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
Cool CA RC wrote “Law enforcement agency.. Does this mean “Facebook Security Office” If so then they can request RSO email address. Correct?”
Around 2 years ago, FaceBook quietly applied for and got their own police force.
If this law ends up passing, I am leaving the state.
I’m getting pretty fed up with the ever-tightening noose as it is. At this rate, I see a tipping point in my future when I’d rather just take my chances.
I’m trying to stay strong in the meantime, and am holding out hope, however waning. Thank you, Janice, for going to bat for us when no one else will.
Hey Mr. Hueso. I commend you for actually veiwing and commenting on this site. Now show that you have the courage to not only comment but to engage in a meaningful discussion on this subject with the people that these laws actually effect, registrants, not just your inner circle or even the general public since these kind of policies don’t achieve any legislative objectives. Just like the failed gun laws this law does nothing to protect the public since anyone that is going to commit a crime is not going to registar the gun they are going to use in a crime and no one is going to report a indentifier that they are going to use to commit a crime. Only law abiding citizens register the guns and only law abiding citizens are going to report their indentifiers so niether law does anything except infringe upon law abiding citizens constitutional rights while preventing nothing or achieving nothing in terms of increasing public safety. It’s not the law abiding citizens that you or law enforcement should be monitoring or spending valuable resources on. What don’t you law makers understand? Please respond and let’s have some debate about this law with these people that it is going to effect.
Below is letter sent today to Sen. Kevin De Leon, Senate President, on behalf of California RSOL:
The purpose of this letter is to request that you stop Senate Bill 448 from further consideration by the California Senate. If passed, the bill would violate the First Amendment rights of more than 100,000 citizens of California by denying them the right to exercise freedom of speech anonymously. That right has been recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court when it determined:
“Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation – and their ideas from suppression – at the hand of an intolerant society.” McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334, 357 (1995).
There may be a way in which to require registered sex offenders to disclose their internet identifiers without violating the First Amendment, however, additional time will be required in order to do so. It is not possible for Senate Bill 448, which is the result of a “gut and amend” process, to meet that high hurdle during calendar year 2015 because the bill, which is sponsored by Chris Kelly of Facebook, is being pushed through the legislative process without careful consideration.
For example, the bill was hastily considered by the Senate Public Safety Committee during its last bill hearing on July 14. During that hearing, the Committee passed SB 448 based upon a blind promise by its author that it would be amended. The Senate Appropriations Committee is scheduled to consider SB 448, which was amended only two days ago, during its last bill hearing next week on August 24, 2015. Due to shortness of time and the large number of bills to be considered, the Committee is unlikely to have adequate time to consider the complexities of this important issue.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter. If you or your staff should have any questions regarding our position, please contact me at the number above or by E-mail at jmbellucci@aol.com.
Bruce Ferrell,
http://valleywag.gawker.com/facebook-just-bought-itself-a-police-officer-1537136075
Why does Facebook ban sex offenders from its use? Twitter, LinkedIn, Yelp, MySpace, and [I think] Instagram do not ban sex offenders. Why is Facebook’s Chris Kelly so concerned with suppressing sex offenders’ First Amendment rights? With Kelly’s education (i.e. Harvard Law School, etc.), I would have expected more respect to Constitutional Law; but this is not the case. What is Chris Kelly hiding in his closet? And is Chris Kelly projecting his sexual troubles on sex offenders? Chris Kelly is an enemy — as are DUI addict Ben Hueso and scam artist politicians George and Sharon Runner. First-degree hypocrites.
I am an OLD registered citizen. My offense was 20 years ago before I even knew what a computer did. I do not know what an internet identifier is! I have a computer, but am barely computer literate. I have never attempted to commit a crime using a computer! I have been off parole since 2001.
If you compare pictures of Facebook’s Chris Kelly and Jared Fogle (the Subway guy), they look VERY similar (they could be brothers). Would not be surpised IF Chris Kelly engages in the same activities as Jared … these laws just help Kelly feel more undiscoverable. BTW, just because Kelly went to good schools does not make him smart. Take George W. Bush, who nearly destroyed the country (and went to Ivy Leagues).
The Sex Offender Registry: A national list of others who might have the same interest, complete with addresses, oops! Did this occur to any of the authors of the law?
I love how I go to Toni Atkins web site and get the following
“Address is not in District.
Please contact your District Representative.”
Yet how can someone be on a committee representing the whole state on an issue and I can’t send them an email about it?
It’s the weekend. I don’t want a voice mail. It’s two days away from the 24th and USPS would probably use a horse to send my letters.
Yeah if they want this bill I suggest making the emails public so we can all communicate with each other for free. Scre w it if it has to happen it might as well benifit us and my god could we realy fight if we could all talk to each other for free.
Archive of today’s Appropriations Committee meeting is posted under Archives.
http://www.calchannel.com/recent-archive/
Interesting alternations being proposed by Senator Hueso. He seems to have listened a bit. Some nice support from the ACLU also.
It passed by a vote of 7-0.
It passed, but I am shocked that in order to get it to pass completely and be sent to the Governor, he didn’t amended it to include a PPI surcharge for offenders to raise revenue and prevent the upcoming over-compliance from the few offenders who can and will create thousands upon thousands of internet identifiers.
