Click here to watch the related video. Derek Logue speaks out at 04:34 [7/17/26]
The Brief:
- A newly active Florida law bans sex offenders convicted of crimes against minors from living within 1,000 feet of a public swimming pool.
- Supporters call the law common-sense protection for children.
- Opponents claim it could increase offender homelessness and make them harder to track.
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. – A controversial new housing restriction went into effect across Florida, prohibiting specific sex offenders from residing within 1,000 feet of public swimming pools and splash pads.
New Florida restriction details
What we know:
Florida law already banned sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of schools, parks, and playgrounds. The latest restriction extends that 1,000-foot exclusionary zone to include public swimming pools and splash pads.
The primary House sponsor, State Rep. Rachel Plakon (R-Seminole), stressed that the new law targets specific offenses. As written, it applies to offenders who have committed crimes against a minor. This can include repeat sexual predators as well as individuals convicted of a single offense.
The new law was driven by Seminole County Sheriff Dennis Lemma, who experienced a legal setback when trying to prevent a sex offender from living near a pool. A court ruled at …
Common sense isn’t common in the state down under red tide or some kind of brain eating parasite in the state of Floriduh. Let’s ban registrants of being in bathrooms since they are one flush away from entering water pipes.
The mentality behind these laws is so flawed that you just can’t fix stupid. You’d be better off trying to educate a dog on this issue.
So Florida, or anywhere else that wants to be like her, go ahead and build your little invisible walls to keep certain “nasty” people out, but guess what, you will still have kids getting abused just as much as you did before, and somehow, you will be proud of yourselves anyway.
People who love the Constitution and (by extension) our country will avoid following this pattern and live like liberty really matters to them. If they were wise, they would avoid places like these altogether, because, like any house of cards built on lies, it will eventually fall.
The Pool and the Pools of Data
by Quiet Too Long
The new house, built of sticks and brick, stood inside the Commune of Safe, the designated destination in a new world ruled by law, where ex‑cons and registered persons were prohibited with supervision data pool protocols from crossing the boundary lines by face‑recognition systems and license‑plate readers. All travel had to be documented and confirmed through data ports in secure depots at vacation destinations, and any recent communication with certain individuals could result in denied passage until trust was verified in the pools. When a recreation pool is built, the legalities of the commune follow: safety is absolute, privacy fences must block all sightlines, and security cameras must discreetly capture any intrusion involving the young, feeding data pools meant only for their protection. Child‑proof gates must log every opening, and these pools for records are kept to ensure safety as civil law begins curfews for the young begin and the Bad Parent Registry emerges—quietly at first, then face‑forward when rebellion rises, as it always does among free Americans. Compliance will be difficult, so civil laws will expand, labeled non‑punitive even as charges become criminal for parents deemed non‑compliant under the broad term “contributing to delinquency,” a phrase that can be applied to anything once normalized. These data pools will eventually become public faced forward protocol so other parents can protect their own children and begin the avoidance, because bad parents mean bad young. And just when the system seems complete, the data pools extend to cell‑phone control issue as we all know this is a dangerous item, when these data pools are handed to the young the guard must be the parental supervision and child safety locks must be present or the parent will be liable for “contributing to” young without locks, and supervision trackers are essentially turned on for the data pools the regime will start small with no phones in school allowed since young people can communicate in uniform and retaliate and coexist as a unit of social enterprise that threaten the Commune of Safe. When a lured young gains the following of the old with plans of meet the violation becomes possible, supervision becomes compromised and “contributing to” becomes part crimes of bad parenting adding to the pools of data, so parental supervision and child‑safety locks become mandatory, with trackers required and always on to safeguard the commune. In the end, without finger‑pointing, we understand who allowed these laws to exist—but when they come to your family, and your communications begin to restrict your travel, Shopping, quality of living and privacy with safety this truth will follow you forever.
How does that not violate ex post facto for existing People Forced to Register(PFR)? Are they saying that choosing where to live is not a right?
What percentage of houses does this impact while in connection with the other restrictions? If over 50% of housing is non compliant, is that overly broad.
Trying to wrap my mind around this legally.
Every minute someone is sexually assaulted and every ninth minute it’s a child, but how would Rep. Bankson know this without pulling it from his butt. Maybe his electronics should be monitored
Rep Plakon all registrants in Florida are considered high risk even those without a crime against a child. Too lazy to know that your own backward hillbilly state is filled with hate even when Skeletor was governor.
FLORIDUH stop electing stupid people or fall into the ocean.
The statistics sited in this article, reportedly provided by the Florida politician Doug Bankson(R), are from the organization “RAINN—the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network”, from a study they conducted in 2009-2013.
When reviewing this report, it indicates that these numbers are of “reported events or complaints”. The politician, Bankson, infers that such events actually did occur and/or are undisputed.
However, these numbers do NOT INCLUDE or INDICATE how many of these “reported complaints” were ultimately proven to be true in a court of law, or not.
Importantly, there is no indication as to how many of these complaints were ultimately proven (definitively) to be FALSE, for whatever reason (e.g., the complainant was put up to making the complaint, as happens in divorce cases by one parent against another, or that the complaint was made with malicious intent – to gain advantage in a legal dispute, or to make financial gain or the like, etc.)
Nor do the #’s reflect complaints of which the results were neither proven or disproven as to their veracity.
“There are lies. Damn lies. And statistics” Samuel Clemens
“If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything.” Ronald Coase
These restrictions came about because the Seminole Sheriff had a problem with a registrant moving in near a swimming pool. A sheriff’s job is to enforce the laws and not to run to lawmakers because their boxers are in a wad with wanting to create more problems than solutions.
It’s not working, Florida! Just search “molested” or “assault” in Google news and you’ll find nearly daily/weekly reports of sex offense arrests in Florida. So their legislators continue to propose these enhanced laws that aren’t stopping anything – they are only (as truly intended) continuing to punish those who have already served their sentences and done their time.
(Maybe the legislators should honestly address S.O. prevention in order to protect children? Maybe safe & anonymous pre-offense counseling programs. 🤷🏻♂️)
Question. Do all these restrictions apply to a PFR who is off paper and has their civil rights restored?
Actually Sheriff, you aren’t doing no one a favor and there’s nothing to be grateful about except that I don’t live in a county ran by a moron like yourself 🤭
Georgia has had this law in place for years and – brace yourself – it hasn’t made a lick of difference in terms of sex crime prevention. Just like any other obligation or restriction imposed on registrants or the registry itself.
There’s a big lie in the article, too. Recidivism rates DECREASE with time, not increase. Whomever manipulated that data is as big a liar as Collie Lee Daniel.
What I find troubling is that although statistics show very low re-offense rates for people who have committed a sex offense in the past, they (legislators, DAs) swivel to the “fact” that many sex offenses are unreported. They even site data on how many / what percentage go unreported. How is it possible to come up with unreported data? And how do you combat that line of thinking? We’re up against phantom data. They have an answer for every logical argument that is anything but logical.