CO - Civil rights lawsuits attack excesses of Colorado's sex offender laws

Original Article

03/25/2013

By Alan Prendergast

Colorado's tough sex offender laws are supposed to keep predators under tight supervision.

But a series of lawsuits claim that the system is violating even minor offenders' rights to free speech and association, prohibiting contact with family members -- and, in one particularly bizarre case, telling a 62-year-old man that a discussion with a stepdaughter about her pregnancy constitutes unlawful "third party contact with a child."

Boulder civil rights attorney Alison Ruttenberg has filed at least three federal lawsuits in recent months challenging actions taken by probation officers and others responsible for enforcing the restrictions imposed by the state's Sex Offender Management Board. She's sued treatment providers and board members as well for what she considers over-the-top intrusions into her clients' family lives, choice of reading material and thought processes.

Colorado's controversial "containment" model for monitoring the behavior of sex offenders is based on the premise that there's no known cure for such offenders. But critics of the system have long maintained that it lumps individuals convicted of a minor offense, such as indecent exposure, with violent predators and goes to absurd lengths to "contain" them. A recent report by independent evaluators (PDF) of the state's in-prison treatment program found many inconsistencies and possibly coercive tactics in the program that may be keeping offenders in prison longer than necessary.

One of the lawsuits filed by Ruttenberg contends that the SOMB guidelines for managing sex offenders "are poorly researched, not based on peer-reviewed scientific research, and are largely based on [SOMB member] Peggy Heil's personal publications, which are not peer reviewed, and/or based on publications by victim's advocacy groups."

That case concerns a 62-year-old delivery truck driver who was convicted of misdemeanor unlawful sexual contact based on the complaint of an adult female grocery store employee in Canon City. The woman claimed the man groped her buttocks and breast while they were unloading his truck; the man insisted it was an "unwanted hug" offered to someone he'd hugged before.

The man was sentenced to three years on probation, but he soon learned that his status as a convicted sex offender involved several additional requirements. According to the lawsuit, his probation officer and treatment provider informed him that he could no longer visit his male best friend, have any contact with his grandchildren, or even discuss his grandchildren with his wife's adult children -- even though his crime didn't involve children. And his wife was told to remove all pictures of the grandchildren from the residence: "She has to choose between living with her husband and having pictures of her grandchildren displayed in her house."

The final straw, Ruttenberg's complaint alleges, came after one of the man's stepdaughters called to inform him of her pregnancy and seek advice. The conversation about the fetus was supposedly deemed "third party contact with a child."

In a separate legal action, another Ruttenberg client -- also convicted of unlawful sexual conduct with an adult female and with no history of sexual contact with children -- claims that his probation officer seized from his home vintage stuffed animals given to his wife by her grandmother on the theory that they could be used to "lure children." He also confiscated birding magazines, newspapers and a National Geographic merchandise catalog. The suit claims he was subsequently ordered not to have any contact with his wife and ordered to live in homeless shelters: "This served no legitimate penological goal and instead was done with the intent to harass and humiliate and to retaliate against him and his wife."

Because her client had to avoid all contact with children, Ruttenberg says, he couldn't risk visiting the library, parks or other haunts of the homeless when the shelters weren't open, and thus had to spend most of his days in his car. At the heart of the issue, the lawsuit contends, is that "Colorado probation and parole officers have a 'one size fits all' policy, and all sex offenders are treated the same. Therefore, anyone who has been convicted of a sex offense is treated as if he or she is a serial pedophile."

Ruttenberg says she's received many other complaints from offenders facing probation revocation and prison time and is considering filing other cases. "Apparently this happens all the time," she says.

---

IN - Indiana won't challenge sex offender Facebook ruling

Original Article

02/28/2013

INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — Indiana has decided not to ask a federal appeals court to reconsider a ruling that overturned a state law that banned convicted sex offenders from social networking websites.

American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana legal director Ken Falk said Thursday that the attorney general's office would not ask the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago to rehear the case.

The court said in January that the 2008 law was too broad and violated freedom of speech.

State lawmakers are currently rewriting the law to try to make it conform to constitutional limits. A Senate committee has approved an amended version that applies only to offenders convicted of child-related sex crimes who knowingly use social networks, instant messaging or chat rooms to communicate with children under age 16.

---

MA - Quincy lawmaker files bill to require sex offenders to register social media names

Original Article

02/28/2013

By Mike Trinh

BOSTON - Is that new Facebook friend or Twitter follower a sex offender? How would you know?

