The Senate Appropriations Committee will consider Senate Bill 448 (SB 448) during a hearing on August 24. If passed, the bill would require registered citizens to disclose internet identifiers to law enforcement officials.
The Senate Public Safety Committee passed SB 448 unanimously based in part upon a promise by the bill’s author to amend the bill. According to committee staff, the bill must be amended to limit those who must disclose to an individual convicted of an offense that involved use of the internet.
“Senate Bill 448 must be stopped,” stated CA RSOL president Janice Bellucci. “Even as amended, the bill casts too wide a net because it would include individuals convicted of non-contact offenses. For example, a 16-year-old who views a pornographic image of another 16-year-old would be required to disclose his internet identifiers.”
There are many additional steps required before SB 448 could become law. If the Appropriations Committee approves the bill, the bill would be voted on the Senate floor and then sent to the Assembly. In the Assembly, it would require passage by the Public Safety Committee, the Appropriations Committees and the full Assembly before the legislature ends its session on September 11. If the legislature approves the bill, the bill must obtain the Governor’s approval before it becomes law.
“In order to stop SB 448, letters must be written and phone calls must be made to leaders in both the Senate and the Assembly,.” stated Bellucci.
Kevin de Leon, President Pro Tem
California Senate
State Capitol, Room 205
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 651-4024
Toni Atkins, Speaker
California Assembly
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0078
(916) 319-2078
Bill Quirk, Chairman
Public Safety Committee
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0020
(916) 319-2020
As you recalled Senator Ben Hueso, promised to amend this bill. Has it been updated?
How can one call about something and support / oppose it when one does not know what it is? This is on the official CA Legislature web site – no update since the hearing last July – pre-modification.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billVersionsCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB448
More importantly, how can the Public Safety (no less) pass a bill (unanimously!) NOT knowing what it says?
If this is democracy in action, I am depressed. One should hope that, should this abomination pass, that there is grounds for appeal based on this banana republic process.
We should all take a page from Trump’s playbook and ruthlessly criticize those on our $?!# list. Hueso should be reminded of his DUI during the committee hearing (http://www.latimes.com/local/political/la-me-pc-ben-hueso-arrested-suspicion-drunk-driving-20140822-story.html). I suggest someone enlarge the mug of Hypocrite Hueso and place it on an easel while mentioning DUI recidivism as higher than sex offenders (and the former causing more injuries). Imply Hueso is projecting his flaws on sex offenders. Shame the con man. We should also do the same to all our enemies — especially Coward George Runner and Scam Artist Sharon Runner. Look at my comments for examples: http://scvnews.com/2015/08/12/state-as-slumlord-commentary-by-george-runner/
This should be enough reason to shoot it down
https://all4consolaws.org/2015/08/il-judge-sex-offender-rule-unconstitutional/
I thought giving e-mail info to law enforcement, was declared a violation of the first amendment. The 9th circuit specifically upheld Judge Thelton Henderson ruling. Even if they apply it only to those with internet related crimes. DOSENT IT STILL VIOLATE FREEDOM OF SPEECH? I SO CONFUSED :/
Joe,
Do you not recognize the different colors and fonts within the text on the the link
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB448 ?
The blue Italic indicates the amended language. The red font with the lines striking through the text represent language that is to be eliminated from the existing legislation. Black text represents existing language that remains unaffected by the proposed legislation.
Actually, in many respects SB448 repeals a lot of the language granting law enforcement over-reach.
It might appropriately be viewed as a constructive first step towards a reining-in of the excesses extant within the original statutes.
Perhaps folks are disappointed, but expectations that the laws be totally stricken are unrealistic and somewhat out of line.
That rational adjustments be made is within the bounds of reality—the present situation is out of balance, yet it appears there are many earnest people striving to attain an equitable solution.
Be patient.
It doesn’t look like it was changed at all.
I guess we should contact those that was promised that there would be some changes made.
