The Senate Public Safety Committee will hear Senate Bill 448 (SB 448) on July 14. The bill, if passed, would require all registered citizens to disclose their “internet identifiers” to law enforcement within five working days.
“The bill’s requirement would violate the 1st Amendment rights of registered citizens,” stated CA RSOL president Janice Bellucci, “because the identify of registered citizens would be revealed every time they expressed their opinions on websites such as that operated by CA RSOL.”
The author of the bill is Senator Hueso, a Democrat, who represents southern San Diego County, including National City.
“The apparent purpose of this bill is to overturn court decisions that stopped enforcement of requirements within Proposition 35 that registered citizens disclose their internet identifiers,” stated Bellucci. “California RSOL is a plaintiff in that case.”
ACLU, which filed the lawsuit challenging Proposition 35, also opposes SB 448 is expected to testify at the hearing on July 14. The hearing will begin at 9:30 a.m. in Room 3191 of the State Capitol.
“It is time for registered citizens and those who support them to send letters to members of the Senate Public Safety requesting that they oppose SB 448,” stated CA RSOL vice president Chance Oberstein.
Below please find a sample letter to send to the members of the Public Safety Committee. Feel free to edit as you see fit.
————————
*** Senator Loni Hancock, Chair – or – Member Senate Public Safety Committee***
Senate Public Safety Committee
State Capitol Building, Room ***
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Chairman Hancock – or – Senator ***:
I am writing in strong opposition to Senate Bill (SB) 448 which is scheduled to be heard by the Senate Public Safety Committee on July 14. The bill, if passed, would require more than 100,000 residents of California to disclose their internet identifiers to law enforcement within five working days.
Requiring an individual to reveal his or her internet identifier is a violation of that individual’s constitutional right of free speech. Specifically, it is a violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which protects a person’s right to exercise free of speech “anonymously.”
The U.S. Supreme Court recently determined:
“Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation – and their ideas from suppression – at the hand of an intolerant society.” McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334, 34 (1995)
If SB 448 becomes law, the anonymity of registered citizens, who are unpopular individuals in today’s intolerant society, will be suppressed. They will be unable to express their opinions on topics such as SB 448 due to fear of retaliation.
The right of anonymous speech is of great importance in the context of internet sites. The U.S. Supreme Court has strongly implied and lower appellate courts have affirmatively ruled, that when accessed from one’s home the internet constitutes a “public forum” for purposes of the First Amendment. Doe v. Harris, 772 F.3d 563, 574 (9th Cir. 2014), quoting Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 870 (1997).
Thank you for your attention to this important matter. For the reasons stated above, we request that you and all members of the Senate Public Safety Committee vote “no” on SB 448.
Sincerely,
*** your name here***
SB 54 didn’t make it on the agenda which means the earliest we will see it (if we it at all) will be Jan 2016.
Nationless said “I deleted my account in 2008. I did not see the point of using it. And since they placed in their terms that I am not allowed to use it, I respect their right as a business to refuse me to use their service.”
You’re in California now? FaceBook is in California now. California’s PC 290 statute states businesses are not to discriminate against registrants by refusing them services. I’m thinking this would be a great lawsuit against FaceBook for their criminal Terms and Conditions and to get them to stop illegally refusing service to registrants. Also, PC 290 affords a civil award of up to $25,000 per victim. 25k multipied by 100k registrants ( unfortunately, I think only California registrants could participate in this lawsuit ) is about 2.5 billion in awards FaceBook should owe California registrants.
So what happened with SB 448? And SB 54?
448 moves forward with the requirement that they tailor it to people who’s crimes were internet related and are high risk according to a tiered system. I guess well have to wait and see what changes are made but as of now I just watched the committee move the bill forward. A sad day for America
A sad and long day. The final vote on SB448 took place at 5:37 p.m. and was, sadly, 7 in favor to 0 opposed. The Bill’s author stated that it would be amended to use the tiering system recommended by CASOMB.
What tiered system is this bill connected to,the regular one,high risk or predatory
or one to be made up.Is SB 448 a done deal and only waits the governor’s signature now
to become law.Who oversees the amended changes,I don’t trust these dirty crooked bastards.
.
Judge Thelton Henderson will be coming up on 82 years of age in November, but hopefully Janice can get the EFF And the ACLU back on board to fight this if it gets past the governor’s desk (which it will) unless it can be stopped from the floor vote, or prevented in the Assembly. If the law is passed, then we need to get a stay order just like before.
Does this indicate that they are marching toward a tiered bill? Otherwise, how would a person be high risk according to a tier, if no such tiered system exists?
So how does one find out if they are high risk or not? Sorry if this seems selfish. How can one check? Where do you check? Can you hire a lawyer to find out for you?
Thank you Janice and all that participated in the attempt to get this bill stopped I am eagerly awaiting what your take is on this event.
Janice, can you please explain what happened today with SB 448 and SB 54?
Now this is a motivator for training more activist on how to make a good living while unseating those that refuse to uphold their oath of office. It’s a grass roots income generator for anyone that’s interested. Currently training others, but more the merrier. Robert Curtis (949)872-8768.
Nationless wrote “Yes, in CA now.
I say you go for it. not a battle I am choosing to fight. Just like the II law”
But you do agree that the law is on the side of registrants having FaceBook accounts in California?
As far as the internet identifiers, you say you have been reporting them for 7 years now. Judging from your tough-on-crime/tough-on-registrants comments, that 7 years has been hell and has taken its toll. How much time has been wasted doing that so Chris Kelly can obtain his goal of depriving American registrants of their 1st Amendment rights. All the time to check and recheck the accuracy. Drive down to the post office. Spend money to mail it in. All unnecessary crap no one should be forced to do. Years of not doing that shit and then you all of a sudden have to report the contents of what was your free speech to the police. And make a mistake, prison time. Chris Kelly and his cyber-nazi supporters are the unamerican ones, not registrants.
