn't do what they claim it does, taking credit for a site takedown that wasn't because of the law, making up stats that have no basis in reality, ignoring the fact that their law has put many lives in real danger while making it more difficult for law enforcement to do their job, not to mention harming small business owners at the same time.
And people wonder why Congress' approval rating is so low.
* Our standard practice is not to name the party of politicians unless that's central to the story. In this case, the video is literally coming from a YouTube account that is apparently run by the Republicans on the House Judiciary. And this is not a "Republican v. Democrat" thing, because the Democrats on the Committee also supported FOSTA/SESTA. It was bipartisan nonsense, so if you happen to support the blue team or the red team, stupid generalizing comments about one party or the other will just make you look silly and tribal, rather than insightful or intelligent.
Elon Musk could face lawsuit for calling cave rescuer a “pedo guy”
Musk lobs baseless charge at rescuer who said his submarine idea was "PR stunt."
JON BRODKIN - 7/16/2018, 12:38 PM
A diver who helped rescue boys trapped in a Thailand cave may sue Elon Musk after the tech billionaire called the rescuer a "pedo guy."
Diver Vernon Unsworth was instrumental in the rescue, and he said that Musk's attempt to build a small submarine for the rescue effort was a "PR stunt" that had no chance of working. Musk soon promised to prove Unsworth wrong—and lobbed a baseless charge of pedophilia at the rescuer.
In a series of tweets yesterday, Musk initially challenged Unsworth to "show [the] final rescue video" before writing, "You know what, don't bother showing the video. We will make one of the mini-sub/pod going all the way to Cave 5 no problemo. Sorry pedo guy, you really did ask for it."
Musk, the CEO of SpaceX and Tesla, offered no evidence or justification for his claim that Unsworth is a pedophile. When another person on Twitter pointed out that Musk is "calling the guy who found the children a pedo," Musk responded, "Bet ya a signed dollar it's true." Musk has since deleted the tweets.
Musk's outburst came just a week after he said in a Bloomberg interview that he would try to be less combative on Twitter. "I should probably say nothing more often," Musk said at the time.
Unsworth, 63, is British and lives in Thailand for part of the year. He could sue Musk for libel in a British court. As The Guardian reported:
Unsworth told journalists at the cave site, where a cleanup operation is under way, that the remarks about him were an attack on the entire rescue crew.
"I believe he's called me a pedophile," he said. "I think people realize what sort of guy [Musk] is."
Asked if he would consider taking legal action against Musk, he told reporters: "Yes, it's not finished."
A lawyer who spoke to The Guardian called it "a cast-iron case of libel."
"The caver told AFP he would make a decision when he flies back to the UK this week, but said the episode with Musk 'ain't finished,'" the news agency reported.
"He's just a PR stunt merchant—that's all he is," Unsworth added.
Divers completed the rescue of 12 boys last week while saying that Musk's submarine was "not practical for this mission." Unsworth's knowledge of the cave system's layout reportedly was crucial in the rescue.
Musk made his "pedo guy" comment in a tweet to Zeynep Tufekci, a University of North Carolina professor who recently wrote a New York Times op-ed titled, "What Elon Musk Should Learn From the Thailand Cave Rescue."
Tufekci was surprised by Musk's tweet. "I’m dumbfounded by this," Tufekci wrote on Twitter. "I’d understand getting mad at me... but Vern Unsworth is, by all accounts I saw, a key hero of the miraculous rescue. The kids certainly—and many more divers likely—would be dead if not for him."
Residency restriction laws were declared invalid back in 2011, albeit per striking of a local ordinance under a pre-preemption clause. That does not mean the legislature can simply reinstate residency laws, but that's not going to stop pandering Republican PA State Rep Tom Mehaffie from trying.
Not only is he trying to reinstate a stricken law, he's trying to double the distance.
