California court blocks requirement of sex-offenders to report changes of Internet providers

11-18-2014 California:

Doe, Roe, CA-RSOL -v- Harris

A federal appeals court has continued to block a voter-approved measure requiring registered sex offenders to give authorities a list of their Internet providers and screen names.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday said the requirement violates free speech rights. The ruling upholds a lower court decision in 2013 that put the requirements on hold.

The reporting provision was part of Proposition 35, which 81 percent of voters passed in 2012 and toughened penalties for human trafficking. The harsher prison sentences remain in effect.

But the appeals court said the requirement of sex offenders to report on their Internet activity is too vague and that offenders' anonymity is insufficiently protected. The court also said requiring offenders to report to authorities with 24 hours was too onerous. ..Source.. by The Republic see also

Convicted sex offenders, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the First Amendment

11-20-2014 California:

Beginning in the 1930s, shortly after the Supreme Court had “incorporated” the First Amendment into the due process clause (thereby making it an enforceable constraint not only on the federal government ["Congress shall make no law . . ."] but on State and municipal governments as well) the Jehovah’s Witnesses went on a campaign to attack, in court, restrictions on their ability to proselytize door-to-door and to give voice to unpopular views. During one particular 8 year period (1938 to 1946) they brought no fewer than 23 separate First Amendment actions to the Supreme Court (prompting Justice Stone to quip that they “ought to have an endowment in view of the aid they give in solving the legal problems of civil liberties”). They won some spectacularly important victories – West Virginia Board of Ed. v Barnette (1943) (children cannot be forced to recite the Pledge of Allegiance or salute the flag), Chaplinsky v New Hampshire (19420 (establishing the “fighting words” doctrine, and overturning conviction of a Jehovah’s Witness who called a local official a “damned racketeer” and a “fascist”), Watchtower Society v. Village of Stratton (2002) (overturning municipal ordinance requiring government permits for all door-to-door advocacy).***

California court blocks requirement of sex-offenders to report changes of Internet providers

11-18-2014 California:

A federal appeals court has continued to block a voter-approved measure requiring registered sex offenders to give authorities a list of their Internet providers and screen names.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday said the requirement violates free speech rights. The ruling upholds a lower court decision in 2013 that put the requirements on hold.

The reporting provision was part of Proposition 35, which 81 percent of voters passed in 2012 and toughened penalties for human trafficking. The harsher prison sentences remain in effect.

But the appeals court said the requirement of sex offenders to report on their Internet activity is too vague and that offenders' anonymity is insufficiently protected. The court also said requiring offenders to report to authorities with 24 hours was too onerous. ..Source.. by The Republic

INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS INC -v- BRODIE

2-27-2009 Maryland:

INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS INC -v- BRODIE

In this case, we are called upon to decide whether a circuit court judge, in a defamation action, appropriately denied a motion to quash/motion for protective order regarding a subpoena requiring, Independent Newspapers, Inc., a company that commissioned an Internet forum (for which it required participants to register), to identify five Internet forum participants known only by their pseudonyms or usernames. Independent Newspapers appealed the denial of the motion, and we granted certiorari, Independent Newspapers v. Brodie, 405 Md. 505, 954 A.2d 467 (2008), prior to any proceedings in the Court of Special Appeals to address the following questions:

• 1. May a court breach the constitutional right to speak anonymously and order the identification of Internet speakers who are alleged to have violated the plaintiff's rights without a factual and legal showing that the plaintiff has a supportable claim on the merits?
• 2. Did plaintiff Brodie make the required showing in this case?

We shall conclude that the circuit court judge abused his discretion when ordering the identification of the five anonymous Internet forum participants, because the three participants sued, concededly, did not make the alleged defamatory statements, while the other two anonymous participants, who allegedly made the actionable remarks, were not sued by Brodie.

For guidance to the trial courts, we, nevertheless, will discuss the standard that should be applied to balance the First Amendment right to anonymous speech on the Internet with the opportunity on the part of the object of that speech to seek judicial redress for alleged defamation.

Sex offender can continue to post photos, judge says

1-28-2014 Washington DC:

A D.C. Superior Court judge ruled Tuesday that a convicted sex offender can distribute and post photos of court employees online to protest the city’s sex offender registry.