For the third time since 2007, a Quincy lawmaker is leading an effort to change the state’s Sex Offender Registry law to require sex offenders to register their online social media handles and email addresses with the state.

It’s an effort first championed by former state Sen. Michael Morrissey, D-Quincy, back in 2007, three years after Facebook was launched and quickly became the social media choice among college students, then high school kids and adults.

That year, the bill never made it out of the Judiciary Committee. In 2011, state Rep. Tackey Chan, D-Quincy, a former aide to Morrissey, refiled the bill with the same results.

This year, Chan has filed the bill again, along with 19 co-sponsors, and said he hopes it will have a better chance this time.

“So much of our world is not about physical presences anymore. There are many online presences now,” Chan said.

The bill would update the 2004 Sex Offender Registry Statute to adapt to changing technology and social media, Chan said, adding that sex offender registry laws have to evolve along with society.

Morrissey, now the Norfolk County district attorney, said his office has seen cases of sex offenders meeting young victims on the Internet. The current registry is not designed to stop or bring attention to online predators.

“At the time the sex offender registry went into effect, no one was paying attention to the computer and what it would mean in the future,” he said.

The bill would require all levels of sex offenders to register social media names and email addresses, but the registry’s website would only display the Internet identities of Level 3 offenders – the ones considered most likely to re-offend. People would have to contact their local police department for information on others.

Quincy Detective Lt. Patrick Glynn said having more in-depth information on sex offenders would give the police more avenues to check on them.

“It would be extremely helpful with the way social media has taken off,” he said.

The penalty for not registering online identities would be 6 months to 2 1/2 years in jail or a fine of not more than $1,000 – the same penalty sex offenders face for failing to register addresses and phone numbers.

John Reinstein, senior legal counsel at the ACLU of Massachusetts, said in a written statement that forcing sex offenders to list their online identities is an invasion of personal privacy that would not likely improve public safety. Instead, he said, it would just make the people in the registry more vulnerable to harassment and isolation.

“If the goal of the statute is to reintegrate sex offenders into the community and to prevent re-offense, this is not the way to do it,” he said.

However, Reinstein also said that it may be appropriate for offenders caught conducting their crimes on the Internet to register online identities as part of their probation.

“To the extent that an individual sex offender’s offense involves the use of the Internet for unlawful purposes, such regulation may be appropriate as a condition of probation,” he wrote.

---

NY - Sex Offenders and Social Media in New York State

Our Comments:
The law is lumping all ex-sex offenders into one group, the worst of the worse, and that is why it's unconstitutional. Probation / parole can already set guidelines on who can do what, so this is just another un-needed law made by some politician who is exploiting fear, children and ex-sex offenders to help their own careers.

It is time for the people who took oaths to defend the Constitution, to do so!!!!!

And we are also sick and tired of the biased media, who are suppose to report all the facts, and not their own personal hate and biasness, using the term sex offender, child molester, pedophile and predator as if they are all the same. THEY ARE NOT! So stop misusing the terms. It's reporting like this why the hysteria is still going strong, but maybe that is your goal in the first place?

Video Description:
Criminal Defense Attorney Thomas Carr of Albany, NY discusses New York State laws pertaining to Sex Offenders and Social Media.

A federal judge in Chicago said it is unconstitutional for states to ban all sex offenders from social media sites. The ruling came after an Indiana sex offender who was no longer on probation challenged a state law.

It was a very, very broad ban, if you were a sex offender you couldnt register and you couldn't be on Facebook, said Thomas Carr, a partner with Tully Rinkey PLLC.

In 2008, New York enacted the Electronic Security and Targeting of Online Predators Act (e-STOP). Authorities have since used provisions to take thousands of sex offenders offline. E-STOP requires offenders to register their email addresses, screen names and social media accounts with the state. The information is then provided to social media sites that request the data. New York only prohibits some sex offenders from using the websites as part of probation requirements.

More than two dozen social media websites, including Facebook, ban sex offenders as part of their Terms of Service. The federal ruling does not apply to the sites because they are private companies.

Some sites do not have an outright ban on sex offenders and do not cross-check the information on the state database with their usernames, which is why experts continually suggest parents take steps at home to monitor computer, gaming and smartphone use.

Were always concerned about safety for kids and this is concerning. it really highlights and makes it more important for a parent to be involved with the kid's online presence, said Andy Gliplin, Director of Program Services at CAPTAIN Youth and Family Services. Really take advantage of the parental controls that are out there with a lot of the sites, gaming consoles, and different access points to the internet.

