State AG won’t appeal sex offender provision struck down by court (Prop 35)

Attorney General Kamala Harris says she will not ask the Supreme Court to let California enforce a voter-approved law that would require more than 70,000 sex offenders to disclose their Internet identities to police, a decision that apparently means the law will not take effect. Full Article

Related posts

Notify of
We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. 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.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. 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.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email 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.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court found the it violate ex-cons free speech rights and “…. it would discourage registered sex offenders from taking part in online forums about social issues, hamper their constitutional right to speak anonymously”.

At least one court is thinking that n terms of the U.S. Constitution.

Now THAT is some genuinely good news. Maybe she finally gets it!

Clearly att gen Harris saw or heard the HomeRun clear the fence and no need to review that humongous Constitutional Homer……remember this was a HomeRun for All free men whether you like or you don’t like…freedom is Indivisible.

Chris Kelly is angry because the road was closed to the billionaire’s club, which was his main goal. With all his contacts in California along with access to Facebook’s daunting data collection resources which is probably exceeded only by Google (and the NSA), the only reason he’d invest over two million dollars is to get it returned through insider knowledge to contract for, arguably, the largest legal Big Brother database in the United States: The California Sex Offender registry. After getting the contract, he would have easily parlayed his new monitoring empire on the backs of registrants to the rest of the country, and he would have had the basis for the most comprehensive monitoring software on the planet. THIS was his goal. Remember that.

Kelly is no dummy. He should KNOW that the monitoring database was not constitutional, but he was playing a gamble, one that fortunately was caught just in time by the EFF, the SF branch of the ACLU, and most notably, Janice Bellucci.

I know someone really close to AG Kamala Harris she (her friend) has offered to have me on her talk show sometime…we’ll see about that. Jen is a woman’s woman that helps empower women. It’s not just about who we know. It’s who we know that knows those in the know. The six degrees of separation thing works but we have to engage to get anywhere. I like what Janice says…Show up, Stand up and Speak up! We together can do anything! Go to your city Council meetings and supervisor meetings…let them know you are engaged and watching. Piece by piece, step by step we will not stop until liberty’s voice is heard on high! Stand and shout down the darkness of fear and suppression. Together we will succeed.

Kelly also felt really important when going off on the Facebook jets on the Facebook dime to meet with all 50 Attorneys General. He probably even envied the gigs these guys/gals had going. Kelly saw how much respect they commanded, Got him thinking. Hey maybe I can be an Attorney General never mind that anyone Zuck chose to be the head of legal for Facebook would be successful from the inherent success of Facebook. Chris Kelly will use the same issue to meet with the attorneys general as he will use to make himself one. But that didn’t work and he lost in 2010. He came in third. Kelly’s obsession with registrants internet identifiers and internet predators was not shared by everyone.

So he had to silently link his obsession of registrant disclosure/marketing his database/banning registrants from the internet to something bigger. He chose sex trafficking and funded prop 35 and disrepected California voters by trying to use sex trafficking to try to attack the first amendment rights of registrants , and bury his main interest of internet disclosure under mountains of increases of prison terms for convictions for sex trafficking. Attacking the US constitution is not a problem for Kelly. At facebook, Kelly disrespected the people of California by not stopping Facebook from discriminating against registrants as stated in the California law 290, by not stopping the blatant violation of California in the Facebook ToS.

The measure’s chief sponsor, Chris Kelly, a former chief privacy officer for Facebook, criticized Harris’ decision.

“You cannot promote Internet safety by protecting the anonymity of sex offenders,” Kelly said in a statement. “This is clearly a case of misplaced priorities and indicates a blatant disrespect for California voters.”

If Kelly feels so much respect for California voters, where was his defense of Prop 8 after it got overturned after the California voters voted it in? Not that I support prop 8 and in fact, the contrary, but I mention it just to point out this guys hypocritical fascism.

She’s not a hero. She is supporting rewriting the law. That’s the problem. The courts strike it down and make suggestions on how to rewrite it to make it work.

only thing that bother me is
” Legislature to rewrite the disclosure requirement to meet the court’s objections. ”

Which is another way of getting around the court order.

“This is clearly a case of misplaced priorities and indicates a blatant disrespect for California voters.”

no this is a clear blatant disrespect for the Constitution that Kelly try to pass.

@Marie, Yes, the Court threw it back to the Legislature. Yet I wonder, in light of our rapidly evolving technological environment, how could a law be written that could keep pace with change?
For example, what is a “social media” these days? Facebook, Yes. But what about Yelp!, or Foursquare, or NextDoor, etc, etc. Of late, practically any online account has “social media” aspects whether it one’s Amazon account, CVS pharmacy account, or electric utility account.
Frankly, I don’t see how a truly operational law could be written.
Nonetheless, I’ll keep alert to any upcoming laws and I will certainly send in public comments and will contact my elected officials when/if the time comes.

The big falsehood that drives prop 35 internet disclosure and the arguments to “rewrite” it to line up with the court’s opinions is this: that all people on the SOR are going to misuse the internet to prey on children. Just not backed up by fact. In the real world the vast majority use the internet like everyone else, because getting online is just about indispensable to living a productive life. Since 90 aught percent of new sex crimes are committed by those not on the registry, make everyone give their identifiers to the NSA. Catching 90 percent makes more sense than harrassing people who have served their time. Better yet, teach your children to recognize when someone appears to be trying to take advantage of them, and to be critical of everything you hear on the internet. Of course those who take children’s money online want to keep up the false sense of security that laws like prop 35 create. The last thing internet moguls want us to do is question the security of the internet. Ingnorance and fear sell, so this is one more instance in which the sex offender is a tool used to further the economic objectives of the greedy.

Well, I saw this coming. It’s exactly what happened in Utah. I won the first round in District Court. The State then re-wrote the law putting in restrictions on disclosure and not requiring passwords, and asked the judge to vacate her ruling. She did vacate the order.

Then I appeal her ruling and findings to vacate her original finding of unconstitutionality. The Tenth Circuit agreed that it was now constitutional and SCOTUS refused to hear the case.

Would they listen to CSOL as an” INTERESTED PARTIES?

“The court of appeals has laid out a road map for the Legislature to fix this requirement and we look forward to working with interested parties to fulfill the purposes of the initiative in a manner consistent with the United States Constitution,” Ed DuMont, the solicitor general in Harris’ office, said in a statement.

David said “@Marie, Yes, the Court threw it back to the Legislature. Yet I wonder…”

It didn’t come from the legislature in California. So it didn’t get thrown back to them. It came deceivingly buried in a voter-approved Proposition about sex trafficking, even though registrant free speech on political matters enabled through anonymity has nothing to do with sex trafficking. Kelly tried to run a scam on that one.

In Utah, I assume a Kelly-obliging legislature came up with the first draft. And thats who made the tweeks. So in Utah, it got thrown back to a legislature of Kelly puppets. In California, the legislature, thus far, has been uncooperative to Kelly’s draconian cyber-fascism. Also in California, Facebook is headquartered and just last year, they applied and got their very own police force. Through that police force, I could see Facebook easily obtaining registrant internet identifiers if registrants were forced to hand them over to their own local police. So the non-disclosure to the public tweek is not even possible in California. But there are many other points of contention in the courts decision that I don’t see it possible to remedy constitutionally.