ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (6/12 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

Click here to sign up now for ACSOL’s Online EPIC Conference: Empowered People Inspiring Change Sept 17-18
Download a PDF of the schedule


SCOTUS: High court won’t hear sex offender case

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined a request to review a McLean County case involving the issue of whether registered sex offenders should have access to social media. Full Article


IL: A setback for First Amendment protection for anonymous speech

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 do not solicit funds
  • If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  • All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  • 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.  
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Not surprising considering that they are too busy hearing a case about a baker refusing to make a cake for a gay couple even though federal law made it LEGAL for gays to marry in the United States of America.

But make it about religion and that get their attention but blatantly ignoring an issue of constitutional rights of nearly 1 million people they can’t be bothered with. Separation of church and state…not in the “In god we trust” country of America!

I say fire them all. Get rid of them as they are just a joke. What gives them the right to judge anyone? Pathetic

“…baker refusing to make a cake for a gay couple even though federal law made it LEGAL for gays to marry in the United States of America.” I respectfully disagree with this statement. Forcing gay values on religious person is just as bad a religious values being forced on a guy person. SCOTUS need to hear this case. As for SCOTUS not hearing this SO case is actually mute with the shadows of earlier ruling, were as they have ruled otherwise. This RC lawyer has a big gun to take back to court.

The court just allowed Churches to get state money today… Even with John Adams having said “having a person pay 3 pence for anothers religion is 3 pence to much” ::sigh::

MO had already amended the law to allow what SCOTUS decided anyway.

The Establishment Clause is supposed to be religion-neutral, not pro- or anti-religion. The Government is prohibited from favoring or prohibiting any religious belief (including atheism) over another. What MO was offering was available to atheistic entities, but not theistic ones. That is what was unconstitutional: showing preference.

The purpose MO’s program was not for promotion or restriction of any religious ideal, it was for improving a playground that happened to be on church-owned property. I’m guessing if the playground’s use were somehow restricted (must enter through the church, or a gate the church controls), the church would have lost. It’s little different than public buildings being available for use by religious entities…but they must allow ALL entities, including Satanists, atheists, etc. Use of the building does not promote or restrict any one theistic holding (religion) over another.


@AJ I hear you, but now what if that church needs a new roof bc it might fall on the that “park” – Does the church qualify for money for that? Slippery slope… my 2cents

Why would a church need a new roof because it might fall on a playground? The presence or absence of the playground does not dictate whether or not the roof might fall. The rules of physics and gravity apply equally, and the church would appear to have a safety risk that needs to be remedied, independent of upon what that roof may fall. I have no idea what slippery slope you perceive.

In the off chance said roof did actually fall upon the playground (or non-playground), there’s this cool new thing available now called “insurance.” Apparently this insurance thing pays for losses suffered when roofs fall, cars collide, houses burn, etc. It sounds like a really neat concept, I’m glad someone finally thought of it. And I’m told this insurance would even pay to replace surfacing damaged by the roof falling on it…even if that surfacing were originally installed via public funding.

That’s hilarious! SCOTUS should take up a case based upon the text in a work of fiction. What next? A case about the nursery rhymes of a fictional goose name Mother and the turd who thought he had a right to discriminate against people who didn’t like nursery rhymes?


@Tired Of Hiding
Whose right trumps whose? The baker’s? The same-sex couple’s? I’m not offering an opinion one way or the other, I’m simply reiterating my core belief that my (generic “me”) rights extend as far as possible, until they infringe on (generic) yours. How’s that decided? That’s for SCOTUS to figure out. It’s a constantly changing, shifting, very fuzzy line.


You can do whatever you want as long as you don’t discriminate against a protective class…

Otherwise everyone could refuse service to RCs because they dont agree with your choice… oh wait they do.. hmmmm

“…you don’t discriminate against a protective class…” A person’s religious belief is a protected class.

Bingo. My protected status extends until it infringes upon yours. Simple in thought, difficult in application.


