Over the weekend, the always-terrific Lenore Skenazy published a provocative editorial in Forbes entitled, “Shred Your Sex Offender Map.”  (For more on Skenazy, see my review of her amazing book Free-Range Kids here last year). In her Forbes essay, Skenazy argues that, as currently constructed, America’s sex offender registries “are making our kids LESS safe.”  How can that possibly be?  I explained why in a lengthy essay on this topic I penned last summer entitled, “ Rethinking ‘Sex Crimes’ and Sex Offender Registries.” In it, I made an argument similar to Lenore’s. In a nutshell, if we really want to keep kids safe from real sex offenders, we need to completely rethink the way we define and punish sex offenses in this country because a significant percentage of the people listed on sex offender registries pose almost no threat to children, making it difficult for us to know who really does pose a threat to our kids and what we should do about them.

Consider two groups of people. Let’s call Group #1 the “petty sex crime crowd.” This would include anyone convicted of  indecent exposure (streaking / public nudity / public urination); a 19-year-old teen who gets caught having sex with a 17-year-old girlfriend; two gay men who had consensual sex in a state where sodomy was previously illegal; etc, etc.  The crucial distinction for this group is that their actions were consensual and non-violent. No serious harm came from their actions, even if some of these activities are less than socially desirable.  Now, let’s talk about Group #2: violent rapists, child molesters, child pornographers, and other creeps who sexually abused people (or even animals!) These people are the wretched scum of the Earth.

Anyway, here’s the first problem with the current sex offender registries: Group 1 and Group 2 are all mixed together! There’s a word for this: Insanity.  How in the hell did it ever come to pass that non-violent, consensual sex “offenders” got stuck on the same list as sadists, pedophiles, rapists, and other violent, evil scum?  Honestly, I don’t know and I don’t care. I just want that nonsense to end and end right now because as I noted in my earlier essay and Lenore argues in her’s, this means current sex offender lists / maps are largely worthless to parents like me unless I take the time to drill down into the details of who was guilty of what.  (Even when you do, it can still be confusing since some crimes aren’t made clear).  But the public is basically being subjected to a panic attack when they hear sex offender registry numbers or see maps of sex offenders in their neighborhood because the overall number of “offenders on the lists,” or dots on the offender maps, is being artificially raised by the presence of Group 1 “offenders.”

There’s a much more serious problem with co-mingling or petty and serious sex offenders on the same lists, however: It is destroying the reputations of the petty offenders who get shackled with a life-long stigma of being on the same list next to those serial rapists, child abusers, or kiddie porn freak.  As a result, those people can’t get certain jobs or have certain relationships because the presence of their name on a sex offender list forever haunts them.  That’s both insane and sad.

Another problem: Mixing Group 1 and Group 2 on the same lists creates on strains law enforcement resources. As Skenazy noted in her essay, “maybe one of the reasons Jaycee Duggard was allegedly imprisoned for 18 years by a known sex offender was that an overburdened police force couldn’t concentrate on creepy Phillip Garrido and the hut behind his house. They were too busy with the 100,000 other Californians on the registry.” I have to imagine that most law enforcement officers would rather spend their time and energy focused on the scum of the Earth instead of streakers or teenage lovers.

Finally, perhaps the most offensive thing about the current sex offender lists is this: Why in the hell do we even need a list for the wretched scum of the Earth who are guilty of serious sex crimes! Why are these scumbags not in jail cell rotting away? I mean, seriously, what the hell is wrong with our government in this country?  How is it that, according to the Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistic, only 6 in 10 child sex crime suspects were prosecuted in 2006 and the median prison sentence imposed was just 5 years and 3 months? (See: Federal Prosecution of Child Sex Exploitation Offenders, 2006, (by Tracey Kyckelhahn, Mark Motivans, Ph.D., December 1, 2007, NCJ 219412). If you are a parent reading that number I hope you are as horrified as I am. It makes my angry.  And those are just the child sex crimes. I don’t know where rape sentences currently stand — if anyone has recent data sets, please bring them to my attention — but I know that victim’s groups have long complained of lax penalties for sexual assault against women.

Not to put too fine a point on it but we are talking about here are acts of violent aggression or exploitation against women and helpless children.  Besides murder, are there any crimes worse than that? I can’t name any.  Why, then, are we letting those offenders get off so lightly.  Perhaps if we weren’t putting so many people in jail for petty drug “crimes” we might have more room to house these people.  But, hey, that’s another rant for another day! (No, seriously, look at those charts below, which show drug prosecutions and penalties outpacing sexual exploitation. Again, insane. At least the penalties for sexual exploitation are finally catching up with drug sentences in recent years.)

