MI: Sixth Circuit Considers Internet Restrictions on Former Sex Offenders This Week

Admin

The Center for Democracy & Technology has filed an amicus brief in the Sixth Circuit case Doe v. Snyder, a case challenging unconstitutional registration requirements imposed on former sex offenders and brought by the ACLU of Michigan. CDT is joined on the brief by the First Amendment Lawyers Association and Professor David G. Post, an expert in Internet law. The court is holding oral arguments Wednesday, January 27. Full Article

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

 

  1. Submissions must be in English
  2. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  3. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  4. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  5. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Always use person-first language.
  6. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  7. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  8. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  9. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  10. 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 that are not personally identifiable.
  11. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  12. Please do not post in all Caps.
  13. 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. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  14. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  15. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  16. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  17. Please do not solicit funds
  18. No discussions about weapons
  19. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  20. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  21. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  22. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  23. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
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.  
 

9 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Excellent article.

0
Reply

In the Middle Ages, one of the popes issued full forgiveness in advance for sins people had not committed yet.
But in Missouri they go beyond that concept, and punish people for crimes they have, in most cases, never even considered committing.
I prefer the old school approach: you only get punished for crimes you have actually committed—–not for crimes you never committed, but which other people think you MIGHT someday in the indefinite future, commit.

0
Reply
View Replies (5)

I just finished listening to oral arguments from the Sixth Circuit on a Snyder v. Doe case, and am a little confused. The arguments dealt with exclusion zones and distances, due to vagueness and ex post facto prohibitions. It also touched on the idea that the registry was problematic, though that was a side issue. Good listening and I recommend it. It was interesting to hear the attorney for Doe indicate the previous Supreme Court rulings on registration were more narrowly based than how the opinion is being applied nation wide. She indicated the Supreme Court was asking for cases.

However there was no discussion about internet restrictions or electronic identification or emails. Perhaps there is a separate case that is dealing with those issues.

Still, the oral arguments are worth listening to. The justices seemed sympathetic to the Registrants and my bet is they will affirm the District Court ruling.

0
Reply