jamesmahon
You keep comparing issues surrounding Megan's Law with the leaking of names held on the Watchtower database by Anonymous, but I put to you that they are NOT the same.
Here is the definition of Megan's Law as descibed in the report...
‘Megan’s Law’ is the term used to describe the use
of compulsory ‘community notification’ for convicted
sex offenders in the United States. The law
enables police forces to provide members of the
public with information about known sex offenders
who are living locally. The law aims to promote
public and community safety by increasing awareness
of sex offenders who are thought to be at high
risk of re-offending. Megan’s Law is not an evidence-
based policy but was adopted in the US in
response to a series of high profile crimes against
children.
Much of the report describes scenarios in which pedophiles are forced to comply with legislation aimed at exposing them, for example...
A clear example of this is where sex offenders
decide to ‘go underground’ in an attempt to evade
the notification and supervision requirements associated
with Megan’s Law. This problem has been
widespread in the US with non-compliance levels
for states such as California as high as 30 per
cent.2 When offenders have absconded they can be
extremely difficult to locate, even when an arrest
warrant has been issued. Offenders who have
gone underground are a greater threat to children
as they cannot be monitored, nor made subject to
treatment and supervision.
This is describing the requirement for registered offenders to observe "notification and supervision" requirements. It has nothing to do with elders etc who have thus far evaded the law thanks to the protection of a religious organization being "outed" by the actions of a rogue element, such as Anonymous.
What is proposed is a one-off release of information that will cause insurmountable damage to an umbrella religious institution that allows pedophiles to molest children repeatedly without the authorities being alerted. This will unquestionably hinder the organization's ability to continue with its policies and/or retain credbility for attracting new converts and potential victims. The direct comparisons with the NSPCC's response Megan's Law (which you call "evidence") are therefore highly misleading and frankly absurd.
What is your problem? Why can't you think of the potential victims who will be spared in all of this?
Cedars