Sex Offenders Win Right To Online Anonymity

    January 17, 2013
    Chris Crum
    Comments are off for this post.

A federal judge has blocked a California bill that would take away sex offenders’ ability to anonymously use email, social media, instant messaging and various other web sites and services. The bill, Proposition 35, was deemed by Judge Thelton Henderson, to be unconstitutional.

Should sex offenders have the right to use the Internet without disclosing their user names to authorities? Let us know what you think in the comments.

Here’s how the State of California summarizes the bill in question:

Increases prison sentences and fines for human trafficking convictions. Requires convicted human traffickers to register as sex offenders. Requires registered sex offenders to disclose Internet activities and identities. Fiscal Impact: Costs of a few million dollars annually to state and local governments for addressing human trafficking offenses. Potential increased annual fine revenue of a similar amount, dedicated primarily for human trafficking victims.

In November, the bill passed with 81% of the vote. The bill, however, was temporarily blocked as the ACLU (along with a couple of sex offenders) got involved and filed suit.

The ACLU said of the bill, “Proposition 35 increases criminal penalties for sex offenses and imposes new restrictions on registered sex offenders. For example, the measure requires that registrants provide online screen names and information about their Internet service providers to law enforcement – even if their convictions are very old and have nothing to do with the Internet or children. This provision essentially eliminates the ability of registrants to engage in anonymous online speech and imposes a substantial burden whenever a registrant wants to use a new online platform to speech, infringing on registrants’ First Amendment right to free speech.”

Similarly, Judge Henderson, who blocked the bill on Friday, said (as quoted by Wired): “The challenged provisions have some nexus with the government’s legitimate purpose of combating online sex offenses and human trafficking, but the government may not regulate expression in such a manner that a substantial portion of the burden on speech does not serve to advance its goals.”

Bloomberg quotes Henderson as saying, “The court does not lightly take the step of enjoining a state statute, even on a preliminary basis. However, just as the court is mindful that a strong majority of California voters approved Proposition 35 and that the government has a legitimate interest in protecting individuals from online sex offenses and human trafficking, it is equally mindful that anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority, and that plaintiffs enjoy no lesser right to anonymous speech simply because they are unpopular.”

According to Wired, the next phase of the legal process could be a trial on the lawsuit’s merits. Bloomberg quotes a spokesman for California Attorney General Kamala Harris, as saying, “Our office is reviewing the decision.”

Mike Masnick at TechDirt writes of Proposition 35, “There are serious issues with the bill if you don’t know the details. First, many ‘sex offenders’ aren’t what you might think of as ‘sex offenders’ — people who are arrested for things like urinating in public, or for consensual sex between minors. Beyond that, this particular bill went really, really far, requiring all such “offenders” to hand over all details of every online service they used — no matter what the purpose.”

Sex offenders’ online rights have always been a hot button issue, and have received a great deal of attention over the past year, particularly. Last year, we wrote about a wave of challenges (especially from the ACLU) to state laws banning sex offenders’ use of social media.

One such law was in Indiana, where a judge ruled that a state ban on convicted sex offenders accessing social media sites at all, is lawful. A similar case took place in Nebraska, where a law banning registered sex offenders from holding social media accounts was thrown out. In Louisiana, a sex offender Facebook ban was deemed “unconstitutionally overbroad.”

“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,” the judge said of that case.

Still, one Louisiana lawmaker passed a law requiring all registered sex offenders to list their status and crimes on any social network in which they participate.

Clearly this issue is seeing various state responses across the nation.

Should sex offenders be able to use social media sites? Should they be required to provide authorities with their user names? Tell us what you think.

  • Alan1

    i think government make clowns from them. They must be on gov control, but they still peoples and also have rights.

  • Rosemary Ellis

    I dont think sex offenders should have rights to anything!!!! What about the VICTIMS!!!! Those who are on the receiving end of the sick twisted sex offenders out there…. WHOSE LIVES ARE RUINED BY THESE PEOPLE. what about their rights to not be victims….. I think sex offenders and human traffickers give up their constitutional rights to anything the minute they commit their sick and twisted offences…. WE DONT NEED THESE PEOPLE IN SOCIETY, LET ALONE ON FACEBOOK AND THE INTERNET WHERE THEY ARE PREYING ON THEIR NEXT TARGET….. BAN THEM !!!! END OF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Alan1

      some kind of hysteria? surely police must control them, but they are still humans.

      • http://www.bloketoys.co.uk BlokeToys

        Yes, this is hysteria. There are far more people affected by other things that are never mentioned. One specific thing that comes to mind is male genital mutilation, this is practiced as routine against boys all over the USA and yet it’s not seen as the abuse that it is.

        In Africa girls are a victim of similar, and people all over the world scream about it (rightly so) but hypocrite USA does this to thousands of boys every day. People can claim it’s different, but the FACT is it is genital mutilation against a child, mutilating a child against their will and changing them forever based on religious doctrine or selfish aesthetic reasons of the parents.

        This is mass child abuse, sanctioned by government, religious groups and just plain retards across the country.

        When that mass child abuse is dealt with, THEN the US will have some credibility when it comes to these subjects. Until then, America is a hypocrite and parents who scream about these things while allowing this to happen to their own kids are just as guilty of child abuse.

    • Madelin Farrfan

      Rosemary… You are DEAD WRONG.. They are American citizens and have the exact SAME rights as any American does. So, before you get all huffy, vindictive and judgmental, how about we give YOUR rights away because you are offending us? How does that grab you, eh? Not so cool when YOUR rights come under the bulls eye now is it?

    • James Short

      With respect, Ms. Ellis, you really need a reality check. Most of the “sick twisted sex offenders” out there are ordinary people like you who made seriously bad mistakes, like myself, in getting involved with the wrong person. My mistake was 27 years ago and it was a mutual relationship, one that had the Department of Social Services not gotten involved would probably have ended up with her and I getting married. Part of the problem isn’t those “preying” on a victim, but the way our modern society in its moral paranoia have outlawed everything imaginable. Yes some need to be, like the act of rape, forced prostitution, etc. But anyone who actually knows me, knows I am not a threat to anyone. Your comments about constitutional rights is also a problem … as Kennedy warned us, when the rights of any person are infringed upon, the rights of all are in jeopardy. Anyone who questions that should look up what the pink and black triangles meant in Germany.

