No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Restricting access to the internet by sex offenders
Abstract
In recent years there has been a debate as to whether access to the internet can now be considered a human right. If internet
access is a human right then this would raise the question as to whether it is possible to ever restrict an individual's internet
access or make it subject to limitations. One area where individuals are currently the subject of limitations is child sex
offences where some internet offenders have access to the internet either prohibited or subject to significant limitations.
This article considers the approach and legality of such restrictions by focusing on two jurisdictions; England and Wales
and the United States of America.
... Sex offenders provoke a strong reaction from society due to the nature of their offenses and the victimization of children by certain sex offenders. Evidence of this strong societal reaction to sex offenders can be seen in the various types of policies and controls used to manage this particular group of offenders in the community including sex offender registration and notification , residence restrictions (Mancini, Shields, Mears, & Beaver, 2010), GPS monitoring (Payne & DeMichele, 2011), restricted internet access (Gillespie, 2011), civil commitment (Knighton, Murrie, Boccaccini, & Turner, 2014), and physical and chemical castration (Chism, 2013). Although sex offender-focused policies are not new, an increased policy interest in sex offenders emerged in the 1990s following several sensational cases of sex offenses against children that captured the public's attention through media coverage (Meloy, Saleh, & Wolff, 2007). ...
Research is plentiful on perceptions toward sex offenders and the policies used to manage them, yet no studies have focused on belief in the cause of sex offending despite the role this may play in shaping attitudes toward sex offenders and support for sex offender policies. The present study examines the beliefs of community corrections professionals (n=209) and members of the general public (n=254) toward the cause of sex offending. Results showed little agreement amongst the community corrections professionals toward any particular cause, but with past abuse receiving the most support. The general public agreed with several potential causes of sex offending, but showed the most support for low morality among sex offenders. Also, for each potential cause of sex offending, the general public showed significantly greater belief than the community corrections professionals. Finally, several variables were shown to correlate with various beliefs in the cause of sex offending for both samples, but in different ways.
... 106 The second group includes measures imposed on certain individuals, such as prison inmates or sex offenders. 107 Human rights instruments, both at an international and a European level, specify the possibility of legitimate restrictions on content in order to protect the rights and interests of others. 108 Content that can be legitimately restricted include (but may be not limited to)child pornography, 109 hate speech 110 and incitement to commit genocide, 111 discrimination, hostility or violence. ...
... W piśmiennictwie od pewnego czasu wskazuje się, że dostęp do Internetu staje się prawem, "którego ranga jest równoznaczna z prawem podstawowym" 12 , czy też, że jest "bardzo prawdopodobne, iż ma on charakter prawa człowieka" 13 . W doktrynie przedstawiane są również takie stanowiska, według których dostęp do Internetu obecnie już jest prawem człowieka 14 . ...
... The rapidly evolving media revolution has generated a number of new regulatory initiatives designed to reduce systemic risks associated with this means of communication, "ranging from risks to children, to privacy, to intellectual property rights, to national security, which might more indirectly, and often unintentionally, enhance or curtail freedom of expression" ( Dutton et al. 2011: 8). At the same time, it is emerging a broad and expanding consensus among scholars that the development and diffusion of information and communication technologies are having a profound effect not only on everyday life, but also on the exercise and enjoyment of rights (Walters 2002;Benkler 2006Benkler , Jørgensen 2006; Klang and Murray 2006;Leenes et al. 2008;Brownsword 2008;Murphy 2009;Land 2009;Horner et al. 2010;Gillespie 2011;Land et al. 2012). ...
The paper discusses the scientific and policy debate as to whether access to the Internet can be considered so fundamental for human interaction as to deserve a special legal protection. In particular, it examines the impact of computer-mediated communication on the realization of individual’s rights and freedoms as well as on democratization processes. It then considers how Internet content governance is posing regulatory issues directly related to the growing importance of an equitable access to digital information. In this regard, the paper looks at conflicts arising within the systems of rights and obligations attached to communication (and especially content provision) over the Internet. The paper finally concludes by identifying emerging tensions and drawing out the implications for the nature and definitions of rights (e.g. of communication and access, but also of intellectual property ownership) and for regulations and actions taken to protect, promote or qualify those rights. All these points are illustrated by a series of recent examples.
