Prop. 35 case has a court date on September 10 at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The topic is whether the current preliminary injunction was properly granted. More information / documents
Sept 9: Court to Hear Arguments on Right to Anonymous Speech in Prop. 35 Case
September 9 / EFF: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco will hear oral arguments Tuesday in Doe v. Harris, EFF’s challenge to California’s Proposition 35, which requires registered sex offenders to turn over all of their Internet identifiers and service providers to local law enforcement authorities.
In November 2012, California passed Prop. 35 through ballot initiative. The day after the election, we brought a lawsuit with the ACLU of Northern California, challenging parts of the initiative as violating the First Amendment. The court granted a temporary restraining order later that day and, in January 2013, granted a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the law after finding we’d shown a substantial likelihood that the challenged portions of Prop. 35 were unconstitutional. Full Article
Listen to the oral argument (Sept 10)
Anyone venture to guess what the ruling might be? All challenges against a registrants rights to be online has been thrown out or ruled against thus far.
The odd thing about being under the registry umbrella is rights on these citizens can and have been violated with ease and without much question.
The sex offender registry in any form is a form of LIVING DEATH it is Evil and it is Wrong, because these people have their addresses listed for anyone to look up to come over and kill them. Where are we? In Nazi Germany?
With the rise of criminals being released into society who’s to say that a institutionalized criminal wouldn’t kill a registered sex offender to gain respect before going back home to prison?
Wouldn’t this person be thought of as an honorable respectful individual for killing a sex offender? Absolutely!! So, about the registry not being punitive. What say you?
A HomeRun is a HomeRun …federal judge has already made
that support and defense of the Constitution ruling…..its a
HomeRun for the Constitution …..free speech is a fundamental Right…….that failure proposal in prop 35 tried
to force you against your will to give info that would have to
gone through a search warrant if crime involved …….and your freedom of speech criminal if you don’t give info ….
Support and defend the Constitution ….thank GOD….a federal judge has done that….thank you.
This provision of 35 did not make any sense to me at first. I am sure the FBI can easily get a court’s permission to read someone’s e mails if there is suspected child abuse. With the NSA disclosures I guess at the real purpose of this proposition, clothed in the issue of sex trafficking. Maybe this was the main reason for the proposition, but would not have gained so much support if brought up on its own. It needed to piggy back on an issue that is hot in the news. Now they can say that 80 of the people agree with warrantless searches on a whole class of Americans. To get back to the point. With this provision the authorities can bypass the courts and at there own discretion monitor anyone’s communication because they will have an identifier. And getting this authority, if this appeal succeeds, what is next, requiring those convicted of drug violations to give their identifiers. Tax dodgers? What have you. Everyone should be concerned about this provision of 35, even if they hate us bogeymen. They should also be concerned about the propaganda campaign that led up to this.
Re last comment: 80 percent of voters. I wish it was just 80 people.
First, let’s get some perspective. This decision, if it is in our favor, will be the biggest victory for Internet rights for RSO’s in the country. The main reason is that other states have different degrees of restrictive activity. North Carolina, for instance, prohibits social network activity of any type, while Louisiana requires registrants to post their address and other personal information on any site they use.
Finally, the federal decision in Chicago that prohibited the state of Indiana from imposing an Internet ban on registrants there was a good victory.
But in all these states, they have to turn in all email identifiers, and in most cases websites that they control. If we win in California, we will surpass these states in relative Internet freedom. The only restriction we will have is that registrants are prohibited from looking up other registrants on the Megan’s Law site.
But the magnitude of this win would resonate far past our state borders.
And THAT’S why I’m wondering what influence Chris Kelly has with the 9th Circuit. The entire decision depends on which three judges hear the case. Hopefully, they will look at the Constitutional issue and not the political issue, but with Doe v. Harris, I’m not too certain.
Does Janice have any thoughts on how this will go down?
After this is defeated, they will revise the law and pass another version. The threat to your freedom and those of our friends and loved ones is far from over. Sex offenders are low-hanging fruit and will be picked at every turn because politicians need to look tough on crime, big on public safety, and like they’re doing something besides leeching off the public dole.
Does anyone know yet how this went?
Audio is here! Not sure if they will have the video later.
