Decision in Internet Identifier Case
FAC NOTE: I changed the title from “disappointing” decision to just decision. If we look at the lawsuit as a whole, we started by getting an injunction that prevented a MUCH, MUCH worse version of the law. So we didn’t get “internet identifier” registration knocked out entirely, but we did prevent a disaster that would have certainly prevented tens of thousands from even working online…
The order came out in the Internet Identifier challenge, Although the decision is mixed, overall the decision was very disappointing. Essentially, the constitutionality of the Government collecting our internet identifiers (whatever that might be) was upheld.
We have had preliminary discussion with the attorneys, who need to digest the decision and decide among themselves what the best course of action would be, but an appeal is likely imminent.
The order states:
- The summary-judgment motions, ECF Nos. 76 and 77, are granted in part and denied in part.
- It is declared that the requirement in Florida Statutes § 943.0435 for convicted sex offenders to disclose to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement their email addresses and internet identifiers, defined to apply only when a registrant actually uses an identifier to communicate over the internet directly with another user, is constitutional. The Constitution does not prohibit FDLE from making the disclosed information available to law enforcement agencies and officers for official use. The Constitution does not prohibit FDLE from making publicly available a list of email addresses and internet identifiers that have been registered, but the Constitution prohibits FDLE from making publicly available the identity of a registrant associated with any given email address or internet identifier.
- The Commissioner of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement is enjoined from disclosing the identity of a sex-offender registrant associated with any given email address or internet identifier, with this exception: the Commissioner may make this information available to law enforcement agencies and officers for official use only. This injunction does not prohibit FDLE from disclosing information FDLE has obtained from independent sources unrelated to the registrant’s submission of the information to the sex-offender
- This injunction binds the Commissioner and his officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys—and others in active concert or participation with any of them—who receive actual notice of this injunction by personal service or otherwise.
A copy of the decision follows:
Discover more from Florida Action Committee
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Statutory schemes in other states intending to regulating the online activities of convicted sex offenders have meet with judicial disapproval. Have we not learned how to defend our First Amendment Rights from these other cases?
The 9th Circuit faulted a similar law for ambiguity in 2014. They stated,
“Sex offenders’ fear of disclosure in and of itself chills their speech,” the panel concluded. “If their identity is exposed, their speech, even on topics of public importance, could subject them to harassment, retaliation and intimidation.”
In Doe v. Snyder, 2016 WL 4473231, at *7 SORA’s internet reporting requirements violate the First Amendment right to free speech (because the they are vague and registrants must report such changes in person). One of the reasons that Does v. Snyder has been successful is that it was brought as affirmative civil litigation, and therefore provided the opportunity to develop a very extensive record that was critical in convincing the Court of Appeals that registration is punishment. Criminal cases rarely allow for the development of a similarly extensive record, and therefore are generally less promising as a vehicle for transforming the law in this area.
See also: Doe v. Nebraska, 09CV456 (D. Neb. Oct. 17, 2012); Doe v. Harris, C12-5713 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2013); Doe v. Indiana, 2013 WL 238735 (7th Cir. Jan. 23, 2013), among others.
I have to admit I thought this would of been a common sensibly no- brainer decision for the district courts, but of course then again, it is Florida. Disappointed it didn’t get knocked out
Florida district courts are useless and a joke. Might as well appeal to a circuit court and hopefully it forces their hands. Internet identifier laws are as stupid and ridiculous as they get. Only to registered citizens with a sex crime and even to those that do not include the internet as a crime… and NOT to those who have committed cyber crimes such as identity thefts, hackers, etc.
Keep fighting the good fight, FAC, and let us know what the attorneys think of taking it to the appellate level.
Frustrating to see RSOs’ risk level characterized in this way. They did not, thank G-d, say that the risk is “frightening and high,” but they pointed out that it is not 0, and this was sufficient for the law.
I did find the definitions helpful— that an internet identifier is a username used for direct user to user communication, and not a name used to publicly comment in a news site such as this one. Correct me if I am wrong.
The judge DID clarify that. We can always use that in defense if charged with failing to register. If you don’t have any direct user to user communication – you don’t register.