---

IN - Facebook Sex Offenders Ban Ruled Unconstitutional

Original Article

01/23/2013

By CHARLES WILSON

INDIANAPOLIS - An Indiana law that bans registered sex offenders from using Facebook and other social networking sites that can be accessed by children is unconstitutional, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.

The 7th U.S. Circuit of Appeals in Chicago overturned a federal judge's decision upholding the law, saying the state was justified in trying to protect children but that the "blanket ban" went too far by restricting free speech.

The 2008 law "broadly prohibits substantial protected speech rather than specifically targeting the evil of improper communications to minors," the judges wrote.

"The goal of deterrence does not license the state to restrict far more speech than necessary to target the prospective harm," they said in a 20-page decision (PDF).

The judges noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has also struck down laws that restricted the constitutional right to freedom of expression, such as one that sought to ban leafleting on the premise that it would prevent the dropping of litter.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt ruled in June that the state has a strong interest in protecting children and found that social networking had created a "virtual playground for sexual predators to lurk." She noted that everything else on the Internet remained open to those who have been convicted of sex offenses.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana filed the class-action suit on behalf of a man who served three years for child exploitation and other sex offenders who are restricted by the ban even though they are no longer on probation.

Courts have long allowed states to place restrictions on convicted sex offenders who have completed their sentences, controlling where many live and work and requiring them to register with police. But the ACLU contended that even though the Indiana law is only intended to protect children from online sexual predators, social media websites are virtually indispensable. The group said the ban prevents sex offenders from using the websites for legitimate political, business and religious purposes.

The ACLU applauded the decision.

"Indiana already has a law on the books that prohibits inappropriate sexual contacts with children," including penalties for online activities, ACLU legal director Ken Falk said. "This law sought to criminalize completely innocent conduct that has nothing to do with children."

Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller said his office would review the ruling before deciding on the next step.

Federal judges have barred similar laws in Nebraska and Louisiana. Louisiana legislators passed a new, narrower law last year that requires sex offenders to identify themselves on Facebook and similar sites. A federal judge struck down part of Nebraska's law last October.

---

NM - Rep wants sex offender Facebook ban

Original Article

01/08/2013

By Alex Goldsmith

ALBUQUERQUE (KRQE) - If you want to see if a registered sex offender is living in your neighborhood, all you have to do is go onto the state's sex offender registry.

But accomplishing the same goal on the world-wide Facebook neighborhood isn't so easy.

"There have been numerous instances throughout the country where convicted sex offenders have lured children into very unsafe situations using social media," said state Rep. Nate Gentry (R - Albuquerque).

Gentry's solution... a proposed state law that would make it a misdemeanor any of the New Mexico's registered sex offenders from using social networking, chat or instant messaging services where minors are allowed to register on the site.

That would include sites like Facebook, Twitter and Google+.

The proposal is not without its opponents. Brenda Jones, executive director of Reform Sex Offender Laws, says Gentry's bill is overly broad and believes it violates the First Amendment.

"It doesn't take any consideration into account of whether the persons involved actually pose any type of risk," Jones said in a phone interview with News 13. "A lot of the people on the registry now didn't even commit a crime that involved a minor."

"These people have a propensity towards offenses of a sexual nature so we want to make sure we do all we can to protect our children," Gentry responded.

Similar laws in other states have had mixed results when challenged in court. The ACLU has helped litigate legal battles in Nebraska, Indiana and Louisiana.

In Nebraska and Louisiana, judges threw out all or part of sex offender social networking bans because the laws were overly broad or overly restricted First Amendment rights. Louisiana lawmakers later passed another law requiring sex offenders to publicly identify themselves as such on social networking sites.

However in Indiana, a federal judge ruled last June that the state's interests in protecting children was enough to allow the state to regulate which websites sex offenders can use.

---

CA - Why We Fight to Keep Registered Sex Offenders Online

Original Article

12/14/2012

By Hanni Fakhoury

Believing that human trafficking is worsened by the internet’s anonymity, the sponsors of California’s Proposition 35 thought they had a simple solution to combatting the problem: require convicted traffickers to register as sex offenders. Then require all individuals on California’s sex offender registry to disclose their online identities and service providers.