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view.php?pk_id=0000011287
Coincidentally, one of the judges in this case has ruled on another case regarding Internet privacy of emails. Google Street maps had kept user names and passwords that it collected from wireless sources when they did their street mapping. One of the judges in the case, Jay Bybee, who also is one of the three judges in our case, had come out strongly against the company.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/google-loses-bid-dismiss-lawsuit-175903277.html
Relevant quote from the story:
He asked some pointed questions along the same lines in our case. Hopefully, this bodes well. NOTE: Bybee is a George W. Bush appointee, and is the only republican-nominated judge in the three-judge panel.
I feel like I can breathe a *little* easier, but then again, I’m looking for any straw in a haystack as big as Montana.
I do not know the first thing about proceedings like this, but I listened to the whole thing and come away thinking that the ACLU lawyer did quite a good job.
The impertinence of the State lawyer (the second one) claiming it is really no big deal because this information has been collected for years now and there has not been any prosecution or complaint about mishandling of information. Of course, since there was NO LAW in place there is also no opportunity for arrest and prosecution. And they probably knew better not to leak anything to anyone.
He is making it sound all benign, when all I heard was an admission that the government has been harvesting this information illegally for years!
Seriously, how many people have provided this information thinking they HAD to?? Did anyone know to say “Nah, I don’t think so”?
@Eric Knight – thanks for your running commentary. What is next? How long typically for a decision?
I’ve never been asked for any online info, except last year I think they asked if I had a Facebook account, which I don’t since it’s against Facebook’s Terms of Service. And I don’t think it’s a good idea for any RSO to willingly place any additional public info in cyberspace.
According to the ACLU, the hearing went well. A decision is expected in about three months. If the court decides in our favor, an appeal is expected. If the court decides against us, the ACLU will determine whether or not to appeal based upon the reasons given by the court.
I just did my annual check in with Big Brother (this time it was Big Sister). I noticed on the form there was a line for Internet identifiers. She didn’t ask me for them, though.
No, the field wasn’t blacked out on the form, although it might have been a 2013 form. Guess they were hoping I would volunteer that information.
As for the NSA, I remember Snowden saying that it collects all communications, but one needs a personal email to read an individual’s communications. He used the example of having the ability to read all the President’s communications, if he had a personal email address for him. It sounds like they have a huge library of books without covers, and how are you going to find War and Peace, except by randomly opening billions of books, one at a time, that seem a likely size. They wouldn’t ask for the key if they already had it.
Another scathing review! Maria Dinzeo of the Courthouse News Service highlighted several key arguments. Two judges were especially harsh on the state’s lawyer.
The article is called “‘Post-Snowden Era’ Audit of CA Sex-Offender Monitoring”.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/09/11/61061.htm
NOTABLE QUOTES:
First, a blowback from Judge Jay Bybee (the BUSH judge):
Next up, from Judge Mary Shroeder:
From the actual audio, I did not sense that these questions were asked in a “Devil’s Advocate” manner when judges wish to test the mettle of an argument. The way the judges responded, to me, were tinged with amazement and shock. Now, it’s just an opinion, but I have to contend that the amici curiae presented to the court from individuals on our side had a lot to do to prepare the judges for this clash.
Legal question on jurisdiction: If the decision comes out in our favor, does this apply to all states, territories, and commonwealths in the 9th Circuit? In other words, if any of those states require any Internet identifiers or other restrictions, do they have to remove them and, barring US Supreme Court reversal, never be allowed to enforce Internet restrictions in the future?
Other states, territories, or commonwealths in the jurisdiction include Alaska, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, North Mariana Islands, Oregon, and Washington.
Yeah, and I don’t see how monitoring registrants, who have less than 2 percent recidivism and who knows how low it would be if you just count repeat offenses using the internet, can halt trafficking. I would think that any trafficker would not have any registrants on the payroll. It would make them vulnerable to surveilance. So we would all pay law enforcement to play CSI in cyberspace, while active criminals breathe a sign of relief.
From some comments I’ve seen earlier, regarding Facebook’s terms of service, I did note in the “language”, it said: “You will not use Facebook if you are a convicted sex offender”. Well, OK; but it didn’t say anything about “ex convicted” sex offenders (even “ex con” is defined as formerly convicted), or registered sex offenders. Since it’s all based on technical definitions, it’s more to slop in the language rather than ambiguity when it comes to Facebooks terms of use.