Please show me any law or court decision where RCs are deemed a protected class. It would certainly help with a number of lawsuits.


I said it wasn’t…

A baker bakes. The baker does not have to like the flavor of cake he bakes. Who he bakes for shouldn’t be relevant.

This is an issue where, because someone does not like something that he believes in based upon a collection of stories in a work of fiction, he can therefore discriminate against people. If the baker does not like blond hair, would it be okay to refuse to bake cakes for blonds? Where does it stop?


I agree. I work at a house with a statue of the virgin mary and clean the dust off it once in awhile. Let’s say I am now longer a Catholic and such images hurt my sensibilities. Please government don’t make me mow this person’s lawn or clean her statuary. Whine. Whine. Whine.
If a businessman can’t show love and respect for all his customers, and baking a cake will undermine his faith, I want to avoid that religion like ebola.

Your premise doesn’t hold water. The cake maker is espousing his fundamental right to exercise his religious beliefs. “Sensibilities” are not a fundamental right. Were you to refuse your cleaning services to Catholics, you would be in violation of the law. You would be discriminating based on a protected class (religion).

“If a businessman can’t show love and respect for all his customers, and baking a cake will undermine his faith, I want to avoid that religion like ebola.”
Get your facts straight. He will bake and sell cakes all day long to ANYone, for ANY reason. What he refuses to do is decorate those cakes for various reasons (ex.: Halloween and racism) that violate his religious beliefs. Second, you are most welcome to avoid, or join, any religion you wish. That’s the beauty of country.

There was a time when this country held to the quote about* Voltaire (paraphrased here): “I disapprove of [your religious beliefs], but I will defend to the death your right to [hold and exercise them].” Now, it seems that our culture has fallen to the point that we think everyone who disagrees with us is wrong.

*The original quote is incorrectly attributed to Voltaire (

Interesting take.

I know of some religious people who will not participate in Halloween at all b/c they don’t believe in it. They’re not harming anyone. So the kids will have to go to another house to get candy.

Now, as to refusal to a customer… we’re talking commercial business. So Facebook cannot turn away a registrant? There’s no religious aspect to that aside from sinning, but everyone sins in one shape or form. Otherwise, this would constitute as discrimination?

@New Person
“So Facebook cannot turn away a registrant?”
Yes, they can turn a registrant away, because “registrant” is not a protected class, just like “blond” isn’t. If FB allowed Buddhist registrants, or Native American registrants, or pregnant registrants (, but not others, it would be a different story.

For the Masterpiece Cake case, it’s important to note what SCOTUS just said in a *7-2* (Sotomayor, Ginsburg) decision in the Trinity Lutheran Church (i.e. “playground”) case:

“The Missouri Department of Natural Resources’ express policy of denying grants to any applicant owned or controlled by a church, sect or other religious entity violated the rights of Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc., under the free exercise clause of the First Amendment by denying the church an otherwise available public benefit on account of its religious status.”

As Gorsuch pointed out in his concurring opinion, “[the Free Exercise] Clause guarantees the free exercise of religion, not just the right to inward belief (or status).”

Exercise, not merely hold.

Yes, they can turn a registrant away, because “registrant” is not a protected class, just like “blond” isn’t. If FB allowed Buddhist registrants, or Native American registrants, or pregnant registrants (, but not others, it would be a different story.

Under what premise can FB turn away a citizen? a registered citizen is still a citizen. That is discrimination upon the same class – a free citizen. a [insert any race] citizen is barred from FB.

Or how about former convicts? Any former convict is allowed on FB save registrants?

The denomination you’re utilizing isn’t correct. FB refusing service to a free citizen is like saying “no blacks, asians, latinos, etc… allowed”. Since SCOTUS says we have a right to free speech on FB, then FB excluding this class is a way of discrimination against a free citizen. Are registrant free citizens or not? If not, then something went awry. It can’t be both.

