Slashdot Mirror
EFF Sues to Block New Internet Sex-Offender Law
Bobfrankly1 writes "The EFF sued to block portions of the approved Prop 35 today. Prop 35 requires sex offenders (including indecent exposure and non-internet offenses) to provide all of their online aliases to law enforcement. This would include e-mail addresses, screen and user names, and other identifiers used on the internet. The heart of the matter as the EFF sees it, would be not only the chilling effect it would have on free speech, but also the propensity of these kind of laws to be applied to other (non-sex offending) people as well."
Like they could ever enforce this...
---
Sent from a registered sex offender
This law seems open to abuse. What rate limiting system does it use? I use a ton of different nicks in my line of work and I tend to change them multiple times per day.
4chan (pedo central) doesn't use usernames, accounts or aliases so they wouldn't be required to report it!
And this is why I voted no.
Convicted sex offenders and potentially dangerous criminals should have absolutely no rights to privacy. I don't care what the EFF says, and I sure as hell don't care about destroying the lives of a few depraved and/or dangerous/psychotic people.
Username: Anonymous Coward
Fucken mental health doctors sterilized me and made me impotent and I don't masturbate or look at porn due to God. Dad is a pedophile. I suffer constant interriogation by the psyops.
Don't worry mother fuckers God see this all, so I know you're fucken screwed. As you judge you will be judged, mother fuckers.
God says...
army preference Professorship Living hereunto field once_upon_a_time
thoroughly hinder wedlock Their savoured ninety Confessions
ETEXTS*Ver XII despite trademark forsaketh encumbered
mean bustle compassionate necessaries countryman illusion
openest I_just_might 10 foretold Virgin I_see_nothing
overflowed Milan If Nicaragua doubted upborne ordering
quicker
Nowadays a lot of people are classified as sex offenders that shouldn't be, like teenagers that send each other naughty pictures, or somebody that texts a lewd message to the wrong recipient. These people barely meet the definition, yet are branded for life.
If the sex offender status could be assigned with accuracy, I think this proposition would be okay. But it isn't, so the proposition means people are going to get hurt who shouldn't have even been declared as sex offenders in the first place. The proposition compounds the challenges these people face.
And I agree with the EFF that it's a dangerous trend to set. If you want to take away the anonymity of some pervert, do it for a real criminal who posts a credible threat to the community. Many people with the sex offender status don't fit that definition at all.
https://www.aclunc.org/cases/active_cases/doe_v._harris.shtml
It's really not a good law - it won't accomplish its goal and it has lots of bad possible side effects.
The law also states that the sex offenders must pinky promise not to make any new usernames or online aliases, or else!
This is a ridiculous law that can never be fully enforced and won't work the way people think it will. What the hell are they even trying to accomplish with it?
First they came for the pedos,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a pedo.
Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the guys into fisting and DP sites,
and I was like... "at least it was fun while it lasted".
What is needed is a 3 Strikes law, where-after attempting to pass three insane draconian laws, such fiends are registered as civil-offenders and no longer permitted within 100' of a computer device. They should also be required for 10 years to kneel on all fours immediately (while humming the National Anthem) whenever a weary pedestrian needs a place to sit. Their only other option would be joining the French Foreign Legion, which of course would be the default option.
Forward! -- Emperor Norton, 2012
The real problem here isn't the increased loss of freedom for sex offenders. I personally could give a shit less about them. The real problem is the ever increasing creep of the term "Sex offender" Lets be clear, when you say "Sex offender" Most reasonable people would think that meant someone that had had some kind of sexual contact with a CHILD (not a teenager) or had committed actual physical rape. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people labeled as sex offenders by the courts these days are people that got busted when they were 19 for having a 16yr old girl/boyfriend... or were even the same age as their teenage partner but texted pictures of her boobs to their friends. Should they be punished for this stuff? Yes... labeled a sex offender for the rest of their lives? Fuck no. "statutory rape" is not fucking rape. Stop treating it like it is. It degrades the term "RAPE" and trivializes the true victims of this horrible crime. Should some 25yr old looser that nails a 16yr old at a party go to jail for it? YES... but rape? come on. There's plenty of grey area here, and I'm sure we could argue about a lot of it. But there's plenty that's not in a grey area, and destroying someones life over a stupid mistake they made when they were barely out of highschool is detrimental to everyone involved. Including the victim.
