ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings: July 20 – Berkeley [details]

Emotional Support Group Meetings – Los Angeles:  May 25, June 22, July 27  [details]

ACSOL Conference June 14/15 in Los Angeles

National

IL: Judge: Sex offender rule unconstitutional

BLOOMINGTON — A requirement that Illinois sex offenders report all Internet sites they use to police is unconstitutional because it violates the offenders’ free speech rights, according to a ruling by a McLean County judge.

Judge Robert Freitag agreed with arguments from the defense lawyer for ____ ____, 22, of Normal, that state law is overly broad in its mandate that all email addresses and sites a sex offender uses or plans to use, including Facebook, must be registered with police. Full Article

Join the discussion

  1. Q

    This is exactly the sort of thing states like California and Florida will pretend doesn’t exist. I truly hope the internet identifier bill here get’s shot down because it is an affront to all to that is right.

  2. David

    Good news. (But how did all of us miss this headline for a whole month?)

  3. Miranda Veracruz de la Jolla Cardenal

    How has the ESTOP Law in New York managed to pass all challenges. If CA wants a good internet identifier law, they need to follow the NY example, still going strong since 2008.

    ESTOP is a law that sex offenders can live with, it does not hamper speech and ensures that sex offenders can be quickly identified if they use email to commit a sex crime.

    Of course, missing from ESTOP and all the internet identifier laws is that if a sex offender wants to commit a sex crime using her email, she will do it with an email that she has not reported o the State.

    A better way to truly have an internet identifier law is to place a bugging device on the offender’s connection to her ISP and even then, nothing prevents her from using a different computer and an unreported email to seduce her victims.

    Now, if every American citizen were given a single point access to the web using eye recognition and all citizens actions recorded as soon as they connect, then not only would we have 10 times more sex offenders registered, we could actually reduce the use of the web for committing sex crimes and naughty mommies would have to go back to the old days of just offending at home without a computer.

  4. anonymously

    Miranda Veracruz De La Jolla Cardenal wrote “How has the ESTOP Law in New York managed to pass all challenges. If CA wants a good internet identifier law, they need to follow the NY example, still going strong since 2008.”

    You don’t sound like you’re not in California. Didn’t you know that California’s PC 290 states that businesses cannot deny registrants services because of their registration status. FaceBook is still in violation of California PC 290 with its illegal Terms & Conditions. A law like E-STOP, which , on a weekly basis, gives social networking and other internet sites registrant internet identifiers, in California, would aid FaceBook to furthur break our California laws. Once the registrant internet identifiers would be required to report to the police, sites other than FaceBook surely would break California’s PC 290 statute and deny services to registrants. Luckily, Hueso was made to promise to amend SB 448 to apply only to high risk and internet related registrants. But it still bothers me that Kelly should see any success in furthuring his cyber-nazi goal to attack the 1st Amendment rights of any American citizens.

    “ESTOP is a law that sex offenders can live with,”

    It’s absolutely against the UN’s declaration on human rights that states internet usage is a human right. Depriving Americans in New York of their 1st Amendment rights of anonymous speech is exactly what E-STOP is doing. And thats on sites they are still allowed on. A key consequence of E-STOP is social networking sites have banned registrants outright. On those sites, registrants speech is not only chilled but registrants are removed from the sites outright. Just because you can live with something doesn’t mean its something that should be done.

    “it does not hamper speech and”

    Of course it does. It chills free speech by taking away the ability to anonymously speak. But it does more than that. It aids FaceBook and other sites to remove registrants profiles, accounts, etc. Thats outright cyber-banishment on many and most major social networking sites.

    ” ensures that sex offenders can be quickly identified if they use email to commit a sex crime.”

    I have not heard of e-mail being used to commit sex crimes, as I have not heard of comments at the end of news articles being used to commit sex crimes.

    Another thing that I wonder about is that Kelly and his supporters like to say that Megans Law needs to be updated to include cyberspace. Yet, the basis for Megans Law and its add-ons has been dispelled and shown to be counter-productive and an ex-post facto extension of punishment ( California Supreme Court in Hofsheier reversal said that a child would be punished if his parent had to register as a sex offender and not be taken care of as well as if the parent didn’t have to register ), Now then, these realizations in line with CASOMB recommendations that these laws need an overhawl because blanket applications are unconstitutional should be taken to heart by Kelly and his supporters like Miranda Veracruz de La…and applied to SB 448. In other words, not the California Parole Boards interpretation of the California Supreme Courts Taylor decision , that shrinks the blanket from all offenders to only those deemed high-risk, but the elimination of any blanket restrictions on sex offenders, and citing the 98+% non-reoffense rate as one key element of supporting data. This would mean a complete gutting of SB 448. Maybe even return the content of SB 448 to be about police body cameras or whatever it originally was about.

