Internet Exclusion Bill (AB 558) Hearing Scheduled on April 18

The internet exclusion bill, AB 558, is scheduled to be considered by the Assembly Public Safety Committee on April 18. The committee hearing will begin at 8:30 a.m. in Room 126 and include consideration of more than 30 pending bills.

“This bill must be stopped,” stated ACSOL executive director Janice Bellucci. “If the bill becomes law, families will be harmed and victims will be re-victimized.”

AB 558 was previously scheduled for a hearing on March 28, however, the bill was pulled from consideration by its author. The Assembly Public Safety Committee has issued an analysis of AB 558 which notes that only low to low-moderate risk offenders are currently granted exclusions from their personal information being posted on the Megan’s Law website. In addition, the committee analysis cites a CA Sex Offender Management Board report which states that the current sex offender registration systems and Megan’s Law website have become too unwieldy to be effective for law enforcement.

Organizations in opposition to AB 558 include ACLU, CA Attorneys for Criminal Justice, CA Public Defenders Association and ACSOL. In addition, AB 558 is opposed by the Office of the Los Angeles District Attorney. The only organization in support of AB 558 is the CA Protective Parents Association.

Registrants, family members and supporters are encouraged to speak in opposition to AB 558 on April 18 as well as to send letters and make phone calls to members of the Assembly Public Safety Committee prior to the hearing date.

Call and write the Assembly Public Safety Committee in opposition to this bill

Assembly Public Safety Contact Info – Sample Letter in Opposition to AB 558

Related posts

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.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Big surprise right – NOT!

As long as there is money to be made nothing is going to change! Over time for the pigs…creation of a sub-class of citizens to use a pawns by politicians…while California should blaze a trail of reason it is no better than any RED state.

The only way off this list is to move out of the USA (or die) and they have effectively locked us into a virtual prison so that is not even an option.

This state and country BOTH sicken me!

While I was not able to go to the hearing, I did spend a considerable amount of time writing letters and emails, and calling the members of the Public Safety Committee, my own Assemblyman as well as Asm. Quirk-Silva.

I assumed that others who are RSOs and otherwise part of this organization were doing the same.

That’s why it surprised and disappointed me in the latest analysis, dated 4/17, which states that only 10 individuals were listed as being against AB 558.

Here it is:

Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offense Laws
American Civil Liberties Union
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
California Public Defenders Association
Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office
10 individuals

Seriously? Only 10 people wrote or called in their opposition? I can’t imagine that only 10 people are part of this organization, so does that mean that a lot of you didn’t bother to do anything?

Maybe I’m missing something here, but it seems to me that, if you are affected by this bill and others, you need to stand up and do something.

If I am way off base here, I’d like to hear it.

This bill is wrong in so many ways. How do “they” plan on telling the public that those now on the Internet have not been on the public website for x amount of years and cause a horrendous threat? All of a sudden, these people who have lived a peaceful life, made friends with neighbors, etc are considered monsters? Why were they not monsters all these years? These politicians will have to answer to the public as to why they did not “protect” their children until now. We all know the answer. There is no threat, nor will there be a threat. What a way to lose the public’s trust.

I am sure, this has been posted her before, but I came across it on the SOSEN website, and it makes sense. Why is this not the same for us here in California:
I copied and pasted the response here:

Quote: “In MA when the legislature passed a new law that would add all tier 2 registrants to the public register, the State Supreme Court ruled that publishing names of those who had taken pleas with the knowledge that they would not be on the public registry, WAS ADDITIONAL PUNISHMENT, expost facto. The new law could only publish those tier 2 whose convictions were after the passage of the new law.

Newspaper articles here still claim that the Internet registry list here has those classified as tier 2 and tier 3, but actually the Internet list only has those classified as tier 3 and those tier 2 registrants whose convictions were after the new law was passed which I believe was around 2013.

Anyone speaking at the hearing should have the facts of that ruling to present as a precident to show that adding registrants who were previously convicted but not listed would be ADDITIONAL PUNISHMENT BY THE LEGISLATURE EXPOST FACTO. ~ End Quote.