If you believe it is ok to deny registered sex offenders human rights or U.S. Constitutional rights. If you do not believe registered sex offenders are denied their human and constitutional rights or if you are against free speech.
Please leave this web page now. Thank you.
By remaining on this web page you here by acknowledge that you support human rights and United States constitutional rights for registered sex offenders and that you support freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech is understood to be fundamental in a democracy. The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights.
No sexual abuse is ever acceptable. Sex offense laws and policies should be based on sound research and common sense, not fear, panic or paranoia. Current laws and policies that paint all sex offenders with one broad brush are counter- productive, wasteful, and cause needless harm. Each offense must be judged on its own merits with a punishment that fits the crime and does not waste taxpayer dollars. The public sex offender registry and residency restriction laws do not protect children but instead ostracize and dehumanize individuals and their families. Money spent on purely punitive measures would be better used for prevention, healing, and rehabilitation.
When will this end? When we as a country do not exist because of things like this? I believe the prophecy of so many religions; that our country will not be here during the end times. I am just doing my best to try to stop the inhuman sex offender laws to not speed that end up, and to not be the main cause of our eventual non existence. Again the God of so many religions is a patient God. We can definitely hold out as long as we are a free country. We will not last long by changing the very constitution that made us who we are. http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_zoom_1.html
April 29 2015
Since our country is so important to the world. Maybe when our country ceases to exist; it will cause the beginning of the end. to start. Like the character in the story that has a mechanism attached to his heart; when it stops beating, it triggers a million horror bombs; destroying human life on the earth in a matter of 3 years. Like this Spawn scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql4zkOj99PE
April 28 2015:
Doe v. Shurtleff
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Doe v. Shurtleff
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Full case name
John Doe v. Mark Shurtleff
October 26 2010
628 F.3d 1217 (10th Cir. 2010)
Affirmed District Court decision. Utah Code Ann. § 77-27-21.5, a Utah statute requiring convicted sex offenders to register their online identifiers, does not violate the First or Fourth Amendments or the Ex Post Facto Clause.
Neil M. Gorsuch, Monroe G. McKay, Richard D. Cudahy
Monroe G. McKay
Utah Code Ann. § 77-27-21.5, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Ex Post Facto Clause
Doe v. Shurtleff, 628 F.3d 1217 (10th Cir. 2010), was a United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit case assessing the constitutionality of Utah Code Ann. § 77-27-21.5, a law that requires sex offenders to register their internet identifiers with the state in order to “assist in investigating kidnapping and sex-related crimes, and in apprehending offenders.”In this case, a convicted sex offender, appearing anonymously as John Doe, appealed a decision by the United States District Court for the District of Utah to vacate an order enjoining the enforcement of Utah Code Ann. § 77-27-21.5. Even though Doe did not dispute the state’s interest in enacting such a statute, he believed that the statute’s enforcement ran afoul of his:
1.First Amendment right to engage in anonymous speech;
2.Fourth Amendment rights to privacy and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure; and
3.the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Constitution.
Upon examining Doe’s appeal, the Tenth Circuit determined that Utah’s registration statute did not violate Doe’s First or Fourth Amendment rights or the Ex Post Facto Clause, and therefore affirmed the lower court’s decision to lift the injunction.
Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997), is a United States Supreme Court case in which all nine Justices of the Court voted to strike down anti-indecency provisions of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), because they violated the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech. Two Justices concurred in part and dissented in part to the decision. This was the first major Supreme Court ruling on the regulation of materials distributed via the Internet.
McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission
, 514 U.S. 334
(1995), is a United States Supreme Court
case in which the Court held that an Ohio statute that prohibits anonymous political or campaign literature is unconstitutional. Writing for the Court, Justice Stevens asserted that such action is protected by the First Amendment, and therefore violated the constitutional principle of freedom of speech
. Justice Scalia dissented, in an opinion which Chief Justice Rehnquist joined. Justice Ginsburg wrote a concurrence, while Justice Thomas wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment.
