FL: The County Where Businesses Can Self-Identify As Parks in Order to Keep Sex Offenders Away

Source: reason.com/ 7/19/22

In 2020, an ordinance in Brevard County, Florida, permitted a business to certify itself as a place where children congregate—the moral equivalent of a park—thereby making it a crime for anyone on the sex offense registry to venture inside, or loiter nearby. The idea, apparently, was to make kids even safer from danger.

But, “proximity” laws prohibiting sex offenders from public places like playgrounds have not been shown to make kids any safer, says Emily Horowitz, a sociologist who researches sex offense law and policy.

At the same time, under this law, people on the registry have no way of knowing which businesses have self-certified themselves as child-gathering places. That means registrants don’t know which establishments they are barred from entering, or even going near. But if they get too close, they are violating their registration requirements, which could land them in prison.

“Protecting children from harm is a goal shared by all, but this law does nothing to advance that goal,” says Sandy Rozek, communications director for the National Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws. “It is a ‘feel-good’ law, not a ‘do-good’ law.”

Read the full article

 

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

 

  1. Submissions must be in English
  2. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  3. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  4. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  5. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Always use person-first language.
  6. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  7. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  8. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  9. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  10. 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.
  11. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  12. Please do not post in all Caps.
  13. 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.
  14. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  15. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  16. 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.
  17. Please do not solicit funds
  18. No discussions about weapons
  19. 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.
  20. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  21. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  22. 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.
  23. 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.  
 

24 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Florida is that one state that I read that is constantly finding creative ways to violate Registrants just for the hell of it. They keep this up and we’ll have concentration camps – oh wait – we kinda do.

How does something like this survive and actual legal challenge? It’s ambiguous at best, and exceedingly restrictive as accounted by several of the statements in the article (preventing someone from going to a bank and hospital is ludicrous). Do they get away with this because there isn’t a Janice to actually challenge this in court? I can’t imagine any judge would OK stamp this.

This seems to be the crap part about legal system in general: ANY law can be created and implemented, and it’s up to someone else to actually challenge it. Our legal checks and balances are very poor. Laws should have to pass muster first, not months or years down the line after they grossly impacted people.

“Protecting” kids from registered persons makes about as much sense as more gun laws to prevent shootings. Its not the law abiding and responsible gun owners who are shooting kids in schools, just like its not registered persons who are assaulting kids. Laws don’t prevent crime. Registries don’t prevent crime. Laws only punish crime. Sure, some laws may make a person think twice, but a law on the books is not going to prevent someone hell bent on breaking that law. Does a stop sign at an intersection prevent anyone from not coming to a complete stop? We’re all guilty of rolling through a stop sign, even though its a law. I’ll be the first one to admit that I have a bit of a lead foot. I often drive over the posted speed limit even though there are laws in place.
For businesses that want to ban paying customers, I think its BS, but fine. We’ll take our money to businesses that appreciate respectful paying customers.

So a registrant wont be able to go buy groceries or hygiene supplies. Go buy clothes or go to the doctor. Hmmm….sounds like punishment to me.

And the first time someone accuses the owner or employee of a crime against a minor…

Sounds like a list of businesses to harm. I love that idea. Identify the immorals and go to work.

I wonder if there are any places in Florida where children can be safe from drunk drivers??? You know….for the next time Ron Book goes on a bender and gets behind the wheel. Just sayin’…

I can see this getting overturned the first time they try to enforce it and arrest a PFR. You can’t refuse service without identifying the reason. The “no shoes” policy has to at least have a posted sign. If they decide it is legal, then the city needs to post the businesses they have allowed to do this. As well as keep the list updated. They are unknowingly painting targets on these businesses and should anticipate vandalism.
BTW, are they going to arrest a 10 yr old that is on the list for trying to buy an ice cream with their friends?

Last edited 1 year ago by Along for the ride

Here’s what you do. You bring a bus load of kids to the business, then let them play and loiter around. When the owner complains, you tell them it’s designated as a park, so the kids are allowed to be there.

John Tobia, member of the Broward County board of commissioners and the sponsor of this law, was a roommate and close friend of Matt Gaetz, who has been accused of engaging in sex with and pimping of underage prostitutes. Tobia himself has also been recorded making inappropriate comments about his female students (he’s a college professor).

How about comparing offender child related crimes against the number of children in Florida that have been killed by gun violence.

Even in Florida, this might get overturned in court due to being so vague and impossible for someone on the registry to know about. Unless they post a sign on the door barring entry to registered persons, how would anyone know they couldn’t enter?

Of course, businesses can legally discriminate against anyone or refuse service to anyone, unless it’s for one of few protected things like race or religious discrimination, so ultimately I suspect it will just turn into another sign posted at the entry to many businesses.

What’s to stop a strip joint from deciding to self-declare as a park to keep out registered citizens? Based on the way the law seems to be written it has nothing to prevent it. While it may conflict with licensing requirements for the establishment it also is not precluded by the law allowing self-designation as a park. Yes, I am offering this as an absurd example, but legally permissible by the statute.

I think FL, in the long-run, may be doing us a favor with their batsh!t rules and laws. Eventually, this steaming pile of excrement known as a State will have to defend these things in court.

Immediately I was struck with two things wrong with this concept, one of which they partially fixed.

1) Parks are a “traditional public forum” so the State has the burden of saying why it needs to infringe on the citizen’s First Amendment rights of Speech and Assembly. (They appear to have partially the violation of the Right to Petition.)

2) The law is vague and arbitrary, preventing a citizen from being able to know how to comply–they even admit it themselves with their “disclaimer”! The only way a citizen can ensure compliance is to over-self-regulate, something the courts (typically) frown upon.