The Senate Public Safety Committee passed Senate Bill 448 in a vote of 7 to 0 after the bill’s author, Senator Ben Hueso (Democrat, San Diego), promised to amend it. According to Committee Chair Loni Hancock, the amendments are to include a narrowing of those to whom the bill would apply and a tiering so that the scope of the bill would be limited to high risk offenders.
“The Senate Public Safety Committee acted recklessly in approving a bill based upon mere promises,” stated CA RSOL President Janice Bellucci. “The author of the bill failed to provide the Committee with written amendments and now has a blank check.”
The next step for the bill is consideration by the Senate Appropriations Committee which is not scheduled to meet until after the legislature’s summer recess which ends August 17.
“California RSOL will make every effort to confer with the bill’s author to ensure that both amendments are included in the bill before it is considered by the full Senate,” stated Bellucci. “It is our position that the bill should only be applied to those convicted of sex trafficking and not to every one convicted of a sex offense involving the internet.”
During the hearing, ACLU attorney Michael Risher testified that ACLU would legally challenge SB 448 if the final bill is too broad. ACLU successfully challenged Proposition 35 after its passage in November 2013. One small part of that proposition required all registered citizens to disclose all internet identifiers to law enforcement within 24 hours.
The total number of people who spoke in opposition to SB 448 during the hearing was 22 which included representatives from the ACLU, California RSOL, California Public Defenders Association, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children and All of Us or None of Us. The total number of people who spoke in favor of the bill was 7 and included the Sacramento County District Attorney.
Related
Internet Identifier Bill to be Heard on July 14 (with active discussion)
Hearing Video [July 14, Senate Public Safety Committee, First Agenda Item]
Out of curiosity, do we have anyone on CA RSOL board who is in any level of professional or even organizationl communication with any member of the California Sex Offender Management Board? If so, we really need to communicate with them with regard to Hueso’s agenda, and to press him on why the legislature rejects their recommendations. This is why the CA SOMB should tell Hueso to pound sand.
Congrats justfortoday I love to hear when people overcome and make it through all the obstacles placed on US. From every person that survives through that hell of parole there are many that don’t. You are a true warrior and a true american. Sobriety is powerful and to me there is no turning g back no matter what. After 25+ years of drug abuse I’m now over 10 years clean and can’t even fanthom doing drugs again. I’m so happy to hear someone having the courage and the will to escape that destruction despite the extremely difficult circumstances we have had to face. Good luck to you and thanks for your positive support
Does he even have to keep this promise?
I don’t think so.
Eric Knight:
I emailed Bill Tobin directly when the tiered discussion was going on a few months ago and he directly responded to me. It seems he is very accesible.
I just viewed the video for the Public Safety Committee hearing on SB 448. If you have not already done so, I suggest you please watch it so that you can see the incompetency we are dealing with. It was clear to me that the decision to move this bill along had been decided prior to the hearing. Hueso came across as ill informed and frankly unprepared. When Hueso was asked a few simple questions, as what percentage of those on the registry have committed internet/sex trafficking crimes was it 10% 50%, he was unable to answer? When asked how law enforcement was suppose to single out those with just internet convictions since what 1947 neither Hueso or his backup man could come forth with a credible answer? A logical individual at this point should have been holding their head. It is in my opinion that yes bad things happen to people like the Grandmother that spoke in favor of SB 448. But many times we as a society have no control over these incidents. Jumping up and down like Hueso with his fix all unconstitutional legislation is clearly not the answer.
Theres a very good reason the proponents of SB 448 don’t have numbers on what portion of those caught using the internet for sex trafficking/abuse/kidnapping are registrants, and that is because they know the numbers associated are miniscule. This would show that SB 448 is not urgent at all. I could see going after adults that attempt to victimize children sexually on the internet, without singling out registrants, and try to catch them in the act. That would be attempting to address the problem. Having one example of a registrant on parole abusing a child using the internet does not give an accurate picture of numbers of registrants vs non-registrants committing crimes and does not properly address the claim of urgency to single out registrants. I wonder why Hueso said the opposition to SB 448 is exaggerating and misrepresenting, when it is he ,who in fact, is misrepresenting and exaggerating a situation where extensive data already exists to debunk Hueso’s claim that there is urgent need for registrants to report their internet identifiers to police for the purpose of promoting public safety.
