Wednesday, November 7, 2012

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


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).


See Also:


lookinmirror said...

I have a hard time understanding how when it comes to women and prostitution they always somehow put a spin on what they are doing as if they are the victims. Or maybe this activity should be ok as really it's a victim less crime. but is it? If the man is arrested with a prostitute he is on the registry and she gets her hand slapped. thing is she is a pro at this. So is she not just as guilty if not more so as she has done this many times probably the same day she was arrested. When what she is doing is talked about it's like she has to or has no other choice and really she is just working a job?Almost like if the guy had not asked her to do it she would have just gone home. No she will stay out till she finds as many as she can and then out the next night. So should she be labeled a sex offender?

If the shoe fits. It's sex it's illegal and so yes she should be and for life. Oh the upside, Hey what great advertisement. You go on line check your local area for sex offenders and you know right where the hookers live. The only thing they don't give you is a phone number to call for a date.

deathklok said...

Ironic double standard that I read in the complaint.

"...if Doe were required to disclose to law enforcement all Internet service providers and Internet identifiers that he uses, he would refrain from at least some online speech due to the fear of retaliation and the burdens of reporting. If Doe were required to disclose his identity in publicly filed pleadings in this action, Plaintiff would also be reluctant to participate in this litigation due to fear of retaliation."

It reminded me of a query on this website a while back. (I'm paraphrasing) "Why does law enforcement go out of their way to conceal a person in protective custody's record while they are incarcerated? Yet the minute they're released, LE goes out of their way to tell the entire community they're being released in. Regardless of everyone in the neighborhood's own previous criminal history."

Of course the answer is "As long as the registrant is killed outside the gates the state won't be held responsible."