    • Miranda Veracruz de la Jolla Cardenal

      I am in Riverside County.

      It is not necessary for you to agree with me for me to be right.

      Internet identifier laws are coming to CA and there is little we can do to stop them. We can delay with letters that never get read and by protests that no one notices, but eventually the federal government will take notice and amend the AWA to include internet identifiers and SCOTUS will uphold it.

      Listing the violations of a large power corporation to other offenders will not make the corporation comply.

      Internet identifier laws are hardly the battle line in the war on sex offenders. They are really not that bad. You can still speak as anonymously as other people, the cops do not have time to find and read our silly little rants.

      You will see once you have to start complying with the internet identifier laws, hardly anything will change except you have to be organized. It’s really not that bad relative to other rules like banishment and exile and the covert discrimination for employment, having to give up your American Medical Association forum screen name is merely a small inconvenience. You’ll see.

      • HOOKSCAR

        Really! !!!! Are you that stupid? Look and read the constitution. Read and learn first amendment rights. The registry as a whole is unconstitutional. Violating the 1st, 8th, amendments at a minimum. The only reason SCOTUS ruled that the registry was constitunal was that there were no punitive measures for violating the “regulatory measures”. Now as time has passed, there are punitive measures to the law. It is unconstitutional and any other measure on it will be deemed so. SCOTUS will hear this before I die. I will believe in America when they right their wrongs.

      • curiouser

        No, Miranda, it IS bad. It is the nose under the tent that the misguided have been seeking, just in a different form. Everything we all deal with now started as something that “wasn’t that bad.” The registry in this state was designed for law enforcement to track the heinous homosexual man. There was no public disclosure. Then someone thought it would be a great idea to refocus the concept on a whole slew of different offenses, and suddenly people who had cleared prison, parole, probation, were forced to register themselves for decades old events. Then it became a website. Then there was the attempt to restrict where you live, where you visited, and now, where you travel to. This concept has already been ruled unconstitutional, and it will again.

        And yes, this IS a battle line. Every challenge to our rights and liberties is a battle line. Choose your time-worn slogan: The Price of Liberty is Eternal Vigilance;” or, “opposition to tyranny is obedience to God.” Nothing is acceptable in this battle.

        And you’re correct, I don’t have to agree with you, and while I do respect your opinion, and your right to express it (a bastardization of Voltaire), I don’t believe you to be “right” either.

        Peace.

      • JohnDoeUtah

        It is already required under the AWA, they took care of that in 2008.

  5. someone who cares

    Any law that restricts registered citizens from doing what everybody else is entitled to, provided they are not on probation or parole, is definitely against any constitutional law and can never be encouraged. If you are not willing to give up your internet identifiers, neither should they. And if they have to, everybody should have to. Then, you will realize how it violates your right to privacy. It is unconstitutional and can not pass for that reason. End of story. Wasting more tax payers’ money on silly monitoring when the money could be used so much more wisely in other areas. Education, for example. I thought, we want the best for our children, well then do something for them. Use money for education and we will do the best we can offer our children. Anything else is selfish and wastes efforts in the wrong areas. Remember, the children of registered citizens are affected with every new unnecessary law that passes. Let’s stop being hypocritical. Either we want the best for our children, all children, or we don’t. The laws harm so much more than they benefit, and that is a fact.

  6. Miranda Veracruz de la Jolla Cardenal

    I see a lot of tough talk in here on this issue but I live with an internet identifier law as a non-CA convicted offender that is required to register in THREE states, convicted state, CA and another state I work in part of the year. Trust me, the internet identifier law is truly no big deal. No American is really anonymous. But I will play along with the tough guys and remind them:

    If you are not willing to kill and/or die to be heard, your voice is but a whisper.

    • Joe

      If you look at it that way, none of this is really too big a deal. Register once a year, a couple of hours, no big. Register in 3 states (in person? – max 3 half days), oh well. Pay a registration fee, not that much, or just declare indigent. Not set foot in a public park, just don’t. Never be allowed to enter a foreign country, simply stay in the good USA. Set up a new screen name or email address, just go down to the post office to mail a registered letter, and then know everything you write is directly traceable. etc, etc. Everything is quite doable.