Off the top of my head I've got 15-20 accounts (2 brokerages, bank, slashdot, fark, ars, metacritic, couple junk emails, etc etc etc). If, god forbid, I get labeled as a SO then they want *all* those logins? Makes a person mighty easy to track if you wanna, I dunno, drain some accounts here and there.
I'm snotnose in about 2/3 of those accounts. Where I'm not it's because snotnose was already taken. Hate to have a S.O. using snotnose on some site paint me with an awfully ugly brush. Oh, different accounts you say? You really think the kind of dumass that worries about this kind of thing will bother verifying the entire domain, as opposed to just remembering 'snotnose'.?
I was sexually abused by a teenage girl (about 14+ turning 15, 16 is the age of consent in Queensland, Australia)
she accused me of rape, the government covered it up because I was under the care of the government at the time,
it still sort of hangs over me,
I was 11 at the time.
They called the measure "stiffer penalties for human sex traffickers", and not much was explained about the details. I voted against it, not because I don't think sex trafficking is terrible, but because it wasn't clear who would be under the definition or why the current penalties weren't sufficient. Of course I knew it would pass, because "sex trafficker" sounds so terrible. Turns out my suspicions were well founded. plus it said it would cost a "few million dollars" to implement, at a time our state is going through a terrible financial crisis and was facing gutting the education budget.
talk to God about your own sexuality. You're probably homos.
God says...
the first year, without blemish, for a burnt offering; 9:4 Also a
bullock and a ram for peace offerings, to sacrifice before the LORD;
and a meat offering mingled with oil: for to day the LORD will appear
unto you.
9:5 And they brought that which Moses commanded before the tabernacle
of the congregation: and all the congregation drew near and stood
before the LORD.
9:6 And Moses said, This is the thing which the LORD commanded that ye
should do: and the glory of the LORD shall appear unto you.
9:7 And Moses said unto Aaron, Go unto the altar, and offer thy sin
offering, and thy burnt offering, and make an atonement for thyself,
and for the people: and offer the offering of the people, and make an
atonement for them; as the LORD commanded.
9:8 Aaron therefore went unto the altar, and slew the calf of the sin
offering, which was for himself.
Do they have to notify them of all their character aliases?
As a social conservative who appreciates the damage done by sex offenses and as a pragmatist who recognizes the liklihood of recidivism, I find the concept of sex offender registries appealing. The problem is that sex offense laws have been turned on their head. The Judaic Law (I am Catholic) tolerated teen fornication provided the couple got married afterward, yet in the U.S. an 18-year-old having sex with a 16-year-old is considered rape. On the opposite end of the criminalization spectrum, adultery -- the topic of two of the ten commandments -- has been completely decriminalized in most states!
Yes, a barrier to a universal registry is the pluarlism of sex ethics in the U.S. (obviously I myself am in a minority), so perhaps a solution is to require registries to include searchable/keyed details, so that consumers of registry information can make their own judgment.
There is over 100,000 registered sex offenders in California. Thats about 0.3%. That's higher than the entire USA, which is about 0.2%. 1 in 400 Americans are registered sex offenders.
prop 35 fails to account for rule 34
Because sexual predators are such considerate, honest people; right?
#fail
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
Our society places pedophiles in a special category because they compulsively attempt to lure children to them for purposes of illicit intergenerational sex.
It's not unreasonable for us to limit their access, or create more laws that they can be found in violation of.
After all, "the people" start screaming bloody murder when it turns out that the pedophile who killed 14-year-old honor student Jane lived just down the street, and there were warning signs, and yet the police could do nothing!
Instead of pretending that their rights are somehow linked to our own, let's accept that every society has an ultimate taboo and for us it's the child-rapists. The EFF is wasting their time fighting this symbolic non-issue while real issues pass on the breeze.
Futurist Traditionalism
...or at least create an unmanageable amount of work for the data-entry bureaucrats: Create a "catch-all" email address, i.e., [anything]@example.com goes to you. This is trivial to do with Postfix. Then make up a list of thousands---or millions---of email addresses @example.com and submit that to them. Making the list is of course trivial with a simple Perl script. Also ensure there are a few specific addresses at the example.com domain that go to someone else, such that the bureaucrats can't simply add "[anything]@example.com" to the registry. (If they do do that, they'd be adding the email address of an innocent third party, which could result in another interesting lawsuit all by itself.)