    • JOHN DOE


  • Lisa

    I think it’s more than not liking them because they are “unpopular”, these people have broken the law! If the problem is that for some of the offenders, their sentence was old and their crimes did not involve children or the internet, how about revising the bill to add time limits. Let’s not forget, these types of people (sex offenders) are not easily rehabilitated and have a HIGH probability of re-offending. Please don’t drop this bill – revise it and get it passed!

    • Madelin Farrfan

      No, Lisa… How about we LEVEL the playing field for a change, eh? How about we make ALL so-called “offenders” outed once-and-for-all… Especially anyone who has used the internet to commit crimes with. Any type of identity thief… any kind of fraud that involves moving packets around via the internet. Otherwise it is simply DISCRIMINATION and worse: vengeance. Darn right these people are fighting back.. I would have thought it should have started long before now too.

    • Robert Curtis

      Lisa you are believing a myth. Hitler said it best, “the more you speak a lie the more people believe it” The resent Department of Justice report (2012) states that the sex offender re-offense rate is only 1.9%. What is a re-offense? Not registering on time, driving someone else’s car not registered to you or even not registering while on vacation is a violation. After therapy, probation and time served most registrants don’t re-offend. I’m a registered sex offender (misdemeanor not involving a child) that has received a US Congressional award for community service for helping cancer patients and the homeless. I as a hairstylist and registered sex offender can work alone with women at night in my salon. I have been doing it for the last 12 years with no complaints (my offense happened in a salon). Was I a threat? No, not after the GRINDER of probation and therapy in fact I’m a better person. So the registry is not needed at all. The system in place prior to the sex offender registry works. Most abductions that cause this registry was caused by the mentally ill not registrants (ie. Adam Walsh). FACT

  • mike

    Sadly, the few sex offenders that get caught are nothing compared to the number of them that are undetected. People need to learn to protect themselves and their children. The Judicial and Law enforcement arms of the government can’t and shouldn’t be asked to moderate sex offenders on line, there’s just too many of them, and very few of them to go around. It isn’t enforceable, it isn’t their job, and it is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to teach your kids to be smart and pay attention to what they’re doing.

    • Madelin Farrfan

      Sadly, the VERY SAME THING can be said about any number of felony crimes. What is so special and heinous about sex crimes? Nothing. Absolutely NOTHING… What about worrying about what the local gang-bangers are in your neighborhood are planning to do, or ARE doing.. Or a bank robber… Or the drunk that will push his/her luck one more time next Saturday night, driving home blasted from the bar. Why just zero in on ONE type of crime? I’ll tell you why you do that… Your heart is full of hatred and you are blinded by it.

  • nancy barberis

    That Judge and obama sound like two peas in a pod. WE WILL TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK

    • http://www.bloketoys.co.uk BlokeToys

      Oh pleeease! Go back to Fox News, you’re embarrassing yourself.

  • http://www.bloketoys.co.uk BlokeToys

    I think it’s important to remember that not every “sex offender” is the same! I don’t know about the specific laws in California, but in the UK a teenager can be on a sex offenders register for having a sexual relationship with someone of their own age! You have to consider that not every person deemed by a court to be a sex offender is actually a danger to children. What about someone on a bachelor party stripped and tied to lamppost by his buddies and then charged with a sex crime? He’s obviously not the same as a child molester!

    This comes back to parenting once again. It is YOUR JOB as a parent to make sure your child is not exposed to something YOU don’t find acceptable or that can be deemed a threat.

    I am not the kind of person to defend a criminal, but they have not been imprisoned, there is a legal system to deal with them already, and rights and liberties should not be arbitrarily taken away through mob mentality as and when it seems correct to do so.

    Parents – YOU are responsible for your children. YOU are the ones who should be monitoring your kids and what they do on-line. YOU are the ones who should be held to account equally for child endangerment if you allow your kids uncontrolled access and are too busy with your own lives to notice that little Sally is talking to a 60 year old man on FaceBook.

    Once someone has served their time they are deemed to have been rehabilitated. Like it or not this is how the criminal justice system works. We cannot have this spilling over into everyday life as and when people see fit just because it’s a highly emotive subject. If these people are truly dangerous they should not be released in the first place. And if you don’t give a damn what your child is doing on line then you are guilty of neglect too.

  • stacie

    I think that if they have to notify their address they should notify their user names. I don’t think that they need to post on the site there past but just put it on paper in case anything were to happen. If they are not going to do anything wrong then why would it be a problem for them to register?

    • Madelin Farrfan

      The whole premise of making an ex-felon do anything of the sort is continuing punishment. It is punishment in advance for crimes that they “might” commit… That is what the ‘problem’ is… It is a form of continued supervision… That is ILLEGAL. It’s called ‘ex-post facto’, or “retroactive punishment” for the SAME crime. If the stupid cops and lawmakers expect to do this to EX-offenders, why aren’t they clamoring for the SAME kind of proactive approach for ANYONE who is a felon of ANY crime?

  • Valerie Wright, Ph.D.

    This proposal is crazy! As a Licensed Psychologist who works with the after effects of pedifile/sex offender behavior, I know first-hand the devistation this causes in people’s lives. The research also shows that the average sex offender has perpetrated their crime 40 times before they get caught. Furthermore, people who engage in this crime will engage in the crime again–even if they have served time for that crime. Sex offenders violate someone’s personal rights in a manner that will affect them for the rest of the victims’life. I believe by making that choice to perpetrate, they also should know that their own personal rights will be limited–no anonymity because they are a real and present danger to society. We need every form of protection we can get. Registering their emails, social media ID, is hardly damaging in comparison of how they have damaged numerous people at the most core of their being. They sold their freedom when they took another’s freedom away!

    • Madelin Farrfan

      Geez… first internet-savvy “Kevin” and now a so-called Ph.D in ‘Psychology’ of all things. Sorry lady, but your “info” has LOTS of holes in it. And since you somehow “forgot” to cite your sources on these things you “know”, it really does NOT carry much weight. You deal with actual sex offenders, do you? Where is your practice located and how many years of interacting have you done with this subset? Do you actually do sexual counseling, or just a lackey/advisory ‘pro’ for some ‘law enforcement’ agency? You are a ‘criminologist’ only.. What is this “40 times” crap? Prove it… I don’t believe it at all. Your info is not accurate Doctor. And your job as an adviser to ‘law enforcement’ makes what you say quite biased.