Hueso also claims Prop 35 was so popular with 81% of the vote. All the tv commercials and ads for prop 35 I saw did not mention internet identifier reporting for registrants. If they had, a genuine 1st Amendment concern backlash by the public over this bill might have arisen. So the claim that internet identifier reporting for registrants is the will of the people is misrepresentation and an exaggeration. If the public was clamoring for this, Chris Kelly wouldn’t have come in 3rd when he ran for Atty Gen of California in 2010 with a platform of going after internet predators, and lost to a very strong candidate and also lost to a candidate with little money with little visibility. Maybe Hueso sees a personal urgency for this bill. With his reckless DUI, he may know he’s not going to win any re-elections or elections for new offices unless he runs unopposed. This may be why Chris Kelly or one of his allies approached Ben in the first place. He’s somewhat of a lame duck. Until his term ends, his only chance to make some money from being in office is to get paid to introduce legislation for Chris Kelly and maybe secure a job from Kelly or FaceBook once his term ends. Because when his term ends, his political career is over. The only urgency for this bill to be passed is to increase the bank account and job growth potential of Ben Hueso.
Narrowing down SB 448 to only pertain to high risk internet-related registrants does not address the underlying unconstitutionality of Prop 35’s hidden registrant internet identifier reporting portion. First of all, 5 days to report instead of 1 day is still onerous. Twilight Zone moment: 6 days after you make a comment on a news article commment section where some vigilante-style commenter is making threats to registrants and using bad logic, you remember you forgot to report the identifier. It’s too late now. Prison is now looming. Or if you forgot you made a comment on that news article and remembered it one day after any time limit has passed, then you’re out of compliance. Any time limit is unacceptable given theres no way to ensure you will remember within any time frame every single comment on news article websites you commenting on once and may have never returned to the site. This would make using the internet almost impossible to use with this torturous regimen with the threat of prison for not self-reporting to the police all your content-revealing poitical comment internet identifiers possibly numbering in the hundreds or thousands per year.
Next, SB 448 gives the Atty Gen or California, and more importantly to Kelly, future Atty Gen’s of California like himself or future ones he can influence to hand over the interent identifiers to Mark Zuckerberg, and any anti-registrant vigilante he wants and one of them can sign a meaningless oath with no declared penalty if its broken, who can anonymously give the internet identifiers to a Chuck Rodrick like website and desseminate them to the public. Another way for Zuckerberg and the public to get the internet identifiers is through FaceBook’s police force which was established about 2 years ago. In SB 448, FB police or any police dept. can request the internet identifiers , if it’s in the course of a bogus investigation or a made-up prevention effort for crimes of kidnapping, sex assault, or sex trafficking. FaceBook police would request the identifers almost immediately I would imagine, and then FaceBook would get them from their own police force and anonymously give them to a Chuck Rodrick website.
Then, we have Chris Kelly/Hueso/Galgiani’s claim that they have narrowed down what is to be reported to not be overbroad. Political comments on news articles and accounts for political chat site internet identifiers are still included. This is ominous and will chill free speech to be sure, and there is no public safety reason for registrants to hand over this sensitive information linking them to the political content of their postings. Even with only internet related static-99/static-99+ high risk registrants having to report their interent identifiers, this still cuts apart support for the sex offender laws reform movement by crippling the political voices of those offenders who are subject to this. Voices in support of RSOL will be silenced. Having access to the internet and speaking politically without chilling draconian restictions has been declared a human right. The FaceBook hypocrites I think even voiced support for internet usage to be a human right.
To: NPS and everyone: Do all of you know how long Mark Leno has been defending our cause ? Good way to find out….Here’s what our enemies think about him: Goggle “Mark Leno-Who he is and what’s his record on crimes…”. It’s “crime watch.us/leno.htm” dated 9/2/13.
