Thursday, August 30, 2018

Georgia State Senator Michael Williams could not even spell the word Molester properly on his "deportation bus"

If you are going to make a bold, stupid claim like Georgia State Senator Michael Williams, the least you can do is learn to spell. At least he didn't add "pedifiles," if that counts. Still, using Predator Panic as a talking point in a political campaign nets you a Shiitake Award nomination.

A 'deportation bus’ candidate screeches to last-place finish 
Michael Williams’ pro-Trump campaign slams to a standstill
May 22, 2018

From the get-go, state Sen. Michael Williams built his campaign for governor on two themes: An argument that he’s Donald Trump’s most ardent champion in Georgia, and a streak of audacious proposals meant to show he’s a “fearless conservative” and his opponents are phonies.

With his dismal showing Tuesday, the Cumming Republican showed again the limitations of an arch-conservative message that relies almost entirely on Trump. In last year’s 6th District special election, Republicans who most directly tied their message to Trump flamed out.

In the end, even as he drew national attention for a “deportation bus tour,” he was universally ignored by his GOP rivals – usually a surefire sign he’s not getting any traction. At some debates, Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle wouldn’t even respond to Williams’ attacks.

His struggles started with his failure to raise significant cash to build name recognition and lack of any significant accomplishment in the Georgia Legislature. But the contest also exemplified how his rivals were able to neutralize the Trump factor.

Yes, they each conceded, Williams was the first state official to back Trump in late 2015. But they also embraced the president and talked about him on the campaign trail, pledging to support his policies while also largely staying focused on Georgia-centric issues.

Their allegiance had its limits. Only Williams supported Trump’s plan to open Georgia’s coast to offshore drilling. And while other candidates lamented Trump’s tweets or bruising rhetoric when asked what they regret about the president, Williams would say he wholeheartedly approves of all things Trump.

In the closing days of the race, Williams sharpened his attempts to paint his opponents as closeted Never Trumpers.

At an Atlanta Press Club debate, he mocked Secretary of State Brian Kemp for saying he supported Trump but was never asked to “formally” endorse him. And he tried to cast Cagle as an anti-Trump stooge, despite social media posts that showed the lieutenant governor praising the president.

But he found it harder to out-conservative his rivals, who were all intensifying their race to the right.

Late last year, he attracted national attention for raffling off a bump stock device after it was used in a mass shooting in Las Vegas. By March, the entire field was in a vicious battle for the NRA’s endorsement – and a seemingly daily test over the lengths they would go to expand Second Amendment rights.

In the end, even Williams’ “deportation bus tour” was one-upped by his opponents.

Days earlier, Kemp launched an ad featuring his pickup truck - “just in case I need to round up criminal illegals and take 'em home myself.” But unlike Williams, who spent little cash on expensive TV advertising, Kemp put about $1 million behind his last spurt of broadcast and cable spots.

So while Williams’ bus tour was beset with demonstrators – and sidelined for a time by engine problems – Kemp rode his truck to a spot in the runoff.

Wednesday, August 29, 2018

GoFundMe fundraiser made for vigilante scumbag who attacked convicted SO in court by someone calling himself "Team Punch a Pedo"

Hard to decide who deserves the nomination more, Kevin Patrick Smith (the vigilante) or the soulless asshat calling himself "Team Punch a Pedo" (Jacob Elkin) raising money for the vigilante scumbag.

GoFundMe seems to be a hotbed of activity for vigilante scumbags raising money.

Oregon community raises money for man who punched pastor convicted of sex offense
Anchor Muted Background
By Amir Vera, CNN

Updated 1:25 PM ET, Mon August 27, 2018

(CNN)Three-and-a-half years' worth of emotions stirred in Kevin Patrick Smith.

The 45-year-old said he was sitting in the Medford, Oregon, federal courthouse on Wednesday for the sentencing hearing for Donald Courtney Biggs, 40, when he rushed Biggs and punched him.

Biggs, a former youth pastor at Mountain Christian Fellowship, had pleaded guilty in February to one count of transportation with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity with a minor, according to a news release from the US attorney's office for Oregon.

The release also states he had admitted recording girls and a woman while they were changing clothes at his home and on youth trips. Those charges were dropped in exchange for his guilty plea.
Smith said two of his relatives were victims and his family had been members of the church where Biggs served for 10 years.

The hearing Wednesday proved to be emotionally charged, Smith said, as victims and their family members packed the courtroom. Victims' statements were read for two hours, then it was the defense's turn.

Biggs' attorney Terry Kolkey said he submitted 26 sealed statements to the judge supporting Biggs' character. The statements, Kolkey said, came from law enforcement officers, CEOs and other pastors who knew Biggs for being a "remarkably kind, giving human being."

"They knew all of his crimes and stood with him," Kolkey said. He also added that during the three years Biggs was in jail, he called his kids every day and even wrote letters that Kolkey said amassed to about 2,000 pages. He also showed this to the judge.

Kolkey's presentation did not sit well with Smith.

