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***
well doesn’t make sense about this sounds like another way to violate our way of life. Thee people just need to leave us alone
Article regarding Senator Hueso from August, 2014 … honestly? He doesn’t know it’s illegal to drink & drive, at his age??? Shame.
http://www.10news.com/news/report-sen-ben-huesso-arrested-for-dui
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).
That is exactly correct it is a violation of our 1st amendment.
The proposal further objective is to undermine the Constitutional right to freedom of speech AND violates the Fouth Amendment protection to every citizen in our 4th of July nation..from search and seizure.
This comment is for all my registered friends! IT IS SIMPLE= EVERY SINGLE UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW THE ASSEMBLY TRIES TO PASS OR THEY PUT ON A BALLOT, IF IT PASSES, WE SIMPLY REQUEST A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST THE BILL, GET IT BLOCKED BY A FEDERAL JUDGE AND HOPEFULLY GET A PERMANENT INJUNCTION. Janice am i correct???
Will send out letters on this issue also and make phone calls. Will have others do the same.
Well. My letters against SB448 will go out tomorrow and when I call next week I will included this on list of NOs. I have many friends that lost loved ones to DUI. All DUI offenders are re-offenders, Mr. Hueso will do it, again. He is trying to close his closet door with SB448. The GOP are really dragging the bottom of the septic tank.
Harry: Not all DWI offenders will reoffend. Blanket statements…..but I know your heart is for helping our cause. I wish there were more people like you here in New Mexico.
But getting DWI victim help is a great idea.
Janice and team, if this happens it would disrupt my business. I personally own some 60 domain names, many of which i have email addresses for. This bill will force me to change how i do business. I also build “brands” for later sale to upstarts. This may include a vanity domain name(s), phone numbers and other digital assets that would become subject becoming tainted with my own personal Megan’s Law record.
If this passes, I will be forced to sell off my entire domain portfolio for pennies on the dollar which could take months and i have probably several thousands tied up in domains going back many years. My oldest domain is from 1999 and probably worth close to 20k now due to it’s age and brand yet this would cause me to have to report it? It would taint the domain’s value. This is wrong.
Also, i write a lot of software. Many lines of code is unique to me. My style of coding is also unique in the industry. The way the bill reads, i would potentially be forced to register proprietary software which could theoretically be made public. A string of letters or numbers can be considered a unique internet identifier.
Even my bitcoin hashes, PHP keys for encrypt, private and public keys would become registrable. My personal encryption certificates that uniquely identify my computer for accessing my servers would also become subject to disclosure under an internet identifiers law.
Back when the Internet Identifiers was proposed in the past, caused me to want to leave California right away. This has the potential to do this again. I can’t stay where i can’t function. It’s all i’ve got: my skills and my digital assets.
Oh oh ho,.. now, THIS IS PERSONAL!!!
July 14…..
Can we just call in our opposition? I would imagine so.
” constitutional right of free speech”?
What a bogus concept for social commenting sections.
Commenting on social forums is hardly worth the trouble anymore. Thumbs up and down to direct comments to support whatever happens to be the agenda, administrative approval and etc.
Restrictions on lively comments due to sign up, sign in, unique user names, restricted comment forums and on and on.
Comments on today’s forums is just too tightly regulated as far as I’m concerned to ever be considered *free speech*
Ya know technically then; every time you post to Craigslist, you’ll be required to register that annoyingly long garbled email address that Craigslist assigns you.
Priority #1: Write the letters! Make the phone calls!
#2: Get friends & family to do the same!
(#3: If it does manage to become law, I will FLOOD THEM with so many “internet identifiers” on a constant, endless basis that they will be buried under reams of my letters!!!! I would do my best to make this one of the most annoying, time-consuming, and expensive laws they pass!)
Just a thought. If Senator Hueso believes this legislation will get him re-elected, I don’t think he realizes that friends and relatives of registered citizens might consider anonymously commenting on websites belonging to MADD and similar groups during election season; Senator Hueso’s opponent(s) will certainly enjoy the attention the Senator receives from those powerful activist groups.
As for the police having your identifiers, unless all your political comments are pro-law enforcement and tough on crime comments, no registrant in their right minds would continue to comment on political topics if this becomes law.
Ya know, it’s almost comical in its predictability. Laws got passed, then got destroyed upon judicial review. So they try again. And again. And Again! Presence Restrictions? Smack to the head. Residency Restrictions? Punch to the stomach. What’s next in line? hmmm. Oh Yeah! Internet Identifiers! Kick to the unmentionables. Watch out, registrants. They’re coming for your lunch money next!
Hueso is just the next piece of human cannon fodder to have his name attached to another piece of worthless legislation aimed at violating the civil rights of a whole class of CITIZENS OF THIS DAMN COUNTRY! He’s as desperate to rebuild his image as ANY registrant. So he trudges out his unconstitutional verbiage and guts another senate bill and tries to sneak it past the watchful eyes of Janice Bellucci. Now he gets to face a gauntlet of opposition groups with little to no support, and go up against what has proven to be one of the most well-informed and constitutionally-astute committees to be assembled in a very long time.
