The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act

John Walsh became a household name in the 1980's when he started hosting America's Most Wanted in the wake of the abduction and murder of his seven year old son, Adam. Since that day John Walsh has become a victims rights advocate and helped found the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

On July 28, 2006 President Bush signed into law the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act (H.R. 4472). The purpose of the bill is to crack down and create stiffer penalties for those convinced of sex crimes, especially those against children. The bill also puts into place a national database of convinced child molesters.

Where I don't think many people would disagree with the spirit and purpose of this bill, once again the politicians have intentionally made at least one part of the bill ambiguous and open to very broad interpretation. Much like the Patriot Act made everyone a potential terrorist and allowed to be wiretapped and have their internet usage monitored, The Adam Walsh Protection and Safety Act makes almost everyone a potential child molester.

This is where the problem lies. The law spells out almost to the letter what defines a Tier II and Tier III Sex offender listing things such as kidnapping, prostituting a minor, aggravated sexual abuse, coercion and enticement, sex trafficking, and child pornography. Anyone convicted of these things is punished by at least one year in jail and they have to register and remain registered in the sex offender registry for a minimum of fifteen years, depending on the crime. Personally I find this a great idea. What I am having trouble swallowing though is the purposely vague definition of a Tier I sex offender. H.R. 4472 defines a Tier I sex offender as "a sex offender other than a Tier II or Tier II sex offender". The law has also been changed under H.R. 4472 to expand the definition of sex offender to "a criminal offense that has an element involving a sexual act or sexual contact with another."

This means that someone convicted of pandering obscenity, which could be considered nothing more than putting up a movie poster for an adult movie in the window of an adult video store, now has to spend one year in jail and register as a sex offender for fifteen years putting extreme limits on where they can live and work.

States have until 2009 to start carrying out the law and Ohio is the first to put it into practice and Ohio is carrying it to the extreme in interpretation by stating that an obscenity bust is a "criminal offense that has an element involving a sexual act" and it doesn't matter if that sexual act is on videocassette, DVD or VOD.

According to AVN Insider, First Amendment attorney H. Louis Sirkin is following this very closely. H.R. 4472, while meant to protect children, in the end could have a very restrictive effect on society, possibly endangering First Amendment rights and punishing the innocent.

We still live in a society where it's constantly debated what is obscene and what isn't. In 1990 the Cincinnati Art Gallery was brought up on obscenity charges for displaying nude photos from photographer Robert Mapplethorp. The Contemporary Arts Center and its director, Dennis Barrie was the only case through out the tour of the photos through the United States that anything was considered obscene. That alone proves that what is considered obscenity is subject to interpretation.

If this case were taking place today, eighteen years later, Mr. Barrie would be considered a Tier I sex offender. Is it right to place an art director in the same category as a dangerous sex offender because someone didn't like the artwork he displayed in his gallery? When did the process of prosecuting criminals become a system that punishes the innocent as well? I understand the need to keep children safe. I understand the need for tougher punishments for those that commit heinous sex crimes, especially against children. At the same time I do not understand prosecuting a law abiding adult bookstore owner under the same laws just because a woman's rights group finds the store offensive and wants to close it down.