      Not following any of the above to a tee – getting hauled off to prison, so just don’t forget.

      Seriously???

      I may not be anonymous as a person, but on the internet – you better believe that, absent a search warrant, I am. And maybe even then.

    • Painted Bird

      I’m not willing to kill anyone, one major sin in life is more than enough; and just being on the registry makes you more likely to die, all else being equal. It has nothing to do with being vocal or courageous, it has everything to do with being marked in increasingly various mediums with the bull’s eye “life not worthy”.

  7. anonymously

    Miranda said “committing sex crimes and naughty mommies would have to go back to the old days of just offending at home without a computer.”

    Miranda talks like he/she never heard of the under 2% re-offense rate for registrants.There’s not a huge number of registrants committing new sex crimes. And of that number, there’s an even smaller number of female registrants committing new sex crimes.

    “They are really not that bad. You can still speak as anonymously as other people, the cops do not have time to find and read our silly little rants.”

    Considering yourself anonymous after you report your internet identifiers to the police would leave you a sitting duck for retribution unless all your comments were pro-‘Megans Law Expansion’/pro-‘Chris Kelly’ comments like yours, Miranda. The cops have plenty of time to read all your comments. They may be required to do that in the future. Also, I would not doubt if every single comment you report would go on some permanent record that could be retrieved and later used in future denials of registration relief, civil commitment proceedings or detention camp orders. Chris Kelly is following Hitlers footsteps by devising new laws that target the freedoms of sex offenders. Kelly’s former company, FaceBook is willing to push these laws in any state that is willing to suck up their money taken from profits that cheat the US and California out of taxes that they would owe otherwise if FaceBook did not have an Ireland tax shelter, which enables them to only pay 2% tax on international profits. Yet this company is trying to control US and California law on the civil rights of it’s citizens who pay their fair share of taxes. The next initiative should be to not let them cheat California out of this tax money. The next action in Congress should be to stop the Ireland tax shelter of FaceBook. Whats fair is fair. I call this an emergency. It’s way more an emergency that the fraud emergency described in SB 448 where internet identifiers need to be collected for the health, safety, and welfare of the public. There is no numerical supporting data in the so called ‘facts’ listed in SB 448, like numbers of arrests of registrants committing sex crimes on the internet. In fact, I recall from reading some comments on an article debating the merits of AWA in 2006 that said in some Dateline:To Catch a Predator study, it was found that of the first 200+ internet offenders caught in the sting, 4 of them were registrants. That’s less than 2% of them registrants. How could all 7 on the Public Safety committee vote to pass this on an emergency basis? There is no emergency for this since there is no need for this, in the first place.

    • curiouser

      You nailed it, anonymously. What do people think cops do NOW? they sit in dark rooms in front of laptops trying to lure straw men into 288.4 or 288.2 felonies. Just add this to their list of things to do on line. You create types can fill in the other things they do.

      • Painted Bird

        They would have an algorithm that looks for patterns of key words, that’s all. They already have done this with “suspicious groups” in the past. They couldn’t make the targets themselves make it all the easier by identifying themselves, law enforcement had to work at it then. Now, it’s the modern day Star of David or the Pink Triangle worn on the cyber sleeve. Oh, that’s right, it is “only for law enforcement eyes, and the public will never get that information, without a good reason.” Boy, haven’t I heard that before. The same script.

  8. Eric Knight

    I have a feeling that “Miranda Veracruz de la Jolla Cardenal” is someone just spoofing us. The name of the poster is actually a character from the show “Married with Children” from the 80’s of a hapless, clueless television reporter, what we today know as one of my associates from SOSEN has dubbed “Media Vigilantes.”

    Here is a youtube clip of the character Miranda Veracruz de la Jolla Cardenal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1RlWqY5kww

    • Miranda Veracruz de la Jolla Cardenal

      Nope. No spoofing, just not agreeing with the herd. I refuse to be a sex offender coerced into the expected cultural compliance by the rest of the sex offenders. That was my favorite MwC character.

      I am speaking from personal experience. Internet identifier laws are not nearly as bad as you might think. I was very against them when they first applied to me, especially since I was no longer LIVING in the state that required them. Once the first annual report came in and it was packed full of error, I realized that they were not really devoting time or effort to the law once it was passed.