That they have men hooked winked by voting this
Janice will you PLEASE elaborate on whether the bill has been amended to exclude those whose conviction did not involve the internet? It does not appear to state so.
Dabney said “Actually, in many respects SB448 repeals a lot of the language granting law enforcement over-reach.”
Can you give some examples?
‘It might appropriately be viewed as a constructive first step towards a reining-in of the excesses extant within the original statutes.’
But with the ease of which FaceBook Police, Menlo Park can get the internet identifiers claiming its part of some bogus investigation, nothing has been reigned in from the last iteration of this nonsense proposed by Kelly. The language of SB 448 says it will not generally make the internet identifiers avaiable to the public. With the possibility of the next Atty Gen being in the pocket of Chris Kelly, this is not very reassuring. More importantly as I already mentioned, FaceBook police getting them is pretty much ‘game over’.
‘Perhaps folks are disappointed, but expectations that the laws be totally stricken are unrealistic and somewhat out of line.’
You’re somewhat out of line to come on a site that allows you the free speech to post anonymously and you preach to attack the 1st Amendment, which those here that respect the 1st Amendment respect your right to free speech on the internet and allow you to post anonymously and give your opposing viewpoints. But yet, you support the existence of a law whose proponents use to chill speech of registrants, eventually ban registrants altogether and send them to prison, if they can for making political comments and not reporting it correctly. Do any of the Chris Kelly sites allow pro-registrant/pro-1st Amendment points of view to be aired out there? I doubt it. Tell me which one/s, so I can leave a comment there. I’ll be patiently waiting for you to get back to me on this.
‘That rational adjustments be made is within the bounds of reality—the present situation is out of balance, yet it appears there are many earnest people striving to attain an equitable solution.’
The rational solution is to axe this thing completeley. Then, go after Kelly for all the time and money he has wasted of the State to put forth this absolute nonsense. Once again, I will ask , are you familiar with the under 2% re-offense rate of registrants that makes this Prop 35 ‘hidden clause’/SB 448 ‘gut and replacement bill’ unconstitutional nonsense that stalled in the California legislature for years and no emergency existed until all of a sudden because supposedly the internet hidden clause Kelly came up with now must be enforced to protect the “health, safety and welfare of the public”? Show me your numbers of RSO crime on the internet, if you dispute the under 2% recidivism rate. Don’t just cut to some article of some pimp who is not an RSO who got busted for sex trafficking. Stop the platitudes, and give examples of anything you claim.
“Be patient.”
My reaction to these unprovoked attacks by Kelly on registrants is not patience, but absolute terror and wonder of what could Kelly do with the next 1% of his money he will devote to destroying registrants and their children. Kelly spent 2-5 million of his money of his roughly 4 billion dollar fortune on this, made some people rich in the process, got determined to be unconstitutional pap and an attack on the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution. Time to move on to something important, Chris Kelly. Let it go already.
Chris Kelly and Mark Zuckerberg do not want registrants to be able to make their cases on the issues on online forums. What are they scared of? They cannot support their anti-registrant RSO-scapegoating propaganda with the existence of opposing viewpoints? Very unamerican if you ask me. Let it go already, Chris Kelly.
The law hasn’t even passed yet and I’m already confused on who it applies to who we are supposed to send letters to what exactly are the letters to contain how are they to be mailed ie. Certified or ? And how are they suppose to prove that you have a indentifier that you use that you didn’t report. I really hope we can stop this ambiguous unconstitutional law.
I still strongly take exception to this organization suggesting it will be OK to require this of ANY sex offender, especially on a Constitutional basic First Amendment right. Here again, we are saying it simply should be reduced to apply to only some, not all. That is not the point of the problem with these horrors imposed on former sex offenders. The problem is that they are unacceptable no matter who they are applied to.
The point I refer to is this quote:
“Even as amended, the bill casts too wide a net because it would include individuals convicted of non-contact offenses.”