    • Robert Curtis

      Valegator (that’s right I know who you are) now you are a Ph.D.??? Really? This person is full of misinformation. Notice the lack of supporting material? I got one for you according to the Department of Justice most resent stats the re-offense rates for registered sex offenders in only 1.9% and that 95% of new crimes are committed by non-offenders those without a recorded history of sexual offenses. 90% of all offenses are committed by family members or someone known to the victim. FACT.

    • Lila

      A person can claim to be anyone they want to be online, such as a licensed psychologist. Please present some links to your research as what you present here seem to be only those myths supported by the media, not actual data supported by many recent studies performed by actual experts in the field of sex offenses.

    • Shelly Stow

      I’m sorry, but I cannot help but be skeptical of someone who claims to be a licensed psychologist, which does require some education, and does not use standard capitalization, punctuation, and grammar usage and who makes the spelling errors you have made, up to and including not knowing how to spell pedophile. I really don’t think you could have gotten through sex offender psychology 101 without getting that one.

  • http://www.pc-chaperone.com Kevin

    I’m a parental control software provider and have seen things that turn my stomach. My belief is that NO ONE should be able to use teh Internet anomyously…. what exactly do YOU do that you would be too ashamed of to put your name on?

    • Madelin Farrfan

      Oh… because you work in the industry that makes you so all-knowing about why people choose to be anonymous? Well, sorry… That is a pretty thin reason to make me want to put “my name” on everything I type. You are far too trusting, and rather gullible. Sometime staying anonymous is the best policy from getting RIPPED OFF. I’ll tell ya what “Kevin” ..if that’s really YOUR name (but no last name, eh?)You can use your ‘real’ name all you want too… day and night.. And good luck trying to convince anyone else that your way is the best way…

  • Watching the Wheels

    I can only hope that the idiot lawmakers who let this one slide wind up with the next round of victoms being THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS!!!!!

    • Madelin Farrfan

      “Idiot lawmakers” (drafters of Prop 35)..indeed… ha ha! Yes.. that would be rather delicious, and appropriate wouldn’t it? “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander” kinda ‘touche’ thing, eh? Let these smug, super-judgmental, pandering “lawmakers” get a nice taste of their own hate-medicine for a change . .

    • Shelly Stow

      If you are trying, in a round-about way, to show yourself as an advocate against sexual abuse, then wishing it upon anyone else may not be the most credible approach.

  • http://www.examiner.com/biblical-in-charlotte/vincent-eagan-III Vincent J. Eagan, III

    Personally, I think when they get out, they should be free just like any other person. This whole registry is a scarlet letter. It’s not right – they are harassed more than when they were in prison. If they should still be punished, keep them in prison. Once they are outside the wall, they should be free of that.

    If people fear for their kids being “involved” online, then monitor your kid’s activities! This is not that difficult. Teach them how to be safe online.

    • Madelin Farrfan

      Yes, Vincent… CORRECT on all counts… Very much the way a lot of feel about this legalized witch hunt and deliberate government-sponsored discrimination for EX-offenders. It’s long past time for this “unpopular” subset of American society to stand up, organize and FIGHT like hell until things start going in the other direction.

  • http://www.examiner.com/biblical-in-charlotte/vincent-eagan-III Vincent J. Eagan, III

    “My belief is that NO ONE should be able to use teh Internet anomyously…”

    Said “Kevin”, who wouldn’t give his last name. lol And apparently has a good deal of trouble spelling.

    • http://www.pc-chaperone.com Kevin

      I don’t care enough to worry about spelling on a forum (good argument to my points though, attacking my spelling instead of the points I raised) and my last name is Whynot…. you can confirm that from my web page if you wish, just click on my name on my original post

    • Madelin Farrfan

      “Karen” is a scared little hater… She wouldn’t say “boo!” to anyone in real life… thus the lack of a last name. She is of the mindset that “rights” have some kind of a caveat that precludes certain Americans… Just another deluded, vengeful fool crying out in the wilderness of judgmental exclusiveness and hateful unforgiveness… Too bad, so sad… wouldn’t want to have her conscience.

  • Jeff

    Who is the victim when someone urinates in a dark corner when they’re 70 years old and there’s no bathroom around?

    Who is the victim when an two seniors in high school ages 17 and 18 have sex?

    Who is the victim when a person sits on a curb at an outdoor event and the legs of their shorts aren’t duct taped closed?

    Who is the victim when a person buys a pornographic magazine that is fully visible in a store but it then drops it out of a bag as they walk outside?

    Who is the victim when a person emails their spouse a naked picture of themselves and the teenage son of a roommate opens that person’s email without permission?

    These are not the pedophile repeat sex offenders that many people have on their mind when they think of “sex offenders” but this is what many of them are. Most are not worthy of being labeled for life not to mention that while people complain about the deficit, many of the same people also want to spend tens of thousands of dollars to prosecute these people then many millions more to lock them up for life. Most that are locked up deserved little more than a snicker.

    If that money were put into pursuing and treating those that are REAL threats, we wouldn’t need to have this discussion.

    • http://www.pc-chaperone.com Kevin

      I’ve always thought it is odd that we have 1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree murder, plus manslaughter and involutary manslaughter (plus a few obscure ones) to distinguish the differences in severity of a crime leading to death, but we only have one level for a sex offence. The label is the same for consensual yet statuatory rape, with little age difference, as it is for someone who rapes babies

      • tammie

        Yes that is true. Someone who is young and niave gets the same life sentence as someone who rapes minors. The difference is that those young and niave learned their lesson and follow the letter of the law and never re-offend. Why are they punished more?

  • Melissa

    Sex Offenders should have no right to privacy when it comes to anything where they can pretend to be someone else and prey on children or adults! That is just outrages to give them that right!

