ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings: Nov 21, Dec 19 – Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings 2020 (Phone only)

General News

Sex offender can continue to post photos, judge says

A D.C. Superior Court judge ruled Tuesday that a convicted sex offender can distribute and post photos of court employees online to protest the city’s sex offender registry.

____ ____, a former pornographer who served more than a decade in prison for a sexual performance using a minor, posted the photos of employees from D.C.’s Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA) on idiotsregistry.info saying that sex-offender registries are unfair. A court employee filed for a civil protection order, accused him of stalking and asked the court to have ____ to remove her photo. Full Article

Join the discussion

  1. One Day at a Time

    First amendment FTW! This is gonna open a big can of worms!

  2. Q

    I’m laughing, I cant believe it! I actually laughed for the first time in a long time!!!!!

  3. Anonymous Nobody

    Hmm, this is a very much trickier action and ruling than it appears at first.

    This registrant is hitting home with judges and court personnel about how wrong the rulings are that posting on the Web is not punishment, is inconsequential. Still, if he really wants to make the point, he needs to start posting photos and info on each and every one of the judges themselves, and every negative thing he can find about them no matter how long ago or inconsequential, along with location maps either approximating their homes or specifically identifying their homes (I’ll bet there is some law barring that for judges). The judges are still able to sit back and figure it doesn’t bother them. Just wait until you see what happens if all the judges start having that kind of info posted about them — and see what they have to say about the First Amendment then.

    But as so often is the case, these things can backfire. In this case, the judge basically upheld registration for former sex offenders (as well as those Websites that have been posting photos of arrestees for all to see forever more) — because he says it is perfectly fine to post people’s photos and info online without their permission. Had he ruled otherwise, he would have undermined Megan’s Law, because he would have had to acknowledge it violates people.

    Yes, as the guy doing these postings said, this ruling will be used as ammunition around the country — but not as he thought, it will be used to support Megan’s Law!

    Everything in me wants to shout for joy about this, but I fear it is really going to come back to bite us bad. And funny, with how little to nothing the ACLU has done all these years to oppose registration, this is the case they come out on, the one that is going to backfire and end up supporting registration and posting on the Internet?! (I feel the ACLU has been incredibly reprehensible for the past 20 years in failing to fight registration, and fight it tooth and nail as one of the worst breeches of Constitutional rights ever in this country.)

    • Janice Bellucci

      I agree with most of what you are saying, but have to disagree with some of it. I agree that this ruling is a double-edged sword in that it could both help and harm our cause. I disagree about its ultimate impact because it is only a decision by a state superior court. We will need to wait and see if this decision is appealed and if so how the appellate court decides. Finally, I agree that ACLU has not fully supported our cause. Please remember, however, that ACLU in San Francisco is leading the challenge of Prop. 35 and its requirement that all registered citizens provide all of their online information to law enforcement. Due to the efforts of ACLU in San Francisco, this requirement was stopped in its tracks after first a TRO and then a preliminary injunction were granted.

      • Anonymous Nobody

        I agree with you. I didn’t mean to suggest that a lower court ruling was precedent, was simply addressing what had been suggested in the article.

        Even if the ACLU up north is doing something on one thing, all the ACLUs around the country should have jumped on this crap the moment is was proposed by the Clinton administration and Janet Reno — it was so obviously a matter central to what the ACLU was supposed to stand against. But they were completely silent about it, no where to be found. I personally contacted the Southern California chapter and tried to get them to do something, and they just refused, seemed to have no problem with it, actually seemed to think it was OK. I feel they completely abandoned us, left us to the wolves, and blew off the whole concept of civil rights.

        Yes, that was years ago, and personnel changes. Even so, you are citing only one chapter and that fighting only one small item of this, not opening a war on it across the board. It is far too little, far too late. If they had jumped on it in the beginning, it is quite possible this never would have gotten anywhere near this bad. Now they have a godawful amount of lost time to make up for, and taking on one item is just not enough. They should do that one item — but I feel a group like that is obligated to wage war about this. Hey, they have far more resources than California RSOL — yet you do more, and thank you so much for your efforts!

  4. G4Change

    “A court employee filed for a civil protection order, accused him of stalking…”

    OH, THIS IS RICH!!!
    So, because he comes in to register under force of threat of prosecution, HE is stalking!!! Okay, I bet there’s a very simple solution…make him not have to register. I have a funny feeling he won’t be back to “stalk” her and take her photo.

  5. turtle

    @Janice
    There are consequences to EVERY action we take in this RSO fight/war. Mr Sobin’s action to fight is NO DIFFERENT than any other fight we choose to take to them. Let us fight fire with fire. You say this can harm OUR cause more ???? How so ? You cannot harm most rso’s MUCH MORE than THEY already HAVE been HARMED ,thus far. Ya get my point ? Thx for reading !!! FORWARD we MARCH with strength,dignity and wisdom 🙂

  6. j

    Be cautious when embarking on tactics that extoll revenge. We are trying to prove that their behavior and gross misuse of power is wrong, yet we are doing the same thing under the protection of free speech.

    The lawmakers have distorted the original concepts of these laws so greatly, we all know it is beyond reason. We should not anger these already dangerously ignorant people and cause more hastily enacted legislation, that will harm us further, in response.

    I know that I will immediately be branded a coward by some, but we have to rise above the fray if we want to prove that we are pursuing justice.

  7. Joshua Bonimo

    I do not think of revenge. That would be petty and counterproductive.

    What we should think about are the most effective actions we can take to stop this insanity and neutralize the sick system that produces it.

    Working together we have tremendous power.

  8. turtle

    @j
    First off Janice, you are NOT a coward and I agree we have to rise above the fray if we are to prove that we are pursuing justice. HOWEVER, listen to the you tube from DENNIS SOBIN again. He hit the nail on the head by getting ‘in their faces’. You say his kind of tactics MAY extoll revenge ? The lawmakers HAVE NOT been revengeful ALREADY the last 10 years with what they have done to us rso’s and KEEP doing to us ? Are you serious ? It is as plain as day. You REALLY believe they are sooo nice and empathetic to us sro’s. The way they vote on most rso BILL’S should give you the answer. ACTIONS speak LOUDER than words. We have tried nice and we will continue to be nice when necessary, but being “NICE has PROVED NOT THAT EFFECTIVE (maybe INCREMENTAL its working, but NOT with the IMPACT we really need to get this movement rolling). “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and EXPECTING different results” . It is time we change course.Our “MOVEMENT” is called a MOVEMENT for a reson. And sometimes this MOVEMENT can only go forward when we shake some heads/rattle some cages/makes some waves. I advise you to contact MR. SOBIN. I believe he is onto something that we ALL have not seen. THX

  9. Tim

    I remember the ACLU defending the 1st Amendment right for American Nazis to march through a Jewish neighborhood. Similar objections were raised, it trampled on the feelings of people in the community. It would lead to violence. Actual violence didn’t occur, but feelings were trampled. It was a tough call.
    So is the 2nd Amendment, when you allow the public to own guns, innocent people can get hurt.
    So too when the government doesn’t have habeus corpus, some heinous crimes will go unpunished. When a longer sentence may have stopped a crime, because you can’t go back and punish people for the same offense, even though you “feel” it is the right thing to do to protect others.
    The Bill of Rights is not there to protect people from people, that is what well thought out laws (and other actions) can do; it is there to protect people from a government with no bounds. That is what we are seeing with these Megan’s laws, a government bending and breaking the rules right and left.

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

.