You cannot say that, that it simply is too wide a net. That comment says that all we are seeking is for it to be applied a bit more narrowly. And they will do what you are asking, and apply it but more narrowly — because your comment says that is alright. Imposing this on just one person is too wide a net! Your argument tells them that you agree that some registrants should have this imposed on them! An attorney, of all people, must either be far more careful what they say, for we otherwise have to take what they say to be what they mean. You just said that it is OK to impose this on some registrants, it would be justified to do so. And you have said that consistently.
I will not support any effort by this group to argue that this bill should simply be restricted to some registrants. I can’t support a group that would argue for such. You can point out all the ridiculousness of it applying to this type and that type and the other type, that it is not even limited to whom they say the problem is, and they might then proceed to pass a narrowed down bill. But we can never argue that it is OK to apply it to that other registrant who they say is the problem. No, the point is that no one should be treated like this once they have paid their debt to society. Every registrant has already suffered, many very, very dearly, from their prosecution and sentence. Nothing more is at all legitimate and anything more absolutely is punishment. We must always be unrelenting on these points, even as we might discuss that any law or bill is not even well targeted at whom they say the problem is.
And you cannot argue to me that we are getting this now and will push for better later. We cannot argue now that this is acceptable and expect to be taken as honest later when we argue it is not. Besides, your argument only splits the group – why in hell would anyone you are arguing to subject this to want to continue any kind of support for this group?! and also, an attorney should know that what you are arguing now in the Legislature can come back later to undermine and haunt you in court.
Oh, I note, what you are arguing would leave me completely off the hook – and I still oppose your argument. If we don’t stand by those you are screwing here, this group will collapse. Next time it will be another partial group of us you will screw, then the next time another part of the group. You can never agree with them that something needs to be done to us, to any of us. Never. We have all paid our debt to society, NO registrant is a sex offender, they only once were – if they were now, they would not be a registrant, the would be arrested and sent to prison. Registration is being imposed only on those who are NOT committing offenses.
This group on one hand wants to argue there is nearly no recidivism; and on the other hand, it says it is justified to impose harsh treatment upon those people who are not recidivating. That’s hypocrisy!
California RSOL met with staff in the Office of Sen. Hueso in late July and I had a telephonic meeting with staff on August 14. During both meetings, staff assured us the bill would be amended so that the requirement to disclose internet identifiers would be limited to those for whom use of the internet was a nexus to the sex offense. I expressed concern during those meetings that anyone convicted of possessing and/or distributing child pornography, including minors, would meet this requirement. We have been promised a copy of the amendments, but don’t have them yet. We will share them with you once we do.
So Senator Hueso was sent packing in mid-July by the Public Safety Committee with the instruction to re-write this bill with two specific directions: 1) to apply it only to people who used the internet to commit their offense and 2) to create a tiered model based upon the CSOMB’s proposed tiered registry criteria. This wasn’t an “or,” but and “AND.” The offender who would be forced to adhere to this nonsense had to meet both criteria.
Now, anyone who attended the last Los Angeles CASROL meeting learned that Senator Hueso pretty much flipped the bird at the committee by deciding he would NOT be utilizing the CSOMB criteria, and revising this bill to only apply to individuals who used the internet for their offenses. I wonder what sanction he will face for failing to do so? I would imagine not much, if any.
What is truly amazing is the fact that politicians continue to push these unconstitutional measures at every opportunity. Yes, if it passes, it will be stopped by injunction while its constitutionality is argued in courts. But what is interesting is that this legislation flies in the face of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection clause. It’s almost like Hofsheier revisited. Not, of course, the crazy-assed part where the California Supreme Court decided to overturn that case based on the nuttiest of reasons, but the simple fact that someone who received a naked selfie from his 16 year old girlfriend is going to be subject to this craziness, while Phillip Garrido, in theory, could be trolling the web right under Chris Kelly’s very nose.
Proposition 35 was stayed because of the unconstitutional elements of the internet identifier provision. It had not thing to do with being “over-broad,” but because of the chilling effect it had on the First Amendment rights of those it sought to oppress. No matter what Senator Hueso or his supporters do, that issue will not go away. The most unalienable of rights we possess in this country will be compromised by this measure. But hey. When has THAT every stopped an upwardly-mobile politico or self-serving power monger?