      I am still able to post anonymously with impunity as long as what I post is legal. I have accounts with many major news outlets and often publish against the grain, including some very controversial opinions I have about the federal government. As of yet, not one federal or local official has shown up at my door because of my personal and legal anonymous opinions, not once have I have had any interaction and trust me, there are many times they could have, especially some of the things I write about Holder, Clinton and others.

      It seems like some of you folks are trying to force me to comply with your views like a young girl is coerced to obey her daddy and do those naughty things he wants to do. Very offender-like behavior. It took me a decade to fix myself and not try to control the thoughts and behaviors of others and I am not about to become a social victim of other offenders.

      You do not have to agree with me, but you should not dismiss my experience on the internet identifier laws.

      The internet identifier law was not used to remove me from Facebook, I did that myself when they banned offenders from joining. Facebook is a business and they have every right to deny sex offenders from using their service, period.

      The internet identifier law WAS used to remove me from Classmates, but when I pointed out in writing that Classmates is NOT an authorized recipient of the offender internet identifier list, my account was restored and Cuomo’s press release about Classmates was deleted from the State website. The II list was also used to remove me from Tagged once they merged with Hi5. That was a bummer because Tagged was a great place to hookup.

      We are not allowed on Facebook and there is nothing can be done about it unless you can convince Facebook to change their term and conditions. Sex offenders are not a protected class, period. I would ask why any offender would want to be on Facebook anyway? Are we not all subjected to therapy? If so, who would, once completing therapy, still suffer from the mandatory narcissistic personality disorder required to be an active Facebook user?

      I understand the anger, I felt it the same way. The first thing I did since I had my own server back then, was create about 100 email addresses, about a dozen of them were the first and last names of the Assemblymen who voted to approve the law. A handful of the email addresses were in the names of the kids of some Assemblymen. Not a peep out of the state. Since 2008 there have only been TWO hits on any of my sites from the State’s servers, which I immediately IP blocked. I have since deleted most of those reactionary email addresses. I created one email address with the max number of characters and never sent or used the email for anything, just to see if the list would get out to spammers. Still to this day I have not received an email to that email address.

      So again, we should fight the law, we should fight EVERY sex offender law, but if we are going to sink money, time and resources into laws that truly hurt us, we need to focus on banishment laws instead of Internet identifier laws. They truly are not nearly the Henny Penny issue many of you are saying it is.

      And remember, you are not allowed on Facebook, legally, so stay off of it. Facebook is where they will look to track you, even without internet identifier laws, we do not belong there and we are not allowed there. I do not understand the logic of being against an internet identifier law and wanting to be allowed on Facebook. Do you want to be anonymous or not? Facebook is hardly the place to remain anonymous. Unless you violate other terms and conditions as well.

      I suggest CA offenders get organized and ready for when the II law goes into effect you can comply and then of you like, over-comply. I am ready because I already maintain that list. Just need to print and mail, certified and return receipt required.

      You’ll see… relative to other laws we have to endure, II laws are small potatoes.

      • NPS

        There’s just something “off” about your replies. There are lots of contradictions.

        You say: It seems like some of you folks are trying to force me to comply with your views like a young girl is coerced to obey her daddy and do those naughty things he wants to do. Very offender-like behavior. (horrible analogy by the way…absolutely horrible) It took me a decade to fix myself and not try to control the thoughts and behaviors of others and I am not about to become a social victim of other offenders.

        Yet you are doing exactly that. You are being coerced into doing something like complying with internet identifier laws that have been ruled unconstitutional. And you are trying to coerce other offenders into accepting a rule that is clearly unconstitutional.

        You don’t seem to get the fight. It’s not about any registered citizen wanting to be on facebook. (I know I don’t.) It’s about having to forfeit our right to anonymity in a public forum to exercise our first amendment rights. THAT is what this is all about. Not profiles on a social media site.

      • D

        Miranda – I take it that you don’t have to create that many new identifiers. I work as a software engineer for a large company and thus all of my business email addresses would need to be reported. Also I need to create accounts for support purposes for the software that we use, I create about 10 new accounts a month for this, that’s multiple updates I would have to do each month right there. That doesn’t even include the multiple forums I have crented accounts on for hobbies of mine. This is absolutely a punishment and the time required to create and manage my own list will cost me lots of money.