@New Person
Despite what many think, businesses can deny service to citizens. The limit is that such denial cannot be based on any protected class element. An easy example: restaurants with dress codes. They can, do, and will refuse service to anyone who doesn’t meet their dress code requirements. Where they would get in trouble is if they allow Hispanics to avoid wearing a tie, but give no exception to Asians, people over 40, etc.

“The denomination you’re utilizing isn’t correct. FB refusing service to a free citizen is like saying ‘no blacks, asians, latinos, etc… allowed’”.
No, I’m right on the mark–
“free citizen”: NOT protected class.
“blacks, asians, latinos”: protected class (race; national orgin)
“former convicts”: NOT protected class

“Since SCOTUS says we have a right to free speech on FB.”
Nowhere did SCOTUS say we have a right to access FB. What SCOTUS said is the State may not enact a blanket ban from social media upon citizens. *The State.* Nowhere did SCOTUS compel FB to provide services to anyone. What FB does is a wholly different matter, and as long as FB isn’t denying service based on protected class elements, they are fine.

“Are registrant free citizens or not? If not, then something went awry. It can’t be both.”
Again, this is irrelevant, as neither “registrant” nor “free citizen” is a protected class. PROTECTED CLASS is the trigger. Period.

I guess we need to form a registrant based religion. Then they have to protect us. How does one determine what a religion is? Beliefs? We believe that one day we will be free to end our sentences when they were suposed to end. Of course we have the feminine incarnation of Janus as our prophet: “In ancient Roman religion and myth, Janus (/ˈdʒeɪnəs/; Latin: Iānus, pronounced [ˈjaː.nus]) is the god of beginnings, gates, transitions, time, duality, doorways, passages, and endings.” (Wikipedia)
It is time to move through to the other side.

“I guess we need to form a registrant based religion.”
I’ve been waiting for this comment from someone for a few days! What took you so long Timmr? 🙂 (And Michael, you disappointed me for not jumping on it…)

Just follow the John Oliver plan (
and and it’s possible. It doesn’t mean you will automatically be part of “the club” of established religions, though. But if an organization that believes in people from outer space and creates billion-year contracts can be a religion, what’s stopping anyone?

The California native peoples could weave a basket with such intricacy that it could hold water, acorn flour with hot rocks thrown in and still not leak. Lord knows I would not be able to weave such an intricate basket or weave such a compelling argument against the baker in a court of law. I know far less of the religious implications behind putting images on cakes.
Still I think you blur the definition between what is a business and what is a church, give unto Ceasar, dah, dah, dah. That is my premise. but I am not that hard on it. If I found myself in a conceivable similar situation, say a gay evangelist who doesn’t believe in serving straight people, not a likely situation, but I’d probably find a baker who is a baker, not a ideologue, and leave it at that. But I haven’t been constantly been discriminated against for my sexual prefences, either, so there is a desire for a counterbalancing remedy (the scales of Justice). If the emperor says you can not exclusively not bake a cake for Julius and Cesar, who are gay and want to marry, I mean that the baker does not have to go to bed with them, also. Maybe he is afraid he will be tempted. I am just thinking of all the Hebrew jewelers who have for centuries sold Christmas trinkets or Jewish celebrities who sing Christmas songs, and still remain true to their faith. Yeah, that may not be an absolute following of principle, a constraining weave of law, but I think it is a practical rule to have to prevent division and chaos in society.

Do you wish to have the State compel you to speak, regardless the topic? I’m guessing not. Do you wish the State to compel you to go contrary to your deeply held religious convictions (or complete absence thereof)? Again, I’m guessing not. So why should this baker have to do either, or both? He has rights, too.

It is incredibly important to separate the headlines of this case from the truth. The headlines say he refused to sell them a cake for their wedding. The truth is he told the same-sex couple they were welcome to buy any of the cakes in the shop. What he refused to do was personalize it (i.e. speak) because the event violates his religious beliefs. He didn’t discriminate against the couple, he simply refused to attach his name and reputation to something he does not support. Just like Halloween requests. Just like anti-American requests. Just like racist requests. Just like lewd requests. He refused service to them AND they are homosexual, as opposed to he refused service BECAUSE they are homosexual. That is a big, big difference. Nowhere can it be shown that he refused service BECAUSE of their being homosexual.

