| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front: Culture Wars | |
| The Sex-Offender Lobby in California | |
| 2005-10-06 | |
| |
| Posted by:Captain America |
| #12 Text removed from the posting. |
| Posted by: lotp 2005-10-06 19:37 |
| #11 Article is also available for free at: The Sex-Offender Lobby Ideologues block reform of Megan's Law. BY CATHERINE SEIPP |
| Posted by: Captain America 2005-10-06 17:59 |
| #10 Cathy, I took the liberty of posting your piece on RB. You are welcome to blame me, not RB. I am also sending you an email with my name on it if you would like to take it up personally with me. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2005-10-06 17:36 |
| #9 It's a violation of my copyright to reprint this entire piece without permission, especially without my byline. I am happy if you excerpt it and link to either the piece (free on Opinion Journal) or my blog -- www.cathyseipp.net -- which has more info on the topic, as well as a link to the piece. But the way you've done it is discourteous, illegal and unethical. This ticks me off, never a good idea. |
| Posted by: Cathy Seipp 2005-10-06 17:06 |
| #8 Here in California, practically every minority is protected save for one - conservatives. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2005-10-06 14:10 |
| #7 "I simply cannot wrap my mind around the concept that anyone would find it more important to protect sexual predators than the public." .com: you're obviously not cut out for ACLU duty - for them it's a pre-requisite. You know: Constitution = suicide pact. |
| Posted by: Xbalanke 2005-10-06 12:45 |
| #6 This is a classic example of the fundamental and conflicting differences in attitudes towards Hate-Crimes and Human-Rights legislation. Treating Sex offenders as a protected class illustrates the âslippery slopeâ argument many have warned against for decades. Civil libertarians, such as the ACLU, believe these groups of people are at risk simply because they share common characteristics not held by the majority therefore must be protected from discrimination and harassment. However altruistic, these beliefs rarely strike a balance between individual rights and the common good. The Declaration of Independence does not guarantee happiness for every class of citizenry but the pursuit of happiness for all citizens. Sex offenders by their definition choose to ignore that basic principle and deny others of their unalienable rights. Therefore it is not unreasonable to demand that they are relinquished of certain rights. |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2005-10-06 11:17 |
| #5 If you have ever lived in California this wouldn't surprise you in the slightest. Democrats = NAMBLA |
| Posted by: Secret Master 2005-10-06 10:55 |
| #4 Sex offender registration in California runs on the (believe it or not) honor system. Strangely enough, lots of sex offenders are not honorable... |
| Posted by: mojo 2005-10-06 10:39 |
| #3 I said it yesterday. Start knockin' off the aclu one by one and kill the preditors where they stand!! AGAIN VERY SIMPLE!! |
| Posted by: ARMYGUY 2005-10-06 08:10 |
| #2 ROE vs WADE has taught whole generations of legally minor females they are automat adults as soon as they get themselves pregnant - now that formerly excessive teenage birth rates are finally coming down, the HollyLeft start showing Reality Shows that tell them minors are truly "mature" but its the adults whom are in your way. IS AMERICA READY FOR LEGAL PRE-TEEN MARRIAGES AND PRE-TEEN, OR YOUNGER, LEGAL PORN STARS??? |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2005-10-06 01:33 |
| #1 This boggles me. I simply cannot wrap my mind around the concept that anyone would find it more important to protect sexual predators than the public. My detector just doesn't have that setting on it. There's some wetwork need in-country, too. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-10-06 01:09 |