    • Madelin Farrfan

      What gives anyone ‘the right’ to do anything? What gives you the right to make a total fool of yourself on this forum? It’s called the First Amendment. Freedom of speech. It is a guaranteed RIGHT for ALL Americans… Not just for one that YOU deemed ‘worthy’… Your pre-approval is NOT necessary nor is it important to these people that do indeed have ‘the right’… So climb back into your exclusive little world, pull the covers over your head and cry yourself to sleep!

  • Linda

    Children don’t stand a chance against judges that stand by and support sex offenders. The constitution was written hundreds of years ago. Things have changed drastically and so do the laws have to change with the times.

    I have no clue how these people sleep at night knowing that they are contributing to the sick sex offenders. The law stands up and supports terrible while the good people get the short end of the stick. What is wrong with this picture? I’ll tell you, common sense. Children should be protected at all cost.

    Do people have absolutely no ethics or morals anymore? The lawmakers need to sit down and change the laws to suit the times we live in now, not hundreds of years ago.

    Sex offenders, molesters, rapists and murders should have no rights as they are not living be a strict moral code that most people hold to. They do a lot of damage and the legal system just let’s it happen.

    We need leaders to lead and stop being supporters of terrible people. This is pure insanity if these law makers and the entire legal system believes that it’s OK. IT’S NOT. Children, may God protect you against all evil and there is a lot of it on this planet unfortunately. Until we have leaders with common sense that want to do good for the good people and punish the bad people, we don’t stand a chance.

    • Madelin Farrfan

      You are a rather miserable person, aren’t you? “Judges that ‘support’ sex offenders… We are talking about the U.S. Constitution here. Have you EVER heard of that document? Have you ever READ that document? I strongly urge you to do so.. and after you’ve done that, you actually have some basic knowledge of how our legal system works in this country. Your hatred has made you sound like a fool… You’ve told on yourself. You are a vengeance-oriented person with no knowledge of the system that is the BACKBONE of the very country you probably live in.. If that is the case.. please do us a favor and relocate to an Arab country before the year is over.

  • Troy Scheer

    So we can “out” law abiding gun owners (police, judges, stalking victims, etc.) but can’t my sure sex offenders are visible online. What a crock. As always, make sure the criminals don’t get their feelings hurt. I call bullshit.

  • http://www.pc-chaperone.com Kevin

    The scary part is that there are MANY more offenders who have never been caught than will ever be caught…. if EVERYONE had to sign their name to EVERYTHING they did on the web those numbers would go down a LOT

    • tammie

      They could use false names to get around it. They would have to give their soc. Security number to be verified.

    • Madelin Farrfan

      “The scary part is that there are MANY more who have never been caught than will ever be caught…”

      Substitute ‘offenders’ with computer hackers, murderers, DUI drunks, gang bangers, terrorists, kidnappers, identity thieves, adulterers, bank frauds, tax evaders, car thieves, burglars, etc..etc and you may actually have a point. But to just point at “offenders” in that way tells me a lot about your mind set. Your heart is full of fear, hatred and discrimination… Who are YOU to judge others?

  • Beth Nagorsky

    What rights! They should not have any rights. They should be taken away from them. We the honest PUBLIC have a right to know who these people are & what thewy are doing not the other way around.

    • Madelin Farrfan

      What “rights” you say? All the same rights that YOU have… They should not and will not tolerate fools that attempt to errode their rights as American citizens. Now, if YOU want to give YOUR rights away… then feel free to do so.. But attempt to do that to another, and you’ll be up against much resistance and “push back”. Any felon that has done his/her time ALWAYS has their voting rights and everything restored at the completion of their supervision… You don’t like that arrangement? Please remove yourself from the United States and our Constitution.. You sound like a whiner anyway.

  • http://karras-bommer.blogspot.com Karras Bommer

    Some of these “sex offenders” are an eighteen-year-old boy who had sex with a seventeen-year-old girl by mutual consent. So until sex offender *crimes* are more clearly defined I do not support the mass hysteria publishing of names and the permanent blacklisting of individuals.

    • tammie

      I so agree. And for those who didnt have an attorney who gave a crap that was willing to work for them.just not right. A friend of mine who was convicted and the victims own father testified against his daughter…and the other two men she was using as well were never arrested….only my friend because he had a juvinile record. Anyway he later go married and cps removed the child until he agreed to divorce and then he received papers stating no contact w the child. This is wrong.

  • http://sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com Sex Offender Issues

    We do not force ex-identity thieves or ex-hackers to post their personal information online, nor any other criminal, so why should we start with today’s modern day scapegoat? If you do it for one group, then everybody, criminal or not, should be forced to not be anonymous online!

  • http://yahoo sue luze

    ithink you should leave them alone everybody needs to be something. wish i had two or three of them

  • http://annablogia.wordpress.com Anna

    Lets not discriminate and if someone gets new rights on the net , let the rest of the world have it. Sex offenders on the internet need to go and complete some courses how to use The Internet … It is massive at the moment but I find it stupid! Stop allowing people to sex offend you online! Stand up finally!

    • Madelin Farrfan

      Yeaaa Anna! Stand up and discriminate! What a marvelous idea… Let’s “make” all those bad ‘ole ‘sex offenders’ do this and do that… After all, they aren’t really “people”…like you and me… are they? The County and the State can tell them what to do and where to live the rest-of-their lives.. right? Whoa.. now that’s starting to sound a whole lot like SLAVERY, isn’t it Anna? Well, yeah, that’s exactly right dear… ‘Ex-post facto’ “laws” and residency restrictions are all ILLEGAL because they do force EX-offenders to “do this and do that” and “take courses”, etc.. just-like-slaves… You are ‘getting it’ now girl..

  • http://fatlossonly.com/ 13 Killer Foods For Fat Loss

    Laws do not stop lawbreakers, they stop non-lawbreakers.

  • Nina

    I think we all have a right to know if the person we are talking to is a sex offender or not. They have rights, but not to hide what they are. I recently met someone online, and had a feeling to check him out. I found out that he has a record as a sex offender. One was a niece, 8, the other, his daughter, 9, at the time he was caught. His excuse? He was drunk at the time. I have granddaughters. I would prefer to not such people around them. Who knows when he might decide to go after a child again.