You almost want to feel sorry for him. Almost.
Here come the letters and phone calls, Ben. Enjoy the 14th.
If somehow this bill passes, which I don’t see how it can, I am really curious as to how it can be enforced without violating the 9th Circuit’s decision. This bill as written is not a workaround or wordsmithing bill. The 9th Circuit’s decision was eminently and unmistakably clear. Obviously, the first step after Jerry signs this nonsense is to camp right in front of the federal court’s office with a stay order in hand, citing as such.
I’m guessing the filing of this bill is more of a career enhancement opportunity. Our boy Ben Hueso has been grooming himself all his career for such movement, and of course sponsoring bills like this that don’t have a chance in hell out of even getting out of committee may have a dampening effect, perhaps jolt him with some reality.
He’s progressed from City Council, to State Assembly, to State Senator in the prescribed political hack timeline, and so he is banking on this bill to help elevate him in the senate, and to start setting himself up for a run at the governorship in 2018 and possibly US Senator Feinstein’s seat when she retires.
It’s only speculation, of course, but it’s based upon similar tracks in other states. Here’s his “community organizing” profile: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Hueso
If Judge Henderson and the 9th circuit, already said “Registrants are likely to be chilled from engaging in legitimate public, political and civic communications for fear of losing their anonymity,” then sb 448 is unconstitutional, PURE & SIMPLE.
Thank you once again, Janice, for all your effort to give us date, time, and location for our voices to be heard! And for the sample letter content to send for those who cannot attend and participate in person! Excellent! Thank you! At the SB54 hearing, and after in halls and cafeteria, there was discussion of the importance for us to press to learn where candidates for the CA Senate and Assembly stand regarding 290 reform/repeal! Each individual’s vote in these committees and the full Legislature is vital in restitution of our civil, constitutional, and human rights! All of us must become educated and informed about our local candidates and their positions regarding Registered Citizens. While candidates may not come out publicly in direct support of our cause, there are ways to communicate with each of them to discern their records and positions, and let them know our numbers and strength are growing — ready and committed to press the action with family, friends, colleagues, and advocates. It may be a case of having to choose “the lesser of two evils” – but even that small window of open-mindedness can make the difference in committee or legislature votes. Education and repetition. Education and repetition. Do not give in, do not give up!
We already … let me say that again while I have my right to speech….We Already have their ‘objective’ ruled un-Constitutional……and california did not appeal to higher court……california did NOT appeal to higher court.
This is a few years old but maybe provides some concrete (and still valid) points.
State Laws Restricting Social Media Use by Sex Offenders Are Failing in Court
http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2013/01/state_laws_rest.htm
“anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority”
This is straight up Twilight Zone sh*t. Having to self report every communication, even on political message boards would be so burdensome. After you make a comment on a news article, then required to report it to the police! And you have to score 100% , no errors, no technical errors or late reporting by one second,or prison. Your whole life, one technical error, you get arrested. Because Chris Kelly claims it will now aid in kidnapping, sex abuse and human trafficking investigations. BS! Registrants are not doing Mark Foley type crimes statistically speaking. It’s the non-registrants doing this predominantly. Registrants re-offense rate is miniscule. FaceBook knows this because they are nosy, overstepping and a threat to their users privacy in general and treat their users like Guinea Pigs. So they know who are the ones acting like internet predators. And its not registrants, by the numbers. As if FaceBook is not doing enough with their FaceBook-to-prison pipeline for registrants, throwing registrants into prison for not reporting a FB, or other social media account. In the cases of catching people with CP on their computers, FaceBook and NCMEC already use software to detect CP and are cacthing many non-registrants just fine. They have been busting a lot of people by using software that can recognize CP, and the overwhelming majority of these people are not registrants. From news articles it can be observed most of their ‘investigations’ with regards to registrants is to catch them in technical errors of not reporting exactly their digital footprint, in states where Chris Kelly has made hitleresque strides in attacking the 1st Amendment, in states that require registrant internet identifier disclosure.
Reading SB 448, it claims several times that it is constitutional with respect to the 1st Amendment. Claiming it is constitutional for no other reason than because Chris Kelly now says it is does not make it constitutional. Lets let someone other than then cyber-fascist Chris Kelly decide what is consitutional, thank you. At the end of SB 448, the supposed ‘Facts’ why this is urgent and according to Kelly/Hueso/Galgiani immediately needs to go into effect is just a one sentence ‘CLAIM’ that it is urgent because it supports the objectives of Prop 35.
I need to do more reading on Utah’s statute. But didn’t Utah’s legislature put the first one into effect, whereas California got Prop 35 from a Kelly backed initiative that voters got duped into voting for in such large numbers becuase of Kellys obfusscations of what the bill was about?
I’m on a roll this morning. I think that it would be in order to ask Hueso, a drunk driver, for every bar he goes to and every liquor store he gets his hooch from, make it a public list…or does that somehow infringe upon his freedom?