“Still I think you blur the definition between what is a business and what is a church.”
I’m not blurring any line here about business versus church. Nowhere does the baker claim to run a church, nor have I mentioned churches in this argument. I have no idea what you’re trying to say. I will say that one’s religious freedoms stand independent of any church (as in the legal and/or physical entity). The two are not inextricably linked. One can practice Shinto and never set foot in a temple.

“Maybe he is afraid he will be tempted.”
I hope and trust this is said in jest. Or perhaps he’s likewise afraid he’ll be tempted to start trick-or-treating and making racial slurs.

“I am just thinking of all the Hebrew jewelers who have for centuries sold Christmas trinkets or Jewish celebrities who sing Christmas songs, and still remain true to their faith.” First, how do you know they are holding true to their faith? How do you even know what the tenets of their personal faith are? Your example is a logical fallacy. That one chooses to engage in practices which may be contrary to one’s faith is not at all the same as one declining to engage in practices contrary to one’s faith. So, I guess in your eyes Chick-Fil-A should be compelled to be open on Sundays? Or can they, like the Hebrews and Jews you mention, decide if and/or when they offer their services?

We are kind of like ships passing in the night here. I don’t see what decorating someone else’s cake has to do with faith. The cake is sold to the couple and becomes their expression, not his. They own it then. It is their expression, not his. Who doesn’t know this? Everyone knows that. He can bake as many cakes for himself as he wants. There is no loss of rights. It is like me going into Fedex and, say, they don’t believe in the ideas I wrote in a letter I printed and deny me the right to copy my words with their machine. Like I said, maybe on some level they would have the right to deny service, if done like that it would simply be unreasonable and create disharmony and segregation.

I have no idea if my thoughts on the topic are right or wrong. You are set on your opinion, I on mine, and nothing will be settled in this forum. Let’s see what SCOTUS says about it around this time next year. I still maintain it will be decided for the baker, with a result better than 5-4.

As I said in another post: if the answers to questions like this were easy and clear cut, 1) one wouldn’t need to ask it, and 2) it wouldn’t need to reach SCOTUS for decision.

Yeah, true enough. Something we can agree on. It is not clear cut. I guess we strayed from Tired of Hiding’s original point. Why is the McClean County case not worth reviewing. Is it that clear cut?

I already posted my reply to Tired a little further down on this page.
The gist of my post is that we have a constitutional right to anonymous free speech on the internet, and the State requiring us to unmask (to use the parlance in the news recently) ourselves is illegal. SCOTUS has already ruled on the elements of the case in a piecemeal manner.

Click this to see the other (besides the baker one…) awesome opinion from me:

Peace, brother.


Should you be forced by the government to dust a religious statue if it offends you?

“Should you be forced by the government to dust a religious statue if it offends you?”
Your question is much too vague to address.

Forced in what manner? Parole/probation? A business owner/employee? A volunteer? A museum curator? Do you dust other statues, but not this one? What do you mean by “offends”? (Offensive speech is protected by the First Amendment, so your being offended may be baseless.) The reasoning behind your being offended would be key in any hearing. Is it due to your own closely held religious beliefs? Is it because you don’t like Buddhists, Catholics, or whatever religion of which the statue is part? The statue itself holds no rights, so determining any possible underlying discrimination would also be necessary.

If the answers to questions like yours were easy and clear cut, 1) you’d not need to ask it in the first place, and 2) it wouldn’t need to reach SCOTUS for decision.

“If the baker does not like blond hair, would it be okay to refuse to bake cakes for blonds?”
Since “blond” is not a protected class, the baker, or anyone, can legally refuse service on that basis. Note the prepositional phrase at the end: on that basis. However, service must be refused to *all* who are blond. If the refusal to serve blonds could be rationally tied to national origin (Scandinavians, for example), it would be against the law.