    • Madelin Farrfan

      And I have the “right” to know when I’m talking to someone who has murdered… and someone who has committed identity fraud.. and to someone who is planning on doing a home invasion while gathering info from Facebook… Your “logic” is bizarre and way off base. You sound more interested in furthering vengeance on a group of people that have ALREADY paid fro their crimes… SCREW Prop 35 and all the redneck judges and cops that drafted it.

  • tammie

    I believe sex offenders have the right ti remain annonymous. Arent they punished enough for life without happiness? Many can not get jobs because of all the laws? A normal person who gets a dui it drops off our record in 5 years. We are no longer penalized. Why then for those who are charged w a crime they are convicted and serve their time. Why then are they marked and ridiculed and left to suffer all their lives. Many were just niave guys or gals who didnt know better. Something has got to change. Its not right for any human to remain homeless, jobless, and ridiculed for life.

  • linka Tasma

    I would look closely into the activities of the judge who made this judgement.
    He may have personal reasons for his way of thinking.
    Hopefully there will be enough evidence to have him removed from office.

    • Madelin Farrfan

      “Removed from office?” For actually doing the RIGHT thing? Not going to happen… This judge is a freakin’ hero as far as I’m concerned. More power to this judge! Common sense and a lot of knowledge about the U.S. Constitution was exactly what this horrible “Prop 35” needed to be shown the door. Good riddance Prop 35

    • Shelly Stow

      I am sure you are correct. I am sure he has very strong personal reasons and motivations. They would have to do with an oath he took to uphold the Constitution of the United States. That is exactly what this ruling does, and, contrary to those who are acting as if he were drawing and quartering every child in the state, it does it with no increased risk to public safety. Sooner or later people will realize that, as far as stopping sexual abuse of children, what is or isn’t done in connection with those on the registry makes virtually no difference.

  • Gerardo

    No one should be deprived of means of communication.

    • Madelin Farrfan

      Gerardo… you are absolutely ‘spot on’ with that common sense observation. NO ONE should be deprived of a means of communications.. And just one step further if you don’t mind.. The right of Freedom of Speech goes hand-in-hand with that ‘communication’ as well.

  • linka Tasma

    The problem is that Sex Offenders are all put together when there is an obvious difference.
    The so called “sex offender” female having a relationship with a relatively mature 15 year old male, is very different to a man having this with a child of 5, or similar.
    The first may have been a a case of mutual attraction and probably did not do any harm to the young man concerned, whereas the second is obviously a repugnant act and may have physical as well as mental consequences to the child involved.
    The two “offences” do not belong together. Until they are separated, it would be wrong to publicly declare an older person having a mutually agreeable love affair with a just- under- age partner to be such a criminal act.

  • Dustin

    Yes, this is a new generation where the internet is almost forced upon us for search, navigation, business and personal storage of accounts, addresses bank information and social. Majority of sex offenders do not have internet based crimes and should not be punished for the offenders who commited internet based crimes or crimes involving the internet.

    • Counsellor

      I disagree, since the explosion of the Internet it has become a major tool for pediphiles! These maggots do not deserve any privileges at all, especially the use of the Internet to help orchestrate their sickness! If you do the research using actual cited articles , you will see just how much the Internet has contributed to facilitate their preditorial nature. In Vancouver Canada they have recently had a case of a 23 year old female by the name of Kayla Bourque, who has had all Internet privileges not to mention 24/7 surveillance, which is proven to work out to be cheaper than keeping her locked up…this plan would be ideal for pedophiles that have been released back into society.

  • http://Mabuzi.com Kevin

    Tricky one as their guys on the register who are really not deviants. We have the right to know who the convicted sex offenders are, especially repeat offenders.

    • Madelin Farrfan

      You really think so, Kevin? Wow man, I’m all ears. Do you think it will “save” children? How many do ay think will be “saved” as a result of robbing 10’s-of-thousands law-abiding America citizens of their First Amendment rights? Gosh, Kevin..I wish you were my boss.. You seem so wise, so insightful… so full of HOT AIR…. People that draft these kind of discriminatory “laws” need to have hot coals dumped on their hateful heads. Have you (or them) ever heard of the U.S. Constitution? It is a good read… try digging in to it some time.. you MAY even learn something of usefulness from it.

  • http://legalshield.com/go/ecarr ernest carr

    I agree with this

  • http://legalshield.com/go/ecarr ernest carr

    I agree with sex affenders reporting all web sits they are useing on the internet

    • Ryan Kempf

      can’t this be done automatically by software

  • LJW

    For those who think children are in danger from the Internet, please do some actual research. There are a few TV shows that make money hyping the danger for children online. The actual chances of a child being harmed by someone they met online is extremely low. But it’s not zero. If parents are involved in their child’s lives, then the child tends to just ignore attempts to be groomed online.

    The salient point, regardless of whether you support the judge or not, is that between 10-23% of children are abused every day. Every group is affected, every neighborhood, every class, every race, everyone. If you want to protect children, then you do whatever it takes to do so.

    Every study every done confirms that including all forms of abuse, a child who is abused stands a 95% chance of being abused by someone they know (family, friend, trusted adult). While we pass all of these laws in the name of protecting children, we’re not really protecting children.

    Child abuse is a social problem. No laws will make it better, and can actually make it worse. The harsher the punishments handed out, the less likely children are to come forward to out their abuser (since it’s someone they know). While we spend all this money on the very rare stranger offender, thousands of children continue to be abused in their homes every day. They live in nice homes and have “nice” families. Yet, we do nothing for them.

    Do those children deserve what they get? Do they count less because their abuse
    didn’t make the news? How can you tell 95% of children who are abused that their abuse doesn’t matter? They all matter! Stop sitting their feeling morally superior because you want sex offenders punished more. This is no different than walking by a child who appears to be abandoned. Not doing anything positive IS doing something negative.

    If you really care about children, do something besides believing myths perpetuated by politicians who callously use children to promote their own careers.

    • brandon

      i agree with you i was convicted of a sex offense at 18 years old for a crime that i had sex with a minor any way did yes do i agree with the sexoffender registry you bet but i think that each case should be looked at individually right now each offender is punished as if they were a random child obductor was i scaning schools no hell i was still in school my self but anyway if an offender has acrime that was committed with the internet then yes they should not even be allowed on it but the reoffending rate of actuall sex offenses is lower than any other crimnel offenses like some were around 5% its not the ones that have been convicted that we need to worry about its the ones that have not been cought oh and if you were woundering the victim in my case was 14 no force all consintuall but i am considered an svp and must register every ninty days for the rest of my life like i said each case needs to be looked at individually.

