A Wisconsin law prohibiting registered sex offenders from photographing children in public violates their right to free speech, the state Court of Appeals held Tuesday.
The decision by the Wausau-based District 3 court reversed the conviction of a 44-year-old Green Bay man who had been sentenced to 12 years in prison for the non-pornographic photos. It also found the law unconstitutional on its face, not salvageable by a narrowed interpretation or severing part of the statute.
Because of a 2002 child sexual assault conviction, ____ ____ was on probation in February 2011, when his agent searched his apartment and found a camera and cellphone. On them, authorities found photos ____ had taken the previous fall of children outside his residence doing things like riding skateboards, jumping rope and dropping stones in a soda bottle. None involved nudity or obscenity. Full Article
This is HUGE coming from the judges in the case, and should be widened to include other areas of the law that violate constitutional guarantees of people forced to register.
“laws can’t ban protected speech just because it might lead to crime”
The states “argument shouldn’t even be called an argument, because it was plain old rationalization. Some people may cal their rationalization an “interpretation” of law, but it was just rationalization.
Congratulations Mr Christopher J. Oatman; you have just struck a major blow for freedom, the constitution and bill of rights and delivered a blow to tyranny, oppression and ignorance.
Love how the title gives the completely “accurate” impression that all sex offenses and thus offenders involved children. I think the piece should clarify that every citizen has a 1st amendment right to photograph or record videos of things done by anyone in public. Also its laughable that the article had the no include non-pornographic images bit instead of just listing what the images showed which happens later on.
All around great news for free speech and common sense.
The twisted minds of the public may just read the title and assume nude photos of any kind are included. Yet when enforcing the child picture restriction any child in any situation ie. a child that was in the background of a family picture taken in a park is material enough to arrest a registrant. Well this one is a win for reason and sanity.
mixed feelings here…I’m in complete agreement that he has that right and should not have been arrested. It is not a crime and he should not be arrested for it.
At the same time, can anyone not see that it is pretty creepy for him to be taking photos of children?
If a non registered citizen (currently not on parole) can take pictures of children and not get 12 years in prison, then a registered citizen (currently not on parole) can take the same type of pictures and not get 12 years in prison. Isn’t that equality before the law?
Everyone, it is safe to say, has feelings of creepiness towards one type of person or another at some time or another. I know I do. Can’t help it if you are human. The problem arises when the imagination is used to determine another person’s guilt or innocence simply based on what is called intuition; then the word for it is prejudice.
As a registered citizens have you not felt it? People are viewing your even move and every intention through the lens of the “sex offender” myth, and not only that, using their preconceived ideas to create laws that limit our freedom. Why would you adopt the prejudices of our oppressors?