April 27 2015:
George W. Bush acknowledges family name will hurt Jeb’s 2016 campaign
I applaud you GWB, A true Texan would say nothing less. I applaud all my fellow Texas; we are all of a brotherhood, few would understand. It is one thing to be a American like Bruce Springsteen and say “You end up like a dog that’s been beat too much, Till you spend half your life just covering up.”
If you where born in the USA you are my family. If you where born in Texas you are my favorite family member of all. No one on this planet knows what it is to suffer to be a American like my fellow Texans. The Bush family has always had my heart felt support and always will. To me it is a legacy of President Regan who was my favorite president of all time and will always be.
Nevertheless anyone that supports human rights for sex offenders and everyone else in this day and time must support democrats only or they are self destructive. Things can and will change; do not get me wrong. Who knows what tomorrow hold for us all.
Former President George W. Bush on Saturday said his brother, Jeb, faces a unique hurdle in the presidential horse race: his own name.
While fielding questions at a closed-door meeting of the Republican Jewish Coalition, Bush “acknowledged being a liability to his brother’s candidacy,” according to The New York Times, which spoke to attendees as they left the event.
“He basically said being a Bush is a challenge,” Norm Coleman, a former senator and current RJC board member, told the Times.
“That’s why you won’t see me,” Bush reportedly said,
In the United States, the Congress is prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by clause 3 of Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution. The states are prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by clause 1 of Article I, Section 10.
An ex post facto law
for “from after the action” or “after the facts”)
The Texas Constitution says:
(Added Nov. 6, 1956.) Sec. 16. BILLS OF ATTAINDER; EX POST FACTO OR RETROACTIVE LAWS; IMPAIRING OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS. No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, retroactive law, or any law impairing the obligation of contracts, shall be made.
“Not all laws with retroactive effects have been held to be unconstitutional. One current U.S. law that has a retroactive effect is the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. This law imposes new registration requirements on convicted sex offenders and also applies to offenders whose crimes were committed before the law was enacted.” Wikipedia
I still do not believe what I just read from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law I have researched it and can not find anything definitive to prove this. For the first time ever; I do not believe Wikipedia.
I can not begin to tell how this has effected me since, I have read it. To think the actual Constitution of The United States has been changed seems; unbelievable and extremely wrong and un American and very illegal to say the least.. Still deferred adjudicated is not the same as a conviction; so it could be argued that if you got deferred adjudicated for a sex crime; that was required at one time; it may not apply to those folks.
Retro Active Law explained further down this page.
Here is some of the things I found about this law:
Appellate Court Affirms Decision to Block Enforcement of Prop. 35 Requirements
Posted On 18 Nov, 2014
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today affirmed the decision of a federal district court to block enforcement of Proposition 35 requirements that all registered citizens provide a list of any and all Internet identifiers as well as any and all Internet service providers to law enforcement. California RSOL is a plaintiff in this case and was represented by the San Francisco ACLU as well as the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
According to the decision, the requirements violate the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution in at least three ways: (1) the requirements do not make clear what sex offenders are required to report, (2) there are insufficient safeguards preventing the public release of the information sex offenders do report and (3) the 24-hour reporting requirement s onerous and overbroad.
“This is a significant victory for all registered citizens in California,” stated CA RSOL President Janice Bellucci. “The 9th Circuit of Appeals has clearly articulated that the requirements, if imposed, would violate the U.S. Constitution.”
The Court noted in it decision that the 24-hour reporting requirement of adding or changing an Internet identifier or an account with an Internet service provider is “not only onerous, it is also applied in an across-the-board fashion. The requirement applies to all registered sex offenders, regardless of their offense, their history of recidivism (or lack thereof), or any other relevant circumstance.”
In reaching its decision, the Court noted that the balance of equities in the case favor registered citizens “whose First Amendment rights are being chilled. This is especially so because the Act under scrutiny imposes criminal sanctions for failure to comply.”
November 18, 2014
Appeals Court Rules in Favor of Anonymous Speech in California Prop. 35 Case
ACLU of Northern California, EFF Prevail in Appeal Over Internet Restrictions for Registered Sex Offenders
San Francisco – The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today that Proposition 35, a 2012 California ballot initiative that would have restricted the rights of registered sex offenders to communicate on the Internet, is likely unconstitutional. The opinion affirms an earlier district court ruling in Doe v. Harris, a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Northern California and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) in 2012.