Anyway, if we are going to let such human filth walk the streets, than we absolutely do need a solid sex offender registry to keep track of them. They should not be at liberty to move about freely. But the only way for those registries to be useful is if we either (1) get the Group 1 petty sex offenders off the list entirely or (2) create a new “Scum of the Earth List” just for the Group 2 people. Skenazy was kind enough to cite my “Scum of the Earth List” proposal in her Forbes piece and noted that it would help save time, money and potentially even lives.

Or, here’s a cheaper and potentially equally effective alternative: We could use a hot iron and brand their foreheads “Inglorious Bastards”-style with a scarlet letter (“S” for Scum) so that we know who they are and can see them coming.   But I’m willing to compromise: Just lock ’em longer and then I will put away my hot branding iron!

OK, end of rant. I need to get back to the important business of protecting my kids from the streaker down the street and the guy who got caught peeing behind McDonald’s who are on the sex offender list in my area.  Thank God my government is helping to protect my kids from those people. Perhaps one day our elected leaders will get down to business and start cracking down on the real sex criminals so parents like me can rest easier.  Because today’s stupid sex offender registries bring me no solace whatsoever.

[Again, please read my earlier essay on “ Rethinking ‘Sex Crimes’ and Sex Offender Registries” for more details.]

David Leonhardt of The New York Times penned an interesting essay a few days ago entitled, “Do Video Games Equal Less Crime?” reflecting upon the same FBI crime data I wrote about earlier this week, which showed rapid drops in violent crime last year (on top of years of steady declines).  Crimes of all sorts plummeted last year despite the serious economic recession we find ourselves in.  Downturns in the economy are typically followed by upticks in crime. Not so this time.  Which leads Leonhardt to wonder if perhaps exposure to violent media (especially violent video games) could have played a positive role in tempering criminal activity in some fashion:

Video games can not only provide hours of entertainment. They can also give people — especially young men, who play more than their fair share of video games and commit more than their fair share of crimes — an outlet for frustration that doesn’t involve actual violence. Video games obviously have many unfortunate side effects. They can promote obsessive, antisocial behavior and can make violent situations seem ordinary. But might video games also have an upside? I’m willing to consider the idea.

Go Back to the Greeks

What Leonhardt is suggesting here goes by the name “cathartic effect hypothesis” and debates have raged over it for centuries.  Seriously, the fight goes all the way back to the great Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle. And, as with everything else, Aristotle had it right! Well, at least in my opinion he did, but I am a rabid Aristotealian.  While Plato thought the media of his day (poetry, plays & music) had a deleterious impact on culture and humanity, Aristotle took a very different view. Indeed, most historians believe it was Aristotle who first used the term katharsis when discussing the importance of Greek tragedies, which often contained violent overtones and action. He suggested that these tragedies helped the audience, “through pity and fear effecting the proper purgation of these emotions.” (See Part IV of Aristotle’s Poetics,) Aristotle spoke highly of tragedies that used provocative or titillating storytelling to its fullest effect:

Tragedy is an imitation not only of a complete action, but of events inspiring fear or pity. Such an effect is best produced when the events come on us by surprise; and the effect is heightened when, at the same time, they follow as cause and effect. The tragic wonder will then be greater than if they happened of themselves or by accident; for even coincidences are most striking when they have an air of design. We may instance the statue of Mitys at Argos, which fell upon his murderer while he was a spectator at a festival, and killed him. Such events seem not to be due to mere chance. Plots, therefore, constructed on these principles are necessarily the best.

Of “Tragic Wonder” & Balanced Passions

Again, what Aristotle believed was important about such tales was precisely that they help give rise to a heightened sense of “tragic wonder” that helped us purge away or balance out similar passions brewing in the human psyche. [For a broader discussion of the catharsis debate from Plato and Aristotle on down to the modern “media effects” psychologists and social scientists, see Marjorie Heins’s brilliant 2001 book, Not in Front of the Children: ‘Indecency,’ Censorship and the Innocence of Youth, p. 228-253.]