(I forgot about this article as it came up around conference time, but NARSOL discussed this today to remind me)
We must strengthen laws involving sexual predators: Tom Mehaffie
Posted Wednesday, June 6, 2018 10:57 am
As precious members of our society, our children and grandchildren are the future of our country with the promise of a bright future.
Unfortunately, there are adults within our population who prey upon them with sick intent regardless of the harm they inflict or the lifelong effects.
To assist parents in the responsibility of raising their children, Pennsylvania has maintained a law on its books since 1996 to target those who harm kids. Megan’s Law, named after a young girl who was brutally raped and murdered in New Jersey in 1994, is a state law that requires sexual offenders to register their whereabouts, employers, addresses and offenses on a publicly accessible Internet database.
For more than 20 years, families have relied upon information on this website to protect their children from sexual offenders who may reside in their neighborhood.
While we know that the enactment of Megan’s Law has greatly assisted law enforcement and our communities, it’s imperative, as lawmakers, that we revisit the law frequently to ensure no gaps in protections exist.
In response to two state appellate court cases, legislation was passed by the General Assembly and will be before the governor to ensure certain sexual offenders continue to be required to register their whereabouts.
House Bill 1952 seeks to expand upon Act 10 of 2018, which re-implemented the Adam Walsh Act, commonly known as Megan’s Law. Both House Bill 1952 and Act 10 were needed to close any loopholes that may have allowed sexual offenders who were convicted before 2012 to skip the registration process.
The legislation seeks to put back in place the important safety net to protect Pennsylvania’s children from dangerous sex offenders. This legislation is a crucial step in the safety and security of our communities and our children, but I believe we should take Megan’s Law one step further.
Statistics overwhelmingly show that people who commit sex crimes against children do not respond well to treatment programs and will likely continue to offend. Perpetrators of these crimes must not be permitted to roam freely near children. The risk is too great.
Therefore, I recently drafted legislation in the House of Representatives which would establish a residency restriction for sexual offenders registered under Megan’s Law.
My legislation would prohibit Megan’s Law registrants from residing within 5,000 feet of any public school, private school, parochial school or preschool.
Currently, under Pennsylvania law, there are no residency restrictions for sexual offenders other than the requirement to notify the school district that a sexual predator resides within a one-mile radius.
We have an obligation to ensure our children are protected from those who wish them harm. I am committed to moving this legislation forward. It is my hope that with the signing of House Bill 1952 into law and the passage of basic residency requirements, we can provide a stronger safety net for our children.
State Rep. Tom Mehaffie, R-Lower Swatara Township, represents the 106th House District. Reach him at 717-534-1323 or tmehaffie@pahousegop.com.
I don't have to do much to make fun of a backwater reporter most known for reporting out of both sets of cheeks, but this is as close as I can get to having NARSOL guest host the Shiitakes, since they posted a lengthy report on why this article is completely Shiitake-worthy. So you can just CLICK THIS LINK then come back and read this Shiitake-level reporting.
‘This is absolutely ridiculous': 20+ convicted sex offenders removed from Georgia registry
By: Mark Winne
Updated: Jul 10, 2018 - 8:40 AM
ATLANTA - Georgia Bureau of Investigation Director Vernon Keenan says 21 sex offenders who were on Georgia’s sex offender registry just weeks ago have now been removed from it.
Documents from the GBI indicate at least 15 of the cases involve child molestation or other crimes involving kids.
Keenan says his agency maintains the registry with input from Georgia sheriffs.
He says all 21 had previously received pardons or "restoration of civil and political rights" from the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles, and not because they were innocent.
“They’re still guilty,” Keenan said.
Court ruling removes offenders from registry
Keenan says the 21 have been removed because of a ruling in May by the Georgia Supreme Court involving a man who pleaded guilty to aggravated sodomy of his 6-year-old daughter. The court basically found that because he obtained a pardon in 2013, he should no longer be on the sex offender registry. Keenan disagreed.
