WorthyNews: Think You're Safe from Predators Online? How a Supreme Court Ruling May Influence That

[Running Gator]

13 minutes ago, Anonymous Aristotle said:

I must have poorly worded my post to you. I apologize and ask your forgiveness if you were offended by my poorly constructed remarks. Allow  me to rephrase. 

I was not stating that you had said those things about parents.  I was referring to someone elses remarks. 

Did you read the entirety of the article?   

 

Also, North Carlina law isn't like Michigan law. 

 

Legitifi only works for those who have also joined Legitifi..

http://www.androidguys.com/2017/06/12/stay-safe-with-legitifi-the-first-social-identity-verification-app/

The more someone fills in their profile, the more legitimate the profile becomes. Still, there’s a limitation here. The person you are searching for needs to be on social media and link her/his accounts to Legitifi in order for you to be able to gain any insight into their persona.

The better strategy is to never friend or talk to anyone on social media you do not know in person that you have already meet in person.  This is the rule that my wife and I follow and that we taught our children to follow.   The only exception to this I have ever made are some of my cousins I have not seen in 40 years but my sister herself meet with them and then we became Facebook friends. 

If you have children do not allow them on social media till they are old enough to understand and make sure they know that you have all their passwords and will be checking up on them, and then do check up on them.  It is not a bad idea to test them, I had a friend send my daughter a friend request on FaceBook to see if she would fall for it.    Happily she did not.

 

[wingnut-]

1 hour ago, Anonymous Aristotle said:

I must have poorly worded my post to you. I apologize and ask your forgiveness if you were offended by my poorly constructed remarks. Allow  me to rephrase. 

I was not stating that you had said those things about parents.  I was referring to someone elses remarks. 

Did you read the entirety of the article?   

 

Also, North Carlina law isn't like Michigan law. 

 

 

No need to apologize, no offense was given nor am I offended.  I did read the entire article, and yes I know the laws vary from one state to another.  I just tend to look for the positive results of anything, and to me that is a positive thing, no matter how small the number it affects.  I know we may view this ruling as different, but we definitely share the same thoughts regarding the deviants.

The reason I mentioned my daughter was to demonstrate that these predators are already online, and have been since the internet first came into being.  Regardless of this decision, we won't suddenly see sites advertising their intentions. They will continue to operate in the shadows as they have been doing.  The only thing that will change this is if a law were passed making their behavior acceptable in society, this ruling does not do that, it is still illegal to do what they do.

God bless

[ayin jade]

You know, I didnt read this all carefully but I do not think I saw this mentioned. The best way to protect the kids is for parents to not allow their kids to have a facebook profile to start with. A nightmare scenario perhaps to the kids who want to be like their friends, but it really wouldnt kill them if they didnt have an online presence. Somehow we managed for centuries to get by without facebook and other social media. 

[The_Patriot21]

4 minutes ago, ayin jade said:

You know, I didnt read this all carefully but I do not think I saw this mentioned. The best way to protect the kids is for parents to not allow their kids to have a facebook profile to start with. A nightmare scenario perhaps to the kids who want to be like their friends, but it really wouldnt kill them if they didnt have an online presence. Somehow we managed for centuries to get by without facebook and other social media. 

And that really is the bottom line. It's the parents job to protect their kids, not the governments.

[Anonymous Aristotle]

2 hours ago, wingnut- said:

 

No need to apologize, no offense was given nor am I offended.  I did read the entire article, and yes I know the laws vary from one state to another.  I just tend to look for the positive results of anything, and to me that is a positive thing, no matter how small the number it affects.  I know we may view this ruling as different, but we definitely share the same thoughts regarding the deviants.

The reason I mentioned my daughter was to demonstrate that these predators are already online, and have been since the internet first came into being.  Regardless of this decision, we won't suddenly see sites advertising their intentions. They will continue to operate in the shadows as they have been doing.  The only thing that will change this is if a law were passed making their behavior acceptable in society, this ruling does not do that, it is still illegal to do what they do.

God bless

Certainly their behavior could never be made approved by law. At least I pray not in my lifetime so I don't combust from the shock of it all. Flame is not my color. Clashes with my eyes. 

Yes, I do know the predators are out there. My goddaughter's mother is very protective of that when she's on-line. I just see this ruling as giving them a predatory hunting ground where they can open an account with no identifiers at all that they are registered sex offenders against children. And being that allowance is legally permissible, opening a social media account,  they will of course take advantage. As they of course seek any opportunity to pursue their deviant passion already. 

Rather than this rule helping the minority of people you mentioned , I'd rather see that ridiculous appointment of sex offender lifted so that they're not part of that horrible system of scarlet lettering that ruins their lives because they had to go. And there was no place to go but where they risk their future just to pee. 

