Source: aldailynews.com 2/19/26
[Alabama residents start calling, writing, and showing up now]
A bill moving through the Legislature could put new restrictions on sex offenders convicted of crimes against children, including preventing them from access to the Internet.
Senate Bill 199 was voted out of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday with sponsor Sen. Keith Kelley, R-Anniston, agreeing that additional work on the bill may be needed.
The bill says any adult convicted of a sex offense involving a child “may be restricted by his or her parole or probation officer from using a post office box or possessing any electronic media, including, but not limited to, a computer, tablet, gaming system, or phone that allows access to the Internet.”
“Offenders are increasingly using anonymous digital tools and current law does not give officers clear authority to restrict that internet access,” Kelley told the committee.
Sen. Linda Madison-Coleman asked how someone could work post-release, given that so many jobs require the use of a computer and internet access.
“I would submit that there are a lot of jobs that don’t require a computer,” Kelley said. Later, he said it is not his intention to keep someone who served his time from finding employment.
A violation of the law would be a Class C felony.
The bill also lets, but does not mandate, the Bureau of Pardons and Parole require offenders …
“Never mind that my proposal doesn’t prevent sex crime, unnecessarily increases the workload of POs, probably doubles all relevant costs, makes absolutely no difference in anyone’s lives beyond over-complicating the lives of registrants, and isn’t anything that hasn’t been tried and failed everywhere else it has been done. The real issue here is I’m protecting your precious children because you’re too stupid to do it yourselves. Vote for me!” [anonymous SB199 author]
Not his intention is the biggest bull crap I’ve ever heard. Stop your intention of enacting your anger on those convicted of sex crimes and give them the tools to successfully re-enter society which protects everyone including children.
Most places you have to use the internet to apply because it’s not the 1990s or early 2000s anymore, so restricting those who have done their time from being denied use of the internet is denying them access to employment. The whole intention of the registry reality has become denying access to successful re-enter society while claiming it wasn’t intention. Keep singing the not intention song because it doesn’t match the reality and why Smith V. Doe needs to go.
Sample Letter
Subject: Opposition to SB199 – Risks of Overbroad Restrictions and Long‑Term Public Impact
Dear Members of the Legislature,
I am writing to respectfully oppose Senate Bill 199. While I fully support efforts to protect children and promote public safety, this bill introduces restrictions that raise serious concerns about fairness, practicality, and long‑term consequences for Alabama families.
SB199 would allow parole and probation officers to restrict individuals from possessing any device capable of accessing the Internet. In today’s society, Internet access is essential for employment, banking, communication, education, and reintegration. Removing access to these tools does not promote rehabilitation; it creates barriers that make lawful reentry more difficult. Even the Bureau of Pardons and Parole has acknowledged that implementing such restrictions would require careful guidelines to avoid interfering with basic daily functions such as online banking.
The bill also makes violations of these restrictions a Class C felony. This creates a structural imbalance: a civil‑regulatory condition, imposed without the full protections of criminal due process, could lead to a new felony conviction. Civil rules should not carry criminal‑level consequences without criminal‑level safeguards.
I am also concerned about the broader implications. Civil systems tend to expand over time. What begins as a narrow category of restrictions can become a precedent for future laws affecting new groups. If these types of restrictions become normalized, they may eventually impact ordinary households — not because of intent, but because civil mechanisms grow through precedent. Any family could one day find themselves affected if a loved one becomes subject to a registry or civil regulatory system. Public safety measures should never unintentionally harm the very communities they aim to protect.
For these reasons, I respectfully urge you to reconsider SB199 and pursue solutions that protect children while also supporting rehabilitation, reintegration, and constitutional balance. Policies that are too broad or too restrictive risk creating long‑term consequences that extend far beyond their original purpose.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Your City]
Disclaimer
This letter examines the broader structural implications of civil legislation and its potential impact on constitutional expectations. It does not offer legal advice or address any individual situation. The concerns raised here reflect general patterns in how civil systems expand and how those expansions may affect the public over time. Any resemblance to specific cases or outcomes is coincidental and unintended.
What I don’t understand is why the government does not have to prove that legislation furthers a compelling government interest, but rather requires the citizen (who is in the most disadvantaged position) to fight it.
Perhaps we need a grass roots campaign that spans many different causes to add a constitutional amendment which requires government to prove the compelling need before enacting any legislation that restricts civil liberties, and that defendants who challenge the constitutionality of such laws have legal fees and penalties awarded when it is found that the government restricted their liberties unconstitutionally. That would stop all the foolishness we see out there in the state legislatures and Congress.
“I would submit that there are a lot of jobs that don’t require a computer,” Kelley said.
What? Digging a ditch?🤭
Maybe I’m wrong, but isnt this stuff already on the books when on probation or parole? I never took either so i’m curious.
If I’m correct the Supreme Court Ruling of Ellingburg vs. the US will strike that bill down once it becomes law.
” Kelley said. Later, he said it is not his intention to keep someone who served his time from finding employment.”
It’s always the same “it’s not meant to be punishment” clueless, dissmissive and tonedeaf reasoning. with these people! Shocker. What they’re really saying is: “I only care about preventing future victims” in an indirrect way.
This will NOT stand. Ellingburg and Packingham ring a bell?
The problem is these guys are so removed from daily live that they likely have no idea how often access to the internet is required for daily life.
Do you really think that they handle their own bank accounts? Pay their own bills? Register their car or pay their taxes? No, of course not. They have staff and aides that do all that for them.
If these guys had to spend a month living like normal people they’d better understand, although they’d still be power hungry control freaks looking for how to win the next election.