I challenge any supporters of all these laws including registries internet indentifiers any part of megans law or the awa or even the amber alert system to provide one instance where these laws have prevented a sexual abuse or kidnapping by a stranger has ever occured. The only amber alerts I’ve ever heard are parents or realitives who have taking their own children. All these laws are complete failures and has never prevented anyone from sexual abuse. What a complete waste of taxpayer money and a total arbitrary taking of citizens constitutional rights with absolutly no benefit to the public.
B said “I don’t think this was the bill’s intent, but this bill strikes me as far more burdensome to law enforcement than RSOs.”
I disagree. There is no punishment of years in prison for an innocent clerical error copying internet identifiers for law enforcement, so its not as burdensome to law enforcement. Also, members of law enforcement are not required to give up their internet free speech through anonymity when exercising their 1st Amendement rights of political free speech. Registrants, however would see their speech chilled knowing law enforcement would be reading their comment. If this was at all burdensome to law enforcement, the Police Protective League would not have sent a rep to the meeting in support of SB 448.
“In terms of usefulness, the information (for now) can only be used for very narrow purposes such as human trafficking.”
It’s nice to be optimistic, but lets not be naive. FaceBook already uses internet identifiers to send registrants to prison in states where reporting internet identifiers is required. In California, FaceBook has their own police department, which under SB 448 could obtain the internet identifiers and then use them for investigations or prevention of human trafficking, sex abuse, kidnapping. Not just investigations, but prevention, whatever that means. Prevention could mean targetting all RSO’s for investigations of all their message board comments. And they just happened to conclude that an internet identifier was not reported. Prison time, even though the evidence was gathered as part of a prevention for human trafficking, sex assault or kidnapping.
“Many, many RSOs will provide lots of information that someone has to process and it will be used for possibly one or two cases (if that).”
I would doubt even 1 or 2 cases of actual human trafficking done by registrants would be uncovered. But, I would venture that the FaceBook-to-prison pipeline cases, where registrants are not even accused of immoral behavior but go to prison for not reporting identifiers from Facebook, would be numerous.
” At some point, law enforcement will demand a tiered…”
I think law enforcement would try to contract with a Chris Kelly company to try to cyber-streamline the process first. Law enforcement, prison guards union and crime victims united don’t seem to mind increasing incarceration levels and SB 448 would increase the number of those arrested for failure to register resulting in more inmates in prison and more money for the budgets of those groups.
I was in Sacramento specifically to voice my opposition to this bill. All I saw was seven individuals who wouldn’t take the time to demand a clear definition of this bill. No concrete evidence of why it was needed other than a grandmother crying over the fate of her granddaughter. Although, I can identify with her concern, I have serious questions concerning the parental authority or lack of in this situation. I saw seven elected officials agree to something based on a “promise to amend.”. I saw a absolute failure in the government of the state of California. My family has defended the Constitution with military service for generations. My son just returned from his fourth overseas tour. What are they fighting for if the local governments feel it is acceptable to pass laws with no clear language to identify what the law covers?? EPIC FAIL on the part of our state government.
As I read this….. bearing in mind I have not had my coffee yet, this bill has not yet become law, correct? It still needs to clear appropriations?
So what does it do to the system if registrants just start signing up on every gossip, sports and entertainment website they can find, racking up hundreds and hundreds of internet identifiers? Make them buy warehouses to fill with reams and reams of identifiers.
For Hueso to just up and out of nowhere see an urgent need for this garbage would be hard to fathom. Chris Kelly and Galgiani, together, have tried for years to get this unconstitutional draconian cyber-nazi crap to pass. Galgiani is co-author of SB 448. Connection to Kelly established. Ben Hueso could have really hurt someone if someone was driving down that street going the right of way. But Kelly was the one who got lucky that night. Now, he has found a pointman who speaks real timid like he is begging for forgiveness for his DUI-driving down the street the wrong way that could have resulting in death and a murder charge , but instead of addressing the need to stop DUI’s and the deaths that it causes , Hueso deflects by trying to attack the 1st Amendment and unleash this cyber-Hitler Chris Kelly garbage and ,for gain, shove it down the throats of a class of ex-offenders with the lowest rate of re-offense second only to murderers. I could not imagine Jerry Brown signing this unamerican garbage into law.
So this leaves me with no idea what to do other than finalizing my plans to leave the state. I do much of my business on the internet and would never trust the authorities with my information. Once they have your information they can go in there and do whatever they want. I have multiple web sites that are in no way associated with anything that could be construed as sexual, but I don’t want them monitoring me. If this is finalized I guess I will file a lawsuit to keep them at bay until I leave. They likely already have the ability to read all my e-mails so what’s the point. What’s to keep them or anyone else representing themselves as me from signing me up for something and having me arrested for not complying. Many of us have already seen the lengths they will go to to exaggerate a report, suppress evidence and so on. We have paid our price and are free people. It is our right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They is no way I can accept that much intrusion into my life or that of my family. My conviction is far in the past and what I do now is no one’s business. I hope that Janice and the ACLU have the horsepower to stop this nonsense. And I for one profoundly thank them for everything they have done to protect us so far.
Maybe it’s time for a DUI registry, tied to SOR? Any changes to one, apply to the other!
After all, how many people are killed by DUI drivers? How many more are injured? They’re a menace and, quite frankly, I should have a right to know if my neighbor is a DUI offender as this puts children playing out front, in harms way!
“testing. I can’t post, I just get a 404 error.
Timmr said ”
A precursor for what it will be like for us if SB448 passes.”
Funny, but frighteningly accurate. SB 448 is a foot in the door to banning of registrants from internet usage. FaceBook bans registrants in violation of California law. The claim that SB 448 differs from the cyber-fascist registrant internet identifier reporting laws in states other than California in that it will not ban registrants from sites is a lie. This is very scary how Kelly/Hueso got a public safety committee to pass any version of Kelly’s cyber-extermination of registrants free speech on the internet. Kelly trying to amend this rubbish with furthur draconian conditions and inclusions clearly goes without saying.
As a fire was raging a few days ago near the 15 Highway and El Cajon Pass, I watched on the news as a Fed Ex truck burned on the highway from the flames that crossed the highway. That Fed Ex truck could have just as easily have been a USPS truck and with its burning, also the burning of letters from registrants reporting their internet identifiers to the police. Mail gets lost, stolen or destroyed unintentionally. If the internet identifiers don’t get reported for whatever reason, the burden is on the registrant. It will be arrest first, ask questions later. Just another burdensome aspect of this unconstitutional Chris Kelly cyber-nazism.
Then, there’s hackers. What if hackers penetrate someones system. Sign them up for all kinds of social media without the registrant even knowing. Can we even be sure that Kelly isn’t behind this type of manipulation in states that require registrants reporting of internet identifiers that have a FaceBook-to-prison pipeline? FaceBook sems to have some sort of romanticism with hacking as they named a street at FaceBook headquarters ‘Hacker Way’.
Flynt vs falwell
At the heart of the First Amendment is the recognition of the fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern. The freedom to speak one’s mind is not only an aspect of individual liberty –and thus a good unto itself –but also is essential to the common quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole. We have therefore been particularly vigilant to ensure that individual expressions of ideas remain free from governmentally imposed sanctions.
Everyone pay attention. The only way we are ever going to see true justice from all of the discrimination from the state, federal government and society is to bring forth all of the injustices in one mass class action law suit, in which SO’s will be considered a protected class due to the violence and discrimination suffered by us all from the stigma of sex offenses.One has recently been filed in shasta county superior court. Of course this will end up in Supreme Court. We all need to voice our opinions by joining this action and add any laws we know of that further these injustices. If you want change you must fight for it! Janice will have a copy of this action in the near future. Write her, call her, go to her office and urge her and th ACLU to get on board!
I share the Internet with another person I don’t even know what an Internet identifier is , how are they going to know without getting a warrant coming into your home taking your computer and checking out for Internet identifiers I don’t believe that would happen. But there again I don’t understand what they’re asking for anyway .
Only recently did I stumble upon the Galgiani connection thread. Months after I have been following all this. So I don’t think there are many links to it. It was a great find. Thanks for the nice words as well.
I read that Kelly is worth 4 billion. It seems that Kelly is the one who tries to get these anti-1st Amendment laws in place, then FaceBook takes over from there and facilitates the FaceBook-to-prison pipeline for registrants. Registrants either get their accounts from FaceBook or other social media sites deleted or in some states like Louisiana I believe, get a display on their social media account pages that they are sex offenders. Making it impossible to live down their pasts. Kelly’s wealth from FaceBook would be less if FaceBook hadn’t had a tax shelter in Ireland as they have had for years and still have now, so as they impose their questionable morality on the rest of the world, they have, in principle, cheated California and the US out of a lot of tax dollars, by paying only 2% tax on all the non-US profit from FaceBook internationally. Kelly is so rich now that it appears that as well as money to be made, he is also motivated by a personal vendetta against registrants and attacking the 1st Amendment for sport. It’s about power as well. If this gets passed, Kelly can choose the next group of ex-offender to be guinea pigs for his cyber-fascist and unconstitional “vision”. I wonder if the reason Kelly’s Prop 35 crap is moving forward is that Kelly is prepared to spend more money to bribe people or if by stepping back as the public face of Prop 35 and replacing himself with Ben Hueso, is the reason for the public safety committee’s acceptance of the notion that this is an urgent matter, when it’s clearly not. I don’t see anything especially motivating or convincing about Hueso’s Kelly-infused rhetoric, which for years was rejected for the unconstitutional crap it is in any form. The Sodomite Supression Act was allowed to die and hopefully stay dead. This Kelly crap should follow suit.
Mr. Chairman, members of the commission…
Mr. Rothstein is pleased to be here today.
When the day finally came, I was ready.
I felt so confident that all I had to do was present my case.
We have documents, one of which is a report by retired F.B.I. agents…
which completely absolves Mr. Rothstein from any wrongdoing.
Counselor, before you continue…
I want to have this marked…
This commission is prepared to act on a motion denying the Rothstein application.
Denying?
Do I hear a motion seconded?
Mr. Chairman, I second the motion.
Do I have a vote on the motion?
Aye.
Aye. Aye.
The ayes have it. This hearing is adjourned.
You have to be kidding.
Adjourned? What do you mean, “Adjourned”?
Senator, you promised me a hearing. You didn’t even look at the F.B.I. reports.
When you were my guest at the Tangiers Hotel, did you not promise me a fair hearing?
I was never your guest.
You were never my guest? I never comped you?
I don’t comp you at least three times a month?
I’d like to answer that.
Mr. Rothstein is being very typical to this point. He’s lying.
Am I just being paranoid, but why, all of a sudden, can’t I find any FaceBook-to-prison pipeline stories in states other than California where Kelly’s cyber-fascist registrant reporting of internet identifiers is law and where the registrant gets his face plastered in the story, but whose only “crime” was not correctly reporting their internet identifiers. They used to be everywhere. Is Kelly reading the comments here on the Facebook-to-prison pipeline and getting his media puppets to obfuscate? And how is the media’s practice of reporting these stories not informing the public ‘generally’ of the registrant? The word ‘unconstitutional’ comes to mind.
Nationless said “Because I do not like prison coffee tough guy. You sound like you have an issue with people invading “your” space here to express their opinion. You resort to name calling and attacks.”
But then you attack me, after you say I am resorting to attacking others.
It’s not about my space, as I never claimed the internet free speech space is mine unlike Chris Kelly who your comments support. I was just commenting on how your story doesn’t add up. Why would you report internet identifiers to a state you don’t live in? That doesn’t make sense. Then calling registrants unamerican, when it is the ones that make these unamerican laws like Chris Kelly, Mark Foley, John Walsh who are/were the unamericans. I say ‘were’ because Dennis Hastert has possibly changed his mind on these issues. Next, your comment about sunbathing around neighbors children sounds like something the characters Herb Sewell or Walter Bellhaven would say.
Be encouraged. Avoid Evil. Pray and Fight with Vigilance.
SB 448 Public Safety Committee Bill Analysis July 14, 2015
PDF link:
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB448#
The link will download a file, Adobe Acrobat will open the file.