If any RSOs in California are interested in doing this, contact me (jraxis -@- jraxis.com). I'll set you up a catch-all at one of my domains and generate you a list of a few million random addresses at that domain.
Liberty in your lifetime
It wasn't hard to predict that idiot voters would approve this proposition and that it would then promptly be challenged in court as unconstitutional. I told a friend just that days ago, and look what happened. The same idiots believed the "arguments against" lies about Prop 33 and voted against that one, too. I really hoped that one would pass, as I've been stung by the perverse loyalty restriction in old Prop 103 twice now when I switched insurers.
If it were me, they'd have a freaking book! Our list of logins and passwords at work as size 12 Arial and 2 full pages and I recall thinking that I have about 8x that many, lol. Oh, and all mine are much, much, much stupider. I'm | bøøp r nøsè in one game and yes, that's how I spelled it, lol.
Read decision "Columbia Insurance Company v. Seescandy.com, et al." (1999) of the US District Court in the Northern District of California: "People are permitted to interact pseudonymously and anonymously with each other so long as those acts are not in violation of the law." http://legal.web.aol.com/aol/aolpol/seescandy.html It can't be presumed that they are going to break the law just because they are using the fictitious name and have some criminal history.
It seems like we hear or read about a law proposal with incredulous consequences nearly everyday.
The incredible lack of forethought and even rudimentary logic is beyond my comprehension.
Do they even think about the problem beyond pandering to a misguided vocal minority? Do they even think about the innocent people it will catch in its wake? Do they even think AT ALL??
Maybe I'm just naive to think that they actually care about anyone outside of their rich cronies club.
In the last few years, some major social media service providers have been pushing for "real names" policies. Most notably, Google has been doing this. This has been a big controversy with Google+. Google's plan with Google+ was to use it as the basis for an identity authentication system. Part of the privacy threat I see with Prop 35 is that social media services will use it as an excuse to enforce "real names" policies, claiming that it's just too difficult to check whether a pseudonym is a new alias for a registered sex offender, so no one should be allowed to use pseudonyms. That would be a significant blow to free speech on the Internet.
The whole sex offender system is useless without proper investigation or classification.
No, the sex offender system is a history of past actions. Regardless of cause, some actions are designated with a no-tolerance, no-exception policy. While you wouldn't want to wrongly group all offenders in the same category (just like not all manslaughter is murder), the end result is sufficiently detestable that reasons become less important than cause.
In this case, those actions were deemed adequately offensive to become public record, regardless of reasons. The proper time for investigation is at sentencing, not the time of reform.
- Nec Impar Pluribus, or so I'm told.
I can think of two examples illustrating problems with such laws.
1. Urinating in public can, in 13 states, qualify as a sex offense, through charges such as "indecent exposure", etc. A few links mentioning this issue can be viewed here:
http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/02/sex-offender-registry-megans-law-forbes-woman-time-children.html
http://www.economist.com/node/14164614
https://downtownathens.wordpress.com/2012/03/06/public-urination-considered-sex-offense-in-georgia-not-enforced-by-police/
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-02-25-sex-offender-laws-cover_x.htm
2. Certain interactions with a prostitute can also qualify for sex offense.
Number 1 is certainly more common, and is something nearly any good beer-drinking mammal has been guilty of. Number 2, although less common, is rather questionable. Why questionable? Figure that out yourself. But if it is to be such a grievous offense in the the U.S., it would seem appropriate to prevent U.S. citizens from traveling to nations where such an atrocious offense is legal, such as Austria, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Netherlands, Switzerland, Turkey(?) and others. And certainly anyone doing business with such perverted nations should be registered and arrested as accomplices, because anyone with scruples would take the support of such offenses just as seriously as we take pissing on bushes here -- no dubya pun intended.
Forward! -- Emperor Norton, 2012
At one time in the UK, it was legal for a man to urinate in public, so long as it occurred on the rear wheel of his vehicle and he had his right hand on the vehicle. The laws allowing this were the Hackney Carriage Laws, which were repealed in 1976.[35] Public urination still remains more accepted by males in the UK, although British cultural tradition itself seems to find such practices objectionable.
I guess when wanking became ambidextrous, they nixed that one.
Forward! -- Emperor Norton, 2012
Just in from Ars: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/11/california-judge-blocks-voter-approved-ban-on-anonymity-for-sex-offenders/
The Wired article doesn't provide it, and makes it sound like the proposition passed with an 81% Yes vote because people want to track registered sex offenders' Internet activity.