The baker does not refuse to serve non-heterosexual patrons, he simply refuses his design/decorating skills and services in all cases that violate his religious beliefs. Since the baker doesn’t refuse service to individuals based on any municipal, state, or federally protected status, but rather on events contrary to his closely held beliefs, I foresee SCOTUS ruling for Masterpiece Cakes.

I am glad SCOTUS is hearing this case about a business refusing service for a class of individuals. Although we are not considered a “class” this decision could someday help us if the court says that public businesses cannot discriminate. I have been banned from going to my favorite restaurant near my house because they said some customers complained that I was on Megan’s List. Prior to being banned, I was a regular there 5 out of 7 days a week and spent lots of money there. But 3 years ago I was told I could not go there again since other customers complained. (Basically 2 or 3 old drunks complained about me being allowed in). Although these same complainers will still do business with other places I go to.

I have attended churches that was unwelcoming to me, as a RC, However, I did not sue or retaliate. I just went look for another fellowship that accepted me from this point forward. I am now on staff and they know everything about me. The couple could of went to another baker, instead they decided to harass this baker with their rights. It happens everyday, people will stop doing business with a store, if it do not meet their needs and go find someone who will.

The facts about the baker show he is not “anti-gay,” he just is someone holding to his religious beliefs. From the man himself: “I’ll sell anyone any cake I’ve got,” [Mr. Phillips] wrote. “But I won’t design a cake that promotes something that conflicts with the Bible’s teachings. And that rule applies to far more than cakes celebrating same-sex marriages. I also won’t use my talents to celebrate Halloween, anti-American or anti-family themes, atheism, racism, or indecency.”

Nowhere does it say he won’t make a birthday cake, or a retirement cake, or similar for homosexuals. In other words, he doesn’t discriminate against homosexuals as a class (only protected at the State level), just refuses to be compelled to “speak” (a 1st Amendment right) contrary to his religious beliefs (a 1st Amendment right). I wonder if there would be a similar uproar if he were atheist and refused to make cakes for Christians.

This again goes to the question of how far do one’s rights go? My position is “until they infringe on someone else’s.” The baker did not infringe on the couples’ rights, as he is not the only baker of cakes. The State, however is infringing upon his protected right to exercise–or refrain from exercising–religious beliefs. The State is compelling him into beliefs contrary to his religion.

The State has already demonstrated bias: “A lawyer for Phillips on Monday compared his case to one involving another Denver-area business, Azucar Bakery, that in 2014 refused to bake cakes with anti-gay messages and imagery, actions that the Colorado Civil Rights Division later ruled as not discriminatory.” I’m guessing Mr. Phillips would likewise refuse to make such cakes, as he would find it indecent and against his Christian values and morals.

I think i read in California It is illegal to refuse service under 290

The article acts like its about banning registrants from social media, but upon reading it it looks more like he failed to submit his online identifiers assuming that is a law in that state. In any regard, I would think the packingham case could pave the road for a challenge to the online identifers. We all know what the states that impose online identifiers do with them. They pass them along usually for some form of profit to assist companies who ban known registrants from their service (ie facebook), but can extend to other services such as online gaming and any other site that deems registrants unworthy of their goods or services. Without getting online identifier laws taken off the books the Packingham case seems like a hollow victory.

“…related to charges filed in 2014 for his alleged failure to report a previously disclosed Facebook account on a sex offender registration filing.”

-> Failure to report a PREVIOUSLY DISCLOSED account.

Okay, so he DID report it before. So why the hell was he charged? This smells more like malicious prosecution than it is anything to do with a failure to register.

Yea I saw that too. I dont even know what that means, it really doesnt make sense. Maybe he told them he deleted it and didnt or maybe he got banned from fb and made a new account and never reported it.