“These are sex offenders that should be on the sex offender registry so that the public can protect themselves,” Keenan said.
Pardons and Paroles spokesman Steve Hayes says in each of the 21 cases, a past board determined the offender had been rehabilitated and had served all his sentence.
“A pardon doesn’t expunge a criminal record,” Hayes said. “A pardon is an act of forgiveness by the state. It is a statement that gives that offender, in most cases, employment opportunities to go forward in life.”
Parole board toughens application process
Hayes says no registered sex offenders have been pardoned since 2013 and the board has toughened up the application process. Starting in July 2015, Hayes says, they now have one pardon application for registered sex offenders and one for everyone else.
The application process now requires a polygraph, a psychosexual evaluation, a 10-year wait from end of sentence and opportunity for input from the DA and victim, among other things.
“The board recognized that it wanted as much information as possible,” Hayes said.
Hayes says, in total, 132 sex offenders have come off the sex offender registry in the past 11 months or so as a result of actions taken by judges across the state.
Victim says she wasn’t notified
A victim of one of the 21 men says she was never notified by the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles.
She was just 3 years old when she was molested by Tommy Hill Jones. She is now in her 30s, living in a shelter and still coping with what happened to her all those years ago.
“I was walking up and down the streets of Rome, Georgia, on drugs and alcohol wondering what man’s house I was going to sleep at next trying to heal that hurt,” she told Channel 2’s Mark Winne.
Six months ago, she moved into Cobb Street Ministries.
“I’m finally, at this point, being able to turn everything loose to God,” she said.
“When did you find out that he had been granted a restoration in 2012 of civil and political rights by the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles?” Winne asked.
“When I spoke to you,” she said.
She says she was horrified when she found out.
“I don’t think a sex offender's name ever needs to come off the list,” she said.
One offender already back in jail
Keenan confirmed the number of offenders would be 22, except the GBI discovered one of the men, Andrew Johnson, was convicted again on child molestation and will stay on the registry.
A local district attorney says he doesn’t believe child molesters can be rehabilitated.
“Based on 35 years of experience and a lot of knowledge about research in that area, I don’t believe that is possible,” Clayton County District Attorney Tracy Graham Lawson said.
AP FACT CHECK: Claim against Sen. Baldwin exaggerated
BY AMANDA SEITZ
The Associated Press
July 11, 2018 01:29 PM
Updated July 11, 2018 01:30 PM
Wisconsin Republican U.S. Senate candidate Leah Vukmir has repeatedly attacked incumbent U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin, saying the Democrat failed to protect communities against sex offenders.
Vukmir, a state senator, is one of two leading contenders for the Republican nomination to take on Baldwin in the November election, with national control of the Senate majority possibly at stake.
THE FACTS: Vukmir's claim is exaggerated. It focuses on one vote by Baldwin 24 years ago in which she voted against tougher punishment for sex offenders while ignoring several other votes in which Baldwin backed tougher laws.
Vukmir's campaign didn't reply to multiple requests for comment. Her website criticizes Baldwin for opposing a 1994 state law that allowed judges to order sex offenders to go to a secured state mental health facility after they completed their prison term.
Baldwin, who was then a member of the state Assembly, was one of only two members to vote against the bill, which passed with the support of 93 state representatives. Supporters of the bill said it keeps violent sex offenders off the streets. Critics argued it forces offenders to serve two terms -- one in prison and one in a state facility -- for a single crime. The Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld the law in 1995.
But Baldwin also supported more than a half-dozen Wisconsin state bills that strengthened sentencing and punishment for sex offenders during her time in the state Legislature from 1993 through 1998. One of the laws she supported allows sex offenders to be placed under lifetime supervision.
There is no precise data to prove if the 1994 law has had an impact on making communities safer. Since 1994, 803 Wisconsin sex offenders have been committed to a state-run treatment center following their release from prison.
A state study shows sex offender recidivism rates dropped following the law's enactment but the research doesn't attribute the decline to new state regulations.