The proposition was billed as the human trafficking and penalties initiative. Its main focus was on increasing penalties for those convicted of human trafficking (mostly kids and women into prostitution). That's why it passed with such a high percentage of Yes votes. The part about sex offenders' Internet activity was a single sentence buried in the middle of the voter pamphlet's summary description, so probably was glazed over by most voters.
I was baffled why something whose main provision seemed like such a no-brainer was even a proposition. It sounded like something the legislature should've been able to pass in 5 minutes. So I did a bit more research and dug up this article explaining why it may not be very helpful, counter-intuitive as that seems. That's something you have to be careful of with these ballot propositions - if it sounds like a simple Yes vote, you need to ask yourself, "What's the catch? Why hasn't the legislature passed this already?"
Just imagine if you could accidentally use the same alias as someone on the sex offenders list!
But... the future refused to change.
It doesn't matter how many online aliases he gives the police, he just needs one that he doesn't to keep on molesting. If you could prove without a shadow of a doubt that it was him using that alias, since he's using it to try and molest kids, you'd probably be able to pin him for that too.
Memorable quotes for
Looker (1981)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082677/quotes
"John Reston: Television can control public opinion more effectively than armies of secret police, because television is entirely voluntary. The American government forces our children to attend school, but nobody forces them to watch T.V. Americans of all ages *submit* to television. Television is the American ideal. Persuasion without coercion. Nobody makes us watch. Who could have predicted that a *free* people would voluntarily spend one fifth of their lives sitting in front of a *box* with pictures? Fifteen years sitting in prison is punishment. But 15 years sitting in front of a television set is entertainment. And the average American now spends more than one and a half years of his life just watching television commercials. Fifty minutes, every day of his life, watching commercials. Now, that's power."
##
"The United States has it's own propaganda, but it's very effective because people don't realize that it's propaganda. And it's subtle, but it's actually a much stronger propaganda machine than the Nazis had but it's funded in a different way. With the Nazis it was funded by the government, but in the United States, it's funded by corporations and corporations they only want things to happen that will make people want to buy stuff. So whatever that is, then that is considered okay and good, but that doesn't necessarily mean it really serves people's thinking - it can stupify and make not very good things happen."
- Crispin Glover: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000417/bio
##
"It's only logical to assume that conspiracies are everywhere, because that's what people do. They conspire. If you can't get the message, get the man." - Mel Gibson (from an interview)
##
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." - William Casey, CIA Director
##
"The real reason for the official secrecy, in most instances, is not to keep the opposition (the CIA's euphemistic term for the enemy) from knowing what is going on; the enemy usually does know. The basic reason for governmental secrecy is to keep you, the American public, from knowing - for you, too, are considered the opposition, or enemy - so that you cannot interfere. When the public does not know what the government or the CIA is doing, it cannot voice its approval or disapproval of their actions. In fact, they can even lie to your about what they are doing or have done, and you will not know it. As for the second advantage, despite frequent suggestion that the CIA is a rogue elephant, the truth is that the agency functions at the direction of and in response to the office of the president. All of its major clandestine operations are carried out with the direct approval of or on direct orders from the White House. The CIA is a secret tool of the president - every president. And every president since Truman has lied to the American people in order to protect the agency. When lies have failed, it has been the duty of the CIA to take the blame for the president, thus protecting him. This is known in the business as "plausible denial." The CIA, functioning as a secret instrument of the U.S. government and the presidency, has long misused and abused history and continues to do so."
- Victor Marchetti, Propaganda and Disinformation: How the CIA Manufactures History
##
George Carlin:
"The real owners are the big wealthy business interests that control things and make all the important decisions. Forget the politicians, they're an irrelevancy. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don't. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own and control the corporations. They've long since bought and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the statehous
In some states a man (and laws ecxlude women) can be put on the Sex Offenders list for simply taking a leak in public.
Imagine this, you are driving along a highway miles from anywhere and nature calls. You stop beside the road and answer the call of nature. When you return to your vehicle there is a police car parked behind yours.
"Yes officer I was answering the call of nature"
Boom, you are in the back of the police car and there goes your life. Chaged with being a sex offender simple for answering the call of nature. Oh, and that means you are branded as being a Sex Offender for Life.
In some countries this is not a crime. Guess which are more civilized societies in my mind?