Because he removed it from his current list of reported identifiers… The answer here is for his attorney to point out Packingham says you cannot infringe on a RC’s 1st amendment rights just bc you want to and when the court still finds against him, he then appeals

Its not surprising they declined after deciding Packingham and Snyder potentially being heard. Once you have a few decisions where one circuit bans the collection of internet identifiers (Probably the 9th), and one allows its SCOTUS will then hear the case

I also feel Anthony Kennedy’s decision clearly already shows this is illegal. It infringes on the right of anonymous free speech online and as the Majority decision already has made a decision there is no reason to hear this case. Once the Illinois Supreme Court decides there decision was correct, then the Supreme Court should be petitioned again.

“attorney general cautioned that sex offenders must be closely monitored on the internet where interactions may be more casual”

Oh really, ok. Please provide me examples of how you monitor and how that monitoring has helped?

Just don’t tell me the only “help” it provides is letting you prosecute sex offenders again and again for not properly providing you with internet identifiers in the way and timeframe you dictate. I want to hear about all of your cases where you somehow “monitored” a known internet identifier that lead to the saving of a child. I bet you can’t provide one. Why? Because someone with nefarious intent won’t use the identifier provided and you are only harming law abiding people.

@Chris F
“Please provide me examples of how you monitor….”
Some detective with a significant “spare tire” chomps on jelly-flled doughnuts while surfing his..oops, I mean others’…FB pages.

I think SCOTUS refused to hear it because each element of the case has already been addressed in other cases.

The guy should easily get a reversal for accessing, thanks to Packingham. The failing to give the identifier is a somewhat slipperier one, but not impossible. The State put him in an lose-lose situation if he wished to exercise his right to anonymous Free Speech. If he gave them his IDs, he was admitting to breaking a law (accessing), yet by not giving it, he was breaking a law (identifying).

I think they need to establish his right to access social media (Packingham), then argue his right to avoid identifying himself to, of all parties, the exact one against which he may wish to speak: the State. As has been decided, he has a right not only to anonymous speech in general (, but also specifically on the Internet ( Going even further, in Tally (, “the Supreme Court emphasized the need for anonymous speech so that persecuted groups of people can criticize oppressive practices, particularly where the alternative may be not speaking at all.” ( (This link is a trove of anonymous Free Speech references.) Who’s a more “persecuted group[] of people,” than RCs? Who is subject to more “oppressive practices” than RCs?

It’s ridiculous that these cases have to get tried over and over and over, simply because judges and AGs are letting their wants get in the way of the court decisions. Without narrowly tailoring the laws (read: risk assessments), they simply cannot do these things. Thank God SCOTUS said so in Packingham.

I think arguing these cases in the State Courts is a waste of time and money, as those courts rarely seem to apply objective law, meaning one has to sue further or again in Federal Courts. Even that’s not enough, because neither side will quit until the final court: SCOTUS. The State won’t quit because they are convinced they have to have these onerous restrictions on RCs or the world will explode; the RC won’t quit because s/he is fighting for her/his Constitutional rights. Hopefully SCOTUS realizes what’s going on (I think they do, esp. based on the Packingham opinion) and fixes things once and for all with Snyder.

These many cases are building in the system faster than they’re going away.


It also doesnt help that judges on state courts are elected officals. Thats where the greatest problem lies.

Indeed. Electing judges destroys judicial independence, as they are now aware of, and almost certainly to some degree pandering to, the ballot box. Appointments are the backbone of judicial independence. In fact, appointed judges have been known to drift from their previous ideological standings (see: Justices John Paul Stevens and David Souter), though typically more from right-to-center than left-to-center.

“I think SCOTUS refused to hear it because each element of the case has already been addressed in other cases.”

AJ, I very much agree with your statement. SCOTUS will not take a case they feel is already addressed. Packingham was a great win for us and we need to give this some time to see all the impact of this ruling.

Most likely because they are preparing to address it in the Snyder case. So many restrictions and conditions in that Michigan registry scheme. More so than most registries.

There is also a pending lawsuit on internet identifiers in Florida in the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Florida. If that court doesn’t budge, then I think they take it to the 11th U.S. court of appeals which already helped us with continuing our lawsuit with residency restrictions. If the 11th helps us again(hoping), then SCOTUS would most likely have to address this issue and it will most likely be in Snyder.