That is so wrong. Just as is that 16 year old girl who's boyfriend is just a week from being legal. The parents find out they're engaging in relations and prosecute the girl!  As also happens with boys in the opposite age grouping. They don't deserve to be lobbed in with rapists and pedophiles either. But I think we would both agree that the criminal justice system is long long overdue for an overhaul. 

God Bless. 

 

[Anonymous Aristotle]

42 minutes ago, ayin jade said:

You know, I didnt read this all carefully but I do not think I saw this mentioned. The best way to protect the kids is for parents to not allow their kids to have a facebook profile to start with. A nightmare scenario perhaps to the kids who want to be like their friends, but it really wouldnt kill them if they didnt have an online presence. Somehow we managed for centuries to get by without facebook and other social media. 

Ideally yes. But we also know all their peers have accounts. And iPhones. And odd-man out or odd-girl out, isn't easy to live with. 

When I was in school there were bullies. Now , they harass people to the point some poor souls commit suicide. And their avenue of harassment? Social media! The Internet. That's crazy.  And now there's live-stream on FB. How many sinful evil people have made news using that? 

Wicked world. Now it's getting more so by law. 
 

 

[OneLight]

Here is a site I used to use when I ran a homeless shelter.  https://www.familywatchdog.us/

[Anonymous Aristotle]

1 hour ago, OneLight said:

Here is a site I used to use when I ran a homeless shelter.  https://www.familywatchdog.us/

Yes! I mentioned them early on. Great site. Shocking if you put in your own address in the search box to find registered sex offenders in your area though. 

[wingnut-]

2 hours ago, Anonymous Aristotle said:

Certainly their behavior could never be made approved by law. At least I pray not in my lifetime so I don't combust from the shock of it all.

 

I pray not sister, but honestly, nothing would surprise me at this point with the rapid slide I've witnessed in the last 20 years even.

 

2 hours ago, Anonymous Aristotle said:

Flame is not my color. Clashes with my eyes. 

 

Are you saying you don't look good in red or orange

 

2 hours ago, Anonymous Aristotle said:

I just see this ruling as giving them a predatory hunting ground where they can open an account with no identifiers at all that they are registered sex offenders against children. And being that allowance is legally permissible, opening a social media account,  they will of course take advantage. As they of course seek any opportunity to pursue their deviant passion already. 

 

That is where we see things just a bit differently really, because in my opinion the minute the internet came into being they found their predatory hunting ground.  Personally I would rather see parents just not let their kids be exposed to this and keep them out of the social media stuff entirely.  I did not allow it for my daughter, the only reason she ended up on myspace or facebook was because her mother and I divorced, and her mother was more interested in being the "cool mom" than in doing the right thing.  That is the only reason I even made a facebook account, was to monitor her since I could not stop it, I haven't been on facebook in so long I don't even remember the password lol.

 

2 hours ago, Anonymous Aristotle said:

Rather than this rule helping the minority of people you mentioned , I'd rather see that ridiculous appointment of sex offender lifted so that they're not part of that horrible system of scarlet lettering that ruins their lives because they had to go. And there was no place to go but where they risk their future just to pee.

 

I would like to see this changed as well, but I suspect out of the 50 states, Michigan is not the only one with this kind of deficiency with the sexual predator statutes.  Not to mention the others negatively affected, that being the group you mentioned where one young person is labeled for life by a mutual decision between two young people in which no malice was done.  Of course I don't excuse or condone their poor choices, but at the same time there is a difference between what they are guilty of and a sexual predator.  So there are more cracks in this system as a whole than immediately come to mind.

 

3 hours ago, Anonymous Aristotle said:

But I think we would both agree that the criminal justice system is long long overdue for an overhaul.

 

Absolutely, there are a lot of serious issues with the criminal justice system that need to be addressed.  I do understand where you are coming from in regards to this decision though, and I respect and admire your passion to speak up for the defenseless.  I feel the same way and will continue to do so as well.  At the end of the day I am actually encouraged though, to see two unanimous decisions from SCOTUS in as many days brings a little hope for the future.

God bless

[wingnut-]

3 hours ago, ayin jade said:

You know, I didnt read this all carefully but I do not think I saw this mentioned. The best way to protect the kids is for parents to not allow their kids to have a facebook profile to start with. A nightmare scenario perhaps to the kids who want to be like their friends, but it really wouldnt kill them if they didnt have an online presence. Somehow we managed for centuries to get by without facebook and other social media. 

 

Agreed jade, that is truly the best solution.  Too many parents nowadays don't want to be the "bad guy" and deny their kids what everyone else has, but what I wonder about that logic is, since when did we decide to let the inmates run the asylum?  Maybe it's time for parents to start being parents again and start making the tough decisions when it comes to their child's safety.

God bless