The measure passed in the November election with 81 percent voter approval. This isn’t surprising, since Prop. 35 also increases criminal penalties for trafficking, uses criminal fines to fund victim services organizations, and mandates more law-enforcement training on human trafficking. But the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the ACLU of Northern California sued, challenging the constitutionality of the reporting requirements – and this Monday, a federal court will hear arguments about whether it should continue to block the measure’s implementation.

Because in its zeal to restrict free speech online for some, Prop. 35 actually restricts free speech for all.

In a way, making the legal arguments is going to be the easy part. The harder battle is convincing the hearts and minds of those who aren’t on the California sex offender registry to understand the implications of passing such laws. Especially if people believe that the EFF and ACLU, in fighting this measure, are defending pedophiles.

Challenging Prop. 35 isn’t about defending “pedophiles” – not everyone on the registry is a pedophile, let alone a sex trafficker. More importantly, challenging Prop. 35 is really about defending free speech online.

The government needs to keep its hands off internet speech, allowing the web to remain a place where ideas and expression can flow freely. Anonymous speech is an important First Amendment right, and has always been a way to promote a robust exchange of ideas – allowing people to speak their minds freely without worry about retaliation or societal isolation.

Read the entire article here

---

CA - ACLU, EFF Sue to Block Parts of New Sex-Offender Law

againstthecaseact.com

Original Article

I am glad they temporarily suspended this, but I also find it ironic that if it was just pertaining to ex-sex offenders, then nobody would care, but since ex-prostitutes and others could be labeled sex offenders, it now, all of a sudden, matters? When you trample one person/groups rights, it tramples all rights. The video below comes to mind.

11/07/2012

By Karen Gullo

The American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation sued to block portions of a California law to combat human trafficking that creates new requirements for sex offenders, alleging parts of the measure violate free speech rights.

California’s Proposition 35 (PDF), which includes increased prison terms for human trafficking, requires anyone who is a registered sex offender to turn over a list of all their Internet identifiers and service providers to law enforcement, the groups said in an e-mail today.

The measure’s online speech regulations are overly broad and violate the First Amendment, both because they prohibit anonymous speech and because the reporting requirements burden all sorts of online speech, even when the speaker is using his own real name as a screen name, they said.

The suit, which seeks a judge’s order blocking the allegedly unconstitutional portions of the law, was filed today in federal court in San Francisco by two registered sex offenders and the non-profit group California Reform Sex Offender Laws.

The case is Roe v. Harris (PDF) (More Info), 12-5713, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Francisco).

Update:

• Proposition 35 blocked (PDF)

See Also:

• Critics raise specter of police state in challenge to new Calif. law
• All related articles

Video Link

---

MN - Court Rules That Student’s Facebook Messages are Protected Under First and Fourth Amendments

Original Article

But when the state, county or police ask an ex-sex offender for their online ID's and passwords, it's all of a sudden constitutional?

09/19/2012

Earlier this month, a U.S. District Court in Minnesota ruled that a student’s online privacy is protected under the first and fourth amendments, and any school officials who require the disclosure of a student’s password is violating their privacy rights. The case concerns a 12-year-old in Minnesota who wrote negative remarks about an employee at her school on her Facebook page. She was disciplined by the school for her posts, and the school forced her to hand over the passwords to her Facebook and personal email pages.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the court ruled that statements made away from school “are protected under the First Amendment and not punishable by school authorities unless they are true threats or are reasonably calculated to reach the school environment and are so egregious as to pose a serious safety risk or other substantial disruption in that environment.”

The ruling has been hailed by experts as a promising first step in guaranteeing privacy rights for online content.

“Public schools that require any of their students to register their social media usernames, or to provide access to their password protected digital content via required Facebook Friending or the installation of a third-party software application for any reason are in clear violation of the 1st and 4th Amendment,” wrote Bradley Shear, an attorney who has helped states deal with issues of privacy and social media.

---

Resolution on the Promotion, Protection, and Enjoyment of Human Rights on the Internet

Click the image to read the entire article

---

PETITION - Celebrate freedom. Support a free and open Internet

Original Article

More than any time in history, more people in more places have the ability to make their voices heard.

Just as we celebrate freedom, we need to celebrate the tools that support freedom.

Add your voice in support of a free and open Internet.

Video Link

---

OK - Convicted sex offender fights for rights

Original Article

05/31/2012

By La'Tasha Givens

OKLAHOMA CITY — Convicted sex offenders are prohibited from using Facebook, Linkedin in and other social media outlets.

Law makers say the goal is to deter predators from easily finding new victims but others say it’s unconstitutional.

[name withheld] is a convicted sex offender.