That’s what I think, but of course I could be wrong. We can only wait and see.

Look at Florida’s new law, that was just signed and goes into effect almost immediately. i hope ACLU files an Emergency motion to stop this!

New Florida Internet Identifier Law Approved by Governor

by Florida Action Committee | Jun 27, 2017 | Articles, Featured Articles | 10 comments

Florida House Bill 699, which “[r]evises definition of term “Internet identifier”; defines “social Internet communication”; requires sexual predators & sexual offenders to register each Internet identifier’s corresponding website homepage or application software name with FDLE through sheriff’s office; requires sexual predators & sexual offenders to report any change to certain information after initial in-person registration in specified manner.” was approved by Governor Scott yesterday.

In essence; the new law requires registrants to register the “identifier” and where the identifier is used (ie: homepage of website or software application name”). The full text of the new law can be found here:

The law requires that one registers, “each Internet identifier’s corresponding website homepage or application software name, with the department through the department’s online system or in person at the sheriff’s office within 48 hours after using such electronic mail addresses and Internet identifiers”

Currently, the FDLE’s Cyber Communication System does not allow you to register the “corresponding website homepage or application software name“. Unless the system is updated, we suggest registering them at the Sheriff’s office or calling the FDLE at 1-888-357-7332 for guidance on what to do in order to committing a crime by not registering the “corresponding website homepage or application software name“.

Note that this new law does not stop the lawsuit, which is still pending and will continue. Our position is that the State cannot replace one unconstitutional law with another.

Once again, i must throw this out there:

There is no fixing Florida. I don’t even consider it a State anymore. It’s dysfunctional and it’s never going to get better. Far too much corruption. I advise EVERYONE to stay far from that place.

@Nicolas Maietta
I second that thought! A girlfriend used to refer to FL as the “flaccid p*nis of the U.S.,” and if you look at a map, it does kind of have that appearance.

LOL.. brilliant description.

I grew up in South Florida and it’s truly a hellhole full of paranoid and suspicious people, idiots in jacked up, loud trucks and mean-spirited people in general. They should change the state motto from The Sunshine State to “The Brainwashed State.”

It is well known fact too much heat to the head do cause heat strokes. Apparently the sunshine their is too hot for their brains.

LOL Cox has jumped on the bandwagon of the ruling… saying that if RSO’s can not be bared from the net than file sharer’s shouldnt be bared from sharing illegal files !

This one seems weird to me. The Packingham case was about someone losing something preemptively based on past deeds (majority of the time being completely unrelated) as Packingham wasn’t prosecuted because he was doing something wrong on FB. The pirating thing is someone doing something wrong. I get COX’s stance on not doing something just because someone accused someone, but I see the two cases as unrelated.

Maybe it has to do with
the “fact checker column in the Washington Post.”?

2/3 the way thru my Parole I was ordered off my Facebook account . It effectively cut me off from my family and close friends , I had to get by with text and email messaging . Now off parole I am going back on as I am sure almost all of you have Facebook accounts . As before I remain secretive on my account and never use my real name . I am very much following this story . Comments ?

I do not use FB, as I prefer not to have my entire life data mined. At any rate, you should keep your profile really low…especially if you’re not reporting the online ID but are required to by your state’s registry laws.

I am with you there, don’t want all my information sold in the public square, and social media harbors the echo chamber of ideas. Can’t believe so many people go along with that, even those against corporate intrusion into people’ lives. Guess it pays for the service though, and it is so common a carrier that you are at a disadvantage socially or, if you have a business, economically if you don’t use facebook. We all should have the choice to use it “for good and not for evil”. Hopefully a better medium will evolve with competition, as long as the internet remains open.

I don’t know how much it will slow or stop things, but I look forward to this: I seriously doubt it will even slow FB or the other data miners.

Helpful URL of the day to cut down on getting data mined:

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x