The site http://familywatchdog.us/ shows a list of offences that the registered sex offenders have been convicted of. Here's one example of the conviction:
"Attempted Possession of Depictions of a Minor Engaged in Sexual Conduct (attempted)"
How exactly is it even possible? Did someone want to get to a child porn site, got 404 error and got convicted for "attempted possession"?
There's no such thing as "illegal download"
The idea that a person who is caught urinating in public is a sex offender doesn't make any sense!
Where I live in India it is common to see atleast 50 people on an average day taking a dump in the fields and grasslands..
They are so used to it, they've been doing it since childhood.
So I guess, 100% of the rural Indian population is a sex offender, according to US laws.
Hell, little kids are taught to become sex offenders..
And they say THINK OF THE KIDS...
People keep confusing an unintended slippery slope with a well formulated iteration of increased control.
There should be more regulation of pornographic materials. Sodomy is illegal in this state, and its not because the lawmakers are ignorant. Its because it can be manslaughter. People die from intestinal walls being busted more often than you think, and honestly, I think depictions of it shouldn't be legal because of that fact. Also, I don't think any pornographic website should be easy for a child to enter, and I'm aware of net nanny. I'm also aware that a number of kids are like I was and net nanny wouldn't be much help. These are serious problems, and sex offenders have rights also, especially under certain circumstances. I do think they should be required to stay off of certain sites, depending. There's a good bit to how a law like that should be worded and enforced.
From the code of Virginia 9.1-903. Registration procedures. Paragraph G: (emphasis mine)
Any person required to register shall reregister either in person or electronically with the local law-enforcement agency where his residence is located within 30 minutes following any change of the electronic mail address information, any instant message, chat or other Internet communication name or identity information that the person uses or intends to use, whether within or without the Commonwealth. If a probation or parole officer becomes aware of a change of the electronic mail address information, any instant message, chat or other Internet communication name or identity information for any of his probationers or parolees required to register, the probation or parole officer shall notify the State Police forthwith upon learning of the change.
This applies to all sex offenders in VA, whether violent or non-violent. As a side note, in VA, violent includes hands off offenses such as child porn. You could conceivably be registered as a violent SO for looking at a 17 year old girls naked picture.
In addition, just about anyone on probation will have to undergo polygraph testing. While there is precedent that you cannot have your probation violated for failing a polygraph, as it is notoriously unreliable and unscientific, they have and end run. In addition to your polygraphs (which you have to pay at least part of, job or no job, and just try getting a job as a registered sex offender), they -can- kick you out of your court ordered therapy group (which you also have to pay some of) for non participation. If you are thrown out of your group, for any reason, including polygraph failure, you are in violation of your probation and going back to prison.
I am a sex offender. I do not deny that the things I did were terrible. They were. I turned myself in for them and served over a decade in prison. However I now cannot get a job, I cannot pay my child support or my court fines, both preventing from getting a driver's license and opening me up to more 'possible' jobs. I have to pay for therapy, Penile plethysmographs, and polygraphs. Even the literature for sex offender polygraph testing states that is unreliable but useful (google PCSOT).
This creates an environment of failure that would stress many to the point where they offend again, because yes, poor decisions and coping skills play a huge role in sexual offending.
In addition, if I were to desire to offend again, be it to look at porn, child porn, or to try to find a child online, I simply wouldn't register the account(s) used to do so. The same is true of the physical registry. If the police know my address, and workplace or not, that doesn't prevent me from grabbing a victim, or skipping out on the registry all together. It is not preventative of crime in the slightest. All it does, similar to the TSA is provide a class of people with a job (probation officers, registry officers, therapists, polygraph examiners, penile plethysmograph, experts, and all their apparatchiks, while at the same time giving others an illusion of safety. If I wanted to break into your house right now and kidnap your daughter or rape your wife, NONE of what the registry does prevents it. But as with all laws like this, the expand to cover more classes of people and erode rights.
But go on loving your country. Enjoy your free speech 'zones'. Smile when the TSA agent gropes your wife. It makes you safe.
your arm would not be attached to your shoulder any more and I'd be beating you to death with the soggy end.
Really.
wdef didn't say he was trying to seduce your daughter. What if he's taking a piss in a quiet alleyway because there are no public urinals anywhere any more and your daughter sees his willy? You kill him?
You're like that daft bint who saw someone making breakfast in their own home in the buff and, because their child was with them, rather than be arrested for being a peeping thomasina, sued the bloke for exposing himself in public in front of a minor.