  • eugene

    hell no just another way for them to pray on young children

    • Shelly Stow

      Katie and Eugene, please learn the difference between ‘pray’ and ‘prey.’ Your comments, as you have written them, do not say what you want them to say.

  • http://facebook Katie Westgate

    What in world so young kids can become prayed on not right there should be tougher laws on thie

  • http://facebook Katie Westgate

    Hello parent can not wacth there kids 24 7

    • brandon

      no you cant but children should not even be on an adult social media network let alone be onthe internet with out adult supervision seems to me like most parents are getting lazy and need to stop letting thier children meet there friend online and start gettin them up off of the computers bet your kids got there own smart phones to dont they because it was easyier to give in to their want insead of just standing your ground and saying no parents today are lazy and soft and to scared to give out a little disapline get a back bone and just say no to you kids sometimes later

  • Dennis Schumaker

    They should have to give up their usernames to authorities. That’s what the people of California voted for. Judges should stop taking away the peoples right to choose what they want.

  • Tony

    They should provide authorities with their user names?

    On another point I think the ACLU is going to be the ruination of this country. Sometime they just step over the line a wee bit.

    Just my opinion!

  • hgo

    no they shouldn’t have any rights.They took away their victims rights,so why should they have any. cannot believe the government officials worldview allow such low life scums to do what they do online,or even release them from jail…giving them a online presence,and letting them ever out of jail is like saying what they’re doing is ok and it’s not.

  • UK_Chris

    I think a “one size fits all” wording in the statute is clumsy and incorrect.

    Certainly impose a ban on sex offenders who have been *CONVICTED* of an offence using on-line methods for entrapment, grooming, or abuse of victims. However, if the internet has not been involved in any part of the prosecution, admissible evidence etc, then a ban on using social media is both inappropriate and unconstitutional.

    I am not aware, even in the US, that the principal of “guilty until proven *innocent*” has been introduced. Otherwise, why not ban social media and the internet altogether – as we all have the potential for using it subversive and illegal activity – therefore MUST potentially guilty of something.

    If you are that worried about recidivism why not castrate the guilty party at the point of original conviction and invest in CBT during the custodial part of their sentence? If they’d killed they would be executed.

    I am sorry, but I am fed up with the civil liberties of the majority being eroded as a result of the actions of a few.

    • Shelly Stow

      Sensible words from across the water; thank you. Unfortunately, when it comes to allegations or even suspicions of sexual misconduct of any kind, guilty until one can prove himself innocent is becoming the prevailing attitude. And in the cases of false allegations, that is virtually impossible. How do you prove that you didn’t do something that never happened in the first place? And too often the only evidence is the word of the accuser who, the younger she or he is, the more likely to be believed.

  • G4Change

    It’s one thing if someone is serving a sentence that imposes Internet restrictions…the sentence is the sentence. Obey, or go back to jail. HOWEVER, once a sentence has been completed and a person is off parole or probation, then he/she is DONE. You CANNOT go back and tack on more burdens. That is illegal. Guess what, even the law is not above the law. The idiots in California didn’t waste enough tax payer money on Jessica’s fLaw….now they have to burn more money on their latest moronic ballot measure. Sad! Stupid!

  • dennis

    when they broke the law and was convicted they lost all rights to anninamity.how are we supposed to protect our children or other unsuspected adults,where are our rights it looks like nobody gives a dam i am thourghly discusted with the law makers .what would happen if it were one of there family members now the shoe is on the other foot

    • Shelly Stow

      Dennis, everyone understands and relates to your desire to protect your children and family. You do that by knowing the facts and acting on them. The facts are that registered sex offenders are responsible for sexual assault of a child in less than 1% of the cases. Children are sexually abused by their family members, their peers, and by authority figures in their lives. So you protect them by keeping the lines of communication open. Let them know they can tell you anything without your getting upset with them, and stress to them that no one has the right to touch them in ways they don’t like or to ask them to keep secrets or to do anything they aren’t comfortable doing. Stay involved in their lives. Know who they are with. If your school or community offers sex-abuse prevention programs, sign them–and you–up. Learn all you can. Blessings to you and your family.

  • Miguel

    Terrible idea. This is like the same laws that these people did that took these adult YouTubes to full open sex like pornotube after they got it approved.

    It is very bad news and a sex offender should never be allowed in an addicting and enticing area. Craigslist is one of the worst sex offender area where they live it out on the free personals. It should not be allowed.

    All sex offenders should be blocked from services like this and also have a required identification # so the offender can be under surveilance and possibly prosecuted again if problems arise.

  • http://wineasagift.net Jon K. K. Priestley

    Sex offenders should be made to register with a “strict penalty” for failure to do this, or registering of false information. Even though there is a minimum age for “subscribers,” I am aware of “many” underage subscribers (especially with “facebook”)

    You say “parents should supervise their children” – these children are very “tech savvy” and WILL find a way to “get on!”

    Anonymity for “sex offenders” would not be a “good thing” in this situation, as the “sex offenders” already have the knowledge to “get around” stringent regulations already “in place!”

  • http://www.iPredator.co Michael Nuccitelli, Psy.D.

    After 3 years of near obsessive research, investigation and introspection, this writer’s theoretical construct was born called iPredator. In 2012, the largest professional forensics education organization in the world, ACFEI, formally recognized iPredator as both a cogent and applicable Information Age forensic construct. The hours this writer spent compiling the data and speaking with both professionals and citizens superseded the time required to complete his doctoral dissertation and state licensure exams combined. A brief definition is as follows:

    iPredator: A child, adult, group or nation who, directly or indirectly, engages in exploitation, victimization, stalking, theft or disparagement of others using Information and Communications Technology (ICT.) iPredators are driven by deviant fantasies, desires for power and control, retribution, religious fanaticism, political reprisal, psychiatric illness, perceptual distortions, peer acceptance or personal and financial gain. iPredators can be any age, either gender and not bound by economic status, race or national heritage.

    iPredator is a global term used to distinguish anyone who engages in criminal, deviant or abusive behaviors using ICT. Whether the offender is a cyberbully, cyberstalker, cyber harasser, cybercriminal, online sexual predator, internet troll or cyber terrorist, they fall within the scope of iPredator. The three criteria used to define an iPredator include:

    I. A self-awareness of causing harm to others, directly or indirectly, using ICT. II. The intermittent to frequent usage of ICT to obtain, exchange and deliver harmful information. III. A general understanding of Cyberstealth used to engage in criminal or deviant activities or to profile, identify, locate, stalk and engage a target.