"At that point, I just kind of snapped," Smith told CNN on Sunday. "I charged across the courtroom. He was sitting behind a desk. I leaped over the desk and got a punch in on his face."

Jacob Elkin, who was in the courtroom and is a relative of a victim, said Smith "was like a bolt of lightning just like Superman." Smith's courtroom actions prompted Elkin to launch a fundraising effort on his behalf.

US marshals broke up the scuffle as the courtroom was evacuated, according to CNN affiliate KTVL-TV. Proceedings continued Thursday and Biggs was sentenced to more than 15 years in prison.
Smith said the 3½ years of emotion all spilled out while he was being arrested.

"I was on the ground as I was in handcuffs and I just started bawling on the ground," he said.

Smith was charged with fourth-degree assault, second-degree disorderly conduct and obstruction of judicial administration, according to CNN affiliate KDRV-TV. Biggs was taken to the hospital with a broken nose, said his attorney, Kolkey.

Smith said he was released from the Jackson County Jail the same day because of jail overcrowding. He said he is to be arraigned September 5.

Elkin spoke about the raw emotions in the courtroom that day. He said he and his wife were grateful for Smith's actions, so grateful they created a GoFundMe page to raise funds for Smith's legal fees. As of Sunday night, the page had raised $12,915, most of it coming in individual contributions of $125 or less.

"All the money will be given to the Smith family," Elkin said. "Kevin's an outstanding man. He's always been a loving father."

Elkin said although Biggs, the youth pastor, was convicted and sentenced, he feels justice has only been partially served.

According to the news release from the US Attorney's Office, the Medford County Police Department had been investigating Biggs since 2014, when he was accused of sending inappropriate text messages to a young girl who worked at the church with him. Authorities said they discovered he had sent similar texts to other girls. Biggs also confessed to church administrators that he videotaped an adult changing clothes while at his home, officials said.

Police executed a search warrant on Biggs' home and found "multiple electronic devices containing videos of minors and adults undressing and getting into and out of a shower," the release said. Biggs hid a video camera in his home behind a light switch in the bathroom used by girls and women, and authorities also said he hid cameras in bathrooms during church trips to California.

Biggs confessed to recording girls and women in his home, the church and several church events. He also admitted creating activities that required youth group members to change clothes and sometimes shower, the release said.

Jacob Elkin
Elkin's GoFundMe for Smith

Friday, August 24, 2018

News outlets attempted to link Austin Bomber to registry reform

I'm not going to single any one news outlet. This info was published by numerous media outlets in the days following the Austin Bombing in March. You know who else did this shit? Florida State Senator Lauren Book. This is why nearly half a year later, this particular story still pisses me off.

Austin bombing suspect Mark A. Conditt proposed ending sex offender registry, blog says

March 21, 2018
By Sean Collins Walsh, Claire Osborn, Tony Plohetski, Jeremy Schwartz and Mary Huber, Austin American-Stateman

In 2012, when he was 17 years old, Austin bombing suspect Mark Conditt laid out his political views in a series of blog posts he wrote for an Austin Community College course on the U.S. government.

No motive for the bombings has been disclosed, either by the bomber or by authorities. Four bombings in Austin over 17 days left two people dead and four injured. Another bomb exploded in a FedEx distribution facility, and one unexploded bomb was found at another distribution center, officials said. Authorities identified the 23-year-old Conditt as the bombing suspect who died in a bomb explosion during a confrontation with police early Wednesday, the American-Statesman and KVUE have reported, citing local and federal law enforcement sources.

In the blog, Conditt described himself as a conservative. It’s not clear whether politics played any role in the bombings, but the blog posts provide insight into Conditt’s thinking as he was growing up.

He wrote that he was against gay marriage and abortion and in favor of the death penalty.

He also wrote that he supported doing away with the sex offender registration system.

“So you have a guy who committed a crime. Will putting him on a (sex offender) list make it better? wouldn’t this only make people shun him, keep him from getting a job, and making friends? Just for a crime that he may have committed over 15 years ago as a adolescent? On a side note, one fifth of all rapes are committed by a juvenile,” Conditt wrote.

On abortion, he wrote: “First, if a women does not want a baby, or is incapable of taking care of one, she should not participate in activities that were made for that reason. Second, if we are going to give women free abortions, why not give men free condoms, or the like? Is it not up to the couple to take these preventive measures?”

Arguing against gay marriage, he wrote that homosexuality is “not natural.”

“Just look at the male and female bodies. They are obviously designed to couple. The natural design is apparent. It is not natural to couple male with male and female with female. It would be like trying to fit two screws together and to nuts together and then say, “See, it’s natural for them to go together,” he wrote.

Conditt attended ACC from 2010 to 2012, but never graduated, a school spokesperson told the Texas Tribune.