One thing I think should of been in the ACLU arguments.If you are married and have kids, grand kids etc…Who is to say when they come over they don’t log in to their accounts etc. Now are we guilty for not reporting all their identifiers? I must have 200 accounts and my wife has many. most are very old and I don’t even remember them such as “Pep Boys, Auto zone etc. I have closed accounts that would still show up and i don’t even remember the user names. So I get to go to prison if my Gran child logs in to their Facebook and I don’t claim it? This makes no sense. We have many children and grand children. How do we control that? If you go to Starbucks and use Wi Fi how do you even know who the ISP is? That law is stupid to say the least. I can see it now…You get arrested because a family member created an account. You may not go to prison but it costs you thousands of dollars to fight it. what about the rights of the family members in the house? they get monitored and have done nothing. i wish the ACLU would of made this point. You know…They should just put us in stocks on Main street once a year and let people throw fruit at us as this is what this has come to. We are back to mid evil times…Does it ever end. had i of known this i never would of taken a plea bargain I did no time and 3 years unsupervised probation and was told the registration would end after probation. Over 20 years now and it just doesn’t end. They find innocent people all the time convicted of a sex offence with DNA they didn’t have. Sorry for venting but it is just too much!!!!
Is there any news on this case? This made me think of it – a glimpse into the future? Felony? And a five month investigation? Really???? My tax dollars at work, lol.
“After a five-month investigation, Madisonville Police discovered that Emerson had two unregistered e-mail addresses and a Facebook page. Emerson was arrested on two counts of providing misleading information to the sex offender registry, a class D felony…”
http://www.14news.com/story/24213521/hopkins-county-sex-offender-arrested-again
I agree that an update is in order. I think that most of us visit this site for information as up to date information seems to be quite rare. The only time that we hear anything about sex offenders is when yet another restriction is added.
If this website is to be active in gaining momentum and becoming a focal point for California sex offenders to get information and to join forces, it really NEEDS to be updated much more frequently with what is going on.
As it is, it seems that a few of us come here…post “what I heard” or “this is what happened when I registered in “X” country”.
It really only ADDS to the confusion surrounding our problem and doesn’t empower us with REAL information and FACTS.
Please…can this aspect of this site we improved: It would help individuals and it would help us as a group. We have the numbers if we had a central meeting place for getting REAL information – This site could be that focal point BUT it needs more attention than it is currently being given.
Thank you
I hope we don’t lose. I have no idea of all the information they would want and how I am going to get it to them in 24 hours, especially if I find out on a Friday afternoon that I am going to have to comply. I’ll try to comply, but it will add another layer of stress. Did I get it right? Did I provide the information needed without giving them information they had no right to receive?
I was under the assumption that the decision was going to be made at this time, and I’m a bit concerned.
The problem is that if you listen to the oral arguments, it’s practically a slam dunk win for our side, particularly with some of the unsolicited statements by some of the justices. My concern is that this decision should have been rendered in December, as the original estimate time was given.
But with the extended time, I wonder if the court is now trying to backtrack off from its original signal about an easy win for our side, and if they are trying to justify the state’s position. In other words, they KNOW the law is unconstitutional, and should fall flat on its ugly face. But, they ALSO know that most other states have laws that are as oppressive or even MORE oppressive, such as New York and North Carolina, which criminalizes usage of social networking sites like CARSOL.org. In short, they are far more concerned with the sheeple’s reaction than adhering to constitutional law, much in the same way the Missouri Supreme Court wordsmithed a park ban on registrants.
Finally, consider the national consequences of a win by our side. Registrants in other states will now be able to have demonstrable court rulings that indicate the lack of constitutional authority in their state’s oppressive Internet restrictions. This would significantly potentially advance the chances to being heard in the US Supreme Court, once and for all.
So there is a lot at stake here, and even though the judges reacted about as aghast at the state’s reach as with any other case, I wonder if the fear factor will reign supreme and toggle their decision to that of unconstitutionality.
OK. So I thought a good way to make a little money would be to work online at home doing some type of data entry tasks or crowd sourcing. No interviews, no background checks. I’ve never done anything illegal using and computer. Data is divided up amongst several agents, so the information stays secure. In order to communicate with my superior, I would have to get a special email address, which I will have to disclose, along with the rest, if this court rules for the State. Not only that, but the State will then have the ability to snoop in on what basically the client thinks is a secure work area. They will start checking to see if you are an RSO before you are hired. The job requires no contact or communication with children or anything illegal, but might be just another way to earn a living shot to hell by draconian laws.