That’s not the label this former OSU football player thought he would wear the rest of his life.

Instead of the “OS” on his letterman jacket, he’s now bearing the scarlet letters “SO” after pleading guilty to raping a teen more than a decade ago.

Freshman year he had sex with a girl at a campus party who told him she was 18, it turns out she was only 13.

But [name withheld] said people have the wrong idea about his situation.

“People think I saw a little girl with some pigtails, jumping rope or walking down the street and I snatched her up in the car and raped her while she was crying for mama the whole time. That’s not the case at all,” [name withheld] said.

Now, he along with other sex offenders are calling for social media sites like Facebook and Linkedin to lift the ban restricting them from use.

He’s now a father of three and the injunction prevents him from monitoring his own children’s online activities.

“I know some of these things are set up because there are predators out there and I understand that, I have children of my own. I have a daughter and I would never want anyone to hurt her. But you have a lot of people in my shoes who are not but they are on the list,” [name withheld] said.

Attorney David Slane now represents [name withheld] and his fighting to restore his liberties.

“People have rights and the First Amendment right to speak or be on Facebook or anything else that’s part of communication. We can’t just take those rights away,” Slane said.

[name withheld] said although he is not a monster who preys on children, he’s treated like one every time he has to use his license.

Sex offender in bold red letters banners over his name.

“If they are going to do this, I don’t understand why murderers don’t have murderer on his license and I don’t understand why a convicted drug dealer doesn’t have drug dealer on his license,” [name withheld] said.

Nebraska and Louisiana are some of the first states to suspend the social media ban for sex offenders.

The American Civil Liberties Union is challenging similar laws around the country they say strip people of their first amendments rights.

Video Link

---

LA - The C-Section: Banning sex offenders from social media violates freedom of speech

Original Article

04/25/2012

By Chris Grillot

In 2009, [name withheld] raped and murdered 17-year-old Ashleigh Hall in England.

[name withheld], a convicted double-rapist, coerced Hall into meeting him over Facebook. The catch: [name withheld] posed as an attractive 17-year-old boy.

To combat this type of crime, Rep. Ledricka Thierry, D-Opelousas, has proposed a bill that would ban convicted pedophiles from social networking.

Before I go on, protecting children is paramount, and there are instances of sexual crimes against children where the perpetrator deserves life.

That said, Thierry’s bill sparks a number of questions about its constitutionality and effectiveness.

House Bill 620 (PDF) would ban individuals convicted of indecent behavior with juveniles, pornography involving juveniles and computer-aided solicitation of minors, or video voyeurism, from social websites.

The bill defines a “social networking website” as any site whose primary purpose is “facilitating social interaction with other users of the website.”

It specifies that the websites must have capabilities that allow users to create Web pages or profiles about themselves that are available to the general public or other users as a “mechanism of communication.”

A “social networking website” doesn’t include sites that only provide photo-sharing, e-mail or instant messengers. It doesn’t include sites primarily for facilitating commercial transactions, and it doesn’t include ones primarily used for disseminating news.

In February, Chief Justice Brian Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana struck down the bill’s first incarnation, citing First Amendment violations.

Jackson believed the bill went overboard and banned use to most of the Internet.

The bill’s reincarnation — though approved by the House of Representatives — appears to have the same problem as its predecessor.

Because of the bill’s vague wording, it may cover much more than social networking and take away outlets for free speech.

It may cover professional networking website LinkedIn. It also seems to include sites like Yahoo!, which contains e-mail and news and allows users to make a profile.

And will it cover blogging sites like WordPress or iPhone social-networking apps like Foursquare?

At any rate, the bill may still cover a substantial amount of the Internet now that social networking influences new websites across the Web.

These questions need to be addressed before the bill is passed. Unfortunately, Rep. Thierry could not be reached for comment by press time.

Another problem is that the bill will affect more people than needed.

In a 2003 study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, only about 5 percent of nearly 9,700 sex offenders released from jail were rearrested for a new sex crime in three years.

These statistics show the bill ignores that most released offenders aren’t committing future crimes. In fact, the bill assumes all will commit another sex crime — and that it will occur online.

These offenders served their time. Is it right to continue punishing them for the rest of their lives?

The ban will inevitably be more harmful to convicted sex offenders ready to live a crime-free life.

And finally, the law will not affect those criminals willing to commit another crime.

People willing to break the law will break the law — that’s how they become criminals.

Though it may be illegal to register on a website under their real name, convicted sex offenders could register under a nickname if they are going to prey on social networking sites.