One might just as easily apply this thinking to many of the most popular video games children play today, including those with violent overtones. That’s exactly what Gerald Jones does in his book Killing Monsters: Why Children Need Fantasy, Super Heroes, and Make-Believe Violence:

One of the functions of stories and games is to help children rehearse for what they’ll be in later life. Anthropologists and psychologists who study play, however, have shown that there are many other functions as well—one of which is to enable children to pretend to be just what they know they’ll never be. Exploring, in a safe and controlled context, what is impossible or too dangerous or forbidden to them is a crucial tool in accepting the limits of reality. Playing with rage is a valuable way to reduce its power. Being evil and destructive in imagination is a vital compensation for the wildness we all have to surrender on our way to being good people.

Judge Richard Posner used similar logic when penning the 7th Circuit’s 2001 decision in American Amusement Machine Association v. Kendrick, which struck down an Indianapolis ordinance prohibiting anyone who operated more than five arcade games on their premises from allowing an unaccompanied minor to play games that would be considered “harmful to minors.” In the Kendrick decision, Posner noted that “To shield children right up to the age of 18 from exposure to violent descriptions and images would not only be quixotic, but deforming; it would leave them unequipped to cope with the world as we know it.”

Don’t Be the Boy in the (Intellectual) Bubble

Posner’s opinion for the court was a blistering tour-de-force that included a review of violence in literature throughout history. “Self-defense, protection of others, dread of the ‘undead,’ fighting against overwhelming odds—these are all age-old themes of literature, and ones particularly appealing to the young,” he noted. “To shield children right up to the age of 18 from exposure to violent descriptions and images would not only be quixotic, but deforming; it would leave them unequipped to cope with the world as we know it,” he argued. “People are unlikely to become well-functioning, independent-minded adults and responsible citizens if they are raised in an intellectual bubble.” This is a different sort of construction of cathartic effect hypothesis. In essence, Posner is explaining how exposure to violently-themed media helps to gradually assimilate us into the realities of the world around us.

Such thinking will undoubtedly remain controversial—perhaps even outlandish—to some. But the history of art and entertainment has always been filled with its share of controversies in terms of its impact on culture and society. Indeed, one generation’s trash often becomes a subsequent generation’s treasure. Sculptures, paintings and works of literature widely condemned in one period were often praised—even consider mainstream—in the next.  As The Economist magazine editorialized in the summer of 2005: “Novels were once considered too low-brow for university literature courses, but eventually the disapproving professors retired. Waltz music and dancing were condemned in the 19^th century; all that was thought to be ‘intoxicating’ and ‘depraved’, and the music was outlawed in some places. Today it is hard to imagine what the fuss was about. And rock and roll was thought to encourage violence, promiscuity and Satanism; but today even grannies listen buy Coldplay albums.” I’ve written more about such “moral panics” here in the past.

Humans Adapt

Here is the important point: somehow we get through it. We learn to assimilate culture into our lives that previous generations feared or loathed. As the late University of North Carolina journalism professor Margaret A. Blanchard once noted: “[P]arents and grandparents who lead the efforts to cleanse today’s society seem to forget that they survived alleged attacks on their morals by different media when they were children. Each generation’s adults either lose faith in the ability of their young people to do the same or they become convinced that the dangers facing the new generation are much more substantial than the ones they faced as children.” And Thomas Hine, author of The Rise and Fall of the American Teenager, argues that: “We seem to have moved, without skipping a beat, from blaming our parents for the ills of society to blaming our children. We want them to embody virtues we only rarely practice. We want them to eschew habits we’ve never managed to break.”

If you subscribe to the cathartic effect school of thinking, however, you typically do no fear social or technological change as much because you realize that human adapt. We learn to cope with cultural or technological changes, and in many cases we are actually made better off as a species because of those changes.

Can It Be Proven One Way or the Other?

But is there any hard evidence to prove or disprove the cathartic effect hypothesis? The problem is, as I have noted here before repeatedly, we must never forget the first iron law of statistical analysis: Correlation does not necessarily equal causation. Whether we are talking about those artificial lab experiments or the real-world data sets, we cannot lose sight of the fact that just because B follows A it does not mean A caused B. That is particularly the case when it comes to human behavior, which is complex and ever-changing.

That being said, I’ve also suggested that, at some point, a consistent trend in real-world crime data must suggest that at least the opposite is not the case. Thus, when it comes to the supposed relationship between violent media and real-world violence, I have to believe that if there was anything to the thesis that a correlation exists, we would have to see it manifest itself at some point in crime statistics. But we have now experienced roughly 15 years of steady drops in all categories of criminal activity, especially juvenile violence, while at the same time witnessing a fairly steady increase in exposure to video games and violently-theme media in general.