"The trend seen in recidivism for sex offenders mirrors the trend in recidivism for all offenders," said Tristan Cook, spokesman for the Wisconsin Department of Corrections.
Between 1992 and 2010, Wisconsin released 12,849 men who had committed sex crimes from prison and 4.9 percent offended again, according to state research from 2015.
Laws that keep offenders in a state facility even after they've served their sentence might keep offenders from committing repeat offenses, but the regulations are costly and states that have adopted the laws do not have lower recidivism rates, said Michael Caldwell, a psychology professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
In addition, he said most sex offenders in the state face parole requirements following their release even if they have not been sent to a mental health facility.
"Typically, they don't just walk out the door then they're free -- there's very close monitoring," Caldwell said.
As for Vukmir's claim that Baldwin wanted to protect people from offensive school mascots, this appears to be a reference to a 2014 letter Baldwin and other Democrats sent the NFL, urging a renaming of the Washington Redskins.
NH man accused of breaking into sex offender’s apartment, scattering child porn, calling police
July 3, 2018
MANCHESTER, N.H. (WHDH) - A New Hampshire man is facing child porn and burglary charges after police say he broke into a sex offender’s Manchester apartment, scattered images of child pornography around the home, and then called in an anonymous tip to police, officials said.
Officers responding to an anonymous tip reporting a sex offender in grave danger in an apartment on Winter Street on April 12 went to a third-floor apartment, where they found the letters “PEDO” freshly spray painted on the door, according to a release issued Tuesday by Manchester police.
A search of the home, police say, uncovered multiple images of child pornography strewn about the apartment.
Feeling like “something was amiss,” the officers tracked down the 27-year-old resident, who said he thought someone was trying to set him up.
An investigation led to the arrest last month of Kenyoun Gifford, of Salem, who allegedly broke in and left the photos as part of a “retaliatory measure against the victim,” police said.
Gifford was arrested in Hillsborough County Superior Court North Monday on charges including possessing child sexual images, burglary, criminal mischief, and filing a false report.
I was tempted to post the grumpy cat meme here, but I think the absurdity of the story speaks for itself. Well, the joke was indeed accurate, but if you can't take a joke and quit over it, then you are not going to handle a real job.
She uses her victim story as her platform in pageants, claiming “One of four women will be sexually assaulted before the age of 18, and 68 percent of rapes are unreported to police. Of those that are reported, only 2 percent are caught and go to prison.”
Massachusetts beauty queen steps down from pageant after #MeToo joke
Ryan Gaydos By Ryan Gaydos| Fox News
A Massachusetts beauty pageant winner gave up her crown Saturday after a host made a joke about the #MeToo movement.
Maude Gorman, 24, who was the reigning Miss Plymouth County beauty queen and a survivor of sexual assault, resigned from the Miss Massachusetts Miss America Organization competition over a joke made about the women’s movement. The emcee was referencing the removal of the swimsuit competition, according to The Boston Globe.
The host did a skit last week with someone portraying God. The host, a woman, tells "God" she doesn't understand why Miss America officials would get rid of the swimsuit competition. The person then holds up a sign reading “#MeToo.”
Mocking a movement that empowers sexual assault survivors is “inappropriate” especially by a “women’s empowerment organization,” Gorman said.
“It was heartbreaking to hear. In that moment, everything collapsed right in front of me,” Gorman told the Globe, adding that she was backstage at the time the remarks were made.
The Miss America organization apologized in a Facebook post.
“The Miss Massachusetts Board of Directors offers our sincere and heartfelt apology for those offended by Saturday night’s skit,” the group said. “The skit was not in the script and was not authorized by the board. Moving forward, we will review all content with future emcees and other participants prior to our show to be sure offensive or potentially offensive content is not allowed. We are proud of our contestants and even prouder to be part of an organization that celebrates what makes all of them truly extraordinary.”