The version of the bill shown linked here is still the version that requires internet identifiers from EVERY registered citizen, not just some.
What do you have to worry about if you’ve got nothing to hide?
How would it be known whether a registered citizen qualifies as having an offense that involved the internet? Would it be based on being convicted of a specific penal coded offense that specifically states that it involved the internet? Would the amended bill name those specific penal coded offenses? Do such codified offenses exist?
Or would they have to dig into each and every registered citizen’s cases to see if there were any allegations of computer/internet use involved? If they are just allegations, then how could they alone require submitting internet identifiers since they are just allegations.
This sounds like a big mess in the making.
Amended version is available as of this morning.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB448
There have been some questions regarding the applicability specifically pertaining to Doe v. Harris, and the 9th Circuit’s opinion.
First, you must read the opinion. In it, the justices offer some guidance on how the law could made to be brought into compliance so that it passes constitutional muster.
In their opinion, the 9th Circuit states that the act is “content neutral”, and “requires intermediate scrutiny”.
Content Neutral
“We conclude that the CASE Act is content neutral. On its face, the Act makes no reference to specific subject matters or viewpoints. And unlike the registration laws in other states, California’s CASE Act does not prohibit registered sex offenders from using particular websites, or any particular types of communication. Compare Cal. Penal Code § 290 et seq. with N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-202.5 (2013) (banning the use of commercial social networking websites by any registered sex offender) and Ind. Code § 35-42-4-12 (2014) (prohibiting sex offenders from using social networking websites, instant messaging services, and chat room programs). Instead, the CASE Act broadly applies to all identifiers that a registrant uses for online communication, regardless of whether he uses the identifier to chat, post product reviews, or ask questions about a credit card bill. In that respect, the law may be broad, but at least it is content neutral……it does not target political speech content, nor is it a ban on speech”
In a nutshell, because the act does not prohibit specific speech, websites or social media services, it is “content neutral”.
Intermediate Scrutiny Analysis
“Content-neutral restrictions on protected speech survive intermediate scrutiny so long as “‘they are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and . . . leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information.’” Ward, 491 U.S. at 791 (quoting Clark v. Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288, 293 (1984)). “To satisfy this standard, a regulation need not be the least speech-restrictive means of advancing the Government’s interests.” Turner, 512 U.S. at 662. Rather, the test is whether “the means chosen . . . ‘burden[s] substantially more speech than is necessary to further the government’s legitimate interests.’” Id. (quoting Ward, 491 U.S. at 799); see Comite de Jornaleros de Redondo Beach v. City of Redondo Beach, 657 F.3d 936, 947 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc). The government must also “demonstrate that the recited harms are real . . . and that the regulation will in fact alleviate these harms in a direct and material way.” Turner, 512 U.S. at 664.”
The justices go on to say, “The CASE Act is clearly intended to serve a legitimate interest. The Act’s stated purpose is to “combat the crime of human trafficking” and “to strengthen laws regarding sexual exploitation, including sex offender registration requirements, to allow law enforcement to track and prevent online sex offenses and human trafficking.” Proposition 35, § 3(1), (3).”, as well as “The Act declares that protecting people in California “from all forms of sexual exploitation is of paramount importance.” Id. § 2(1). It further recites that “[w]hile the rise of the Internet has delivered great benefits to California, the predatory use of this technology by human traffickers and sex offenders has allowed such exploiters a new means to entice and prey on vulnerable individuals” and that the Act will “deter predators from using the Internet to facilitate human trafficking and sexual exploitation.” Id. § 2(4), (6). Unquestionably, the State’s interest in preventing and responding to crime, particularly crimes as serious as sexual exploitation and human trafficking, is legitimate. We have observed that there is a “strong link between child pornography and the Internet, and the need to protect the public, particularly children, from sex offenders.” United States v. Rearden, 349 F.3d 608, 621 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also City of L.A. v. Alameda Books, Inc., 535 U.S. 425, 435 (2002) (plurality opinion) (“[W]e find that reducing crime is a substantial government interest . . . .”); Doe v. Prosecutor, 705 F.3d at 698 (“Indiana is certainly justified in shielding its children from improper sexual communication.”); Shurtleff, 628 F.3d at 1223 (“We have no doubt that the State of Utah has a compelling interest in investigating kidnapping and sex-related crimes.”); White, 696 F. Supp. 2d at 1308 (“[Georgia] has an interest in protecting against internet abuse of children.”). California has a substantial interest in protecting vulnerable individuals, particularly children, from sex offenders, and the use of the Internet to facilitate that exploitation is well known to this Court. See, e.g., United States v. Curtin, 588 F.3d 993 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Daniels, 541 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2008); United States v. Stoterau, 524 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 2008).”