Worse than her, because she didn't decide to shoot the bloke for being naked in his home.
But if you try and grab for my cock, I WILL beat you into the ground and keep jumping on the bits until I can stuff that carcass down the gaps in the drains.
In Bakersfield California you had a town so conditioned to fear crime out of near by Los Angeles, that the desire for a "Tough on Crime" DA got them Ed Jagles. Ed Jagles and his buddies have been alleged to have falsely accused and falsely convicted many of sexual assault on children. So consider that some who are whistle blowers in a community might be branded sexual predictors just as a way to make their lives difficult.
Thankfully Ed Jagles chose not to run for office again after all the heat about an illegal warrentless break in to a house in the community which was caught on tape and had gone viral on the Internet.
I love the EFF and support them, but I'm not sure I agree with this (looking at a very broad and non-legal-background view). I think this is a inherent risk and if it can be exposed to prevent predatory habits, it is a good thing.
Having some fun...writing front-end code.
For any of you that may be in support of this, are you aware that in many areas, simply using the restroom in the woods someplace and getting caught is in itself considered a sex crime?
Do you think that is reasonable? Do you feel you should go to prison for such a thing?
Or is it libel? Whatever, stop give me a bad name!
Posting to undo a bad click
It's pretty stupid. "More fines and prison time for a crime I know nothing about, sure." Voters deserve the society they are making for themselves. On a positive note in a decade or so most everyone will have some felony and be on some offender list so the "welp not me" vote will be the minority.
As far as I'm concerned you lose your rights the minute you break the law. If you become labelled as dangerous to people then I 100% agree with the minotoring of such person. If you ask that person who is going to be monitored to chose between freedom with monitoring or prison, they will chose to be monitored.
We protect criminals far too much. "Oh, you can't put him in prison, the other prisoners will rape him the same way he raped that little girl. Why would we want him to live through the same thing as his victimes?"
Are you saying it is more prudent to protect the offenders rights than the freedom of his victims?
My brother was caught by the police peeing in a bush. He just had to show up in front a judge, explain he was just peeing and they slapped him with a fine. End of story. Don't know where you get your info but experience tells otherwise.
The sex offender registry is about as un-American as you can get. If you want to live in a free country, you're going to have to watch your kids and profile the people your kids are around.
If you don't want a sex offender on the street for some reason, keep them in prison for life or execute them. A registry like they do now is a violation of civil rights and the principles this country was founded on.
If anything, it should be an optional plea bargaining tool.
If a woman gets undressed in front of a window, and a man walking by stops to watch, they arrest the man for being a peeping tom.
If a man gets undressed in front of a window, and a woman walking by stops to watch, they arrest the man for being an exhibitionist.
Do they have a database in place? If I were to give up all that info it would be 10 pages long. Not to mention, it would piss me off and I would submit another 40 pages of bogus info.
All rights? Any law? Either you need more specifics or I don't want to be in the same country as you.
I agree with the GP. We need to start executing some of these terrorist jaywalkers. While we're at it I don't really like my neighbor and I know he has a DUI so I'd like to label him as dangerous as well, please start monitoring him immediately, or at least throw him in prison so he'll quit mowing the lawn at 7 am.
Didn't read all of the comments, so I don't know if anyone has mentioned it yet but Florida has had that law for at least the last two or three years. Guess the EFF doesn't pay much attention to Florida. Oh, and one more thing, Good luck getting your civil rights restored in FL if you had anything more serious than a speeding ticket. Most any felony in FL is a life sentence of shaming, even if the sentence was only probation.
The point is that if they DO NOT register, and you catch them, it's a good way of getting charges on them before they harm a kid again.
That's why this exists.
Futurist Traditionalism
"This is a false issue" was the original.
Fucking wireless keyboards.
Futurist Traditionalism
(gosgog): Seems to me some simple answers. 1/. LEGALIZE PROSTITUTION , make it taxable (think Seattle history), make it HEALTHIER, & remove the Pimps, Human Trafficking and other criminals involved, plus stop wasting Police on it...it is the Olderst Profession in the world. 2/. Pedophiles put 'em away for life, same with incestuous parents & other types of Child Pornographers. 3/. People who want to piss in Public...send 'em to Asia, its common practice here! 4/. Politicians & most Lawyers...give 'em one term in office and Kill 'em.