In other words, to help offset the costs of enforcing the law and close the “abuse by compliance loophole” offenders would have to pay $1 per internet identifier that they register, delete or change. They could also ensure that internet identifiers can be added and removed online and that in order for the change to be legal a PayPay or bank payment needs to be used to complete the add, delete or change. Also, a new electronic payment system company founded by Chris Kelly could be used, where the state would get 1% of the fees and CK Payments would get the other 99%
If an offender does not have a bank account, then a kiosk could be setup at each registering police station which can receive cash in lieu of online payment. Kiosks would be supplied by CK Payments.
Inability to pay for an internet identifier change would not be a legitimate reason to not follow the law, including an arrest for an unrelated crime. Death would result in an immediate lien on the offender’s estate to pay the costs to remove the dead offender’s internet identifiers.
50% of the net revenue would be used to manage the receiving of the revenue and the other 50% would go to a charity of Chris Kelly’s choosing.
If this passes will Janice immediately file an all inclusive lawsuit contesting the unconstitutionality of it? Further, should we all prepare to file our own suits to tie it up in court. If we all filed suits wouldn’t that prevent the implementation of it until all suits had been resolved. I work on the internet and manage several sites that are totally unrelated. I don’t want anyone messing about in these sites or with my personal and business e-mails. And what’s to prevent future prosecution for failure to disclose an old e-mail address or web address from ten years ago that I no longer use and don’t even remember? It gives them carte blanche to prosecute you at their discretion. I can’t afford a lawyer to file a suit, but will have to think of something to avoid this blatent persecution.
It looks like the scope of who this would apply to has been changed from all registrants whose crimes involved the internet to be essential to the crime to felony registrants whose crime used the internet, but also 2 categories of crimes where the internet was not used…and that is, felony sex trafficking using electronic devices, and felony child pornography creating, distributing or viewing. Adding 2 categories that didn’t involve the internet is a bad precedent. It lets Kelly/Hueso possibly add in more categories of registrants that did not use the internet in the commission of their crime, in a process where it has been already settled that internet usage in the crime is one of the narrowing factors and is part of the nexus to future crimes on the internet. Hueso did not mention using the Static-99(+) to furthur narrow the scope, or tiering either, which he indicated he would address. Hueso mentioned the bill would be altered so the Atty Gen can give the internet identifiers to the public under different circumstances (Not ‘under no circumstances’ can the public get them). Hueso mentioned the bill’s retroactivity would be determined by law enforcement ( thats basically saying the bill is retroactive ). Hueso mentioned the bills definition of an internet identifier would be narrowed like in Utah, to not include internet forum names( like the ACLU rep said this should not be rushed to make sure some internet forum names aren’t included ). On Thursday, I hope this does not ‘pass’ when it gets voted on again, in its possible progression to the next level in the legislative process.
How many of you did more than just complain on this web page? You should all be standing outside with signs asking to be protected from the drunk Driver that wrote the law. Crying on this web page isn’t going to get you any where.
OK, I have figured it out already, Prop 35 was blocked because “it chilled freedom of speech” Even if they apply it to those RSOs who’s crimes were internet related, it still violates the 1st amendment. FREEDOM OF SPEECH!!!!! just because a group of people are unpopular, does not mean there civil rights, can be violated.
Even if your conviction was internet related, IT WOULD STILL “CHILL FREEDOM OF SPEECH” therefore 1st amendment violation. PURE AND SIMPLE!!!!!!!!! It is unconstitutional.Period.
Even if its narrowerdly tailored it seems that it would still have to achieve some legislative objective since it will be infringing on a fundamental right. The bill is arbitrary just as the whole registry is
LOL, my previous post wasn’t allowed! I guess I refrain from posting and just keep fighting my own battle one round at a time.
***this message was in the spam folder. Not sure why, and what happened to your previous post. Please try again*** Moderator
Looks like it passed.
The Senate Appropriations Committee unanimously approved SB 448.
Now I know Hueso has got mouths to feed and his DUI pretty much takes him out of politics when his term is over. Get that money , Ben. God bless everyone. You’re doing it for the people of the state of California. BS. Ben is up to his eyeballs in it. Aug 14 and Aug 24, Hueso starts out by mentioning that Prop 35 was passed by 81% of the voters. The people want this? The people need this? The only thing is that the people who voted 81% to pass this had no clue it had anything to do with limiting the speech of citizens and that any other group could and will be next if this passes. In most major ads for prop 35, they only mentioned increased punishment for sex traffickers. Most ads did not mention the unconstitutional part about rso’s being kicked/banned/shamed off the internet. For Hueso to keep on claiming that the people of California really wanted the not much talked about hiding-in-plain-sight registrant-internet clause part of Prop 35, when it was deceptively left out of the ads is akin to claiming that Congress passed the Farm Bill because the constituents of the Congressmen were clamoring for registrants to be denied foodstamps. The only time that the internet identifier clause was explained, it was explained in a fast bait and switch. It went like…make sex traffickers register as sex offenders, make sex offenders register their internet identifiers. The key to Kelly’s deception on this is to not pause and think about each statement. If Kelly was concerned with sex traffickers as his main focus , which was how the bill was presented, there would be no clause to limit all registrants. The focus would have been on only sex traffickers. Hueso is doing a hackjob at the beginning of his testimony.
Loni Hancock and Mark Leno agreed to vote and pass SB448, pre-amendment language by Hueso, right?
Appropriations has passed the bill, and it’s now scheduled for a second reading Monday August 31st.