Comments on: CALL TO ACTION #3 for HB 1085 Moved to new committees: Infrastructure & Appropriations Subcommittee and Infrastructure Strategies Committee

By: no hope

no hope — Tue, 28 Mar 2023 18:20:49 +0000

I know FAC and other agencies fighting for people on the registries try and keep the conversations positive and act as if we are gaining some kind of progress, but the reality is the policies and regulation against us are getting worse an worse as the years go on. We used to joke about them placing us all on an island but with each passing regulation that may actually be what they are thinking of doing. Every time we win in court they change the verbiage and win on appeal. They group everyone together no matter the reason your on the registry and treat everyone he same as if we are all Jerry Sandusky’s. I wish my fellow registrants luck but i have to look at the future with a realistic eye and that eye doesn’t see it getting better anytime soon. I cant wait to see the face on the woman who cash’s my check at the bank when she see’s all red on MY identification

By: Hands Off My Right To Work

Hands Off My Right To Work — Mon, 27 Mar 2023 20:28:39 +0000

Should FAC not let them know a lawsuit will be filed? Should we start a fund now and put these people on notice? This is absolutely crazy when a Law Officer allready knows you are a registrant when he sees the license and runs your info. The only point to anything RED is to say DANGER DANGER to everybody else around us. I would even expect this to be used as a denial at Bars,Resteraunts,Hospitals and more its pure Harrasment

By: JZ

JZ — Mon, 27 Mar 2023 16:54:49 +0000

CSHB 1085 has passed the Infrastructure & Tourism Appropriations Subcommittee by a vote of 14-0. Last stop is Infrastructure Strategies Committee.

https://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=77877

By: Jacob

Jacob — Fri, 24 Mar 2023 19:40:18 +0000

In reply to Tearfuleagle.

Anyone reading that case in full will also see that the court identified Florida’s scheme, including the “‘sexual predator’ label applied to the most serious offenders,” IS an example of “the least restrictive means of achieving that interest.”

I disagree with the court on this and agree with your position, but we can’t pretend the case supports our position. It doesn’t, no matter how much I would like it to.

And that case did not consider the issue of font color, which is the only thing this bill changes.

By: Tearfuleagle

Tearfuleagle — Fri, 24 Mar 2023 12:45:04 +0000

In reply to Jacob.

Below is an excerpt from Doe v Marshall

Plaintiffs rely on Wooley and its progeny to argue that printing “CRIMINAL SEX OFFENDER” on state-issued identification cards is unconstitutional. Plaintiffs are correct. The branded-ID requirement compels speech, and it is not the least restrictive means of advancing a compelling state interest.

By: Jacob

Jacob — Fri, 24 Mar 2023 01:04:34 +0000

In reply to Tearfuleagle. I agree, but the court doesn’t. The Alabama court has opined that “sexual predator” on select registrants’ licenses IS in fact part of the least restrictive means. And on red font color the court has not had to rule either way.

By: Jacob

Jacob — Fri, 24 Mar 2023 00:59:23 +0000

In reply to Tearfuleagle. I just don’t see how. I don’t think we have compelling case law associated with what this bill does.

By: Education

Education — Thu, 23 Mar 2023 22:22:00 +0000

In reply to Jacob. I tried, but it is not going to happen. I will try to incorporate some of this in future Calls To Action.

By: Tearfuleagle

Tearfuleagle — Thu, 23 Mar 2023 20:53:34 +0000

In reply to Jacob. I would argue that the word sexual predator “. Is not the least restrictive way of doing it. Putting all our information in red is also not the least restrictive and by doing so we are being forced to carry the government’s message as red has always been the color of Danger

By: Tearfuleagle

Tearfuleagle — Thu, 23 Mar 2023 20:49:50 +0000

In reply to Jacob. And you don’t think we can?