This chapter seeks to examine how any exercise balancing the right to privacy with that of freedom of expression on the internet should be framed. The balancing of rights is a long-standing debate in human rights law discourse and is now being resurfaced on the internet domain. Courts in various jurisdictions have adopted several touchstones to balance the right to privacy and the right to freedom of expression. This chapter explores two contexts that are of significant current concern under the African human rights system: the publication of personal information and an individual's right to be forgotten. The first focus is the question of the publication of personal information about individuals where their private information is posted on the internet. Under this context, different factors, such as the contribution of the personal information to the general debate, the method of obtaining the information, how the person concerned is well-known, the prior conduct of the person, the content and form, and severity of the sanctions to be imposed, should be used to balance the right to privacy and expression. The right to be forgotten is the second context where the right to privacy is balanced against freedom of expression once the right holder requests the removal of content online where it is deemed prohibited under regional data protection laws. However, which right tipping the scale depends on a case-by-case basis. Ultimately, the chapter aims to offer some preliminary insights into the ways in which an appropriate balance should be struck between the right to privacy and freedom of expression within the African human rights system in the digital environment.
The chapter − drawing upon comparative materials and case law analysis − investigates the potential risks and vulnerabilities related to communication technologies focusing on legislative reforms in the area of digital communications and their implications for individual rights.
Amid a maelstrom of international debate, Hong Kong SAR introduced its Sexual Conviction Record Check Scheme (SCRCS) designed to protect children from sexual predators. The SCRCS has a low impact as it is voluntary, excludes large categories of sexual offenses and applies only to certain high-risk professions. Many foreign jurisdictions have employed far more comprehensive initiatives and justified them on the basis of public safety. This article critiques the SCRCS under the lens of the best practices model of Australia, England and Wales and the United States. It explores the balance between public safety and rehabilitation of offenders adopted in those jurisdictions in order to gain insight for proposed changes in Hong Kong.
This article considers a proposed human right of Internet access. Internet access, with its range of political, economic,
social and cultural uses, is essential for contemporary living. States are also committed to ensuring the Internet’s universality,
integrity and openness. General international law and international human rights law are examined for the existence and scope
of a possible right. Internet access is currently a feature of several pre-existing rights, particularly the right to freedom
of expression. Does Internet access warrant separate recognition? This article considers whether content should be restricted,
and consent a prerequisite; whether payment is necessary; and whether certain individuals should be denied access. A right
of Internet access must be balanced against other rights and competing interests including privacy, intellectual property
protection and ensuring public order. Limitations or restrictions on access are permissible and disconnection is allowed for
specific users provided prior procedural safeguards are met.
International business faces a host of difficult moral conflicts. It is tempting to think that these conflicts can be morally
resolved if we gained full knowledge of the situations, were rational enough, and were sufficiently objective. This paper
explores the view that there are situations in which people in business must confront the possibility that they must compromise
some of their important principles or values in order to protect other ones. One particularly interesting case that captures
this kind of situation is that of Google and its operations in China. In this paper, I examine the situation Google faces
as part of the larger issue of moral compromise and integrity in business. Though I look at Google, this paper is just as
much about the underlying or background views Google faces that are at work in business ethics. In the process, I argue the
following: First, the framework Google has used to respond to criticisms of its actions does not successfully or obviously
address the important ethical issues it faces. Second, an alternative ethical account can be presented that better addresses
these ethical and human rights questions. However, this different framework brings the issue of moral compromise to the fore.
This is an approach filled with dangers, particularly since it is widely held that one ought never to compromise one’s moral
principles. Nevertheless, I wish to propose that there may be a place for moral compromise in business under certain conditions,
which I attempt to specify.
There are currently around 32,300 registered sex offenders in the United Kingdom for whom recent years have seen the implementation of extensive supervision strategies, such as Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) and licence conditions. Concurrently, the last two decades have also seen heightened alertness to the use of communications technologies in the commission of child sexual abuse. This paper describes a 6-month pilot project investigating the management of computer use for registered sex offenders using e-Safety software, which examines PCs for specific inappropriate words and phrases, the results of which are monitored remotely by risk-management officers. The findings of the pilot project are discussed in the context of both the potential benefits for the detection of future inappropriate computer-related behaviour and also the potential benefits for promoting and identifying positive computer use by offenders. Finally, we discuss further development of the use of this software in sex offender management.
Copyright societies are currently pushing for increased private enforcement of intellectual property rights on the Internet,
in particular by trying to involve Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in their combat against copyright infringements, and
by pushing for new legislative mechanisms. This raises serious legal problems and questions both in terms of the protection
of users’ privacy, their right to a fair trial, and the liability of ISPs. This article discusses the difficult task of balancing
copyright interests and fundamental rights as debated in the Promusicae case.
There is an unexplained asymmetry in commonly accepted formulations of human rights. Freedom of expression is nearly always considered a basic human right; in other words free and unfettered authorship is clearly privileged. However, freedom of readership is not usually accorded an equal footing, without any explanation for its exclusion. In our target book, Human Rights and the Internet, Marshall Conley and Christina Patterson offer a nice turn of phrase for this: "freedom of expression" versus "freedom of impression. "