Incidentally, Leonhardt’s New York Times article cites a recent study by Gordon Dahl and Stefano DellaVigna that appeared in the Quarterly Journal of Economics in May 2009 entitled, “Does Movie Violence Increase Violent Crime?” which tried to use some hard data to evaluate the cathartic effect hypothesis. Dahl and DellaVigna found that:

exposure to violent movies has three main effects on violent crime: (i) it significantly reduces violent crime in the evening on the day of exposure; (ii) by an even larger percent, it reduces violent crime during the night hours following exposure; (iii) it has no significant impact in the days and weeks following the exposure. We interpret the first finding as voluntary incapacitation: potential criminals that choose to attend the movie theater forego other activities that have higher crime rates. As simple as this finding is, it has been neglected in the literature, despite its quantitative importance. We interpret the second finding as substitution away from a night of more volatile activities, in particular, a reduction in alcohol consumption. The third finding implies that the same-day impact on crime is not offset by intertemporal substitution of crime. An important component of these interpretations is the sorting of more violent individuals into violent movie attendance. These findings appear to contradict evidence from laboratory experiments that document an increase in violent  behavior following exposure to movie violence.

Of course, it’s just one study, so I’m not ready to rest my entire case upon it (or even dozens of other studies like it).  But I do think they’re on to something.

The Parents Television Council (PTC) released a new report today entitled Women in Peril: A Look at TV’s Disturbing New Storyline Trend. The report argues that “by depicting violence against women with increasing frequency, or as a trivial, even humorous matter, the broadcast networks may ultimately be contributing to a desensitized atmosphere in which people view aggression and violence directed at women as normative, even acceptable,” said PTC President Tim Winter.  As evidence the report cites… Nicole Kidman.  OK, it cites more than Nicole Kidman, but the 7-page report and accompanying press release does seem to place a lot of stock in the fact that, while being questioning by a House Foreign Affairs subcommittee hearing about violence against women overseas, “Ms. Kidman conceded that Hollywood has probably contributed to violence against women by portraying them as weak sex objects, according to the Associated Press.”  I’m not sure what Ms. Kidman was doing testifying before Congress on the matter of violence against women overseas — dare I suggest some congressmen were out for another photo-op with a Hollywood celeb? — but the better question is whether Ms. Kidman’s opinion has any bearing on the question of what relationship, if any, there is between televised violence and real-world violence against women. (Incidentally, if she really feels passionately about all this, is she prepared to go back and recut some of her old scenes in “Dead Calm,” “To Die For,” and “Eyes Wide Shut“?)

But let’s not nitpick about the credentials Ms. Kidman brings to the table or whether it makes any sense for PTC to elevate her opinions to proof of theory when it comes to a supposed connection between depictions of violence against women in film or television and real world acts of violence against women. PTC, however, suggests that’s exactly what is going on today. They allude to a few lab studies which are of the “monkey see, monkey do” variety — where the results of artificial lab experiments are used to claim that watching depictions of violence will turn us all into killing machines, rapists, robbers, or just plain ol’ desensitized thugs.

There’s just one problem with such studies, and the PTC report:  Reality.  Whatever lab experiments might suggest, the evidence of a link between televised media violence and the real-world equivalent just does not show up in the data. The FBI produces ongoing Crime in the United States reports that document violent crimes trends. Here’s what the data tells us about overall violent crime, forcible rape, and juvenile violent crime rates over the past two decades: They have all fallen.  Perhaps most impressively, the juvenile crime rate has fallen an astonishing 36% since 1995.

Now, let me be perfectly clear about something.  When analyzing such things it is vitally important to recall one of the first rules of statistical analysis: correlation does not necessarily equal causation. This works in both directions. Even if an increase in real-world violence was closely tracking depictions of violence on television or in video games, it wouldn’t necessarily mean there is a connection. But it would also be wrong to state that, on its own, an inverse correlation (with the trends moving in opposite directions) meant that there was absolutely no connection between these things.

At the margin, I believe that some media can have negative impacts on some people. Certainly, in heavy enough doses, watching non-stop depictions of sex or violence probably would have some sort of negative effect on some people — loss of sleep, if nothing else. Perhaps more.