If passed, Thierry’s bill would simply say Louisiana is tough on child sex offenders, while creating a new crime only to be committed by those who have served their time — logging on to Facebook or trying to get a job via LinkedIn.

To make the bill more constitutional, Thierry could make the law narrower, possibly including only repeated sex offenders or sex offenders who were originally convicted of using the Internet to solicit sex.

Another suggestion is for Thierry to pass a bill to enhance sex offender rehabilitation rather than a bill to restrict outlets to free speech.

A blanket ban on social media will harm a majority of convicted sex offenders’ rights and keep them from engaging in social networking.

Right now, Louisiana requires sex offenders to register in an online database and have special driver’s licenses, among other duties. Social networking has potential — if used in the right way — to help integrate such criminals back into society, rather than ostracize them further.

Sex crimes against children is a controversial subject. But we cannot let emotions and stereotypes against certain people justify harming First Amendment rights.

There is a compromise to be made.

Why not focus on helping rather than creating lifelong punishments?

---

LA - Lawmakers seek to rewrite sex offender social networking ban

Original Article

04/05/2012

(AP) — A bid to rewrite a state law seeking to ban certain sex offenders from Facebook and other social networking sites on Wednesday started moving through the Louisiana Legislature.

The existing law was declared unconstitutional by a federal judge. A proposal backed by the House criminal justice committee without objection would more narrowly define what sites are banned, with hopes it could withstand a court challenge.

The bill, sought by Gov. Bobby Jindal and sponsored by Rep. Ledricka Thierry, D-Opelousas, heads to the full House for debate, over opposition from a convicted sex offender who said the measure would violate his constitutional free speech protections.

Thierry’s bill would ban certain sex offenders from websites whose primary purpose is “facilitating social interaction with other users of the website and which allows users to create web pages or profiles about themselves that are available to the public or other users.” The proposal spells out that news websites, e-mail pages and online shopping sites aren’t included in the ban.

The prohibition would apply to anyone convicted of a sex offense against a minor or of video voyeurism. Conviction of the crime of unlawful use or access of social media would carry a prison sentence of up to 10 years. A second conviction would mandate a prison sentence of at least five years and up to 20 years.

“It’s only right that as a state we have a compelling interest to protect our children,” Thierry said.

A federal judge threw out a law passed last year that made it a crime for the same list of sex offenders to use networking websites, chat rooms and peer-to-peer networks. The Baton Rouge-based judge said the law was too broad and would effectively ban those sex offenders from the Internet.

The ACLU of Louisiana filed a lawsuit on behalf of two sex offenders identified as John Doe and James Doe. The organization said the terms used in the law barred the sex offenders from browsing any website that allows users to create profiles about themselves or that has chat rooms, instant messaging and e-mail — sweeping in everything from news websites to job search sites.

Convicted sex offender [name withheld], of Carencro, asked lawmakers Wednesday to reject this year’s bill, saying it would restrict him from communicating with his elected officials online, posting comments on news sites and exercising his First Amendment rights.

“I don’t have a right to free speech if this is passed,” said [name withheld].

[name withheld] said he was convicted of a sex crime after he met an underage girl through a dating website in which she claimed to be 21 years old.

See Also:

• Judge Throws Out Louisiana Facebook Ban On Sex Offenders

---

OFF TOPIC - Obama Makes Free Speech A Felony

Video Link

---

LA - Judge Throws Out Louisiana Facebook Ban On Sex Offenders

Original Article

Let's not forget this oldie, where Bobby claims to be an exorcist. So why doesn't he bust out his mojo and exorcise the demons from LA? LOL!

02/16/2012

BATON ROUGE (AP) — A federal judge threw out on Thursday a Louisiana law that bans certain sex offenders from Facebook and other social networking sites, calling the prohibition an unreasonable restriction on constitutionally protected speech.

The law, which took effect in August, made it a crime for anyone convicted of a sex offense against a minor or of video voyeurism to use networking websites, chat rooms and peer-to-peer networks. Lawmakers, backed by Gov. Bobby Jindal, said the ban was designed to keep sex offenders from preying on children in online forums.

U.S. District Judge Brian Jackson, based in Baton Rouge, said the prohibition went too far.

“Although the act is intended to promote the legitimate and compelling state interest of protecting minors from internet predators, the near total ban on Internet access imposed by the act unreasonably restricts many ordinary activities that have become important to everyday life in today’s world,” Jackson wrote in his ruling.