Gorman was firm on her decision to step away from competition despite being in pageants for years, her mother, Mary Ellen, told The Boston Globe.
Gorman has revealed in the past that she was raped by three men when she was 13. After telling her mother about the incident and going through therapy, Gorman participated in pageants to build self-esteem and was named Miss Massachusetts World America in 2015, the Globe reported.
Tennessee lawmaker says pornography is a ‘root cause’ of school shootings
POSTED 9:10 AM, MAY 30, 2018, BY TRIBUNE MEDIA WIRE, UPDATED AT 10:09AM, MAY 30, 2018
Republican Rep. Diane Black of Tennessee recently cited pornography, along with the deterioration of the family and violent movies, as a contributing factor to gun violence in schools.
Black made the remarks during a listening session with local pastors last week, according to audio obtained by HuffPost and posted Tuesday.
“Why do we see kids being so violent? What’s out there? What makes them do that?” Black said. “Because, as a nurse, I go back to the root cause. And I think it’s a couple of things,” Black said, listing off the deterioration of the family and violent movies, before mentioning pornography.
“Pornography. It’s available. It’s available on the shelf when you walk in the grocery store. Yeah, you have to reach up to get it, but there’s pornography there,” Black says in the audio. “All of this is available without parental guidance.”
She adds, “And I think that’s a big part of the root cause, that we see so many young people who have mental illness get caught in these places.”
In the audio, Black does not detail what it is about pornography that she believes contributes to school shootings.
“I think the context is pretty clear,” Black’s campaign spokesman Chris Hartline told CNN Tuesday. “Diane believes the breakdown of families and communities plays a significant role in instances of school violence.”
Moms Demand Action founder Shannon Watts criticized Black’s comments, writing on Twitter that “despite all of the data and exerts at her disposal, (Black) chooses to blame ‘grocery store pornography’ for school shootings. And she doesn’t mean the magazines that glorify guns.”‘
I could spend the rest of the year just posting the barrage of self-important sport writers hating on Luke Heimlich during Oregon State's baseball championship run. However, among this barrage of BS, one particular article files is higher and deeper than the rest. Ladies and gentlemen, give it up for Jon "Smiling Politely" Tayler.
There Is No Moral Justification for the Royals or Any Team to Sign Luke Heimlich
By JON TAYLER June 26, 2018
Across the 40 rounds of the 2018 MLB draft, stretching from the night of June 4 through the afternoon of June 6, 1,214 players were selected, from high school teenagers to college seniors—from the best amateur players in the country to guys who will be lucky to log even one major league inning. Not included among those thousand-odd names called was Luke Heimlich’s. The lefthander out of Oregon State has been one of college baseball’s best pitchers over the last two years of his career. He’s also a convicted child molester.
Where you fall on Heimlich’s future in baseball depends on which of those you give more weight to: his talent or his crime. Severely complicating that matter is Heimlich’s own repeated and public insistence that he is innocent despite having pled guilty to the crime, which he committed at 15, of molesting his then-six-year-old niece. That plea was something he did, he maintains, to avoid the pain and suffering of a court trial and having to put his family on the stand, not because he actually did anything wrong.
It’s easy to see why no major league team wants to be involved with Heimlich and the ugly particulars of his conviction and case. Teams may also prefer to avoid a person who denies a heinous action and, by extension, implies that his victim—a six-year-old child at the time she was molested—is lying.
But the Kansas City Royals have come out as one of Heimlich’s lone supporters—in particular, general manager Dayton Moore. Last week, in a televised interview with Fox Sports Kansas City (which was surfaced and partially transcribed on Tuesday by The Athletic’s Rustin Dodd), Moore told broadcaster Ryan Lefebvre, “We do believe in the player and the person, Luke Heimlich,” and that Heimlich “has earned an opportunity to play professional baseball.” A recent Kansas City Star column by Vahe Gregorian, meanwhile, has Moore quoted as saying, “We continue to seek information that allows us to be comfortable in pursuing Luke.” When contacted by SI.com, the Royals said Moore wouldn't comment any further on Heimlich.