Monday, August 20, 2018

I guess when Asia Argento said #MeToo, she meant she's also an alleged abuser

If you paid hush money to a kid to try to hide your hypocrisy, raise your fist
Grab your popcorn, the MeToo Movement is imploding on itself LOL

#MeToo activist Asia Argento reportedly had sex with underage star, settled case
The actress played accuser Jimmy Bennett's prostitute mother in a 2004 film. Bennett alleges they had sex when he was 17. Calif.'s age of consent is 18.
by Associated Press / Aug.20.2018 / 5:48 AM ET / Updated 8:37 AM ET

Italian actress Asia Argento — one of the most prominent activists of the #MeToo movement against sexual harassment — recently settled a complaint filed against her by a young actor and musician who said she sexually assaulted him when he was 17, the New York Times reported.

Argento, 42, settled the notice of intent to sue filed by Jimmy Bennett, who is now 22, for $380,000 shortly after she said last October that movie mogul Harvey Weinstein raped her, the Times reported.

Argento and Bennett co-starred in a 2004 film called "The Heart Is Deceitful Above All Things" in which Argento played Bennett's prostitute mother.

Bennett says in the notice that he had sex with Argento in a California hotel in 2013, two months after he turned 17. The age of consent in California is 18.

The notice says the encounter traumatized Bennett and hurt his career, the Times reported.

The newspaper said it received court documents that included a selfie of Argento and Bennett in bed. Three people familiar with the case said the documents were authentic, the Times reported.

Argento became one of the most well-known activists of the #MeToo movement after she told the New Yorker magazine that Weinstein raped her at the Cannes Film Festival in 1997 when she was 21. Argento told the magazine that she continued to have a relationship with Weinstein because she was afraid of angering him.

Weinstein, who has been accused of sexual misconduct by dozens of women, has been indicted on sex crime charges involving three women. Argento is not one of the three.

Representatives for Argento could not be immediately reached by The Associated Press for comment.

Through a representative, Bennett declined to comment to the Times.

Argento recently faced online persecution after her boyfriend, Anthony Bourdain, took his own life. Online trolls began harassing her, saying that she caused his death. Numerous sexual assault and harassment survivors penned on op-ed in the Los Angeles Times supporting her.

In addition to the 2004 movie with Argento, Bennett appeared in other films, including "Daddy Day Care," and recently had a role on the TV series "Bosch." He is now working on a music career.

Wednesday, August 15, 2018

Female feminist professor gets suspended for sexual harassment and the #MeToo Movement is livid

Robby Soave hasn't been following the shiitake Awards blog's #MeToo moron of the Year category. We have a few contenders, trust me.

Feminists Rally to Defense of Female Professor Accused of Sexual Harassment by Male Student
#MeToo madness: it's wrong to use Title IX, a feminist tool, "to take down a feminist."
Robby Soave
Aug. 14, 2018 2:40 pm

Avital Ronnell, a leading professor of feminist philosophy at New York University, has been forced to take a year off after NYU determined that she had sexually harassed a male student. If there's a stranger #MeToo story out there, I've yet to hear it.

Ronnell identifies as a lesbian; the student she is accused of harassing is gay, and now married to another man. Also extraordinary: many well-known feminists—including the legendary Judith Butler—came to Ronnell's defense, testifying to her "grace and keen wit" and demanding that she "receive a fair hearing." (Butler and co. taking the side of the accused in a sexual misconduct dispute would of course be unthinkable if the accused were male, as is usually the case.)

The New York Times reviewed excerpts of NYU's report on the matter. I have not seen this report, and thus I am reliant on the the Times' version. Unfortunately, I've learned not to entirely trust the Grey Lady on matters relating to Title IX, the federal statute that governs campus sexual misconduct trials. The assertions described in the story certainly sound like sexual harassment, but without knowing more I can't say whether there are mitigating contextual factors. Regardless, Ronnell's defenders are right that she was entitled to a fair hearing.

The accuser, Nimrod Reitman, claimed that Ronnell pressured him into an amorous relationship. She would visit him at his home, climb into bed with him, and force him to kiss and touch her. According to The Times:

In the semesters that followed, Mr. Reitman said he was expected to work with Professor Ronell, often at her apartment, during lengthy work sessions nearly every weekend. Professor Ronell frequently detailed her affection and longing for him, according to emails from her that Mr. Reitman provided to The New York Times.

"I woke up with a slight fever and sore throat," she wrote in an email on June 16, 2012, after the Paris trip. "I will try very hard not to kiss you — until the throat situation receives security clearance. This is not an easy deferral!" In July, she wrote a short email to him: "time for your midday kiss. my image during meditation: we're on the sofa, your head on my lap, stroking you [sic] forehead, playing softly with yr hair, soothing you, headache gone. Yes?"

In a submission to the Title IX office, Professor Ronell said she had no idea Mr. Reitman was so uncomfortable until she read the investigators' report.

NYU's Policy on Consensual Intimate Relationships prohibits "sexual, dating, or romantic relationships" between professors and graduate students who are in the same discipline or academic program, and between a faculty advisor and their advisee. The responsibility for not engaging in such behavior rests solely with the professor, according to the policy. It would seem fairly clear Ronnell is in violation of it.

