NY: Murphy Lauds Bill That Bans Lifetime Sex Offenders From Internet

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

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.  
 

40 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

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.

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.