    The online sexual predator is one typology of iPredator. In this writer’s proverbial past life as a practicing clinical psychologist and forensic psychologist, he has evaluated sexual predators, sex offenders, their victims and their loved ones. This writer also strives to be objective and not prosecution or defense centric.

    The reality is that in 2013, all humanity is living in what has been called the Information Age with 2.23 billion Internet users and growing. Based on this writer’s educated guess, he estimates that close to 100% of all criminal, deviant and deceptive practices will have an ICT theme by 2030.

    Welcome world to the Information Age, Cyberspace and the “Veil of Anonymity” afforded to all ICT users!

    After thoroughly reading Proposition 35, this writer must conclude that it reads as if it was written by attorneys, politicians and those who have an ulterior motive other than the welfare of children, victim’s rights and Internet safety. Instead of authoring Proposition 35 with logical forethought, philosophical analysis & a sociological understanding of the Information Revolution, it is unfortunately shortsighted and shallow. The bill does not take into consideration the vast array of psychopathic, sexually deviant, criminal and psychiatric manifestations of what has been termed a “convicted sex offender.”

    Just as all existence, including criminality and deviance, reality falls upon a continuum ranging from mild to severe and adaptive to maladaptive. Proposition 35 does not take into consideration either of these universal laws and only proves how small our human minds really are in relationship to Information Age adaptations & morality. Cyberbullying, cyber harassment, cyberstalking, cybercrime, cyber terrorism, online sexual predation and cyber victimization are iPredator typologies both new and permanent to 21st century reality.

    There are online sexual predators and they are growing like all criminal/deviant populations. The scales of justice must be proficient at fair and equitable treatment of all members living in a democratic society. Proposition 35 must be significantly edited to address the growing online threat called the online sexual predator.

    “I wonder if historians will one day, centuries from now, look back upon us and conclude we were a culture blind to the hidden dark side of cyberspace. Even though I will be long gone, I would like to make sure we could see the forest before the trees.” Michael Nuccitelli, Psy.D. (2013)

    • http://www.thothervictimsadvocac.com Tina church


      You are absolutely correct in your well written analysis! Thank-you for taking the time to share your thoughts, and iPredator A MUST READ.

      Ms. Church

  • http://www.blogtalkradio.com/icdrrose DR.Rose

    Good balance in the discussion, but as a believer in how power is abused so often by people in authority I agree we should not be policing through more laws dictating how people should behave. Obviously, as DR.N. has proven, we need to become AWARE of how predators work and protect those most vulnerable. As a teacher and a parent I know it’s our responsibility to teach our young people how to deal with reality. We can not prevent every crime without having a society that is so controlled that no one would want to live in it.The Homeland Security stupidity is a case in point. Everyone suffers from fear and the emotional and financial costs are killing us.

  • Marcy Lehotz

    I am so sick of the law lumping in all kinds of offenses in as if they were the same. A man who has been offense free for ten years ought to enjoy a level of freedom that someone who offends frequently cannot enjoy. There has to be a reward system for those who never offend again after a period of five years or so. And there ought to be a hearing within ten years to ascertain whether or not that offender should still have to keep his name on the offender lists. A man caught urinating in public should not lose his job, or have his family broken up. It becomes like a fascist state and any kind of zealots should be routed out and ignored. If a man is even perceived as soliciting a prostitute, his life is ruined. Even if its a mistake. People do change and I know Churches that hire offenders because nobody else will. If a Pastor’s reference is not enough to change a person’s perception, what will be. Our society is too jaded.

  • http://www.roytech-pcs.co.uk Roy Maybury

    I am a big believer in privacy online. This however is ridiculous, just like many other bureaucratic decisions made today. How about asking the masses who’s children are at risk. It is a well known fact that children are on things like facebook and other social sites, yet we let sex offenders loose, without some kind of warning.

    If you make poison or carry inflammable materials, or are a construction site etc etc etc, you have to give warnings.

    So WHY are parents and young people not being warned about sex offenders, these people gave up the right to anonymity when they took someones innocence away.

    Its high time we got with the program, social media is an ideal place to stop such offenders, if they are referenced then the public will ensure they are never in a position to offend again.

    Keep our streets and social sites safe, not hide a persons offences, so they can strike again.

    I feel very strongly about this, another case of the offender has better rights than the victims.

    • Shelly Stow

      Roy, I hear you loud and clear about protecting children. That is why it so important that you know what will be effective and what won’t. We must focus on what is effective. Apparently you are unaware that the masses of children at risk for sexual harm are not at risk of falling victim to those on the registry but rather to those in their lives, specifically, to their family members–close to 50%, especially for younger children; to their peers and classmates–33% of those who sexually molest children are themselves children; and to authority figures in their lives. The latest FBI report shows that the responsible party in the taking of children for sexual molestation purposes was a registered sex offender in less than 1% of the cases. Even online, this is the latest information: “In a study conducted by Harvard University in 2008, minors identified about 48 percent of sexual solicitors as being other adolescents, and only 4 percent to 9 percent being adults older than 21. The study found that 44 percent of Internet-initiated sex crimes were committed by family members, and 56 percent were committed by people known to the victim offline.
      “In other words,” the study states, “the threat of Internet-initiated sex crimes committed by strangers appears to be extremely exaggerated.”

      So yes, keep your children safe. Spend time with them. Be in their lives. Encourage open, honest discussion and sharing. And advocate that our tax dollars be spent where it will help keep them safe, in programs of education, prevention, and victim services, not where it will have no impact. Blessings to you.