Of greatest interest to me, though, is this comment from a defender of Ronnell:

Diane Davis, chair of the department of rhetoric at the University of Texas-Austin, who also signed the letter to the university supporting Professor Ronell, said she and her colleagues were particularly disturbed that, as they saw it, Mr. Reitman was using Title IX, a feminist tool, to take down a feminist.

"I am of course very supportive of what Title IX and the #MeToo movement are trying to do, of their efforts to confront and to prevent abuses, for which they also seek some sort of justice," Professor Davis wrote in an email. "But it's for that very reason that it's so disappointing when this incredible energy for justice is twisted and turned against itself, which is what many of us believe is happening in this case."

In this woman's deeply unprincipled view, it's wrong to use Title IX against a member of the feminist left. And we were supposed to believe that Gloria Steinem's "one free grope" rule had been consigned to the dustbin of history! How can it be said that Title IX is really about ending gender-based discrimination, if it's wrong to use Title IX to protect men from sexual harassment?

Monday, August 13, 2018

California officials attempted to suppress a research report showing recidivism rates for released civilly committed SOs are far lower than expected

It is shocking but not surprising.

Did California Authorities Suppress Research on Sexually Violent Predators?
By TCR Staff | August 3, 2018

State laws that allow sexually violent predators to be locked up even after they have served their sentences are based on questionable assumptions that they continue to pose a danger to society, according to a study published in the American Criminal Law Review.

The study focused on California where, according to the authors, research indicating that sexually violent predators (SVPs) are less likely to re-commit crimes than other offenders was suppressed because it challenged the constitutional legitimacy of the state’s SVP laws.

The research in the mid-2000s by Dr. Jesus Padilla, a clinical psychologist at Atascadero State Hospital, a California maximum-security institution that houses mentally ill offenders, found that just 6.5 percent of untreated sexually violent predators were arrested for a new sex crime within 4.8 years of release from a locked mental facility.

But the research was halted and its findings hidden in what, in effect, was an attempt to “bury” information that might challenge the constitutional basis for the $147.4 million program operated by the California Department of Mental Health that supervised the involuntary commitment of SVPs, the study claimed.

The authors, Tamara Rice Lave of the University of Miami School of Law; and Franklin Zimring, of the University of California, Berkeley, wrote they learned about the concealed study from a former public defender who is now a Superior Court judge in San Diego, and then contacted Dr. Padilla.

“Dr. Padilla was very responsive and gave us a detailed account of what had happened,” the authors wrote. “We then submitted a FOIA request to the newly created Department of State Hospitals (DSH). But we were told that they were ‘unable to verify any study on recidivism conducted by Jesus Padilla, PhD.’

“We shared DSH’s response with Dr. Padilla, and he sent us a packet of documents pertaining to the study including internal memoranda, emails, and the signatory page granting approval for the study.”

An examination of the study, which was originally commissioned to assess the value of clinically treating SVPs, revealed the lower recidivism rates—a result that surprised researchers at the time, but also paralleled the findings of a 2003 study by the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) that showed 2.5 percent of rapists were rearrested for rape within three years of release from prison, and just 3.3 percent of child molesters were arrested for another sex crime against a child during that same period.

In contrast, during that same three-year period, the BJS researchers found that 13.4 percent of robbers were rearrested for robbery, 23.4 percent of burglars were rearrested for burglary, and 41.2 percent of drug offenders were rearrested for a drug crime.

The recidivism statistics call into question the entire basis for the involuntary civil commitment of sexual offenders, wrote the authors.

Currently, 20 states and the federal government have similar SVP laws, and as of 2016, there were 5,355 persons committed as SVPs across the country, with an additional 1,001 detained pending commitment, the study said.

Because the Constitution prevents a person from being punished multiple times for the same crime in criminal cases, the courts have enforced civil commitments in the cases of many SVPs, which allow for a post-sentence detention in an effort to prevent further offenses.

“We have no way of knowing the real reason why California halted the Padilla study and then tried to bury it,” wrote the authors. “Although our FOIA request asked why the study was terminated, we never received an answer.

“Perhaps higher-ups at DMH (the California Department of Mental Health) had not initially paid attention to the study because they did not expect the results….DMH may have realized the study had to be stopped because it threatened the legitimacy of the entire SVP program.

“The only constitutional ly acceptable rationale for SVP commitment is that offenders are so dangerous that they must be locked away, and this study showed otherwise. If the SVP law were to be declared unconstitution al, it would threaten the $147.3 million annual budget DMH (and now Department of State Hospitals) receives for the civil commitment program.

“People have done far worse than bury a study for a hundred million dollars.”

The authors noted that the use of SVP laws was given the stamp of approval by a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court Case Kansas v. Hendricks, which accepted claims that SVPs are “extremely dangerous” and that their “likelihood of engaging in repeat acts of predatory sexual violence is high.”

In that case, defendant Leroy Hendricks “admitted that he was an uncured pedophile who could not control his desire to molest children.” But, as the authors argue, Hendricks does not represent the greater SVP population.

