ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: Oct 19 – Los Angeles, Nov 16 – Sacramento, Dec 14 – Phone | details

Emotional Support Group Meetings (Los Angeles, Sacramento, Phone)

California

Sex offenders would have to disclose email addresses and usernames under bill sent to governor

Sex offenders would be required to report their email addresses, usernames and other Internet identifiers to law enforcement under a bill California state senators sent to the governor Wednesday. Full Article

SB 448

Join the discussion

  1. JB

    Janice, will this be challenged? I for one, have legitimate legal businesses on the internet and I don’t want law enforcement mucking about in my stuff. When will this nonsense ever stop? I have completely rebuilt my life with hard work and don’t deserve to have to share my info with anyone seeking to harm me. There is no way I could ever remember all the e-mail addresses and host names I have used. what if I miss one? It smacks of a complete setup to take people down.

    • TG

      Unless your case is pending you should be OK: SB 448 would apply to offenders convicted on or after Jan. 1, 2017 who used the Internet to carry out sex crimes.

    • GRR

      SB 448 would apply to offenders convicted on or after Jan. 1, 2017 who used the Internet to carry out sex crimes.

      hope this helps

    • Steve

      JB I believe this only affects those convicted on or after 1-1-2017

    • b

      ok it wont effect me good old me me me me me , it creates another uncositutional in your face law , which will effect the next person in line for new rules of in your face , should i care for the next guy or should i turn a blind eye, or should i feel relief it aint me me me

      • NPS

        I feel relief that it isn’t me me me. In fact it isn’t any one of the 100,000 of us who is currently on the registry.

        • Tobin's Tool 2.0

          NPS:

          Your kind of “slippery slope” thinking is fairly dangerous.

          The SB 448 bill currently casts a small net. But nothing in the future prohibits the identifier bill from casting a net, so to speak, that may eventually include more people (including you or I). An Internet identifier bill, of course, can be constructed as to walk the fine line between what is constitutional and not (as determined by courts generally all too leery in defending the rights of Registered Citizens). The fact is that we should all be concerned with this bill — and what it may eventually evolve to become.

          Remember, California was the first state to introduce the California Sex Offender Registration Act In 1947. When the California Legislature first introduced Section 290, it required registration for only eight contact offenses. Since 1947, it has evolved to include over 40 offenses requiring lifetime mandatory registration, as well as 290.006 — which can, on a judge’s discretion, require lifetime registration for virtually any other type of offense not enumerated in the list of over 40 specified sex offenses.

          Again, be mindful of what his Internet identifier bill may become. In the vast majority of other states that have a similar internet identifier bill, it is still very much in effect and applied to most other offenders. Nothing in the future will prohibit California from making this bill apply to more people.

          IMHO, this is why organizations like ACSOL should also fight to keep this bill from being applied to anyone in the future.

        • NPS

          You don’t need to explain to me what a 290.006 is. That code is why I’m required to register.

          I respectfully disagree with your assertion that the internet identifier bill will cast another net on those already on the registry. That part has already been struck down by the courts. If the legislature were to try to cast the net onto people adjudicated before 2017, you can bet that Janice and company will be in front of the judge to strike it down yet again.

  2. Fedup

    This is getting ridiculous

  3. Renny

    The applicability to those convicted on or after Jan. 1, 2017 will be used as a “dangerous loophole” that will need to be closed. If this law passes, then our enemies in Sacramento will determine that it is not punishment and therefore if it protects people from recently convicted Former Citizen Detainees, then it is a loophole we are exploiting to rape, molest and murder and they will pass an amendment to the law to close that loophole.

    Remember, the lawmakers of California are our enemies. The formula for an enemy:

    Is this person my friend? If no, proceed.
    Is this person in a position of influence, power or have an established route to be heard? If yes, proceed.
    Does this person support or have played a part in any law, regulation or ordnance that changes the legality of my post-punishment behavior. If yes, then this person is my enemy.

    Sacramento lawmakers, their staff, their families and friends are my enemies.

    • Will A

      A-freaking-men. All people who support the Registries are un-American and they are my enemies.

  4. Janice Bellucci

    The comments above are correct. If signed by the Governor, this law can only be applied to individuals convicted on or after January 1, 2017.

  5. Doc Martin

    I already have a list of “creative” usernames my Californian friends can submit to authorities such as:

    Scam-99R
    FU290
    290biggestScam
    Megan’sLawSUCK
    FUJohnWalsh
    ArrestWalshforStatutoryRape
    ProsecutorsSUCK
    ComeAndGetMeStinkinPigs

    • Renny

      They should also create email addresses with the names of each Assembly and Senate member, their spouses and children.

      To make it even more interesting, do it on a .xxx TLD (if you can get one).

    • anonymously

      It seems like this could severely hurt the movement as far as numbers of people in the future who will have their free speech chilled and not want comments on this site or elsewhere to be attributed to them and let their political activism be known to authorities.

  6. CA

    this law is still unconstitutional, because even if they are internet related, it still would chill
    their freedom of speech right?

  7. Tobin's Tools 2.0

    I notice the above cited LA Times article does not mention CARSOL, but only ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Why?

    Here is an article from *THE* Harvard Law Review that rightfully gives credit to CARSOL:

    http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/05/doe-v-harris/

    “On the day that the Act was intended to take effect, two individual plaintiffs and the nonprofit group California Reform Sex Offender Laws, representing a ‘class of registered sex offenders who regularly use the Internet to advocate anonymously on behalf of sex offenders,’ filed suit, alleging that the Act’s Internet-use measures violated the offenders’ First Amendment rights to free speech and free association and were void for vagueness pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment.”

  8. CA

    I firmly believe SB 448 can be blocked, because it chills freedom of speech!!!!!
    THAT VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION = 1ST amendment

    • Timmr

      That it does. I am concerned the EFF and ACLU don’t believe the first amendment applies to all.

  9. anonymously

    SB 448 also puts any warrants for anything even as benign as an unpaid jaywalking ticket for any registrant on a website. SB 448 is not only about internet identifiers for those convicted after Jan 1, 2017 for internet related crimes. It also applies to all registrants as far as warrants which any police agency such as FB Police can issue a warrant unbeknownst to the registrant. Go to a website to read an article on politics, go to the bathroom for a minute and the site links to some FaceBook afffiated site and bam, that’s trespassing in the eyes of FB Police. Warrant time.

Leave a Reply

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.  
 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please answer this question to prove that you are not a robot *

.