  • Josh Hamilton

    If you read the full article, “Sex Offenders” aren’t always what we see them as. A 16 year old girl or boy can have sex with their 15 year old boy or girl and if caught, they are sex offenders. Public urination etc can label you as a sex offender.

    Internet and media web sites are a vital part of today. We cannot and should not prevent anyone from using these sites. We need to teach our children how to navigate the sites safely so they don’t fall victem to someone. Educating people is the way to prevent people from becoming victems.

    Anyone can go onto any site and use a false name and provide false information. Just because you tell an “offender” he has to disclose information, doesn’t mean he will. Quite simply he’ll use a false ID, and no one will catch him.

    Educate, Educate, Educate.

  • jim

    Yes, I think where there is a public interest in keeping our citizens safe there should be restriction of individuals rights. Not just sex offenders but con men and women who have cheated people out of their savings. Scam artists like “Tree Trimmers” who get paid upfront and then disappear. Alcoholics who have been caught drunk driving should also have to be monitored very much like sex offenders since they too pose a life and death threat to everyone not just children. There are so many people in our society that have paid their debt to society but just keep on re-offending. Sometimes they re-offend with different crimes like Breaking and Entering to Robbery with a gun. If everyone who broke the law that endangered our society were required to “Register” and to notify neighbors or others in association with them we would all be safer from them. Of course how many people would it take to monitor all these people? Should we only target sex offenders? Why not murderers? Why not wife and child beaters? Why not drunk drivers? Why not the individuals of religious organizations that promote the murder or sanction the murder of doctors who perform abortion? Maybe we can all spy on each other and report our neighbors for any infraction we think they may be guilty of. I would love to live in that society because with everyone spying on everyone else everyone would be so much safer and happier than they are today.

  • Coleen

    WOW a Judge with a clue..even in the USA! Congratulations Judge Henderson for being a man with integrity.
    Yes, most people thing that all people tagged ‘sex offender’ are vile creature from the deep. Some are. Strangely MOST ARE NOT! Let me tell you a little personal story of a son of mine. In nieghboring state to Calf. he got stuck with 1 year as an offender. The county had not one bit of evidence against him except, the girls mothers statement and the bogus one the girl came up with. This girl, a school mate, friend, and yes a minor had decided with my sons Ex-fiance’ that coz he wanted to break up with his girlfriend they would pull a JOKE on my son. Yes that is what I just said! All day the girl harrassed him at work with calls, after being at grannys and walking the dog 3 blocks past his work at 6AM in the morning (usually can’t get the girl up and to school at 9AM) She come past after returning back to work and attempted to sudduce my sone. Well, happens to be he is epileptic and can’t ‘do a thing 1hour before or after’ the onset of a seizure…not to mention he was on the phone with me when siezure came on and he was to commit this act against her. Yeah! The only truth in the thing was when the mother took her kid to the E.R. the x-rays showed the pain she was having was coz she was about to start her period, which irrated a cronic cyst she had on her 1 ovary. Now nor did the girl tell the doctors she IS EXTREMELY sexually active at the then age of 15, had a boy she had been doing it with for over 2 years.
    But in this state here is the game.
    1.-Not a Mormon, you are S.O.L. for help.
    Yes, the 1st lawyer we saw, a Christian laughed when he saw the police report. He said ‘Mormon girls?’ My son replied yes. Attorney stated at least you only have 2 girls to deal with, usually they use 3-5 for this game..see it all the time, nearly everyday here.
    2.- In the County/State charged, if you are NOT a Mormon and need attorney assistance- he had to coz a good one cost to much-mind you this guy called all of his associates across the USA to see what they thought of the case-all concured they had never heard of such non-sense), you are out of luck. My son pushed to get a decent Public Defender. Finally Number 4, had the guts to sit SLUMPED IN HIS CHAIR, AND NOT EVEN ADDRESS THE JUDGE ON MY SONS BEHALF-MY SON HAD TO DEFEND HIMSELF AND PAY FOR THE 4LAW-SCHOOL FLUNKS!
    3.-MOST IMPORTANT FACT EVERYONE NEEDS TO KNOW:::: My state went from severly in the red with budget to black in about 1 year…and out govenor is so stupid to point a finger in the President of USA face-she is not smart enough to run a mop threw her own mop-job hair. So how did this budget go from Red to Black nearly overnight???
    Easy, our state gets a MIN. of $750.00 per person they throw in jail!
    That is what I said.
    Right now the easist crime to name an innocent person on is ‘sexual offense’.
    Coz if a lame criminal mother as the girl’s mother, in my son’s case, want to lie for her underage kid, the kid-nor herself have to stand before a Judge. Everything automatically goes to a Grand Jury-EVEN WITH NO EVIDENCE AT ALL. Once before a Grand Jury then you can say you got SCREWED!!!! Thank you lazy, crooked County/State Presecutors and Judges. Hope you sleep at night here on earth coz I’m sure on your JUDGEMENT DAY you will be up constantly with more than 3rd degree burns..afterall preachers and govt officials will be held to a higher dregree of Judgement on Judgement Day.
    So Judge Henderson, thank you for standing up for the rights of the innocent…so others are not violated more then already…the girls in slut-suits and make up arent getting screwed, the innocent are, and so are your tax dollars, coz this country threw together the most irrpensable ‘sex offender’ laws just to nail one true jerk.

    • Coleen

      Incidently, I’m not angry or in denial in writing this. But I fully do intend to push our court SOON to face the music of their injustice to private citizens.
      Don’t forget, the next time you men, husbands, fathers, brothers, boyfriends make a person mad…just think, you might be sitting where my son is, instead of the rapist Darren Pettit.

  • soccermother

    We need to get after the goverment offocals to stop passing these law just becasue a child goes missing or is hurt. Jessca Lundsford the police messed that up if they would have checked names as they spoke to people they would have found out so good information. Mark Lundsford had child prono on his computer why is he not a sex offender his son had sex with a minor why is he not a sex offender. We make feel good laws to make the government look good but they have gone to far. My son was dating a girl when the wanted to break up she said they had sex and she did not want it. But then in the next sentence she says they are sexual active. She still claims she loves him but he is a sex offender for life. They age differnet is a 1 1/2. Romero and Juleit laws does not apply becasue she claims to have said. My space and facebook still says I love you . Is this right no but this is the law.