“If the Court had asked what the basis was for this conclusion, they would have been sorely disappointed,” the study says. “We searched the legislative minutes for the 1994 Kansas law and found no citations to data on prospective danger.”

The unwillingness to substantiate the claims may be be rooted in fears of inflaming public opinion, argued the authors. A 2010 national opinion poll found that 72 percent of respondents believed that at least half, if not most, of convicted sexual offenders would commit additional sex crimes later on, according to the study.

A separate study from the Washington State Institute (WSI) reported that recidivism rates were as high as 25 percent in Washington. But the authors note a variance in age demographics between WSI and Padilla’s studies, with WSI’s largely consisting of a younger demographic.

Data from the Department of Justice released in 2016 shows that recidivism rates among sex offenders for other non-sexual crimes was around 60 percent. Only 5.6 percent were re-arrested for rape or sexual assault.

“If SVPs are no different than the dangerous but typical recidivist convicted in an ordinary criminal case, then the state has no constitutionally permissible reason to continue locking them away,” the study says.

California’s use of indeterminate civil commitment means that it is unlikely that the state’s SVPs, most of whom are over 50, will ever be released, the study said—based on the presumption that the risk posed by an offender at 40 remains the same when he is 50, 60 “or even 90.”

The rediscovery of the Padilla study should spur California and other states to make it a requirement that SVPs are regularly examined to prove they are likely to recidivate—a system that California used before the onset of SVP laws, the authors wrote.

“The politics of crime and fear of sex offenders mean that someone like Mr. Hendricks, who is now 83 and confined to a wheelchair, will never prevail,” they added.

“The ironic result of allowing state governments to make up their own theories of prospective sexual danger and never to test their hunches goes beyond the wasteful and unjust incarceration of elderly men with histories of sex offenses.

“Detailed and careful empirical study could provide much better evidence of the age and other characteristic s of persons who have significant offending risks.”

The authors called on the Bureau of Justice Statistics to resurrect and continue the Padilla study.
“Until such research is conducted, we will never know whether the true legacy of Kansas v. Hendricks includes not just unjust confinement but also an allocation of limited resources with no focus on populations of maximum danger.

“Justice and community safety demand the truth.”

A complete copy of the study can be downloaded here.   (it should be noted that this information within the study which I am attaching below relies heavily on rearrest rates not reconviction rates when you go back and evaluate studies that put reconviction and rearrest rates you will find that 1/3 to 1/2 of the people of rearrested are not reconvicted. so rearrest rates are not an accurate guideline for the truth in re-offense rates. another point seems to be that the study only looked at people released from mental institutions even though the studies that they cited within the study were for people released from prison. one thing that jumped out at me was the 6.5% rearrest rate for people released from mental institutions without any treatment. these would have to be considered the worst of the worst if they avoided conviction by being placed in mental and institutions.) (note I have not read the entire study I've only skimmed the surface it's like 80 pages long but I can see from just skimming that even this study is what I would call a limited study)

Friday, August 10, 2018

Idiotic PA Vigilante more than likely used actual CP to try to conduct a predator sting. Possibly coming to a registry near you...

The media doesn't want to publish the mugshot of Justin Perry, aka "Mr 17540." On the upside, since Perry is already used to referring to himself as a number, I'm sure he'll do well in prison.

Lancaster vigilante helps with arrest, faces child pornography charges

"The guy was messaging back and forth for a while, and was like, ‘Hey, I want to come meet you here, here, and here.' And you guys saw in the video what happened next.”

The video seen above captures a moment Justin Perry, or Mr. 17540, as he calls himself, has been working for.

“We have looked at everything he’s been doing in the past, and certainly we aren’t going to look over or neglect any potential criminal activity," said Brett Hambright, the Lancaster County District Attorney's spokesperson.

Police arrested 36 year-old Thomas Wise, who you can see in the video, on several counts, including statutory sexual assault.

This is the first arrest in Mr. 17540’s efforts to catch a child predator.

He lures in potential suspects online by posing as a 15 year-old girl.

He then meets them in a public place, and records the entire interaction on FaceBook live.

“These people are out here. We give our phone to our children, like, 'Hey, mommy and daddy need to go do something.' But we’re putting predators in their hands,” said Perry.

But one other arrest was made too…

“I gift wrapped this guy to you and handed it to you. And you do this to me? It shocked me,” said Perry.

Police called Perry in for questioning about Wise, and that’s when they say they made a disturbing discovery on his phone.

“I go in there, they're like, 'Hey we have some concerns about pictures,' and I’m just like, 'What? What are you talking about?'”

Perry is charged with child pornography and criminal use of a communication facility.

But he says he knows nothing about the photos.

“Any picture I’ve ever sent any decoy, it was always a face shot from here up, and that was that. There was no inappropriate pictures my knowledge on that phone,” said Perry.

He says he will continue to be proud of his role in Wise’s arrest, knowing he did nothing wrong.

“The guys in jail right now. He’s in jail. That was because of me. I did that. And no matter what happens, they’re not going to take that away from me. Because I did that,” said Perry.

