Rick Falkvinge: Why free speech is harmed by the ban on child porn

Re:Rick Falkvinge: Why free speech is harmed by the ban on c... by alaaibrahim on Sunday September 09, 2012 @04:43PM (#4496909)

I'm sorry, I don't live in the US so maybe I don't really understand, but why do these websites even exist.

If someone is a dangerous sex offender, he shouldn't even be in the streets. If not, then he committed the crime, did the time, why does he need to be punished for life?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Rick Falkvinge: Why free speech is harmed by the ban on c... by erichocean on Sunday September 09, 2012 @06:24PM (#4497246)

If not, then he committed the crime, did the time, why does he need to be punished for life?

In fact, he didn't "do the time", because part of the punishiment is a life-long listing in the sex offender registries.

If you'd rather, you can think of it this way: sexual offenses in the US carry a mandatory life-sentence, with some of that sentence being time spent in jail.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Rick Falkvinge: Why free speech is harmed by the ban on c... by Torgo on Monday September 10, 2012 @04:57PM (#4502221)

Last I knew, it was justified under public safety. People who had already been sentenced and served their time in the past had been listed on newly-created sex offender lists. Court ruled that it wasn't a punishment, so it couldn't be considered ex post facto punishment. Wikipedia indicates the case that decided this was Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Rick Falkvinge: Why free speech is harmed by the ban on c... by alaaibrahim on Tuesday September 11, 2012 @06:54AM (#4504714)

Wow, you do take public urination seriously :)

[ Parent | on HN ]