In other words, the state has a legitimate interest in protecting persons from registered citizens.
The justices offered some guidance to lawmakers, by stating that their opinion was based on the following:
“Applying intermediate scrutiny, the panel concluded that the Act unnecessarily chills protected speech in at least three ways: (1) it does not make clear what sex offenders are required to report; (2) it provides insufficient safeguards preventing the public release of the information sex offenders do report; and (3) the 24-hour reporting requirement is onerous and overbroad.”
It is no coincidence that the convicted drunk driver, Sen. Hueso, worded his law to address these 3 areas of concern. SB 448 specifies exactly what information is required to be reported, provides safeguards for the public release of the information, and eliminates the 24 hour reporting requirement. It does not, in my unprofessional opinion, specify who it applies to. Instead, the convicted drunk driver, Sen. Hueso, only uses a vague and broad statement that, if the internet was essential to the crime, then this new reporting requirements apply.
I will say that I am growing extremely tired of lawmakers, and courts, using irrelevant information to justify their hate laws. Above, the justices state the use of the internet for the commission of sex crimes is well known to the court. They then go on to list a few examples:
United States v. Curtin, 588 F.3d 993: Mr. Curtin was not a registered citizen prior to this case.
United States v. Daniels, 541 F.3d 915: Mr. Daniels was not a registered citizen prior to this case.
United States v. Stoterau, 524 F.3d 988: Mr. Stoterau was not a registered citizen prior to this case.
How is it rational to justify the suppression of registered citizen’s free speech rights because non-registered citizens use the internet to commit crimes? Based on that logic, perhaps it is necessary to suppress the free speech rights of teachers because former teachers have been convicted of using the internet to commit sex crimes? Or perhaps the same logic could be applied to police officers?
The justices make clear in their opinion that “The government must also “demonstrate that the recited harms are real . . . and that the regulation will in fact alleviate these harms in a direct and material way.”
In this regard, I think the state completely fails to demonstrate the necessity in that they fail to provide examples of REGISTERED CITITZENS who are using the internet to commit new sex crimes, and they fail to prove HOW the regulation will resolve that problem. If I had to guess, I would say that the number of registered citizens who are using the internet to commit new sex crimes is incredibly small. So small, that regulation would not be justified and, thus, would fail the test.
That’s my two cents!
Just read the bill as amended. This is the only web site on which I comment. My others are read only or purely business/government/commercial.
How do I de-register for this web site, so that I am once again read-only? If I do that, then I do not need to provide any internet identifiers and my privacy at least will be sustained.
This seems like another “feel good” piece of legislation. It does not provide any specifics, so it dumps implementation onto law enforcement to figure it out and to attempt to implement it in an ad hoc manner. Hueso will get his kudos for proposing the law, while burdening others with interpretation and implementation. And like similar laws that have already been judged as unconstitutional, this law is too broad and unclear. It seems certain to lose if challenged in court.
I see this part was added
(4) A If the person is required to register for a crime where the use of the Internet was essential to the commission of the crime, a list of any and all Internet identifiers used by the person for communicative purposes, as defined in Section 290.024.