Despite the arrest, law enforcement officials say they do not condone Perry’s efforts to catch alleged predators, and urge people to leave that kind of work to professionals.

Perry is free awaiting his preliminary hearing.

Wednesday, August 8, 2018

Someone should tell the Lafayette Daily Advertiser to stop letting their food critics write advertorials for the victim industry

This is Megan Wyatt. Megan is the "Food and Drink" writer for the Lafayette Daily Advertiser. Well, instead of serving up the latest about food and booze, she's serving up a steaming plate of bovine excrement. In fact, this is her ONLY non-food/booze related article than be found online. She should stick with eating, since that's obviously her real area of expertise.

There are so many mistakes with this article, it would take me all day just to debunk the entire thing. I'll just simply stick with the highlights:

  1. It is NOT ILLEGAL for registered persons to use social media. The Louisiana law, however, IS illegal.
  2. The report is written in a way to lead the reader to ASS-U-ME the two dozen confirmed accounts (out of 350) and the dozens they merely suspect were registrant are all engaging in soliciting minors. The "investigation" included anyone convicted of electronic voyeurism (a small amount and ANYONE with an offense against a juvenile (since this is Louisiana, you know some of those were also juveniles at the time of the offense)
  3. There is no classification called "dangerous child predator." Louisiana has three tiers and only refers to the level. Interestingly, Voyeurism is only a Tier 1 offense, while a Romeo and Juliet case can land a teen as a minimum Tier 2 since LA is an AWA state. 
  4. The article uses the SMART Office (or SOMAPI, a SMART Office propaganda report) but even then, she only cherry picks what she wants readers to think. She ignores the work of David Finkelhor, whose research (the top in the internet offender field) contradicts her claim that online offenders are all hiding their identities to commit more offenses. 
  5. She focused on studies showing a higher recidivism rate, including the Harris and Hanson multinational study. (You can't look at the laws of other nations and use them to determine American reoffense rates.) 
  6. Pretty much all her info came from a single, biased source-- Stacie D. Rumenap, President of Stop Child Predators. You know who is currently on that group's advisory board? Mark Lunsford, a guy very familiar to the Shiitake Awards. You know, the Mark Lunsford known for blatantly using his daughter's death to collect hundreds of thousands of dollars and was so acidic that other victim groups want nothing to do with him. 

The entire article is worthless.

Despite ban, Lafayette Parish sexual predators still active on social media
Megan Wyatt, Lafayette Daily Advertiser Published 6:00 a.m. CT Aug. 6, 2018 | Updated 10:55 a.m. CT Aug. 6, 2018

About 10 percent of the most dangerous sex offenders in Lafayette Parish are using social networking sites in violation of a Louisiana law meant to protect children online.

The overwhelming majority are middle-aged men, many of whom used technology to commit their crimes — from secretly videoing someone changing clothes to using the internet to convince children to perform sexual activities.

A four-month Daily Advertiser investigation found a serious lack of oversight when it comes to sex offenders on social media.

Virtually nothing is being done to enforce the state law that prohibits these kinds of sex offenders from using social media.

The Lafayette Parish Sheriff’s Office is responsible for enforcement, but the law is “not currently being enforced,” according to LPSO spokesman Lt. John Mowell.

The reason is a perceived conflict between the Louisiana law and a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that makes prosecuting violators nearly impossible.

A complication: The advanced technology and enormous time it takes police to find offenders in a constantly evolving digital environment

"Louisiana has some of the toughest laws when it comes to sex crimes online," said Stacie Rumenap, who leads the nonprofit Stop Child Predators. "But if they're not being enforced, what good are they?"

We found two dozen sex offenders are using social media illegally

Louisiana law prohibits some convicted sex offenders from accessing social-networking websites, chat rooms and peer-to-peer networks.

Social networking giants such as Facebook and Instagram also ban registered sex offenders from interacting with users on their platforms, but they are still found on those websites, including:

A 57-year-old Lafayette man who brands himself on Facebook, Instagram and YouTube as a writer who found God while in prison — yet he’s been convicted of nine sexual offenses, including two involving juveniles, since 1987. His latest charge is for a felony obscenity that allegedly occurred in April.
A 65-year-old Carencro man whose Facebook profile says he stands for the flag and kneels at the cross. He was indicted on a child pornography charge, but was convicted in 2013 of indecent behavior with a juvenile through a plea agreement.
A 43-year-old Lafayette man who uses Facebook, Twitter and Instagram to brand his insurance company after being convicted in 2012 of using the internet to persuade a juvenile to engage in sexual conduct.
A 55-year-old Lafayette man whose Facebook profile photo is a selfie with a child. He, too, was convicted in 2012 of persuading a juvenile online to engage in sexual conduct.
At the time of our investigation, there were about 350 convicted sex offenders who lived, worked or volunteered in Lafayette Parish.

About 275, or 80 percent, are classified as dangerous child predators.

They have been convicted of any sexual offense involving a minor or video voyeurism — the videoing or photographing of someone without permission for a sexual purpose or the transferring of such images or recordings.