Dennis Sobin, a former pornographer who served more than a decade in prison for a sexual performance using a minor, posted the photos of employees from D.C.’s Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA) on idiotsregistry.info saying that sex-offender registries are unfair. A court employee filed for a civil protection order, accused him of stalking and asked the court to have Sobin to remove her photo.

But Judge Todd E. Edelman said that Sobin’s actions were protected by the First Amendment.

“Mr. Sobin’s conduct could be criticized,” said Edelman. “I think it’s unlikely to be effective. I think that criticizing lower-level court employees is puzzling. But that’s not my place to say.”

The unusual case garnered the attention of the ACLU, which filed a brief on Sobin’s behalf. Tuesday’s hearing also drew interest from other sex offenders and anti-registry activists.

“I’m very happy the judge understood and abided by the U.S. Constitution that gives citizens the right to protest, even in a personal sort of way,” Sobin said.

Sobin, 70, thought the decision could inspire similar protests elsewhere.

“The judge’s opinion will be used as ammunition around the country,” he said.

Stephanie Gray, the CSOSA employee who sought the protection order, and her attorneys declined comment.

Vicki L. Henry, president of Indiana’s Women Against Registry, welcomed the decision, saying people are not aware how much sex offender registries damage families.

“There’s no empirical evidence supporting these registries,” said Henry, whose son is a sex offender, outside the courtroom. “We need to promote prevention.”

Derek W. Logue, a sex offender from Ohio who was there to support Sobin, said that registries prevent criminals from moving forward. ..Source.. by Justin Moyer

Doe v Harris

Now see Doe v Harris 7-1-2013 (California Sup Ctr)

1-11-2013 California:

Doe v Harris (Order Granting Preliminary Injunction) No. C12-5713 TEH.
On Appeal see below:

This matter came before the Court on December 17, 2012, on Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs challenge several provisions of the Californians Against Sexual Exploitation Act ("CASE Act" or "Act") that require registered sex offenders to provide certain information concerning their Internet use to law enforcement. Having carefully considered the parties' written and oral arguments, the Court now GRANTS preliminary injunctive relief for the reasons explained below.

On November 6, 2012, California voters approved the CASE Act, which appeared on the ballot as Proposition 35, with approximately 81% of the vote. Ex. D to Intervenors' Req. for Judicial Notice at 1.1 Plaintiffs John Doe, Jack Roe,2 and the non-profit organization California Reform Sex Offender Laws filed this action on behalf of present and future California sex offender registrants the following day, when the Act was to take effect.3 See Cal. Const. art. II, § 10(a). They contend that California Penal Code sections 290.014(b) and 290.015(a)(4)-(6), as enacted by the CASE Act, violate Plaintiffs' First Amendment rights to free speech and free association. They further contend that the provisions are void for vagueness under the Fourteenth Amendment.

California's sex offender registration program is governed by California Penal Code section 290 et seq. The CASE Act added the following items to the list of information registrants must provide "upon release from incarceration, placement, commitment, or release on probation":

(4) A list of any and all Internet identifiers established or used by the person.

(5) A list of any and all Internet service providers used by the person.

(6) A statement in writing, signed by the person, acknowledging that the person is required to register and update the information in paragraphs (4) and (5), as required by this chapter.

Cal. Penal Code § 290.015(a). In addition, items (4) and (5) must be reported as part of the annual registration process. Id. § 290.012(a).

The Act defines "Internet service provider" as "a business, organization, or other entity providing a computer and communications facility directly to consumers through which a person may obtain access to the Internet," except for any "business, organization, or other entity that provides only telecommunications services, cable services, or video services, or any system operated or services offered by a library or educational institution." Id. § 290.024(a). "Internet identifier" is defined as "an electronic mail address, user name, screen name, or similar identifier used for the purpose of Internet forum discussions, Internet chat room discussions, instant messaging, social networking, or similar Internet communication." Id. § 290.024(b).

The CASE Act also added a provision that requires registrants to notify law enforcement within 24 hours of any changes in the Internet information subject to registration:

If any person who is required to register pursuant to the Act adds or changes his or her account with an Internet service provider or adds or changes an Internet identifier, the person shall send written notice of the addition or change to the law enforcement agency or agencies with which he or she is currently registered within 24 hours. The law enforcement agency or agencies shall make this information available to the Department of Justice.

Id. § 290.014(b). This section further requires all registrants to "immediately provide" the required information to law enforcement upon the effective date of the Act. Id.

...(Additional facts are long but interesting, should be reviewed), ...

Accordingly, with good cause appearing for the reasons stated in this order, Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction is GRANTED. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant Kamala Harris and her officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with her, are enjoined from implementing or enforcing California Penal Code sections 290.014(b) and 290.015(a)(4)-(6), as enacted by the CASE Act.17

2. Defendant Harris shall provide, by personal service or otherwise, actual notice of this order to all law enforcement personnel who are responsible for implementing or enforcing the enjoined statutes or from otherwise collecting registered sex offenders' information. The government shall file a declaration establishing proof of such notice on or before January 28, 2013. Alternatively, the parties may file on or before that date a stipulation and proposed order that local law enforcement will not enforce the enjoined provisions even in the absence of receiving actual notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

---

On Appeal: No. 09-17362.
We certify to the California Supreme Court the question set forth in Part II of this order. All further proceedings in this case are stayed pending receipt of the answer to the certified question. This case is withdrawn from submission until further order of this Court. The parties shall notify the Clerk of this Court within three days after the court accepts or rejects certification, and again within three days if the court renders an opinion. The panel retains jurisdiction over further proceedings.

I
Pursuant to Rule 8.548 of the California Rules of Court, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, before which this appeal is pending, certifies to the California Supreme Court a question of law concerning the interpretation of California plea agreements. The decisions of the Courts of Appeal of the State of California provide no controlling precedent regarding the certified question, the answer to which may be determinative of this appeal. We respectfully request that the California Supreme Court answer the certified question presented below. Our phrasing of the issue is not meant to restrict the court's consideration of the case. We agree to follow the answer provided by the California Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court declines certification, we will resolve the issue according to our perception of California law.

II
The question of law to be answered is:
Whether, under California law, the default rule of contract interpretation is

• (a) that the law in effect at the time of a plea agreement binds the parties, or
• (b) that the terms of a plea agreement may be affected by changes in law.

...continued...

John Doe -v- Prosecutor, Marion County

1-23-2013 Indiana:

John Doe -v- Prosecutor, Marion County 1-23-2013 No. 12-2512.

John Doe -v- Prosecutor, Marion County 2-27-2012

---

From 1-23-2013 Decision:

A recent Indiana statute prohibits most registered sex offenders from using social networking websites, instant messaging services, and chat programs. John Doe, on behalf of a class of similarly situated sex offenders, challenges this law on First Amendment grounds. We reverse the district court and hold that the law as drafted is unconstitutional. Though content neutral, we conclude that the Indiana law is not narrowly tailored to serve the state’s interest. It broadly prohibits substantial protected speech rather than specifically targeting the evil of improper communications to minors. * * *

We conclude by noting that Indiana continues to possess existing tools to combat sexual predators. The penal system offers speech-restrictive alternatives to imprisonment. Regulations that do not implicate the First Amendment are reviewed only for a rational basis. The Constitution even permits civil commitment under certain conditions. But laws that implicate the First Amendment require narrow tailoring. Subsequent Indiana statutes may well meet this requirement, but the blanket ban on social media in this case regrettably does not.

See Article: Indiana's ban on sex offenders using Facebook unconstitutional, court says See also: 7th Circuit strikes down Indiana statute banning sex offenders from social networking sites And this excellent North Carolina Blog Review (Includes case from NC on Appeal).

---

PDF Decision. [Google Scholar version.]

McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission

4-19-1995:

McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission
Docket: 93-986
Citation: 514 U.S. 334 (1995)

Facts of the Case
On April 27, 1988, Margaret McIntyre distributed leaflets to persons attending a public meeting in Ohio expressing her opposition to a proposed school tax levy. Though they were independently produced, she signed them as the views of "Concerned Parents and Tax Payers." Mrs. McIntyre was subsequently fined $100 for violating Section 3599.09(A) of the Ohio Elections Commission Code prohibiting the distribution of campaign literature that does not contain the name and address of the person or campaign official issuing the literature.

Question
Does the prohibition of the distribution of anonymous campaign literature abridge freedom of speech as protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments?

