ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: Nov 21, Dec 19 – Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings 2020 (Phone only)


ME: Lawmaker Seeks to Ban Sex Offenders From Photographing Kids


AUGUSTA, Maine (AP) — A Maine lawmaker is proposing a bill that would make it a crime for sex offenders to take photos of children without parental consent.

Republican state Rep. Matthew Pouliot (POOL’-yot) says his proposal comes after several parents in Augusta called police last week to complain about a registered sex offender taking photos of girls and women in public and posting them online. Pouliot represents Augusta and says law enforcement was unable to act because the sex offender’s actions are not against the law.

Pouliot’s bill would make it a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in prison and a $2,000 fine.

Read more


Join the discussion

  1. American Detained in America

    Wow, such a waste of resources. This is paranoia at it’s finest! How many RC’s go around photographing children in the first place? My guess, very few if any.

  2. Dustin

    Generally, I’m wary of any proposal based on anonymous complaints against unnamed RSOs; the premise is usually fabricated to begin with.

    First, how did the complaining parents know that whoever took and posted whatever pictures was a sex offender, and what specifically were they convicted for? Second, what was so objectionable about the photos and/or their posting? Third, would the complaining parents have a problem if the pictures were taken and posted by anyone not on the registry?

    If there is a genuine complaint against an individual, deal with the individual. If you can’t get him criminally, file a civil suit. If you can’t show damages for a civil suit, too bad. Like it or not, RSOs have just as much right to take pictures in public as anyone else. If you’re that uncomfortable with it, your only recourse is to keep yourself and your children out of public places. If you’re not willing or able to do that, GET OVER IT.

    Laws aren’t intended to solve individual problems. Those that intend or profess to only cause unnecessary hardships on society as a whole. It’s been proven time and again.

    • Mike G

      “Like it or not, RSOs have just as much right to take pictures in public as anyone else.”
      Sadly, not true. In the United States (where emotions carry more weight than laws), an RSO does not have the right to do anything that might offend someone.
      And if they do think they have that right, just wait a little while, and a law will be passed to take it away retroactively.

      • David Kennerly, Me Think Thou Doth Protest Too Much

        Mike, we do have rights – we retain them – even when they are denied us. Abrogation of rights does not mean that they cease to exist, it only means that they have been criminally violated. We are born with rights and government can neither give them or take them away.

      • Dustin

        @ Mike G,

        Right, wrong, or indifferent, I have never bought into the notion that anyone has a “right” to not be offended. Such a right would trample too many rights of others. Many in the general public are offended by RSOs simply drawing breath. I, for one, will not stop breathing simply because others may find it offensive.

        I am offended by most rap music. By that line of reasoning, no tv, radio, or podcast should be allowed to play it, nor any individual when I am within earshot (I’ve been called racist for that sentiment, yet those accusers can’t explain my love of motown, reggae, and funk). Applying the reasoning to the entire population is simply not possible.

        Yes, stupid laws like this will continue to be proposed and passed. Eventually, they will be repealed or stricken down in the courts (see JM of Wi’s post below). Sooner or later, the public is going to have to eat the fact that RSOs who have served their sentences have just as many rights as any other convicted felon, and only slightly less than those with clean records. Initial outrage will happen at some point – I figure it’s better to happen sooner.

        After the mess with the registry and associated restrictions gets cleaned up, then America can get on with the business of finding the next social, economic, or ethnic group to target for politically correct discrimination.