The ACLU of Louisiana sought to overturn the law on behalf of two sex offenders identified as John Doe and James Doe.

The organization said the terms used in the law barred the sex offenders from browsing any website that allows users to create profiles about themselves or that has chat rooms, instant messaging and e-mail — sweeping in everything from news websites to job search sites.

During a hearing a few months before his ruling, Jackson noted the statute would appear to ban the sex offenders from using the federal court website.

The attorney general’s office defended the statute, which was sponsored in the Legislature by Rep. Ledricka Thierry, D-Opelousas. A spokeswoman didn’t immediately respond Thursday to a question about whether the attorney general’s office would appeal Jackson’s ruling.

See Also:

• ACLU Sues To Protect First Amendment Rights on the Internet (PDF)
• Jindal Blasts Judge For Facebook Sex Offender Ruling

Video Link

---

SOPA & PIPA message from Capt. Jean-Luc Picard

Video Link

---

U.N. Report Declares Internet Access a Human Right

Original Article

06/03/2011

By David Kravets (Twitter)

A United Nations report said Friday that disconnecting people from the internet is a human rights violation and against international law.

The report railed against France and the United Kingdom, which have passed laws to remove accused copyright scofflaws from the internet. It also protested blocking internet access to quell political unrest (PDF).

While blocking and filtering measures deny users access to specific content on the Internet, states have also taken measures to cut off access to the Internet entirely. The Special Rapporteur considers cutting off users from internet access, regardless of the justification provided, including on the grounds of violating intellectual property rights law, to be disproportionate and thus a violation of article 19, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The report continues:

The Special Rapporteur calls upon all states to ensure that Internet access is maintained at all times, including during times of political unrest. In particular, the Special Rapporteur urges States to repeal or amend existing intellectual copyright laws which permit users to be disconnected from Internet access, and to refrain from adopting such laws.

The report, by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, comes the same day an internet-monitoring firm detected that two thirds of Syria’s internet access has abruptly gone dark, in what is likely a government response to unrest in that country.

See Also:

• U.S. Courts Split on Internet Bans
• Government bins plans to block paedophiles from Facebook

---

AK - Alaska's 'Indecent to Minors' Internet Statute Struck Down

Original Article

07/02/2011

By Tom Hymes

ANCHORAGE - A federal judge has put a final nail into the coffin of SB 222, a state law passed in January 2010 that imposes criminal sanctions against people engaged in the "electronic distribution of indecent material to minors." The state has contened all along that the law is intended to target only sexual predators who use pornography to "groom" their victims, and would not be used to target adult speech. But a group of content producers, distributors and other affected parties, including the Alaska ACLU, filed suit in August of last year, alleging that the imprecise language of the statute would create an unconstitutional chill on adult speech.

After granting the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction last Oct., U.S. District Court Judge Ralph Beistline Thursday concluded the law was fatally flawed as written by failing to achieve two of the three prongs necessary to pass strict scrutiny; it was neither "narrowly tailored" enough to achieve the state's legitimate "compelling interest to protect minor children," nor was it the "least restrictive means" to meet the state's interest.

The language of AS 11.61.128 is, as follows:

Electronic Distribution of Indecent Material to Minors.

(a) A person commits the crime of electronic distribution of indecent material to minors if

(1) the person, being 18 years of age or older, knowingly distributes to another person by computer any material that depicts the following actual or simulated conduct:

(A) sexual penetration;

(B) the lewd touching of a person's genitals, anus, or female breast;

(C) masturbation;

(D) bestiality;

(E) the lewd exhibition of a person's genitals, anus, or female breast; or

(F) sexual masochism or sadism; and

(2) either

(A) the other person is a child under 16 years of age; or

(B) the person believes that the other person is a child under 16 years of age.

(b) In this section, it is not a defense that the victim was not actually under 16 years of age.

(c) Except as provided in (d) of this section, electronic distribution of indecent material to minors is a class C felony.

(d) Electronic distribution of indecent material to minors is a class B felony if the defendant was, at the time of the offense, required to register as a sex offender or child kidnapper under AS 12.63 or a similar law of another jurisdiction.

The state argued that the "knowingly distributes" component of the law indicated its intent to target a narrow class of criminals, but the judge said that because of the inherently anonymous nature of the internet, the law as written would ensnare adults communicating with other adult online, and further, that the broad interpretation by the courts of "knowingly" would create "a chilling affect under the Alaska stature, even if 'knowing' is imputed to sections where the word is not included. Individuals who fear the possibility of a minor receiving speech intended for an adult may refrain from exercising their right to free speech at all—an unacceptable result."