Thank you for clarifying that FAC. It’s bad when people are afraid to use the internet at all!
Hello everyone
I’ve been coming on this website for about 2 years, two or three times everyday in hopes of finding that the laws have changed to these horrible and unjustified laws to keep individuals homeless and from ever having a life or even coming close to their own family because of the shame and tag that our government gives them .
I need help and I don’t know what else to do. my boyfriend of 7 years was arrested for failure to register he was a day late . he is Transit and has to register every 30 days he miss read his next date and came in and was arrested.
Now God knows what will happen to him because of this. His case was from 2001 he met a girl in a club she turned out to be 15. So he pleaded out because they scared him saying just one charge can send him to prison for 15 to 25 years ,So he took a deal of 10 years split sentence now 17 years later through all the B.S. still homeless and laws are getting far to worse and it’s not FAIR .
In 2002 when he was sentence these were not the conditions he pleaded it out to not any of these conditions like 2500 ft his plea deal was a 1000 feet and with a letter from the judge that he can live within a thousand feet but they still took him to jail for that too even with the judge’s letter .
We want to challenge these new laws that were not part of his plea deal in 2002, can anybody please help us or point us in the right direction .
Thank you all so much…
If he is indigent and charged with a failure to register (even being 1 day late) he will be appointed a public defender. That is an attorney paid by taxpayers to represent him. Unfortunately, if he doesn’t have his own funds to secure a private attorney, he is stuck with the PD, but many are good.
Heres a link i found today on
Ron book and his daughter
isn’t he a criminal? Didn’t he get caught stealing or something to that nature so how come he gets to get away with this and all these scams …
https://communitynewspapers.com/aventura/kiwanis-of-northeast-miami-dade-presents-61st-anniversary-gala/
One of the things that I hate the MOST about this identifier nonsense: if I stop using an Internet identifier and de-register it at the service provider (for instance, an email address) and, after some time, someone else adopts that same identifier, that person’s identifier will appear to belong to an RSO if I haven’t deleted it from the FDLE website. I’ve asked FDLE whether I should remove the identifier from my online record once I’ve stopped using it, and they’ve responded “read the law” and sent me a copy for my convenience. I wonder whether I’ll be arrested soon for not deleting my old identifiers from the FDLE site or whether I’ll be arrested for deleting them, even though I no longer use them. I guess I’ll go back and read the law again to see whether there’s any requirement to delete identifiers that are no longer used.
@RayO,
You would save yourself some anxiety if you simply don’t delete the identifier.
However, if you do delete the identifier, (and this is NOT LEGAL ADVICE, just one of I’m sure many mutations out there) one would assume you are no longer intent on using it in within the meaning of the statute. They do have a removal capability for a reason (well, hopefully…). If you move from a residence, get rid of a car/boat, or cancel phone service, etc. you de-register those things. Deleting an identifier seems analogous to those actions.
You are only required to register identifiers you will be accessing, not those that just happen to exist under your name. On your question of de-registration, if you have gone so far as to have your service provider discontinue the identifier, particularly if there is a risk that that identifier may later be assigned to someone else, then yes, I would say that you had better de-register it, and this is where I would disagree with the previous poster. Think about it in terms of telephone numbers. The statute says not only must you register your telephone numbers, but you must de-register numbers that are no longer yours, and failure to do either is a third degree felony. I would tend to view internet identifiers the same way.
@Re: de-registering inaccessible identifiers
I see now how I used the wrong word. What I meant to say is
You would save yourself some anxiety if you simply don’t delete the username or account.
The first line definitely sounds like I am saying you should not remove the identifier from your registration at FDLE, which is not what I intended. The rest of my reply almost clears up that mistake, but it’s contradictory and confusing. Thank you for catching that. Funny enough is we use the same analogy at one point to argue why it makes more sense to remove the identifier from registration, because it is similar to a phone number.
How about we challenge this BS on the fact that we now communicate with our doctors offices on the internet and out healthcare providers and insurers and banking institutions. This is still far too overbroad.
we don’t have to register banking institutions
But we do for healthcare providers?
No, unless your objective was to get to know health care providers socially.