Moore’s language is telling. The information already out there paints a simple picture: Heimlich is guilty of molesting his niece and admitted as such in a court of law. Barring a sudden statement otherwise from the victim or her family, those are the facts on record.
What Moore wants instead is something that can help him sell this in a different way. He wants “information” that will show Heimlich not as a convicted and unrepentant felon, but as a young man who made a mistake and served his punishment and is a better person than what’s been portrayed. “Not only did he achieve athletic excellence, he achieved academic excellence along the way,” Moore told Fox Sports Kansas City of Heimlich’s time at Oregon State, adding later, “Do I believe that he has earned an opportunity to play professional baseball? I do, because of his character over the last four or five years.”
The takeaway from Moore’s comments is obvious: He’s laying the groundwork for a potential signing. If he and the Royals can successfully minimize his actions and flip the public sentiment on Heimlich, then they can land themselves a top-flight talent on the cheap. (Had he been a first-round pick, Heimlich would’ve signed for anywhere from $2.3 million to nearly $8 million; as an undrafted free agent, he’ll get a few thousand dollars.) But to do that, fans and media have to be convinced that Heimlich isn’t a bad person, and that he’s grown or matured or reformed. So here’s Moore, publicly talking up Heimlich’s accomplishments and character and how his team believes “in giving players second chances.”
It’s a strategy as transparent as it is offensive. The question of how one earns redemption and who deserves it is fraught and difficult to answer, but at a minimum, it should include some form of penance or contrition or remorse. Nothing that Heimlich has publicly said or done aligns with what Moore has said of a player who is of high character or deserves any kind of MLB opportunity. He has repeatedly denied his crime to anyone who will listen. When Sports Illustrated’s S.L. Price asked Heimlich if his assertion of innocence meant that his victim was telling a false story, he replied, “Yes.” Moore wants us to believe Heimlich has taken responsibility for what he did, but Heimlich refuses to do so publicly. So why should he be afforded redemption?
For a team to sign Heimlich is to wade into a whole mess of issues: questions of restorative versus retributive justice, of the normalization of what he did, of the damage he inflicted upon his victim and the pain she will have to live with. Heimlich’s supporters, Moore apparently included, will say that he did everything required of him post-conviction, and that no one should be judged forever. “I’ve made a lot of mistakes in my life, mistakes that could have disrupted my career path and put me in a whole different area,” Moore told Fox Sports Kansas City. The comparison is clear: We are not the worst decisions of our lives, and they shouldn’t shape their entire course.
But why does Heimlich deserve the opportunity to move on if he won’t accept what he did wrong? And even if he did own up to it, why does that entitle him to a baseball career? Being a professional athlete is a privilege, not a right, and one that talent alone doesn’t and shouldn’t confer. The concept of sports leagues as punitive and restorative bodies is complicated, but this is straightforward: If you plead guilty to child molestation, why should you be afforded a career and the reward that comes with it?
For Moore and the Royals to defend Heimlich or attempt to clean up his image is to become complicit in his crime. To ask the public to see him as a man who deserves another chance is to ignore that he never atoned for his actions, and to whitewash what he did. That this is coming from a man in Moore who is strongly and obsessively opposed to pornography on moral grounds makes his support of a convicted child molester all the more galling and hypocritical. There is not and should not be room in the major leagues for men like Heimlich, and it should be completely unacceptable for the Royals to sign him.
There is no debate on this matter, no gray areas or ethical soft spots or moral compromises. Luke Heimlich isn’t owed a career with its attendant spotlight or platform, nor a second chance and the promise of unearned redemption. Unlike the 1,214 men who were selected in the draft and the countless more who signed after it, Heimlich’s story doesn’t deserve a new chapter as a big leaguer.
