As a parent, I’m grateful to my own State Senator, Lindsey Tichenor, and Kentucky’s legislators who are protecting our children from predators,” Coleman stated. “This statute doesn’t ban any speech, but it simply empowers kids and their parents to know who may be lurking in the shadows of the internet. The law clearly passes constitutional muster, and we hope the Sixth Circuit will quickly allow it to take full effect.”
The brief noted, “The law is therefore little different than sex-offender registry laws, whose constitutionality is not in question. While those laws allow citizens to locate sex offenders in the physical world, SB 249 serves the same function for the virtual world.”
Earlier this year, the General Assembly unanimously passed SB 249, which was sponsored by Sen. Lindsey Tichenor, R-Smithfield, and signed into law by Governor Andy Beshear. An anonymous registered sex offender challenged the law and asked the federal court to prevent Daviess County Attorney John Burlew from enforcing it. A federal district court judge blocked Burlew from enforcing the law against this particular registered child sex offender.
This could easily become overly broad. It could be amended that registrants would have to go to every neighbor who has children within such and such a distance and tell them their personal name.
Maybe I’m an idiot, but I’m still not convinced that online predation is as prevalent as portrayed.
Regardless, parents that are that concerned about it would be better served controlling their own kids’ online activity than trying to prevent access by those they find disagreeable.
Free speech is a protected right. Online free speech is also a protected right as per Packingham v NC, 2019. Forcing to implement using full name on social media for only one group of people and not all people who use social media doesn’t sound like free speech is equal for all. Why stop at people forced to register? Why not include the whole of people convicted and formerly convicted of crimes such as DUI and domestic abuse?
Could one imagine putting Benjamin Franklin into cuffs because he used other aliases in some of his publications using the names of Silence Dogood, Polly Baker, and Richard Saunders?
Anyhow, forcing anyone to use their full names to be on social media sets up the potential for doxing. That leads to the potential of chilling free speech.
It appears this case assumes all PFR are already guilty of doing something on social media. Yet, the plaintiffs lack the knowledge that over 95% of sex crimes that occur are from people not on the registry. A 13-year old is being charged with a sex offense crime on a college campus. If the purpose is to identify future sex crimes, then why not make everyone use full names, including children?
I do hope the persecution of PFR will come to an end with SCOTUS admitting a mea culpa for passing an unconstitutional law and preventing so many lives from moving forward in their lives. If the government can admit the Jim Crow laws are unconstitutional, then so can the gov’t admit the registry is also unconstitutional as well as civil penalties must have a checks-and-balances because the registry ballooning beyond the initial position is proof the government will abuse this loophole of not having an immediate way to stop additional penalties and punishment under the guise it is civil.
Guy Hamilton-Smith is counsel on this case, and contra Coleman’s idiotic assertion, the district court seems to agree the law is likely unconstitutional, hence the preliminary as-applied injunction:
https://littlereddots.substack.com/p/a-voice-if-you-can-keep-it
To my mind this is a no-brainer for two reasons:
1) Chills anonymous speech, which is protected
2) Compelled speech, as a social media handle is an expressive choice
Even in so-called “internet identifier” jurisdictions, which implicate 1 to the point that the 2nd circuit seems to think there may be a problem there (that case is moving glacially as far as I can tell), you can still choose whatever you want provided you report it, so the chilling effect is even more significant here. And factor 2 is entirely absent.
Then again, we all know we live in a parallel constitutional universe, so we’ll see what the 6th circuit does.
“This statute doesn’t ban any speech, but it simply empowers kids and their parents to know who may be lurking in the shadows of the internet.”
I love the phrase about who may be lurking in the shadows. It is so dramatic, but also not correct. Given the low recidivism rates, most people who may be lurking in the shadows are not on the registry. That is also true that local people who would harm children are not likely to be registrants either. Rather they are family members, friends, relatives, coaches, teachers, neighbors, clergy and others who are trusted by kids and parents. Parents would be more successful in protecting children if they looked around at those who attend events like a backyard barbecue. Oh, and they could monitor their kids’ online activities. But of course, that would require effort.
“The law clearly passes constitutional muster”
Maybe in your own world of make believe it does.
The State of CA’s Constitution has an “inalienable” right to privacy, that gets ignored whenever the State “needs to”. So manufacture a “Need” and then alienate whomever you want.
One more step towards All Seeing Virtual Big Brother?
Start with a small, generally feared/hated minority, then expand. If it’s legal to do this with PFRs, it’s legal to do this with…Immigrants from Islamic nations perhaps? Frankly, if it’s legal to do this with PFRs, it’s legal to do with anyone.
One step closer to ubiquitous government surveillance. Privacy is one of the many, many enemies of the Police State. In Police States, privacy just enables the “Enemies within”. Those “Enemies” are always the “Most dangerous” to the Police State, and the Overseers that rule it.
As always, if implemented, this system will thrive on failure! The first time they catch someone up to something using a false name… further steps will have to be taken to ensure nobody can do that again! There will be a “need” to…