The State Senate approved, 59-2, legislation prohibiting Level 2 and Level 3 sex offenders from using the internet for social networking or for accessing pornographic sites involving sexual relation with minors for life. Full Article
Related posts
-
NY: D.A. Whines That He Can’t Use Abusive “Sexually Violent Offender” Term
Source: Jason Schmidt on observertoday.com 11/2/24 I write to clarify and correct the public record created... -
NY: Third County Sex Offender Registration Decision Overturned
Source: observertoday.com 8/20/24 A third designation of a sexually violent offender under the Sex Offender Registration... -
IN: Interesting Stay Dispute in Seventh Circuit Minors’-Access-to-Porn Case
Source: reason.com 8/20/24 From Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Rokita, decided Friday by Judges Frank Easterbrook...
Good thing there’s already SCOTUS case dealing exactly with this.
The really annoying thing about all these types of laws is that people who wouldn’t re-offend don’t need this law to keep them law abiding . And those that will continue praying on people couldn’t care less that some law will punish them on top of the punishment they’ll receive for actually hurting someone.
What a waste.
They don’t even want to wait until Packingham is decided by SCOTUS?
I know I’ve said it a million times, but something has to be done about the ability of legislature to create laws targeting only those that committed a previous crime that prevents normal legal conduct. That is supposed to be handled during the sentencing phase of your trial where both sides present testimony and the judge handles punishment, rehabilitation, and protecting the public based on an evaluation of the individual and circumstances.
Maybe Judges need to file a lawsuit against Legislature about Equal Protection since Judges are required by law to base punishment, rehab, and protecting the public on the individual circumstances and cannot base it simply on the offense, and also must not make it longer, harsher, or more restrictive than required to suit that goal. Legislature apparently has no such restraints.
I kept reading and rereading this thinking I didnt read something right like maybe for those who have lifetime supervision (although thats still wrong), but a total ban of social networking and sites involving sexual relations with minors for level 2 and 3 rso’s? Isnt the second one illegal anyway? That has to be like 90% of the rso population. How about the packingham case? Surely this senator cant be this stupid….wouldnt a favorable ruling for us on packingham shut this law down completely? I wonder if he did this knowing the ruling on packingham would be coming down in the next 2 weeks to make himself look ultra hard on rso’s without any real long term ramifications. The timing just seems really weird. This is a terrible law and if it somehow survives packingham it will surely create more victims than it saves.
This law is actually even worse then they say – It effects Level 2 and Level 3 PLUS any one who used the internet PLUS any one whose victim is under 18. So even if you are a Level 1 who never has used the internet, if your victim was 17 you’re covered by it…
Also they could probably argue a site like this is “Social Networking” and ban use of it.
Finally – Thankfully – The Assembly seems more level headed and has been slow to pass laws like this and hopefully nothing will change this time as they end there session next week and then 6 months off, and then 6 months to hope this bill dissapears.
I think this is one more tidbit showing the utter contempt legislators/legislatures have for RCs and for the judiciary. Anything they can dream up they will pile onto an RC in the name of public safety, and they really couldn’t care less what the judiciary has said or does. They’ll just keep passing laws and keep tweaking them which keeps RCs having to spend money on legal help. Bad laws can be passed faster than they can get reviewed by the judiciary….
I really hope Packingham comes out soon, and with the 8-0 decision all the SCOTUS-watchers have opined. If/When it does, hopefully it *might* (though I doubt it) start making some of these things be tailored to the offense and offender. If only that horrible ex post facto clause didn’t get in the way of these Dudley-Do-Right legislators who know how to fix everything for all of us.
–AJ
Though banning is certainly outside acceptability, one may not want to use social networks anyway:
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/new-facebook-patent-will-secretly-watch-users-cameras-monitor-emotions/
I have been anti-social-networks for a long, long time, even though my state doesn’t foolishly ban me from them. Anyone who thinks they are anything besides data-mining monsters needs to do some research.
–AJ
I think anyone required to register should be banned from paying taxes .
When I read garbage like this, my impression is they are not worried about stopping a future crime, it is to stop communication and the right to knowledge. If the real concern was crimes then they would have a program to help offenders reintegrate into society. That would be cheaper on the tax payers also.
When one digs into this kind of nonsense there usually is a small group behind it. It is to feed their personal issues at our expense. Where is the data that there is a problem here. Idiots!
I wonder how many people realize that this site (all4consolaws.org.org) is a social networking site. The new york law has banned level 2 and 3 sex offenders from gathering here. They are no longer allowed to read and stay informed and leave comments on this site. – how long will it be before any site that a person can leave comments and have an interchange of ideas will be considered social networking? A news site for example. If you have to register and have the ability to leave comments, isn’t that social networking as well? This is a violation of not the right to gather, but also the 1st amendment. Is it not or am I way off base?
A total Internet ban?? That is so ridiculous I can barely control myself to comment on it!
Aside from the obvious, you couldn’t own an iPhone or any other smart phone that might use the internet to store the photo you just took to the cloud.
No more email of any kind.
No more smart appliances nor thermostats (no turning on your home lights from your phone).
No wireless security cameras that are tied to a website.
No more OnStar help from your car.
No more Kindle nor any other e-book readers (how would you get the books?)
And of course you couldn’t work (assuming you were actually able to get a real job to begin with) at any company that had computers which connected to the internet.
No selling on eBay.
No self employment (how could you have even the smallest business without the internet?)
No online banking.
No paying bills online (back to writing checks for everything).
etc. etc. etc.
I was coping until IML was signed into law. Now I am outraged! When will this insanity cease?
… Hopefully this weekend’s conference will help calm me down …
“…or for accessing pornographic sites involving sexual relation with minors for life.”
Incredible how unintentionally hilarious these nincompoops really are! As if “… accessing pornographic sites involving sexual relation with minors” exists legally, or can be accessed legally, by anyone at all.
“Our law enforcement agencies need more effective tools to help protect the most vulnerable people in our community from being preyed upon by sex offenders.”
How about a tool that forces parents to parent their kids? What would government and law enforcement do if a parent was allowing their child to hang around strip clubs and adult book stores?
With that being said…
“This bill will ensure that sex offenders required to register for life can no longer use the internet to threaten the health and safety of our children.”
When is the media going to start to pointing out to these turds that 90% of kids are abused by someone who is within a child’s circle? Or that nearly 68% of abusers are immediate family members? Stranger danger bills like these don’t protect kids. They only prove to further alienate an already unprotected class.
….
Isn’t this the same guy who pushed so hard for IML?
He seems like a real piece of work, I mean look at he’s face! Like he is gleeful or something by doing things that will hurt other people.
I live in DC and there’s been a lot of talk about how the baseball practice shooting was politically motivated, by some whacked-out liberal DEMOCRAT. I think a lot of the commentary does hold water- ya piss off a group of people, and keep up the oppression by denying people their dignity, sooner or later something WILL break.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1194_08l1.pdf
Everyone Email Mr. Murphy this link
For those of you who do not live in New York State let me share my views since I live and pay taxes here.
New York State is an area of 54,5560 miles. It has about 19 million inhabitants.
New York City is an area of 302 miles. It has a population of 8 .5 million.
Deduct New York City from the State and you have 11 million people in area of 55,5258 miles spread across
voting Republican, loving Trump, making a living from the huge NYS jail system and rednecks just the same as the trash in other states that run on the sex-offender ticket. New York City politicians don’t have to appease the hicks and trash. The City is more liberal and civilized. That’s up to Murphy and his pals desperate for votes.