ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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


Monthly Meetings | Recordings (3/20 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings
ACSOL’s Online EPIC Conference: Empowered People Inspiring Change Sept 17-18, 2021

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

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 will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • 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.  
 
27 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

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.

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

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… Read more »

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… Read more »

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… Read more »

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.

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.… Read more »

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

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… Read more »

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.

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… Read more »

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”.

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… Read more »

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.

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.

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

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… Read more »

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… Read more »

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… Read more »

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… Read more »

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… Read more »

“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.

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… Read more »

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.

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… Read more »

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

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… Read more »

27
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x
.