Proposition 35, also known as the Californians Against Sexual Exploitation Act (CASE Act), requires anyone who is a registered sex offender—even people with decades-old, low-level offenses whose offenses were not related to the Internet—to turn over a list of all their Internet user names and online service providers to law enforcement. Under the law, more than 73,000 Californians would have been forced to provide this information to the government, and report any new account or screen name within 24 hours of setting it up, even if the new screen name is their own real name. Violations would have potentially resulted in years in prison.
“The Ninth Circuit has agreed that the onerous online speech restrictions required by Prop. 35 violate the First Amendment,” said Linda Lye, senior staff attorney at the ACLU of Northern California. “The portions of Prop. 35 that unconstitutionally limit what people say online won’t help us end human trafficking. Anonymity is key to protecting speech by unpopular or controversial groups and allowing robust political debate.”
The ACLU of Northern California and EFF filed a lawsuit the day after the law was passed in 2012, challenging these reporting requirements as a burden on the First Amendment right to free and anonymous speech. A lower court agreed with the groups in January 2013 and issued a preliminary injunction, halting enforcement of the law. Today, the Ninth Circuit upheld that lower court ruling.
“[T]he CASE Act directly and exclusively burdens speech, and a substantial amount of that speech is clearly protected under the First Amendment,” Ninth Circuit Judge Jay Bybee wrote in the opinion.
The court noted that the law was overly broad, affecting speech unrelated to sexual offenses, such as “blogging about political topics and posting comments to online news articles. ” This creates the “inevitable effect of burdening sex offenders’ ability to engage in anonymous online speech,” Bybee wrote. The court also found that there was no evidence that throwing out this part of Proposition 35 would hamper the state’s ability to investigate online sex offenses.
“We’re pleased the court recognized important First Amendment principles of free and anonymous speech apply to everyone, regardless of what crimes they may have committed in the past,” EFF Staff Attorney Hanni Fakhoury said. “While the law may be well-intentioned, its broad language opened the door for the government to chill free speech. Restrictions targeting sex offenders are often a stepping stone for the expansion of law enforcement power against other classes of unpopular people.”
The court’s ruling means the preliminary injunction prohibiting enforcement of the reporting requirements of the CASE Act remains in effect.
Doe v. Harris
Summarized by: Rianna Venn
Date Filed: 11-18-2014
Case #: 13-15263; 13-15267
Circuit Judge Bybee for the Court; Circuit Judge Schroeder and Senior District Judge Timlin
Full Text Opinion: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/11/18/13-15263.pdf
First Amendment: Content-neutral restrictions on protected speech must not burden substantially more speech than is necessary to further the government’s legitimate interests.
The Californians Against Sexual Exploitation (“CASE”) Act “added provisions to California’s sex offender registration requirements related to Internet usage by persons subject to the Act.” The Act requires sex offenders to provide “‘[a] list of any and all Internet identifiers established or used by the person’ and ‘[a] list of any and all Internet service providers used by the person.’” The Act also established a 24-hour written notice requirement to law enforcement of any changes to these lists. A represented “class of registered sex offenders who regularly use the Internet to advocate anonymously on behalf of sex offenders and to comment on news articles, forums, and blogs” filed suit once the Act took effect claiming “the Act violates their First Amendment rights.” The representative “moved for a temporary restraining order” while the district court considered the representative’s “motion for a preliminary injunction.” The district court granted the preliminary injunction after finding the Act was “not narrowly tailored to serve the government’s important interest” and “that loss of First Amendment freedoms is an irreparable injury.” The State appealed, and the Ninth Circuit reviewed the “preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion.” The panel evaluated the Act’s constitutionality using the “intermediate level of scrutiny applicable to content-neutral restrictions that impose an incidental burden on speech.” The panel considered whether the Act’s requirements “burden substantially more speech than is necessary to further the government’s legitimate interests.” The panel found that the Act “clearly intended to serve a legitimate interest” but determined “the Act unnecessarily chills protected speech.” The panel concluded that the Act’s reporting requirement was ambiguous and the Act had insufficient safeguards for the information reported. The panel also found the 24-hour written notice requirement “onerous and overbroad.” The panel therefore affirmed the district court’s preliminary injunction. AFFIRMED.