  9. anonymously

    Miranda Veracruz…,

    You say no american is “anonymous”. But all are, in regards to their criminal record, when it comes to the government collected large heaps of data and sifting through it indiscriminantly for red flags. Linking your criminal record to you in order to make it possible for others to attack you for those views and to make your views seem less credible and attack you as a registrant is the issue. And that is the crux of this internet identifier Chris Kelly cyber-fascism nonsense. If you want to be believable and not viewed as a troll, then maybe stop using the shticks of famous crank phone callers. The Jerkey Boyz call people ‘tough guy’ when those people are not even acting tough in the Frank Rizzo character skit used to make prank phone calls. A past commenter called Nationless, not saying that’s you or anything, was sounding like the Phil Hendrie spoof characters Herb Sewell and Walter Bellhaven, sex offender parody characters who on the show would take live calls from callers who believe they are real sex offenders. It can even be viewed as humorous. Then, that quote about being willing to die or kill to have a voice to not be a whisper. Is that Francis Ford Coppola’s words from the movie ‘Patton’?. In any case, you didn’t know AWA already passed internet identifiers. You are not very knowledgeable on sex offender issues. No offense. Some other commenter months ago made up some long diatribe about sex offenders moving to North Korea and Iran. It must have taken that person a long time to type out such ridiculousness in such a serious manner. I give you guy/s an ‘A’ for effort. Just please if you could not distract us too much from the real issues as we are trying to get something accomplished in the real world. Not the internet troll world of comedy. Once this thing gets defeated for good, and we can relax more, I will be more than willing to appreciate your brand of comedy.

    Just because New York took over a year to start arresting people doesn’t mean they are not now arresting many people. If you don’t mind it not beng able to comment on half the news articles out there via disqus or be able to comment on FaceBook forums or be able to use FaceBook for professional purposes, which is hard to believe, thats up to you. But to advocate for others to accept those losses is unconscionable.

    “I am still able to post anonymously with impunity as long as what I post is legal. I have accounts with many major news outlets and often publish against the grain, including some very controversial opinions I have about the federal government.”

    Do you post on news articles that require disqus, which requires a FaceBook account? You have been very limited by being a registrant in that other state which requires this cyber-nazism. Not to mention, facebook forums themselves where a lot of discussion occurs, which requires membership. You are not posting there. You don’t mind not having your ability to speak out compromised? FaceBook cannot legally ban you from their service if you are in California. You sure you’re in California? Check out PC 290 anti-registrant discrimination clause. Check it out, registrants in California cannot be discriminated against by getting denied business services. Can you read?

    ” As of yet, not one federal or local official has shown up at my door because of my personal and legal anonymous opinions, not once have I have had any interaction and trust me, there are many times they could have, especially some of the things I write about Holder, Clinton and others.”

    Do you complain about police treatment on the internet? That might get some different results. As I see from your comedic stance on SB 448, the police could even think your comnents are funny maybe. But in California, it’s a whole new game. Theres a new sheriff in town, its Chris Kelly/Mark Zuckerberg and their FaceBook police. FaceBook, violating PC 290 statute banning discrimination against registrants and still going strong in California since 2004.

    “It seems like some of you folks are trying to force me to comply with your views like a young girl is coerced to obey her daddy and do those naughty things he wants to do. Very offender-like behavior.”

    I would think that the one who thought of this unfounded comparison is exhibiting offender like behavior and I would not want you around my family, if you just come up with stuff like that off the top of your head. Thats why I compared you to Herb Sewell and Walter Bellhaven, if you recall.

    “offender internet identifier list, my account was restored and Cuomo’s press release about Classmates was deleted from the State website. The II list was also used to remove me from Tagged once they merged with Hi5. That was a bummer because Tagged was a great place to hookup.

    I am glad you have come so far in 10 years. I think the number of years to wait is 15 before you have the same rate of reoffense as someone who was never convicted.

    “We are not allowed on Facebook and there is nothing can be done about it unless you can convince Facebook to change their term and conditions. Sex offenders are not a protected class, period.”

    No.
    You’ve already been shown to be wrong on AWA requiring internet identifiers. You are not acknowledging your mistakes. That is very offender-like of you Miranda, by the way. You need to read PC 290. It even mentions penalty of 25k per FaceBook violation. 25k for each of the 100k victims in California affected. That’s 2.5 billion dollars FaceBook could be on the hook for. Maybe if you’d get on board with this lawsuit, it would be more believable you were making more of an effort to fight these laws and illegal policies ( FaceBook in California).