Then again, I just cannot entirely dismiss the real-world evidence being so starkly at odds with the “monkey see, monkey do” theories bandied about by PTC and some researchers or regulatory proponents. At a minimum, the real-world evidence should at least call into question the “world-is-going-to-hell” sort of generalizations made by proponents of increased media regulation, who all too often make casual inferences about the relationship between media exposure and various social indicators. Such a causal relationship is even more dubious today since all Americans, especially youngsters, are surrounded by a much wider variety of media than ever before. Even though television viewing has gone down slightly in recent years, it has been due to the rise of other media substitutes that command the attention of children, including the Internet, cell phones and video games. Overall, therefore, it appears that children are “consuming” as much, if not more, media than ever before. One would think that if depictions of violence in media really were leading to increased aggression among youth it would start showing up in some of these indicators at some point. But that’s just not occurring. [If you’re interested, I’ve discussed all these issues at much greater detail here, here, here, and here.]

Another argument I often here is: ‘Well, the numbers would be even better if not for media violence!’  But there’s just no way to prove that one way or the other. Would the juvenile crime rate be down 46% instead of the 36% decrease we’ve actually since 1995?  I don’t know. Nobody can know. But I certainly hope that media critics and regulatory proponents aren’t so foolish as to suggest that the crime rate would drop to zero if we just forced everybody to watch “Mary Poppins” all day long.

Finally, let’s assume that the PTC is right and that depictions of violence against women are on the rise on TV. I can actually accept that statement. With all the forensic science shows and crime dramas on TV today, it’s clear that some of the plot lines are going to involve people dying in some fashion and many of those people will be women. And yes, some of the depictions will get pretty gritty. “Fringe” and the various “CSI” shows are clearly showing things we didn’t see on “Quincy” back in the day. (Bring back Jack Klugman! He was awesome.)

But, hey, culture has changed.  Envelopes have been pushed a bit.  A little less is left to the imagination.  But most of us can live with that fact.  Indeed, many of us actually enjoy that fact!  And for those who do not share that worldview or who have heightened sensitivities about depictions of violence in TV shows, movies, or games, I would like to tell them that I really do understand and appreciate where they are coming from.

Yet, there are many other ways you can deal with that without forcing us all to forgo content we might enjoy consuming. And, you guessed it, this is where I remind the world for the umpteenth time that I have written a whole book about parental control tools and methods! [The shameless self-promotion never ends here, folks!]  In fact, part of the reason I have invested so much time in that project — and my ongoing efforts to get companies and other third parties to expand the range of tools, ratings, and other information that we have access to — is because I genuinely want to make sure that those individuals and families who have different needs and values than I have the ability to craft their own “household media standard.”   I want each family to be empowered to make media content decisions for themselves such that they can find the media content they want and discard all the rest. Luckily, that is the world we increasingly live in today. Parents have more tools and methods at their disposal to help them decide what constitutes acceptable media content in their homes and in the lives of their children.

I know that some critics including the PTC feel that the tools aren’t good enough, but I just don’t buy it. Sure, there’s always some room for improvement regarding parental control tools and rating systems, but the existing panoply of tools and methods offer families unprecedented control over their media consumption habits. And that includes tools and methods which enable them to find enriching and educational content, which we have more of than ever before.

I understand PTC doesn’t share my worldview on these matters.  But the difference between us is that they want to take something away from me (the right to watch certain types of content) while I want to give something to them (the ability to block that which they find distasteful).  To be fair, however, their report did not rush to the regulatory solution, even though they did call for more hearings and they warn that:

if the television industry is unwilling or unable to take serious steps to reduce or tone down such graphic images, then we will urge the Congress and the FCC, by virtue of their regulatory authority over the public airwaves, to step in and take action.

The problem is, I don’t think PTC will ever rest until all this content is removed from the airwaves altogether, even if millions of Americans actually enjoy that programming.  Again, the better solution is for PTC to work with others to improve the tools and methods available to families to more effectively make this decision for themselves.  I certainly don’t want others making these determinations for my wife and me and our two kids.  We’ve got the job handled, thank you very much.

Fascinating article in the WSJ today:  “To Sketch a Thief: Genes Draw Likeness of Suspects In the Field of DNA Forensics, Scientists Identify Genetic Markers for Traits Revealing Appearance and Ethnicity.”

Forensic experts are increasingly relying on DNA as “a genetic eyewitness,” says Jack Ballantyne, associate director for research at the National Center for Forensic Science at the University of Central Florida in Orlando, who is studying whether a DNA sample can reveal a person’s age. “We’d like to say if the DNA found on a bomb fragment comes from the young man who carried the bomb or from the wizened old mastermind who built it.” The push to predict physical features from genetic material is known as DNA forensic phenotyping, and it’s already helped crack some difficult investigations. In 2004, police caught a Louisiana serial killer who eyewitnesses had suggested was white, but whose crime-scene DNA suggested — correctly — that he was black. Britain’s forensic service uses a similar “ethnic inference” test to trace murderers and rapists.

