ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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


Monthly Meetings | Recordings (05/21 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

 

 

National

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

Related

IL: A setback for First Amendment protection for anonymous speech

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
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. 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.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. 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.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email 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.  
 
Subscribe
Notify of
62 Comments
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

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.

“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.

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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McIntyre_v._Ohio_Elections_Commission), but also specifically on the Internet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doe_v._2themart.com_Inc.). Going even further, in Tally (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talley_v._California), “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.” (http://digital.law.washington.edu/dspace-law/bitstream/handle/1773.1/430/vol5_no4_art16.pdf?sequence=1) (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.

–AJ

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: http://static-lobbytools.s3.amazonaws.com/bills/2017/pdf/0699ER.pdf

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.

https://floridaactioncommittee.org/new-florida-internet-identifier-law-approved-governor/#comment-8398

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 !
article:
https://torrentfreak.com/cox-supreme-court-suggests-that-pirates-shouldnt-lose-internet-access-170627/

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 ?

62
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x
.