    “I would ask why any offender would want to be on Facebook anyway? Are we not all subjected to therapy? If so, who would, once completing therapy, still suffer from the mandatory narcissistic personality disorder required to be an active Facebook user?”

    It has changed a lot since you were last on it maybe. Now its political forums and its membership is needed to comment on news articles that use disqus. It’s not about “hooking up with someone” for registrants.

    “So again, we should fight the law, we should fight EVERY sex offender law, but if we are going to sink money, time and resources into laws that truly hurt us, we need to focus on banishment laws instead of Internet identifier laws. They truly are not nearly the Henny Penny issue many of you are saying it is.”

    Internet identifier laws are banishment laws. Cyber banishment. Which will lead to physical banishment because the internet is where discussion of the issues takes place. Without being able to comment and put forth arguments against residency and presence restrictions, those laws will gain support.

    “And remember, you are not allowed on Facebook, legally, so stay off of it. Facebook ”

    FaceBook, once again, is violating California’s PC 290 with their T&C.

    “is where they will look to track you, even without internet identifier laws, we do not belong there and we are not allowed there. I do not understand the logic of being against an internet identifier law and wanting to be allowed on Facebook. Do you want to be anonymous or not? Facebook is hardly the place to remain anonymous. Unless you violate other terms and conditions as well.”

    So you’re such a stickler for the rules and conditions of FaceBook, yet you supposedly had discrepencies in the reporting of internet identifiers to the police that could have resulted in a failure to register violation and prison, and that’s no big deal to you? You should want to scrap this whole bad law because there was so many errors that could subject you to arrest/prison. But instead of being against this law and not wanting anyone, including yourself to be subject to it, you advocate for it or minimize the FaceBook-to-prison pipeline? Just because you are so literate and organized doesn’t mean others will be able to do this error-free, or that you will continue to be error-free.

    “I suggest CA offenders get organized and ready for when the II law goes into effect you can comply and then of you like, over-comply. I am ready because I already maintain that list. Just need to print and mail, certified and return receipt required.”

    “You’ll see… relative to other laws we have to endure, II laws are small potatoes.”

    To not be able to enjoy the internet without worrying about remembering to report internet identifiers to the police and make a big postal service transaction. And try doing this without a car. That’s not small potatoes. Reporting these things is a major chore. This can’t be constitutional in any form.

    There is roughly a few pieces of information to give to police in a year. With this, it increases the number of pieces of information roughly 20,000%. Giving up your American Medical Association identifier is about .02% of the identifiers you would have to “give up” per year. Seriously, no one has the time to be active on the internet politically and also have the time to keep all this organized and for no purpose. Registrants are not committing sex crimes on the internet, as shown by the lack of numbers on registrant internet sex crimes presented by Hueso.

    • Miranda Veracruz de la Jolla Cardenal

      Anonobully stated:

      “Theres a new sheriff in town, its Chris Kelly/Mark Zuckerberg and their FaceBook police. FaceBook, violating PC 290 statute banning discrimination against registrants and still going strong in California since 2004.”

      No, they are not violating PC290. Facebook’s terms and conditions state that if you are a CONVICTED sex offender, you may not use their service.

      Being a convicted sex offender and being a registered sex offender under PC290 are NOT synonymous. There are many convicted sex offenders nationwide, and many in CA as well, that are not registered sex offenders. Facebook and many other businesses and governments deny services to convicted sex offenders and other felons. It is a bummer to be sure, but it’s OK, it’s just Facebook.

      I did not bother reading the rest of your drivel because I am not your victim. It is clear that you need a victim to coerce, and that victim will not be me. I just wanted to point out that you are wrong, Facebook is not violating PC290 by denying service to convicted sex offenders, PC290 only applies to registered sex offenders convicted or living in CA.

      Until they pass an unregistered convicted sex offenders registry, we all fall under the umbrella of convicted (unless pardoned or dead) sex offenders, but we are not all registered sex offenders.

      I am sure you will not be able to admit you were wrong, but that’s OK, I made my point and others will see your reaction.

      Once again…. II laws are not that bad, I live it, have lived it for years. You can accept that experience or discount it, that’s up to you. The state should either follow the NY example or scrap the whole thing, as I stated elsewhere. But you will see… after all your foot stomping and whining (which I did as well, I thought my life was going to be ruined) you will find it’s not even close to the apocalypse you think. You’ll be ok, as long as you comply. If you do not comply, then you might have problems. You do plan to comply right?