It goes almost without saying that the first impulse of many is to ban this evolving area of technology:

Worried about the ethical and social challenges, Germany doesn’t permit the forensic use of DNA to infer ethnicity or physical traits. Nor do a handful of U.S. states, including Indiana, Wyoming and Rhode Island. The U.K. and the Netherlands allow it.

The main downside I can see to the use of this technology in crime-fighting is that it would be disastrous for the genre of crime fiction.  While it certainly sounds like something out of GATTACA (my favorite movie of all time), it would have killed the plot:  The genetic-GESTAPO probably would have known that our genetically-defective hero Vincent Freeman (Ethan Hawke) was not in fact, the genetically-engineered-but-crippled superman Jerome Morrow (Jude Law) he claimed to be—and the whole plot would have gone up in smoke.  How much fun would that have been?

Interestingly, it seems Hulu once made the entire film available online but no longer does so.  Fie on them and their conspiracy to suppress the future!  Damn it, Hulu, don’t you know that “There Is No Gene For The Human Spirit?”

Forget net neutrality and the growing Googleplex. The real threat to Internet freedom comes from plain old criminal law.

In three weeks time, Missouri housewife Lori Drew will face trial for entering false personal details when she signed up for a MySpace account. Her indictment alone, whether or not she is convicted, should frighten anyone who’s ever filled out a form online.

The case, which captured the tabloid media when it broke last year, turns on unusual facts. Drew, posting as a teenage boy, created the MySpace account to probe why a neighbor’s daughter, Megan Meier, had broken off a friendship with her own daughter. She gave a few others access to the account, and things quickly spiraled out of control. Before long, “Josh Evans” (the fictional teen) and Meier were an online couple, and soon after that, they were hurling insults at one another on public message boards.

Meier, already suffering from depression, was devastated by Josh’s turnabout. A final private message from the Evans account–“The world would be a better place without you”–pushed her over the edge. Twenty minutes after receiving it, Meier hung herself in her closet.

Even though she was not responsible for the worst of the messages (according to a prosecutor who investigated the case but declined to file charged), Lori Drew mislead an emotionally troubled youth, and that was surely wrong.

But it’s more problematic to say that it’s a crime.

The theory of the prosecutor behind this case would make all Internet users criminals. It goes like this: Drew lied when she created the “Josh Evans” account. That was a violation of MySpace’s terms of service (those slabs of legalese that nobody reads before checking the box on a sign-up form). And by violating those terms, she accessed MySpace without authorization. “Unauthorized access” is a felony under a federal statute, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986. The statute was meant to target hacking, but its loose language leaves the door open for a much broader reading.

(And as I discuss in a National Review Online column today, that’s the same law that could be used to prosecute the person who hacked into Gov. Sarah Palin’s email account.)

To put it succinctly: Violate any website’s terms of service, and you could face five years’ jailtime. Include a conspiracy charge (Drew faces several), and the maximum sentence doubles.

As the Electronic Frontier Foundation spells out in a brief in the case, that formula spells an end to online anonymity. Using a fake name or making up any detail when creating an email account or anything else could be grounds for prosecution.

Even innocent exaggeration could be targeted. Adding an inch or two to your height is a violation of the terms of service on Match.com and most dating sites.

But that’s not the scariest part. This threat isn’t just about one law, twisted into absurd form by an aggressive prosecutor, but thousands of them. After decades of fast growth, there are at least 4,450 separate criminal offenses in federal laws, and perhaps tens of thousands more in regulations. And then there’s state law: Each state, to begin with, has its own copy of the federal anti-hacking statute Lori Drew is accussed of violating.

I discuss this issue, in the context of the Drew case, at some length in a recent paper. The problem, in brief, is this: Public pressure has led legislators to criminalize so much behavior in vague and broad statutes that probably all Americans are criminals under some dumb law. When there’s a tragedy–like the death of Megan Meier–prosecutions will follow, whether or not anyone had reason to believe that what went on was actually against the law.

Fixing this one statute won’t solve the problem.

Right now, the only thing that safeguards our online freedoms–anonymity, free speech, the right to access speech, and so on–is prosecutorial discretion that could be revoked for any one of us at any time for any reason. This isn’t a hypothetical–it’s happening today.