We found social media accounts for about two dozen of the 70 or so who were convicted after Louisiana's social media ban went into effect.

Keeping sex offenders off social media is as hard as keeping teens offline

Louisiana’s tough social media policy for most convicted sex offenders dances along the line of an acceptable restriction and an infringement of constitutional rights.

Former Rep. Ledricka Thierry, D-Opelousas, said she authored the bill to give law enforcement the ability to arrest sex offenders engaging in inappropriate online activity.

“I think it was the right thing to do,” Thierry said. “Law enforcement can only do things we need to be done when we have the laws necessary to enforce them.”

The law was drafted after a sex offender convinced a 12-year-old girl to meet him but was intercepted by Louisiana State Police at the Mall of Louisiana in Baton Rouge. Lawmakers found more than 600 Louisiana sex offenders on social media who were using their real names and photos when the bill was drafted.

The law passed unanimously in 2011, but it was thrown out a few months later by a federal judge for being too broad.

Lawmakers rewrote the law — which banned convicted sex offenders from almost any online activity — in 2012 to narrow the focus to specific internet usage.

“Slowly, other states started doing what we did,” Thierry said. “It brought awareness that there’s an issue going on.”

The problem is that other states were also challenged for violating the constitutional rights of sex offenders — primarily their right to freedom of speech.

Last summer, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a convicted sex offender who faced prison time for violating a similar law in North Carolina.

Although the court opinion acknowledged that a legislature could pass "valid laws to protect children" from "a most serious crime," it called North Carolina's law "a prohibition unprecedented in the scope of First Amendment speech it burdens."

If a convicted sex offender seeks to reform and pursue a lawful and rewarding life, the court ruled, he or she could benefit from accessing the world of ideas shared on social networking sites.

"On Facebook, for example, users can debate religion and politics with their friends and neighbors or share vacation photos. On LinkedIn, users can look for work, advertise for employees, or review tips on entrepreneurship. And on Twitter, users can petition their elected representatives and otherwise engage with them in a direct manner," the court opinion said.

Lt. Jack Lightfoot, criminal intelligence supervisor for LPSO, said the ruling was unfortunate for Louisiana since North Carolina's law was broader.

"North Carolina was a blanket law," Lightfoot said. "If you were a sex offender, you couldn't touch a computer, basically, whereas Louisiana's law was somewhat specific in that the law is meant to protect children from predators who prey on children, and for that reason, Louisiana narrowed the focus to convicted sex offenders whose crimes involved a juvenile."

The Supreme Court ruling is also why a 54-year-old convicted sex offender in Acadia Parish faced no consequences after he allegedly contacted an 11-year-old girl last year through the social networking site

The victim’s father reached out to the Acadia Parish Sheriff’s Office to report the crime.

The offender was arrested and charged with unlawful use of a social networking site, but the case was quashed last August because of the North Carolina case.

Policymakers have yet to address potential problems with Louisiana's social media ban.

"You can't enforce something that's not enforceable," Mowell said. "So to arrest people and put them through the process would be futile. It's not going anywhere."

Even before the North Carolina ruling, Acadiana sex offenders rarely faced consequences for social media use.

Only 12 people in Lafayette Parish were arrested between 2013 and 2017 for unlawful use of a social networking site.

"The way we learn about social media issues is it's reported to us," Lightfoot said. "There are 13,000 sex offenders in the state of Louisiana and potentially 80 or 90 different prohibited sites. I just don't have the technology to research all of that."

It works the same way in Acadia Parish, according to Sheriff K.P. Gibson.

“I wish I had someone who could spend full-time on that," he said. "I’d say half to two-thirds of sex offenders are on social media. It’s just a matter of finding them and getting them off.”

Complaints that come in are investigated, and when found to have merit, law enforcement will report the profile to the social network for removal and follow up with the sex offender.

"We’re not just telling sex offenders we’re not doing anything about this," Lightfoot said. "We are taking enforcement action. And I assure you that to everyone we’ve told, 'You’d better get your butt off of social media,' we’ve said it in such a way that they get the point."

Sex offenders online are motivated by sexual interest in minors

The internet enables sex offenders to groom victims quicker and easier than ever before.

“That process used to be done in person, and it used to take months and even years,” said Elizabeth Jeglic, co-director of the Sex Offender Research Lab at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. “Now, that process can be done online from your own home, and that process is accelerated so that it can happen in days or weeks.”

Those who use the internet to commit sexual crimes don’t usually create fake identities.

"'They won’t say, ‘I’m a 12-year-old boy.’ They’ll portray themselves as an adult male,” Jeglic said. “They use the technology to select individuals who are vulnerable and more likely to meet up with them, and they’ll offer them things in exchange for meeting up with them. And they’re able to groom their victims that way.”

People who use the internet to commit sexual offenses are generally motivated by a sexual interest in children and adolescents, according to the U.S. Department of Justice’s Sex Offender Management Assessment and Planning Initiative.