(B) A Except as provided in subparagraph (A), a law enforcement agency to which an Internet identifier is submitted pursuant to this subdivision, Section 290.012, or Section 290.015 may only release that Internet identifier to another law enforcement agency for the sole purpose of preventing or investigating a sex-related crime, a kidnapping, or human trafficking.
Law enforcement agency.. Does this mean “Facebook Security Office” If so then they can request RSO email address. Correct?
Paul writes “In their opinion, the 9th Circuit states that the act is “content neutral”, and “requires intermediate scrutiny”.
I think the Act requires strict scrutiny, since the views being chilled is that of registrants. Any act taking away vital 1st Amendment rights from a specific group which is a persecuted class requires this. Registrants will espouse views that support themselves. If you restrict and chill the free speech of a persecuted group, of course the views of members of that persecuted group would be to support the persecuted group, and thus it would chill speech supporting the persecuted group. But even with intermediate scrutiny applied, this bill will fail constitutional scrutiny. No nexus that sex offenses will be committed by registrants due to their past crimes.Low, almost non-existent reoffense rates support the lack of a nexus. And also, the Bill is too broad, It does burden a lot of speech unnecessarily. Comments at the end of news articles in the comments section would be burdened. Hueso did not take the requirement of reporting identifiers for comments at the end of news articles out of the bill. Also, any comments on chatrooms that are adult only would still be burdened by this bill.
“Content Neutral
“We conclude that the CASE Act is content neutral. On its face, the Act makes no reference to specific subject matters or viewpoints. And unlike the registration laws in other states, California’s CASE Act does not prohibit registered sex offenders from using particular websites,”
Right, if FaceBook was abiding by the law. So we really need a lawsuit to stop FaceBook from violating PC 290. If there’s not one, I fear other web sites will jump on the illegal discrimination of registrants bandwagon.
“Intermediate Scrutiny Analysis…
“Content-neutral restrictions on protected speech survive intermediate scrutiny so long as “‘they are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and . . . leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information.’” Ward, 491 U.S. at 791 (quoting Clark v. Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288, 293 (1984)). “To satisfy this standard, a regulation need not be the least speech-restrictive means of advancing the Government’s interests.” Turner, 512 U.S. at 662. Rather, the test is whether “the means chosen . . . ‘burden[s] substantially more speech than is necessary to further the government’s legitimate interests.’” Id. (quoting Ward, 491 U.S. at 799); see Comite de Jornaleros de Redondo Beach v. City of Redondo Beach, 657 F.3d 936, 947 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc). The government must also “demonstrate that the recited harms are real . . . and that the regulation will in fact alleviate these harms in a direct and material way.” Turner, 512 U.S. at 664.”
“The justices go on to say, “The CASE Act is clearly intended to serve a legitimate interest. The Act’s stated purpose is to “combat the crime of human trafficking” and “to strengthen laws regarding sexual exploitation, including sex offender registration requirements, to allow law enforcement to track and prevent online sex offenses and human trafficking.””
The narrowest possible requirement I would think is for this crap to be applied to internet-related Static-99(+) convicted of sex trafficking, and only on those on parole. This would synch with the statement of the justices.