  3. JM of Wi.

    Wi has a similar law

    948.14  Registered sex offender and photographing minors.
    (1)  Definitions. In this section:
    (a) “Captures a representation” has the meaning given in s. 942.09 (1) (a).
    (b) “Minor” means an individual who is under 17 years of age.
    (c) “Representation” has the meaning giving in s. 942.09 (1) (c).
    (d) “Sex offender” means a person who is required to register under s. 301.45.
    (2) Prohibition.
    (a) A sex offender may not intentionally capture a representation of any minor without the written consent of the minor’s parent, legal custodian, or guardian. The written consent required under this paragraph shall state that the person seeking the consent is required to register as a sex offender with the department of corrections.
    (b) Paragraph (a) does not apply to a sex offender who is capturing a representation of a minor if the sex offender is the minor’s parent, legal custodian, or guardian.
    (3) Penalty. Whoever violates sub. (2) is guilty of a Class I felony.
    NOTE: The Court of Appeals in State v. Oatman, 2015 WI App 76, concluded that s. 948.14 is overbroad on its face and invalid in its entirety.
    History: 2005 a. 432.
    The structure of s. 942.09, with its separate subdivisions for capturing and possessing a representation, and the legislature’s decision to import the definition of “captures a representation” from s. 942.09, along with legislative history indicating that the purpose of this section is to prohibit sex offenders from photographing, filming, or videotaping minors without parental consent, leads to the conclusion that “stores in any medium data that represents a visual image” as used in the definition of “captures a representation” in s. 942.09 does not include the mere possession of visual images. State v. Chagnon, 2015 WI App 66, 364 Wis. 2d 719, 870 N.W.2d 27, 14-2770.

  4. Lovecraft

    This is another horrific law. These ambigious laws give way too much leeway to LE. For example, what happens when an rc takes photos of statues in a downtown plaza and there happens to be minors photobombing the pic? There are 1000s of other scenarios where a “innocent violation” can occur. IMO this is just another gateway law that allows LE to access, confiscate, and evalute personal items of an rc after supervision is complete. There is no way this can hold up under rational scrutiny imo.

    • Mike G

      Since when has “rational scrutiny” been applied to any SO laws?

    • Trish

      We the rational people know for a fact laws do not have the right to say taking a picture is illegal and implies a immoral deed on ex offenders! A person would never be free and would have a life long cruel and unusual punishments tallied on them on a non stop horrendous level !

      • Trish

        In other words! I’m saying where would the madness end! It would never! Because any and all things could be rationalized as a violati9n of thesis rule or that policy or this and that law and regulation and where would this LEGALISTIC path of insatiable guilt finding ever end??? How would a person ever be normal, or whole, or healed or helped or cured or matured or any daaaaaam thing the positive side of psychiatry is suppose to offer! If it is never integrated and applied to real life and real people how would we as a people ever be free or better ourselves or overcome problems! ….etc…..etc! Sheeeeeesh!

  5. Nicholas Maietta

    I wonder what Matthew Pouliot is hiding? No, scratch that! I don’t want to know!

    • Dustin

      Don’t know. But research into other obscure state legislators leaves me the impression that either his career as a lawmaker is less than distinguishable or he’s an incumbent in the middle of a reelection campaign. Or both. Regardless, not naming the registrant is usually a sign that the inspiration for the proposal is a crock.

  6. AlexO

    So they’re perfectly okay with non-RC strangers taking pictures of kids and posting them online? The logic here if phenomenal!

    • Dustin

      Or any strangers, registered or not, taking pics of their kids as long as they don’t post them.

  7. AJ

    This proposed law may run afoul of the First Amdt. His posting the pictures online is may well be what saves him. See:

  8. Tim Moore

    Hey there, if you see a registered sex offender doing something you don’t like, make a law against it. It’s OK. Everyone does it.

    • kind of living

      @Tim Moore ,,,,, ,, Its all overwhelming , makes me want to just go to bed and stay in dream land ,

      • Tim Moore

        I am being sarcastic, of course, because it often seems so unreal to the point of absurdity. How can people be so stupid?

        • kind of living

          @Tim Moore ,,,,, ,, I “think” its mass mind control , plus humans are not the sharpest tool in the shed as many would have you believe , many think respect and understanding are just words that apply to them selfs , and forget about kindness ,

        • David Kennerly, Me Think Thou Doth Protest Too Much

          I would say that variation in human intelligence is extremely wide. Possibly as wide as between a New World monkey and a chimp. But the distribution is piled-up towards the monkey side. Oh well, to hell with the chimps!

        • Tim Moore

          It’s like the bird with one broken feather gets pecked raw by the peep. We no better than chickens when it come to understanding.

Leave a Reply

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 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.  

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *