<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Application of Packingham &#8211; Internet Access	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://floridaactioncommittee.org/application-of-packingham-internet-access/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://floridaactioncommittee.org/application-of-packingham-internet-access/</link>
	<description>Reforming Florida’s Sex Offender Registry Laws</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Aug 2019 04:05:29 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: LeaveFL		</title>
		<link>https://floridaactioncommittee.org/application-of-packingham-internet-access/comment-page-2/#comment-25244</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[LeaveFL]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Aug 2019 04:05:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://floridaactioncommittee.org/?p=11346#comment-25244</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[So, Florida is 25 years on registry before you can petition removal.

I know there are other states with 10/15/20 years. Some even less for Youthful Offenders.

Why do we not move to these states? Even if Florida keeps us on theirs, how is it not better to move to another state and NOT have your residence flagged?

To me, that is a HUGE advantage.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So, Florida is 25 years on registry before you can petition removal.</p>
<p>I know there are other states with 10/15/20 years. Some even less for Youthful Offenders.</p>
<p>Why do we not move to these states? Even if Florida keeps us on theirs, how is it not better to move to another state and NOT have your residence flagged?</p>
<p>To me, that is a HUGE advantage.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Jack		</title>
		<link>https://floridaactioncommittee.org/application-of-packingham-internet-access/comment-page-1/#comment-25243</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jack]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Aug 2019 21:57:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://floridaactioncommittee.org/?p=11346#comment-25243</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Has anyone traveled to Turks and cacios and what was tour experience.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Has anyone traveled to Turks and cacios and what was tour experience.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Tim in WI		</title>
		<link>https://floridaactioncommittee.org/application-of-packingham-internet-access/comment-page-1/#comment-25242</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Tim in WI]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Aug 2019 17:20:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://floridaactioncommittee.org/?p=11346#comment-25242</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Quite frankly any of you people can still get access but you have to break the rules to do so. The application of Packingham effects speech and IMO justified ignoring the law prohibiting access (ban). Rights are God given and can only be taken by volition. Felons carry guns ban or not. If caught they pay the price but the &quot;if&quot; remains. Too often SCzOTUS rulings are interpreted incorrectly, especially by AGs who tilt what was not made clear to favor the state.

Mr. Scalia stated in DOE03, that Congress could indeed add more regulatory burdens on SOs, but he did not include additional restraint burden onto the already convicted. Of course the state&#039;s added those pains and penalties ex post anyway via their convenient misinterpretation. The Rehnquist court stated &quot; affirmative disability&quot; would run incongruous to the ex post facto clause when applied after sentence complete.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Quite frankly any of you people can still get access but you have to break the rules to do so. The application of Packingham effects speech and IMO justified ignoring the law prohibiting access (ban). Rights are God given and can only be taken by volition. Felons carry guns ban or not. If caught they pay the price but the &#8220;if&#8221; remains. Too often SCzOTUS rulings are interpreted incorrectly, especially by AGs who tilt what was not made clear to favor the state.</p>
<p>Mr. Scalia stated in DOE03, that Congress could indeed add more regulatory burdens on SOs, but he did not include additional restraint burden onto the already convicted. Of course the state&#8217;s added those pains and penalties ex post anyway via their convenient misinterpretation. The Rehnquist court stated &#8221; affirmative disability&#8221; would run incongruous to the ex post facto clause when applied after sentence complete.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: JZ		</title>
		<link>https://floridaactioncommittee.org/application-of-packingham-internet-access/comment-page-1/#comment-25241</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[JZ]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Aug 2019 00:03:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://floridaactioncommittee.org/?p=11346#comment-25241</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://floridaactioncommittee.org/application-of-packingham-internet-access/comment-page-1/#comment-25232&quot;&gt;Media&lt;/a&gt;.

You should have a copy of your husband&#039;s order of probation. If not, you can get it from the clerk of courts for a nominal fee. Everything he can or cannot do is in that order.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://floridaactioncommittee.org/application-of-packingham-internet-access/comment-page-1/#comment-25232">Media</a>.</p>
<p>You should have a copy of your husband&#8217;s order of probation. If not, you can get it from the clerk of courts for a nominal fee. Everything he can or cannot do is in that order.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Florida Action Committee		</title>
		<link>https://floridaactioncommittee.org/application-of-packingham-internet-access/comment-page-1/#comment-25240</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Florida Action Committee]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Aug 2019 22:49:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://floridaactioncommittee.org/?p=11346#comment-25240</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://floridaactioncommittee.org/application-of-packingham-internet-access/comment-page-1/#comment-25239&quot;&gt;Mark&lt;/a&gt;.

Again - this is part of PROBATION/CONDITIONAL RELEASE/SUPERVISED RELEASE or any other sanction that&#039;s imposed as part of a sentence. NOT people off probation.
Chapter 947 is titled, &quot;FLORIDA COMMISSION ON OFFENDER REVIEW; CONDITIONAL RELEASE; CONTROL RELEASE; PAROLE&quot;]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://floridaactioncommittee.org/application-of-packingham-internet-access/comment-page-1/#comment-25239">Mark</a>.</p>
<p>Again &#8211; this is part of PROBATION/CONDITIONAL RELEASE/SUPERVISED RELEASE or any other sanction that&#8217;s imposed as part of a sentence. NOT people off probation.<br />
Chapter 947 is titled, &#8220;FLORIDA COMMISSION ON OFFENDER REVIEW; CONDITIONAL RELEASE; CONTROL RELEASE; PAROLE&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Mark		</title>
		<link>https://floridaactioncommittee.org/application-of-packingham-internet-access/comment-page-1/#comment-25239</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mark]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Aug 2019 22:47:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://floridaactioncommittee.org/?p=11346#comment-25239</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In 947.1405(7)(a)8 states &quot;Effective for a releasee whose crime is committed on or after July 1, 2005, a prohibition on accessing the Internet or other computer services until a qualified practitioner in the offender’s sex offender treatment program, after a risk assessment is completed, approves and implements a safety plan for the offender’s accessing or using the Internet or other computer services.&quot;
   My offense occurred in 2007.  When I was released in 2017, I was told I could not have ANY device capable of accessing the internet until I went through the proper steps.  No VCR, no Blue-Ray DVD player, no smart TV, no smart phone, nothing.  I was not even allowed to go to the Florida job program and use their computer.  On the other hand, my probation officer allowed me to stand over someone and watch them do stuff.
   It took me nearly a year and a half before I was able to access the net.  At the added expenses of court hearings (I represented myself), travel time, multiple evaluations done by &quot;experts&quot; to determine that I was not a risk on the computer and the requirement that I have installed a &quot;watchdog&quot; program that not only watches what I do online, but also watches what I do offline as well.  At my cost, of course.
  So, this prohibition is STATUTORY.  There is little a judge can do to override it.  Or a lowly probation officer.  I had a few hiccups as I got used to the program but at least now I can communicate via e-mail to friends and family, do online banking and such, research my ancestry and do job searches.  It is a hassle, but it is a world better than having a &quot;dumb&quot; computer that is little more than a word processor.
    Oh, by the way, that statute is enforced regardless of whether or not your offense had anything to do with a computer.  Mine didn&#039;t.  My access cost less than $500, but I know others who have paid several times that.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In 947.1405(7)(a)8 states &#8221;Effective for a releasee whose crime is committed on or after July 1, 2005, a prohibition on accessing the Internet or other computer services until a qualified practitioner in the offender’s sex offender treatment program, after a risk assessment is completed, approves and implements a safety plan for the offender’s accessing or using the Internet or other computer services.&#8221;<br />
   My offense occurred in 2007.  When I was released in 2017, I was told I could not have ANY device capable of accessing the internet until I went through the proper steps.  No VCR, no Blue-Ray DVD player, no smart TV, no smart phone, nothing.  I was not even allowed to go to the Florida job program and use their computer.  On the other hand, my probation officer allowed me to stand over someone and watch them do stuff.<br />
   It took me nearly a year and a half before I was able to access the net.  At the added expenses of court hearings (I represented myself), travel time, multiple evaluations done by &#8220;experts&#8221; to determine that I was not a risk on the computer and the requirement that I have installed a &#8220;watchdog&#8221; program that not only watches what I do online, but also watches what I do offline as well.  At my cost, of course.<br />
  So, this prohibition is STATUTORY.  There is little a judge can do to override it.  Or a lowly probation officer.  I had a few hiccups as I got used to the program but at least now I can communicate via e-mail to friends and family, do online banking and such, research my ancestry and do job searches.  It is a hassle, but it is a world better than having a &#8220;dumb&#8221; computer that is little more than a word processor.<br />
    Oh, by the way, that statute is enforced regardless of whether or not your offense had anything to do with a computer.  Mine didn&#8217;t.  My access cost less than $500, but I know others who have paid several times that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Florida Action Committee		</title>
		<link>https://floridaactioncommittee.org/application-of-packingham-internet-access/comment-page-1/#comment-25238</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Florida Action Committee]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Aug 2019 20:33:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://floridaactioncommittee.org/?p=11346#comment-25238</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://floridaactioncommittee.org/application-of-packingham-internet-access/comment-page-1/#comment-25237&quot;&gt;R.S.G.&lt;/a&gt;.

Check with your attorney - generally 20 years after you complete all sanctions. If you completed probation in 2005; 2025 you can petition for removal.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://floridaactioncommittee.org/application-of-packingham-internet-access/comment-page-1/#comment-25237">R.S.G.</a>.</p>
<p>Check with your attorney &#8211; generally 20 years after you complete all sanctions. If you completed probation in 2005; 2025 you can petition for removal.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: R.S.G.		</title>
		<link>https://floridaactioncommittee.org/application-of-packingham-internet-access/comment-page-1/#comment-25237</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[R.S.G.]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Aug 2019 20:29:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://floridaactioncommittee.org/?p=11346#comment-25237</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[At what point can I get off of   Registration   Registry ,  I was Sentenced is the 1990 did 15 years probation, never been arrested for anything at all ?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>At what point can I get off of   Registration   Registry ,  I was Sentenced is the 1990 did 15 years probation, never been arrested for anything at all ?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Jacob		</title>
		<link>https://floridaactioncommittee.org/application-of-packingham-internet-access/comment-page-1/#comment-25236</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jacob]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Aug 2019 18:45:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://floridaactioncommittee.org/?p=11346#comment-25236</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://floridaactioncommittee.org/application-of-packingham-internet-access/comment-page-1/#comment-25232&quot;&gt;Media&lt;/a&gt;.

In this situation, the only internet restriction I can envision would be, don’t use the internet to do something prohibited by the sentence or judgement order.  I can’t imagine that there would be an outright ban on using the internet unless the judgment order says so.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://floridaactioncommittee.org/application-of-packingham-internet-access/comment-page-1/#comment-25232">Media</a>.</p>
<p>In this situation, the only internet restriction I can envision would be, don’t use the internet to do something prohibited by the sentence or judgement order.  I can’t imagine that there would be an outright ban on using the internet unless the judgment order says so.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Florida Action Committee		</title>
		<link>https://floridaactioncommittee.org/application-of-packingham-internet-access/comment-page-1/#comment-25235</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Florida Action Committee]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Aug 2019 16:37:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://floridaactioncommittee.org/?p=11346#comment-25235</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://floridaactioncommittee.org/application-of-packingham-internet-access/comment-page-1/#comment-25232&quot;&gt;Media&lt;/a&gt;.

Yes - you should consult with your lawyer about the conditions imposed by a PO.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://floridaactioncommittee.org/application-of-packingham-internet-access/comment-page-1/#comment-25232">Media</a>.</p>
<p>Yes &#8211; you should consult with your lawyer about the conditions imposed by a PO.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