According to the ruling, the state does not even contest the possible overreach of the statute. "The State of Alaska conceded that when the statute is interpreted at its broadest, it is unconstitutional," wrote Beistline. Any possible chilling effect was permissible, it argued, because without the law, "the State would actually have to wait until a child was actually sexually assaulted before intervening." No other statute, it claimed, "prohibits adults from giving adult pornography to children."

The judge found that argument wanting, as well, finding that not only was the claimed statutory deficiency easily fixable by the legislature, which could also amend the current stature to make it more narrowly tailored as other states, including Ohio had done, but in his October ruling granting a preliminary injunction, Beistline listed a number of statues on the books in Alaska that provided "clear alternative options for prosecuting sexual predators."

The ruling is so one-sided, in fact, that one wonders why it was passed as written in the first place. Ars Techinca wondered the same thing. "So why do legislatures keep passing these censorship bills," wrote Timothy B. Lee. "It's possible that their authors are simply ignorant of our nation's free speech jurisprudence. Or maybe passing broad censorship bills—even ones that will inevitably be struck down in court—is good politics. Either way, the whole charade seems like a waste of court time and taxpayer money."

The state is reportedly considering an appeal.

---

Unprecedented domain seizure shutters 84,000 sites

Original Article

So now the power hungry gestapo is closing down entire domains under the "for the children" campaign. This is like shutting down all Google sites because one or more have child porn on them.

02/18/2011

By Dan Goodin

Feds' Operation Powergrab slammed

The federal government's unprecedented practice of confiscating internet domain names in secret court proceedings took a new and ominous turn last week when it resulted in the closure of as many as 84,000 website addresses.

The power grab came last Friday, when the mooo.com, an address a service called Free DNS used to resolve more than user 84,000 websites was unceremoniously suspended at the registrar level. Sites that relied on mooo.com soon displayed a banner that said the domain name had been seized by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the main investigative arm of the US Department of Homeland Security. The banner went on to include this creepy nugget:
- So now the government is slandering many people due to a few?

“Advertisement, distribution, transportation, receipt, and possession of child pornography constitute federal crimes that carry penalties for first time offenders of up to 30 years in federal prison, a $250,000 fine, forfeiture and restitution.”

Speculation has abounded ever since that mooo.com was one of almost a dozen domains confiscated under Operation Protect Our Children, in which the government obtained a secret court order to seize addresses allegedly involved in child pornography without first giving the owners a chance to defend themselves before a judge.

By Sunday evening, mooo.com was restored, but by then the damage was done. Not only had 84,000 websites been silenced for 72 hours (a term lawyers call prior restraint) with no legal authority, but it was going to take another day or so for the world's domain name servers to reflect the change in tables most people use to access the sites. Condemnation of the move by ICE, which is overseen by Director John Morton, was swift and scathing.

“Mr. Morton, with all due respect: 'f--- off,' one affected website operator wrote. “Pulling a total domain, sweeping up innocent people along the way, feeling that you don't have to comply with due process of law and indicating that you don't give a damn is wrong. It's not as wrong as child pornography or counterfeiting, but it's still wrong.”

Department of Homeland Security officials didn't respond to an email and phone calls seeking comment.

Lawyers and civil libertarians say the act was unprecedented and a naked affront to Free Speech guarantees at the heart of the US Constitution.

“You don't take down speech unless you have some sort of justification for it, and that's why, over and over, courts have said if you're going to take down a website, or take down speech anywhere, that take-down has to be narrowly tailored to a specific objective,” Corynne McSherry, intellectual property director for Electronic Frontier Foundation, told The Register. “This is basic constitutional law.”

Operation Protect Our Children comes on the heels of a separate ICE initiative dubbed Operation in our Sites, which seizes domain names for websites accused of offering pirated or counterfeited content or products. Like last week's operation, it didn't afford any prior notice to the owners, many of whom are located outside US borders.

The latest initiative came about the same time US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton criticized the Egyptian government for pulling the plug on the internet. The irony hasn't been lost on critics.

“Our government has gone rogue on us,” Eric Goldman, a professor at Santa Clara University School of Law, said. “Our government is going into court with half-baked facts and half-baked legal theories and shutting down operations. This is exactly what we thought the government couldn't do. I'm scratching my head why we aren’t' grabbing the pitchforks.”

---