The argument that Mr. Magid is trying to make is that it will not do any good to limit sex offenders' access to social networking sites. Though his opinions and feelings to support this argument are abundant and clear, his evidence seems to ONLY be abundant. Every peer-reviewed study conducted by the Crimes Against Children Research Center and other scholarly organizations, as well as the
report of Internet Safety Technical Task Force, has concluded that the risk of online predators is greatly exaggerated (Magid, 2009).
To say "greatly exaggerated" does not give me a clear comparison about the actual risk level of online predators. Mr. Magid continues to speak about his own knowledge of sex offenders. I'm not aware of any cases of a predator harming a prepubescent child whom he met on the Internet, and there are very few publicly known cases of sexual contact between a teenager and an adult they met online (Magid, 2009).
He says "I'm not aware". His unawareness of theses cases are probably intentional. Abuse of prepubescent children is confidential and not made public whether the Internet was involved or not. Magid continues with some "evidence" that involves numbers. A January 2009
analysis of Pennsylvania cases by the Center for Safe and Responsible Internet Use found, during a four-year period, that "only eight incidents involved actual teen victims with whom the Internet was used to form a relationship," compared to 9,934 children who were sexually abused in a single year in that state (Magid, 2009).
Use of dates, times, and numbers to enforce his argument can easily be interpreted as facts by the average reader. Although with the information literacy strategies I have learned in my Instructional Technology class, I am aware that this "evidence" can not be validated. When I click on the link "analysis" I am directed to another posting by Mr. Magid. Also, I am always very weary of the validity of sites with advertisements and pop-ups.
This is a very controversial topic and I am not completely sure how I feel about it. Do I believe sex-offenders give up their right to social networking?...not so much. I believe anyone can be rehabilitated. To limit rehabilitation seems counter-productive for society as a whole. Although, what role does social networking play for the rehabilitation of a sex-offender? Um, seems like very little. Unlike Mr. Magid, I would choose to not try to sway emotions about this topic with unvalidated "evidence". I am only talking about my personal opinion. With the controversial topic: Sex Offenders' Right to Social Networking... I don't believe any facts or statistics could ever completely change how a person really feels about this subject. Personally, I DO agree with Mr. Magid's argument for the most part. The process of trying to eliminate sex-offenders' access to a social networking site seems like more trouble than it is worth. Trouble that could take focus off of sex-offenders that are not registered. Also, just the word "sex-offender" has such a broad meaning across different states. This label may not always be just. It is my most honest and personal opinion that parents are the most responsible for their children. It should not be the job of society or teachers to control what happens when our children are on-line. Proper use of social networking sites should be enforced by parents. Parents should be involved and aware of all aspects of their children's lives, and then should act and react accordingly instead of displacing blame somewhere else. Although this is just my opinion.
Reference
Magid, L. (2009, August 13). Social-networking ban for sex offenders: Bad call? [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://news.cnet.com/8301-19518_3-10309421-238.html