The initiative identifies these characteristics of internet-facilitated sex offenders:

1 in 8 have an official record for contact sexual offending.
55 percent admitted to a history of contact sexual offending.
Child pornography offenders are likely to be pedophiles.
Solicitation offenders are primarily interested in adolescent girls.
It breaks online sex offenses into three categories:

Child pornography (possession, distribution and production).
Sexual solicitation (online interactions with minors for sexual purposes, including plans to meet offline).
Conspiracy crimes (collaborating with others to solicit minors or produce or distribute child pornography).
It’s tough to pinpoint how many sex offenders will reoffend.

Sexual recidivism rates range from 5 percent after three years to 24 percent after 15 years, according to Department of Justice records, but the rate is likely higher.

Only a small portion of all sex offenses are reported to law enforcement, and only a fraction of those are successfully convicted.

Sex offender treatment programs can reduce sexual recidivism, especially if they’re tailored to the individual offender, but they’re still not promising.

A 2015 study published in the Journal of Experimental Criminology found that about 10.1 percent of convicted sex offenders who underwent psychosocial treatment committed another sexual offense within about 6 years.

That’s just a 3.6 percent difference from the 13.7 percent sexual recidivism rate of untreated sex offenders.

There’s a small percentage of sex offenders who will learn from their crime, move forward and “do the right thing,” according to Rumenap with Stop Child Predators.

“The problem is that most of these offenders — because the type of crime they’re committing is so unusual — can’t help themselves,” she said. “Most will say, ‘Sure,’ to staying off of social media — until they do it.”

'Nothing really works. Nothing.'

Experts who work with sex offenders and their victims have mixed opinions about the value of laws that restrict internet usage.

The goal for research psychologists like Jeglic is to rehabilitate sex offenders back into society, and social media has become an integral part of today’s society.

“Obviously, if there’s a law prohibiting it and they’re doing it, that’s not good because they have to follow the terms of their release,” Jeglic said. “But it’s hard to say if these blanket laws make sense. Video voyeurism and social media don’t necessarily go hand in hand.

“A lot of these things, they may feel better to us, but the data actually shows that they’re not evidence based.”

The goal for victim advocates like Rumenap is to restrict sex offenders so they can’t target more people, even if the restrictions seem harsh.

“When you’re talking about people who have committed these kinds of sex crimes, it’s just a matter of time before it happens again,” Rumenap said. “Or it’s a matter of time before they’re caught again, I should say.

“The reality is that nothing really works. Nothing.”

And the goal for law enforcers like Lightfoot is to use limited resources to keep pressure on the most dangerous sex offenders.

"You get a feel for who you need to worry about," Lightfoot said. "Let’s put what resources we have on the problem ones, and then we’ll just do what we need to do to keep the other ones in line. Our feel is that the more we pressure the ones we’re worried about, we find we’re more successful with our services.

"And if we can keep them from touching a child, you know what, that’s the end goal."

How we found Lafayette Parish sex offenders illegally using social media
Megan Wyatt, Lafayette Daily Advertiser Published 6:00 a.m. CT Aug. 6, 2018 | Updated 11:06 a.m. CT Aug. 6, 2018

It’s virtually impossible to determine how many convicted sex offenders in Lafayette Parish illegally use social-networking sites, chat rooms and peer-to-peer networks.

We sifted through a list of about 350 registered sex offenders in Lafayette Parish and narrowed the list to just fewer than 300 — those convicted of video voyeurism or sex offenses involving juveniles. These are the people who by law cannot have a presence on social networking sites.

We searched for the offenders on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter because of those sites' popularity and simple search functions that don’t notify the user.

Our investigation:  Despite ban, sexual predators still active on social media

We searched for offenders by their full names and variations of their names, by known aliases listed on the registry, and by nicknames and email addresses found during background searches.

We conducted searches only while logged into reporter Megan Wyatt's personal social media accounts so search results would be consistent based on her connections, affiliations and location.

We took screenshots of suspected social media accounts and recorded our findings in a spreadsheet.

We rated our confidence of what we found on each sex offender on a scale of 1 to 10.

For every 10 — that’s complete confidence of at least one social media account — there were seven searches that yielded only partial confidence and two searches that yielded no results.

To be scored as a 10, a social media account had to have a name and photo that matched the registry and at least one additional piece of identifying information visible on the user’s public profile. This could anything from a unique tattoo or scar to a post about being released from prison made on the same date as the offender’s release date listed on the registry.

We determined through this system that a few dozen had active accounts at the time of our investigation.

About two dozen of those were convicted of video voyeurism or a sexual offense involving a minor after Louisiana's social media law went into effect.

Although we found possible accounts for dozens more, we weren't able to confirm them for different reasons.

Some privacy settings were too strict to confirm an identity. Some names were so common that a Facebook search yielded thousands of results. Some accounts appear to have been inactive since the person’s conviction date.

And, of course, someone could easily use a fake name and photo to create social media accounts.

To be fair, we chose to not name only the small number of offenders whose identities we could confirm.