I am going to try to explain retro active law and why it is wrong:
Ex post facto law is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law. In criminal law, it may criminalize actions that were legal when committed; it may aggravate a crime by bringing it into a more severe category than it was in when it was committed; it may change the punishment prescribed for a crime, as by adding new penalties or extending sentences; or it may alter the rules of evidence in order to make conviction for a crime likelier than it would have been when the deed was committed.
In the United States, the Congress is prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by clause 3 of Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution. The states are prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by clause 1 of Article I, Section 10. This is one of the relatively few restrictions that the United States Constitution made to both the power of the federal and state governments before the Fourteenth Amendment. Over the years, when deciding ex post facto cases, the United States Supreme Court has referred repeatedly to its ruling in Calder v. Bull, in which Justice Samuel Chase held that the prohibition applied only to criminal matters, not civil matters, and established four categories of unconstitutional ex post facto laws. The case dealt with the Article I, Section 10, prohibition on ex post facto laws, because it concerned a Connecticut state law.
Not all laws with retroactive effects have been held to be unconstitutional. One current U.S. law that has a retroactive effect is the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. This law imposes new registration requirements on convicted sex offenders and also applies to offenders whose crimes were committed before the law was enacted. (This does not make this right. The Online Identifier law was enacted before this law; that makes it a good fight in court for sure. I believe it is only a matter of time before this law is repealed. At any rate it is worth fighting in court.)The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Smith v. Doe (2003) that forcing sex offenders to register their whereabouts at regular intervals, and the posting of personal information about them on the Internet, do not violate the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws, because these laws do not impose any kind of punishment. *
This is not right because there have been recent court cases that have been won against people posting sex offenders on there websites. : Sunday, March 23, 2014 Offendex (extortion website) is going out of business This looks like the end of Offendex and affiliate extortion sites. And I’m not surprised that the owners of Offendex are convicted felons. I am amazed they managed to make a lot of money from these websites. The article from AZCentral is incredibly detailed so read on: http://absolutezerounites.blogspot.com/2014/03/offendex-extortion-website-is-going-out.html
*Again what is wrong with this is non compliance means prison so to say: because these laws do not impose any kind of punishment. * is actually a lie.
In Starkey v. Oklahoma Department Of Corrections, the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma found the Oklahoma Sex Offender Registration Act, or SORA, to be punitive in nature, if not in intent. While the law in question has been ruled as not being retroactive in nature, the Oklahoma Department of Corrections had been applying the new legislation retroactively, and “also find the Department’s retroactive application of the level assignment provisions of 57 O.S. Supp. 2007, 582.1 – 582.5, as amended, violates the ex post facto clause.”
When states make retroactive laws they should be sued by our country. There is always that possibility.
Controversy has also arisen with regard to Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) Laws, which allow the indefinite commitment of a person with a mental abnormality which predisposes him to molest children. This issue arose in the case Kansas v. Hendricks. In Hendricks, a man with a long history of sexually molesting children was scheduled to be released from prison shortly after the enactment of Kansas’s SVP act. Rather than being released, he was committed on the grounds that he had a mental abnormality. Hendricks contested the law on ex post facto and double jeopardy grounds. The Supreme Court of Kansas invalidated the Act, but the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the decision and ruled that the law was constitutional on the basis that the law did not impose a criminal punishment.
It is obvious that this is very controversial and I believe the only reason this is not deemed illegal is because it has not been fought enough in court. Imagine if someday it is found illegal and the people that enacted such laws are thrown in prison themselves.
It is a blight on us all that the euphoria of sex offender cruelty has been aloud to perpetuate; just so the media and the internet can make money off of it. It only goes to show how much the media and the internet has power over politics and voters in the land of the free. Yet laws like online Identifier seeks to take any voice of protest that might actually help us all. History has proven that this will end sooner or latter.