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

Admin

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

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

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

 

  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  4. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Use person-first language.
  5. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  6. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  7. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  8. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  9. 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.
  10. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  11. Please do not post in all Caps.
  12. 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.
  13. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  14. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  15. 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.
  16. Please do not solicit funds
  17. No discussions about weapons
  18. 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.
  19. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  20. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  21. 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.
  22. 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.  
 

21 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

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.

0
Reply
View Replies (8)

This is getting ridiculous

0
Reply

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.

0
Reply
View Replies (1)

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.

0
Reply

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

0
Reply
View Replies (2)

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

0
Reply

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.”

0
Reply

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

0
Reply
View Replies (1)

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.

0
Reply