The casomb tiered system is fair. Based on convicted crime. It takes alot to score a 6+ on the static99 to be high risk so most dont have to worry. You can download the static99 and score yourself, its easy. Hell ill give them my internet info for 10 years to be able to finally get off the registry. If they follow casomb recommendation well be in a way better place. Also i assume if you already been registered 10,20 years already youll be immediately removed. Hopefully clock doesnt start when it goes in effect but counts your time already served as a price club member. Please any info Janice would be great.
i watched almost the entire committee hearing waiting to see if SB54 was coming up. They sure are a boring bunch. After hearing Senators Leno and Hancock both recommended that CASOMB recommendations needed to be included in Hueso’s Bill. Perhaps Senator Hueso may become the sponsor for the recommended Tiered registry and have that put into his bill to get the internet bill passed. I am not sure if that can happen, but Senator Leno was very specific in his comments that tiering had to be included in order to get this bill through. Just a thought. Possibly Senator Hueso has been politically hoodwinked?
Thank you Janice, Chance, et al for all of your hard work and travel time to Sacramento. All of you are awesome.
To Nationless:
I respect and understand your position because I felt that way. After being put on parole for the first time for a non-sex crime probation violation, my parole agent “Antelope Valley” informed me that I still have rights. I joined CA RSOL and started fighting! Three years later I returned their parole number. While on parole I was harassed put in the back seat at least once per week or more with 2 Parole violations “sneaky undercover setups” (first violation dismissed, 2nd 60days) all within my 3years of ankle bracelet “Parole Hell”. Prayer to an Invisible God and a Warrior Spirit “NATIONLESS” has allowed you and I to fight on. I am a Proud US Veteran and Citizen of these United States.
Thank you Janice and all for your effort. I can’t even begin to imagine the suffering that would be going on without your dedication to this cause.
Dagger20 and TJ: There may be some misunderstanding. I listened to the hearing yesterday and, from what I heard, Sen. Leno recommended that Sen. Hueso use the tiering system that CASOMB has developed for SB448, NOT that SB448 would support the entire tiering system to be applied to California’s Registry.
(However, getting the tiering system written into the Internet Identifier Bill may be a great “foot-in-the-door” towards getting the full CASOMB Tiering System approved and applied to the Registry.)
This bill makes so much sense! Especially the way they crafted it. Makes sense that if someone used the internet to commit their crime they should be banned for life, ie. lifetime sentence. Also, if you used your phone in the commission of the crime, they should be banned for life from using a phone. If the crime took place in a bathroom, they should be banned for life from using the bathroom. If they looked at their victim, they should be banned from seeing for life. If they drove to the scene of the crime, they should be banned for life from using a car. Totally logical.
If this law passes I suggest that every RC contact their registering agency every single day with a new email address. 100,000 new email addresses every day would certainly make that system buckle.
Nationless, buck up and stop being a coward and letting others deny you your rights or agree with fascists that you should have less rights.. Only a fool would decide to give up their rights that they legally have or support a cyber-fascist like Chris Kelly who wants to take away their rights. Just because 7 people couldn’t so no to Chris Kelly’s war chest of FaceBook cash doesn’t mean this is not chilling political speech and will be seen as such and unconstitutional ultimately. And by the way, FaceBook is only paying 2% taxes on all foreign profits by having a tax shelter business base set up in Ireland. How much money is California losing because of that? If the lawsuit suing FaceBook to let registrants use their site, which would mean they would stop their illegal discrimination, ever gets off the ground, I think we should donate some of the proceeds on the 2.5 billion to the female victims of Mark Zuckerberg who got their photos hacked and stolen by Mark Zuckerberg and then used to cyber-bully them for being ‘not hot’, on FaceMash, precursor to FaceBook.
So what’s next Janice?
Nstionless said “You are responding like an American who thinks he has rights. Life ”
I guess it’s your right to pretend you have no rights. But it gets offensive to other Americans when you imply that they should not expect the rights they have.
“would be much easier for you if you acknowledge you are no longer an American and you owe no loyalty, service or admiration for the US. We lost the right to call ourselves Americans when they passed the first registration law for one class of criminals.”
When you say it is ‘we’ who lost the right to call ourselves Americans, do you mean you and your homosexual brethren? You do know that in 1947, in California, long before Mervyn Dymally broke the tie vote to make sodomy legal in California, homosexuality was a crime and homosexuals were the first group, of what was then considered criminals that were the class, that was required to register. Long story short…homosexuals still considered themselves Americans and fought back to the fascism and are gaining ground from some very dark years in their history. I don’t appreciate people who want to break our spirit in the struggle to maintain our rights. If you were around in 1947, would you have also insisted homosexuals should not have expected to have any rights?
Nationless said “Based on what I read, all they need to do is define “high risk” to include everyone except 18/16 and urinators.”
Any examples of where the standard for high risk is such a low threshold?
Then, goes on to say…
“I would recommend creating your spreadsheets now. Also if you plan to minimize your online footprint, start deleting emails and accounts, if you plan to over-comply, you have time to create a lot of accounts and emails.”
If you feel no duty or service to and owe nothing to America, why would you feel the duty to over-comply with its most offensive laws like this one with its sadistic nonsense? And then you make the ridiculous comment about sunbathing around neighbors children. Your posts have to be a joke. You sound like the character Herb Sewell.
The problem with intent and application. Law enforcement has a way of enforcing laws by their own definition/interpretation. Slippery slimy devils as they sometimes are!