Convicted sex offenders seeking more rights in Carson

Join the discussion

1. Robert Curtis July 27, 2015

   That article is horrible! I was misquoted stating my offense was against children which is a blatant lie. It was a misdemeanor not involving a child. Can a News organization be held accountable for writing false damaging information?

   • The Anon July 27, 2015

     I’m not a legal expert, but I assume this would fall under Defamation? This is from http://www.hg.org/defamation. Of course, talk to an attorney if you want to take action.

     The general harm caused by defamation is identified as being ridiculed, shamed, hated, scorned, belittled or held in contempt by others, and lowers him/her in esteem of a reasonably prudent person, due to the communication of the false statement. This tort can result in a lawsuit for damages. Many states have statutes requiring that the allegedly damaged party must first demand a printed retraction of the defamatory statement, before they may proceed to court. If the plaintiff proceeds with a lawsuit without first seeking the retraction or if he/she receives a retraction but proceeds anyway, most states will limit the damages they may pursue to the actual or special damages they experienced, such as loss of employment or wages.

   • Timmr July 28, 2015

     At the March protest, the reporter from the Daily Breeze wanted everyone’s name. He did not want to hear my comments unless I gave him my name. I assumed he wanted to check the internet and put my offense in the story. That did not happen then. Apparently, this reporter did that, but was not careful about getting your information right — or maybe just made it up. She didn’t cite her source, just made it seem you told her that. Bad reporting and a defamation suit would be appropriate.

     • Joe July 28, 2015

       This is a refreshingly fair and balanced article, minus the one mistake which since has been corrected in the text and a footnote. All media reports should be so factual.

       Kudos to all those who have the guts to show up, stand up and speak up.

       • Timmr July 28, 2015

         Well, it looks like I have a difference of perception here. Fair and balanced? What was this in the article for: “The signs, of course, didn’t mention the men’s criminal records or the GPS monitoring device worn by __________ _________, who was convicted of sexually assaulted (sic) a child about seven years ago.” I’ll tell you why it was there, to question the character of the people protesting the ordinances. Of course registrants don’t want their criminal backgrounds weighed in every time they make a statement. And the follow up to that statement is: so what do they have to hide? What other citizens are expected to hold a sign detailing their past deeds? Only former sex offenders. And what about the fact there were people protesting who had no criminal record, family or loved ones or just lovers of the Constitution? Don’t they deserve mention?
         The author implied that 50% of registrants were going back to jail. OK, so she qualified it by saying that 1.8% of those committed another sex crime. Would that make a difference to the casual reader? It assumes half of us are repeat criminals.
         Maybe some agree that we need to think of ourselves as lifetime criminals and be grateful when the media merely spits in our direction, instead of the usual slap in the face.
         I do chastise myself for not attending this second protest, and forgetfulness is not an excuse. Oncefallen is right, we have become comfortable with the situation or conciliatory or afraid. It doesn’t take away from the dedication of those who did attend, but there should have been thousands of us there. That is the thing we should be ashamed of.

2. Harry July 27, 2015

   RC’s should be able to the State of California and the U.S. Government for defamation.

3. Harry July 28, 2015

   This article is for the pig pen and trashy.

4. Robert Curtis July 28, 2015

   …(as a followup) the Daily Breeze quickly responded to my concerns and made all the necessary changes. The City of Carson would do well to follow their example.

5. Timmr July 28, 2015

   This is a general question about commenting on this article or on others. I don’t want to join any social media site, but if that is the only option, which one would you recommend? I simply wish to leave a comment, like one used to do with the obsolete hard copy newspapers, not be tracked for advertizing or other purposes or get into a trail of discussion on a social media site. I am already bombarded with emails because I signed this or that petition and got on a list and can’t even follow those.

   • Eric Knight August 5, 2015

     Many sites use DISQUS, which is the best of all comment modules. You can use any email address, create a user name, create a first and last name (real or fake), and create an avatar. You can make as many accounts as you want, as long as you use a different email account for each one.

     You can also just use ficticious names for Facebook and Twitter. I have several of each, as well as several DISQUS accounts to pick and choose from. The site’s terms of service may tell you that you can’t do it, but you can. Facebook may be a bit harder if you already have a name, and they require phone verification now, but it can still be done.

6. Jim July 28, 2015

   Not really more rights just those that we deserve as any other person under the constitution of federal and state government!!!!!!!

7. Michael July 29, 2015

   Well, maybe the reporter will pickup on some of the comments, and responses to comments, I, and others, made at the end of the article and maybe it will educate her.
   but I doubt it if she has an agenda.

8. Paul August 7, 2015

   When I see headlines such as “seek more rights”, it gives the impression that we are seeking our own, special set of rights, above and beyond what the average citizen has.

   Not true!! We simply want equality. The same rights that any other free person has.