Comments that are not specific to a certain post should go here, for the month of Jan 2026. Contributions should relate to the cause and goals of this organization and please, keep it courteous and civil. This section is not intended for posting links to news articles without additional relevant comment.
To rich to not share:
Florida Governor Candidate Proposes 50 Percent Tax on OnlyFans Creator Revenue (Reason.com 14 Jan 2026)
Great…all you have to do is tax everything you don’t like or want around to the point it is supposed to go away…
Patients must be offered chaperones for ‘sensitive’ exams, DOD says (Military Times 20 Jan 2026)
“Under the new DOD policy, chaperones are available to serve as a safeguard for patients and staff and are members of the medical team who will maintain privacy but also would report any suspected inappropriate conduct.”
The recent Associated Press whistleblower report about ICE claiming authority to enter homes with administrative (non-judicial) warrants should alarm anyone who believes sex offense registration laws are unconstitutional and that Smith v. Doe was wrongly decided.
According to the AP, DHS lawyers are asserting that because immigration enforcement is “civil,” ICE agents do not need a judge’s warrant to enter a private home. An internal administrative warrant issued by the agency itself is considered sufficient. This is not rumor or speculation; the whistleblower reporting makes clear that this is an intentional legal position adopted within DHS.
That reasoning should sound very familiar.
It is the same constitutional move used in Smith v. Doe: label a system “civil,” downplay its real-world punitive effects, and then use that label to justify weaker due-process protections.
In Smith, the Court accepted the claim that sex offense registration was non-punitive and on that basis allowed retroactive application, lifelong restraints without individualized findings, and significantly reduced procedural safeguards. Many of us have argued for years that this was a mistake, because effects matter more than labels.
The AP reporting shows why this matters beyond registration laws. Once courts and agencies accept that “civil” systems do not require full constitutional protections, the logic does not stay confined. It spreads. Now it is being used to argue that judicial oversight itself is optional when entering a private home.
The Fourth Amendment does not contain a civil-enforcement exception. It protects people, in their houses, against unreasonable government intrusion. Period.
For those of us subject to sex offense laws, this should be especially concerning. The same legal fiction that upheld registration is now being used to justify even more aggressive exercises of state power. If the government can bypass judges here, there is no principled reason it could not do so elsewhere.
That is why people forced to register (PFR), regardless of how they feel about immigration policy, should be deeply troubled by this development and should support efforts to challenge it. Not out of sympathy for ICE targets, but out of self-preservation and constitutional consistency.
Bad precedent does not stay contained. What is normalized against one group becomes available against others. If we want constitutional sex offense laws, we should be opposing this kind of reasoning wherever it appears.
I am a little spooked by the 100 billion dollar budget for ICE and troops in the streets of major cities. Seems like a lot to deport people. I fear its the start of something bigger. Remember, the government put citizens born in the united states in interment camps during ww2. Those citizens had their constitutional rights stripped and were locked up with no due process only because they were feared. The government did it before, they could do it again.
Yesterday I received an email from a ” woman” claiming to have seen me on Pen Pals now. Funny I don’t have a profile on any pen pal site. Sounds like another scam.
Us people who are citizens and who are forced to register are not yet in the clear regarding deportation. A democratic representative added an amendment to a bill to prevent US citizens from being arrested and deported. The amendment passed a republican controlled house committee. Before being voted on in the full house, the white house, and especially Steven Miller, pressured the house republicans to remove this amendment. The house republicans complied and as they hold the majority, passed a bill without this amendment. The white house and the majority of the GOP house members do not care if US citizens can be arrested and deported – these are the facts and not my opinion.
So now it is up to the Senate Democrats to add back this amendment as one of the ICE reform demands or else they will not vote to fund DHS. Hopefully this swill happen. So as of now, us people who are US citizens and forced to register can still be arrested and deported.
I’ve been thinking about why sex offense policy resists reform even when evidence shows many laws don’t meaningfully improve public safety. I think this isn’t about intelligence or bad intentions. It’s largely psychological.
Once fear and disgust take hold, people stop thinking in terms of risk, time, or proportionality. A sex offense becomes a permanent category. That’s where ideas like “they can never change” or “they’re monsters” come from. These are emotional shortcuts, not scientific claims.
Politicians know this. Many may not personally agree with the harsher laws they support, but they understand fear wins votes. Supporting reform is political suicide because opponents can frame reformers as “soft” or pro-crime. Both sides do it. Whenever a politician calls a law “common sense,” they’re often playing on emotion over evidence. This is true even when it’s not a sex offense law. Always be wary of laws called “common sense” for this reason.
None of us are immune. Emotional states shape what facts even feel visible. You do it, I do it, everyone does it. That is why ordinary people, including friends and family, might support extreme and disproportionate measures while still feeling that a person with a past offense they know personally deserves better.
If we want rational, constitutional sex offense policy, we need to address that psychological mechanism. Somehow we need to break the public from this emotional framing and bring public debate to something concrete and evidence based.
I sure as heck hope nobody is holding their breath thinking a celebrity/athlete will come to our aid or be an advocate for us. They always bypass the “ugliness” and go straight to the top to make a deal with the devil.
“As Nicki Minaj continues to publicly support President Donald Trump, people are claiming the move isn’t about politics at all, but about securing presidential pardons for her husband and brother
🤔 While she’s hanging out with her best, maybe Nicki can convince him to entirely eliminate SORNA (and all S.O. Registries).
Nicki Minaj and new besty Trump.
After all, Nicki’s husband, “Zoo”, is a PFR. 🤷🏻♂️
ICE is using state of the art surveillance technologies. I’m all for holding people accountable for their crimes, but if this technology is being used to see if a kid missed school that’s over reaching.
I have been busy everyday. I have been working in my office, serving voluntarily at a food bank, and coming home to rest and do some personal interest activities. I go to church every Sunday for regular weekly service and read the bible and pray on my own. This schedule is helping me to stay on the correct path of a normal, appropriate life. I also socialize with adult women when I’m present with them at the same event. I talk with the women about various hobbies and interests. I’m always considerate to everybody’s feelings.
FAC: Doctrine of Finality (29 Jan 2026)
Excellent Op-Ed that encourages sibling SOL orgs to readdress their tactics: “FAC is asking advocacy groups and legal scholars around the country to start reconsidering some arguments that were previously foreclosed by Smith v. Doe. Between the Clements court considering whether residency restrictions can render someone tantamount to “in custody”, the Ellingburg decision…”