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

VA: ACLU questions new sex offender bill

VIRGINIA (WAVY) — Their faces and address are already public, now one Virginia lawmaker wants registered sex offenders to face public hearings before going inside schools.
To have access to Virginia public schools, House Bill 1366 would require violent sex offenders to pay for a newspaper ad publicizing a personal court hearing. It would run once a week for two weeks. Then anyone could attend the hearing and testify against them. Full Article

Join the discussion

  1. Avig

    Ah Virginia, they just never seem to give up on hate.

  2. wonderin

    The bottom line seems clear. Most people are immoral and elect these types to perpetuate their evil deeds. I doubt that voters are dumb enough to buy into this politician’s rhetoric. If they were and if they stood for the principles of justice he would never win another election.
    If these so-called good citizens can muster up this type of carnage against a large group of Registered Citizens and their innocent children than I would have to question who is the greater offender.
    Furthermore, it is unlikely that any of these RSOs will re-offend but it seems clear that these do-gooders will, at every opportunity.

  3. Someone who cares

    Who has time to come up with all that nonsense? Is everybody trying to get away from working on the real issues we have in this country?

  4. Eric Knight

    First, let’s call this scheme for what it is… a punitive measure that intentionally impacts registrants’ ability to raise their children, as well as their civil rights.

    The cost for an ad, at a minimum 2-line charge at $8.00 per line per day (cheapest I could find in VA), for 2 weeks, is 2 x 8 x 14, or $224.00 just to see the teacher about his kid’s progress, and THAT’S before court costs if there is a protest, which will run another $400 minimum. The guise here is that “this is not against sex offender’s right to petition the court,” but when it costs over $500, then it is clearly punitive. The ACLU should win this one hands down, IF the bill passes. I hope this bill is fought hard.

    There are far better solutions, such as restricting parent teacher conferences to after school hours in the main office, or even scheduling such conferences at district headquarters or at other non-child-centric facilities. I mean, this is pathetic: why should a parent who has a vested interest in his children have to pay an exhorbitant fee just to placate the perceived fear and loathing by the pitchforks and torches sheeple?

    But this law is about showboating, not about protection, as there has not been one case, EVER, about a parent attending a parent / teacher discussion who offended any child on campus during the visit. NOT ONE. It is a law disguised as a “public safety measure” that takes away significant resources from the children being affected, while enraging the populace even more. Nothing “safe” about that.

  5. USA

    This is both nuts and immoral. What about the man or woman who just got released from prison for drug dealing or murder? Or, what about the gang member? Whoever thought of this law is nuts!

  6. Harry

    I would to have addresses of these bodies that push such trash. If, RCs would send letters and emails to these crazy crowd in a massive scale the squeaky wheels may alloy some sense into them.

  7. Dr

    Some times I think the whole worlds gone nuts.

  8. Timmr

    These legislators could care less about children. If they did they would worry about the emotionally scaring this does to the children of the parents who are so shamed.

  9. mike t

    To me, this legislation draws images of an archaic colonial Virginia, when the person being put forth was subjected to public humiliation for their misdeed. I imagine a crowd adorned in powdered wigs, cravats, and spatterdashes, armed with bags of rotten fruit. Maybe they can bring back the “ducking stool” and “pillory”, and the registrants children will be “bound out” for public servitude. “Hear Ye! Hear Ye!”
    It’s retrogressive and certainly touches on 1st,5th, and 8th amendment issues.

    • Timmr

      Maybe Virginia has some nostalgia for slavery, when a group can be labeled as subhuman and whole families can be subject to humiliating treatment by the “free” population.

  10. mike t

    I also note that the news broadcaster (Stepanie Harris) makes the statement in the beginning of this broadcast that this “Would require ‘Violent Sex Offenders’ to have a public hearing…”.
    But then, Jeffrey Campbell states “It would be for ‘anyone’ who is on the sex offender registry…”.
    This is more misinformation by the media leading to the assumption that all registrants are “Violent” and must be dealt with accordingly. More legislation based on “disgust”, with the media fanning the flames.

  11. anonymously

    Jeffrey Campbell’s own words he wrote on his Delegate campaign website in his defense of gun rights/2nd Amendment….

    “We must further understand, just as the drafters of the Constitution did, that all of the civil rights afforded to us are only as safe as our ability to defend the integrity of such an over-reaching, tyrannical government.”

    Jeff seems pretty selective in his choices of which parts of the Constitution to defend. Obviously not the parts about cruel and unusual punishment or ex-post facto laws, which his proposed law is in violation of. I also wonder what, if anything other than taking away someones guns, would make a government over-reaching and tyrannical.

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 *

.