Conclusion
Yes. The freedom to publish anonymously is protected by the First Amendment and "extends beyond the literary realm to the advocacy of political causes." When a law burdens such anonymous speech, the Court applies "exacting scrutiny," upholding the restriction only if it is narrowly tailored to serve an overriding state interest.

Oral Argument
There are exceptions to the anonymous free speech, but you must read the Oral Arguments to know what they are, in essence, anything that is not true, libel, slander, fraud, etc and a few others. Folks must be responsible for what they say, print, and do with respect to exercising their First Amendment rights. So, read and understand the concepts of what the Justices are saying.

====================================
Assuming no wrongful conduct, the court said:
"“Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.”" The Electronic Frontier Foundation citing the above case.
====================================

See also: A Victory for Anonymous Online Free Speech

Doe -v- Shurtleff

10-26-2010 Utah:

Doe -v- Shurtleff
No. 09-4162.

10-26-2010 ORDER -and- 12-1-2010 ORDER

District Ct Order 8-20-2009

District Ct Decision 9-25-2008

In this case John Doe, a registered sex offender living in the state of Utah, appeals the district court's decision to allow enforcement of a Utah statute requiring all sex offenders living in Utah to register their "internet identifiers" and the corresponding websites with the state. We now uphold that decision based on our conclusion that the statute does not violate the First or Fourth Amendments or the Ex-Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution, made applicable to Utah through the Fourteenth Amendment.

BACKGROUND
Appellant, proceeding anonymously as Mr. John Doe, was convicted by the United States military court system of sex offenses involving a minor and sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment. After serving thirteen months of this sentence, Mr. Doe was released without being placed on probation or supervised release. However, as a resident of Utah and a convicted sex offender, Mr. Doe was still required to register with the Utah Department of Corrections, pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 77-27-21.5 (West 2008). Among its many provisions, this registry law required Mr. Doe to provide all "Internet identifiers1 and the addresses [he] uses for routing or self-identification in Internet communications or postings." Id. § 77-27-21.5(14)(i).2 The statute also required that Mr. Doe provide "all online identifiers and passwords used to access" websites where he was using an online identifier, with the exception of identifiers used for employment or financial accounts. Id. § 77-27-21.5(12)(j) & (29).

Believing that these requirements violated his First and Fourth Amendment rights as well as the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution, Mr. Doe refused to provide the requested information and brought a lawsuit challenging the law. Upon Mr. Doe's motion for summary judgment, the district court invalidated the statute based on its conclusion that the statute, which provided "no restrictions on how the [State] c[ould] use or disseminate registrants' internet information," improperly infringed on Mr. Doe's First Amendment right to anonymous speech. (Appellant's App. at 208.) Shortly after this ruling, the Utah legislature amended the statute. First, the legislature removed any requirement that offenders disclose their passwords, and second, it placed some limits on how a state official can use identifiers provided by an offender. Specifically, the statute now3 provides that

... ... ... ...

( Doe v Shurtleff at. el., 2010 WL 4188248 (U.S. Dist Court, the District of Utah 2008) (C.A.10 (Dec. 1, 2010), decision was appealed to the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS). SCOTUS denied the Pet. for Cert. on March 7, 2011.

---

Article: The 10th Cir Court of Appeals issues decision on "Internet anonymous free speech" of Utah's sex offenders

UPDATE 3-10-2011: Many thanks to the reader for this important update: "The Doe v Shurtleff at. el., 2010 WL 4188248 (C.A.10 (Dec. 1, 2010), decision was appealed to the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS). SCOTUS denied the Pet. for Cert. on March 7, 2011. This does not mean that SCOTUS did agreed with the Tenth Circuit, it just means they will not hear the case. They are well aware that the White v. Baker decision out of Georgia says it is unconstitutional. There is a preliminary injunction in Doe v. Nebraska as well on this issue. A new lawsuit was filed in Feb. 2011 against New York's E-STOP as well."

From Wikipedia: Doe v. Shurtleff

From Jonathan D. Frieden: Law Requiring Convicted Sex Offender to Disclose All Internet Identities is Constitutional (Excellent Explanation by Lawyer)

See Also: Six Myths Why We Can't Manage Sex Offender's Computer/Internet Use