ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (7/10 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


FL: Court Rules Against Sex Offender On Internet Use

[ – 7/25/19]

Rejecting First Amendment arguments, a state appeals court Wednesday upheld restrictions on internet use by a sex offender.

The ruling by the 2nd District Court of Appeal came in a Hillsborough County case in which Quinton Alford was sentenced to 10 years of sex-offender probation for kidnapping and three years of sex-offender probation for sexual battery.

The terms of probation included barring Alford from using social media and prevented internet use except for work or shopping. Alford argued that the restrictions were overly broad and violated First Amendment rights, preventing him from accessing such things as news, medical and political information, according to the ruling by a three-judge panel of the appeals court.

Read more


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.  
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Wow, talk about a pointless lawsuit.

Did his lawyers consider telling him the obvious facts that he’s on probation and that the situation is completely different than the case that was won without probation terms involved?

On the basis of NC V Packingham I somewhat disagree with your reference to imposed ban as DOC policy & the lessor diminished privacy expectations of probationers. There remains a case to be made with overbroad scope. While in this particular case the judges imposed P&P restriction terms are rock solid ( or should be) as you say, their are other scenarios to consider. By fact of plea he discarded direct appeal – some may not have opted to dispose of their case in that manner. It’s is important to remember ” law of outright ban” was a 9-0. Therefore some offenders may incur unnecessary restrictions based on untethered wrongdoing. Re: the peeper.

Election time and Floriduh has to show what a great job they’re doing, when are the people going to wake up and see what is happening?.

Unfettered use has wrought some bad stuff other than SOR.
The folks are catching on to what the real issue was in the Whetterling act – use of a database registry. The plain truth is If you can indenture a man to it and it’s maintaining everything is on the table with respect to imposing affirmative restraint upon individual liberty.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x