      • bg

        “I did not bother reading the rest of your drivel because I am not your victim. It is clear that you need a victim to coerce, and that victim will not be me.”

        lol, you’re such an obvious troll.
        Miranda is just a bitter little troll trying to stir things up, to anyone replying seriously to this would-be troll you’re just feeding someone who really isn’t very good at it.

    • Timmr

      You are right, Anonymous, PC 290.4 (d)(2) states: “…use of any information that is disclosed pursuant to this section for purposes relating to any of the following is
      prohibited:
      (A) Health insurance.
      (B) Insurance.
      (C) Loans.
      (D) Credit.
      (E) Employment.
      (F) Education, scholarships, or fellowships.
      (G) Housing or accommodations.
      (H) Benefits, privileges, or services provided by any business
      establishment.”
      The last one I take to include social media services, like Facebook. Why can’t I communicate with my family if they are using Facebook? Stupid! Really stupid! They are all adults. I never used the internet to harm anyone. I don’t have to like Facebook, just as I don’t have to like ATT or Verizon, but that doesn’t mean I should be excluded from using them if I choose. And by me, I don’t mean me personally in particular, I might be excluded from 448 anyway, but the 95% of those who don’t re-offend. If we don’t hold onto every inch, they will turn them into miles.
      This code, in some sense, although limited, makes registrants a protected class in California. Some voice of reason appeared among all the blather. Why did I have to look through all of PC 290 to find it? Why isn’t it posted prominently on this site? Why hasn’t someone already challenged the Facebook exclusion? I wonder. I do know that a flier with this code is handed out at all the meetings, Miranda.
      Not that bad laws is the story of our existence. We have a mountain of laws that started out being not that bad laws that taken in aggregate now oppress us with their cumulative weight.

  10. Doug

    What does the California Contractors board , say about issuing a contractors license to a RSO .

    Its hard for RSO’s to find jobs. Is it also imposable to legally work for your self.

  11. anonymously

    Miranda said “Anonobully stated:“Theres a new sheriff in town, its Chris Kelly/Mark Zuckerberg and their FaceBook police. FaceBook, violating PC 290 statute banning discrimination against registrants and still going strong in California since 2004.”

    “No, they are not violating PC290. Facebook’s terms and conditions state that if you are a CONVICTED sex offender, you may not use their service.”

    “Convicted sex offenders” encompasses “registered sex offenders”. Convicted sex offenders is more broad a term than “registered sex offenders”. If FaceBook is banning Convicted Sex Offenders in California, they are banning Registered Sex Offenders. This is in violation of California PC 290. Hopefully, FaceBook will be stopped before other businesses jump on this bandwagon.

    • jo

      I have had several friends comment “Dude, you have dropped off the face of the earth” because I got kicked off facebook. How would your life change is the phone companies all banned you from using the phone, or the water company banned registrants, or any utility company. Facebook is becoming a utility, where most sites allow commenting if you have a facebook account. I am shocked no one has taken on the Goliath

  12. anonymously

    What makes FaceBook’s violation of California PC 290 relevant also, other than the potential 2.5 billion dollars in penalties FaceBook could be legally liable for, is that in the 9th Circuit courts decision it stated what Prop 35 is not supposed to do. Prop 35 is not supposed to ban registrants from sites. With FaceBook’s violation of California PC 290, banning is the effect that ‘Prop35 internet clause’/SB 448 would be doing, like what is happening in New York. FaceBook police would get the identifiers from some bogus sex trafficking prevention effort that they would claim they need all registrant internet identifiers for. Then, registrants get banned , but also from other site FaceBook deals with who share their cyber-Nazi philosophy of being at war with ex-sex offenders, like Hitler was at the start of his reign of terror. It’s comical that a company founded by a known cyber-bully, Mark Zuckerberg, who hacked into Harvard’s computer system to steal pics of college women/girls and then use them to cyber-bully the women/girls in FaceMash, precursor to FaceBook, has a company that is such a crucial part of the cyber-Nazi scheme of cyber-banishment for registrants. I don’t understand Mark Zuckerberg and Chris Kelly’s intolerance for the 1st Amendment rights of all American citizens. Shame on them. And their Ireland Tax Shelter. Miranda, just because you say what I say is drivel does not mean it is. Have a nice day.

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • 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.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • 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.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues 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.  
 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please answer this question to prove that you are not a robot *

.