Since 2008, people on sex offender registries in Missouri have been required to post a sign at their home each year on October 31: No candy or treats at this residence.
In a ruling issued October 2, a federal judge found the signs unconstitutional because they’re a form of “compelled speech”—when the state forces you to express a viewpoint you don’t agree with. Judge John A. Ross noted two other courts to previously address similar Halloween signs, both of which found them unconstitutional for the same reason. California overturned the requirement in 2012. Georgia did so in 2022, a year before I paroled out from Georgia Department of Corrections custody to begin navigating life on the registry.
Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey has already vowed to challenge the recent ruling. But the rest of Missouri’s “Halloween Statute” remains legally in effect, including the curfew that basically anyone on a sex offender registry anywhere in the country faces. In Missouri, for example, it’s still a misdemeanor to go outside on Halloween after 5:30 pm.
On October 31, myself and registrants across the country will be essentially be placed on house arrest. You’re required to make it look like no one’s home, which means not being allowed to answer your door or turn your outdoor lights on—in Georgia, this includes indoor lights. Parole or probation officers may intermittently come by to make sure you’re still sitting at home alone with the lights off.
For many that’s the best-case scenario. In Georgia, depending on your county or your parole officer, you might be required on October 31 to report to a designated location like a convention center, where they corral you with all the other registrants until morning. Or you might be required to turn yourself into the county jail.
The Georgia case cited by Judge Ross,…
Everyone tally up the drunk driver accidents against all people on Halloween.
“a federal judge found the signs unconstitutional because they’re a form of “compelled speech”—when the state forces you to express a viewpoint you don’t agree with”
Isn’t it the same thing when officials force someone to sign a legal instrument that says you are a …[derogatory label]? While in reality, you may have been in the past but no longer are,
Oh wait, once a …[derogatory label] always a …[derogatory label]…
How sad.
Hopefully the 8th Circuit Court will uphold the injunction in Missouri against the Halloween sign posting requirement.
“Home of the brave”
Once again, comments don’t stick. I posted a comment on this article this morning in support of the author and her articulate message about the unconstitutional registry scheme. Gave my email and verified it, but no comment showing. 🤷♀️
“including the curfew that basically anyone on a … registry anywhere in the country faces. In Missouri, for example, it’s still a misdemeanor to go outside on Halloween after 5:30 pm”
I’m in Michigan and this is not the case. Even when on supervised release, we’ve never had this. Since release, we’ve been decorating (lights, skeletons, etc) and giving out treats. I just didn’t go to the door during that time. Now I’m off paper, it’s back to normal.
Seems totally wrong that if you’re off paper, you can’t got out. Is it in the local laws where you are?
Here is florida if you’re off probation you can partake in halloween just like anyone else.
” In a ruling issued October 2, a federal judge found the signs unconstitutional because they’re a form of “compelled speech”—when the state forces you to express a viewpoint you don’t agree with”
I don’t see why this can’t work with the passport marker. I certainly don’t agree with the notion that “I, the passport bearer, committed a sex offense against the child” Especially for a computer crime that doesn’t even involve touching or communicating with a child.
If a person is no longer under the jurisdiction of the court, but is on the registry, then one can tie the reality of the registry being a form of punishment, as restrictions that are not imposed on all free citizens is imposed on only the select few who are still being punished by being on the registry.
I think your first sentence is *possibly* correct.
However, there was nothing high risk about that situation. Were there not a ton of people around who were already supervising all the children and everything else? Surely there was. There better have been.
You said, “Just because we have the right to do something …”, but apparently this guy did not have that right. This appears to be in the garbage state of NC and they say it is illegal. It is completely asinine that it is illegal, but that is par for the course in dumb Amerika and exceptionally dumb NC. Now if a PFR does have a right to do something, then I think all should it.
People who think laws like this make any difference in any way to safety are not smart. Even if this (!!!) PREDATOR (!!!) PREDATOR (!!!) was not there, all of the people who were there needed to take the same safety precautions. There is no difference at all. You can’t be running around, pretending that government is keeping all the bad guys away, and just letting your children do whatever. Governments’ myriad lies don’t change any reality and lies don’t protect anyone.
The beauty of the feel-good Registries is that they aren’t just worthless, they are worse. They are counterproductive. If this guy were me, the situation would not have been any risk at all. But what government did would have increased the risk by perhaps 100x. Does anyone doubt that? I wonder. Government took a situation that was not risky and changed into something that is very risky, dangerous, and without doubt will get people hurt. The damage will last for years and possibly decades. Meh. Few people seem to care. As long as they all feel better.
I’d say going on a trip overseas is definitely a close second. Youre made out to be a potential terrorist to another country, dangerous, ready to strike when you arrive……