Proposition 35, § 3(1), (3).”, as well as “The Act declares that protecting people in California “from all forms of sexual exploitation is of paramount importance.” Id. § 2(1). It further recites that “[w]hile the rise of the Internet has delivered great benefits to California, the predatory use of this technology by human traffickers and sex offenders has allowed such exploiters a new means to entice and prey on vulnerable individuals” and that the Act will “deter predators from using the Internet to facilitate human trafficking and sexual exploitation.” Id. § 2(4), (6). Unquestionably, the State’s interest in preventing and responding to crime, particularly crimes as serious as sexual exploitation and human trafficking, is legitimate. We have observed that there is a “strong link between child pornography and the Internet, and the need to protect the public, particularly children, from sex offenders.” United States v. Rearden, 349 F.3d 608, 621 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also City of L.A. v. Alameda Books, Inc., 535 U.S. 425, 435 (2002) (plurality opinion) (“[W]e find that reducing crime is a substantial government interest . . . .”); Doe v. Prosecutor, 705 F.3d at 698 (“Indiana is certainly justified in shielding its children from improper sexual communication.”); Shurtleff, 628 F.3d at 1223 (“We have no doubt that the State of Utah has a compelling interest in investigating kidnapping and sex-related crimes.”); White, 696 F. Supp. 2d at 1308 (“[Georgia] has an interest in protecting against internet abuse of children.”). California has a substantial interest in protecting vulnerable individuals, particularly children, from sex offenders, and the use of the Internet to facilitate that exploitation is well known to this Court. See, e.g., United States v. Curtin, 588 F.3d 993 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Daniels, 541 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2008); United States v. Stoterau, 524 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 2008).””
They are interchanging ‘sex offenders’ with registered sex offenders. So the state has a legitimate interest in protecting persons from sex offenses. 95+% of sex offenses are committed by non-registered unconvicted “sex offenders”. Rso’s are being saddled with something bogus here.
Paul said “In other words, the state has a legitimate interest in protecting persons from registered citizens.”
The justices offered some guidance to lawmakers, by stating that their opinion was based on the following:
“Applying intermediate scrutiny, the panel concluded that the Act unnecessarily chills protected speech in at least three ways: (1) it does not make clear what sex offenders are required to report; (2) it provides insufficient safeguards preventing the public release of the information sex offenders do report; and (3) the 24-hour reporting requirement is onerous and overbroad.”
It is no coincidence that the convicted drunk driver, Sen. Hueso, worded his law to address these 3 areas of concern. SB 448 specifies exactly what information is required to be reported, provides safeguards for the public release of the information, and eliminates the 24 hour reporting requirement. It does not, in my unprofessional opinion, specify who it applies to. Instead, the convicted drunk driver, Sen. Hueso, only uses a vague and broad statement that, if the internet was essential to the crime, then this new reporting requirements apply.”
“I will say that I am growing extremely tired of lawmakers, and courts, using irrelevant information to justify their hate laws. Above, the justices state the use of the internet for the commission of sex crimes is well known to the court. They then go on to list a few examples:
United States v. Curtin, 588 F.3d 993: Mr. Curtin was not a registered citizen prior to this case.
United States v. Daniels, 541 F.3d 915: Mr. Daniels was not a registered citizen prior to this case.
United States v. Stoterau, 524 F.3d 988: Mr. Stoterau was not a registered citizen prior to this case.”
Thats disturbing that they use data from offenders who are not registrants for a bill that takes away the 1st Amendment rights of registrants.
Paul writes “How is it rational to justify the suppression of registered citizen’s free speech rights because non-registered citizens use the internet to commit crimes? ”
You’re exactly right.
“In this regard, I think the state completely fails to demonstrate the necessity in that they fail to provide examples of REGISTERED CITITZENS who are using the…”
I would ask for more than examples. I would also want to see the actual numbers. It’s easy for them to find rare examples and then use statements like ‘it happens more than you think’. Or Hueso’s statement ‘its happening right now’. Pure rhetoric with no substance. But maybe they can’t even find rare examples of registrants not on parole committing internet sex crimes, since their examples were of registrants on parole.
I would like Senator Hueso to provide the actual statistics of the number of registrants in California that have reoffended with an internet related crime. Then by way of comparison provide the stats of those arrested in California for Drunk Driving. From a source I have found about one third of all drivers arrested or convicted or drunk driving are repeat offenders! And furthermore 17% of fatalities of children younger than 14 occurred by drivers of vehicles that were alcohol-impaired!
If this law were to apply to me, then I would no longer submit comments on this website. If I submit a comment here under the proposed law, then I would have to reveal my User Name which allows me to autonomously post my opinions here.