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:
FAC, which counties’ members are reporting most of these wrongful arrests? If you don’t mind my asking. That and other details may help us take action.
This surprises me because it was my own sheriff’s registration staff who told me about the internet identifier challenge and what did not need to be registered. (That was a few years ago, though).
Everyone’s Zooming now, it seems.
But how use Zoom while remaining compliant?
Do people normally have set usernames or screen names that they use with zoom? Should those be registered? Or are these invisible/subject to change/not applicable? All I see is a bunch of faces and backgrounds.
Does Zoom have a set URL that users access whenever they zoom? Should that be registered? Whenever I see an invitation to a zoom call, it seems like a different URL each time.
What if you are in a room with another Zoom user and you join a conference together? Do you have to register their username/ screen name?
Is Zoom even considered a social app? Or at least, social enough that it normally requires registration?
Overall, do we know of any best practices for keeping up with people via Zoom while remaining compliant?
Zoom is becoming ubiquitous, and I feel left out because I am paralyzed by fear of an inadvertent registration failure.
So after some time, what exactly is the requirement? I can’t seem to find what we are supposed to be doing with Internet Identifiers.
Back on September 21, 2018 FAC wrote:
“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.”
It’s been nearly nine months now. Maybe I just missed it (or forgot about it) but has there been any decision or progress on a decision about an appeal?
Thanks.
It’s been about 15 months now. Anything new on a possible appeal?
The government has not appealed. We won.
I have two questions.
1. Is FAC, all4consolaws, NARSOl all co sided news sites. Meaning we don’t have to list the name we use.
Does user to user mean if I comment on someone elses comment and mention their comment by name that I then have to register FAC
Yes – we are a news site.
There is no DIRECT PERSON TO PERSON communication on this site
Awesome thank you for such a quick response. I will remove FAC from my list forthwith.
this is exactly what we face…people don’t understand what they have todo and thats exactly what keeps the system running!
Here is where it might get confusing. A large number of people that I know utilize Instagram )and Facebook) to sell a particular type of product that I also make, but have a lot of trouble selling because I have “stalkers” within the community, so to speak. I am particularly interested in Instagram because that seem to be where most of the action is. If the ONLY purpose for these folks being on Instagram is to facilitate the sale of their products BUT their presence also involves interactions with existing and potential customers and perhaps also following other persons in the same trade in order to obtain followers for your own product, would you have to report tat and, logciallyty, be banned from Instagram within a mater of days? 😉
So the state can’t say who the e-mail address belongs to, but they can give it out to anyone. What the hell does that mean? Companies like Facebook will just whack you based on the e-mail address which you have to give to the state unless you want to go to prison. Isn’t that what they are doing now? So no win/lose, just lose. As far as I know, FDLe was not giving out names anyway. They were giving out e-mail addresses, screen names, etc to any social media company that requested them and responding to inquiries about whether or not a particular e-mail address or screen name belonged to a registrant, Absolutely nothing has changed. BS ruling.
I don’t believe I have see this covered but what happens when you delete a Internet Idetifier or email? Do you also delete it on FDLE or would you be in violation for not having it show any,ore even though the account has been cancelled. So if I registered with a Match.com for example idetifier but then deleted my account now what?
Hello,
I have not seen a good answer on this yet and I would like to delete sites I no longer used or never used but simply created a account to see what the heck my friends are talking about. If you have a Tinder,Zoosk,Match or other type of account and have registered but deleted would you also delete on the FDLE?. I dont want to have issues with accounts I no longer use or the appearance that I do!
Thanks
Since the internet identifiers cannot be disclosed (pursuant to the order of the court in our II case), don’t worry so much about “extra” ones.
Just came across this on the ACSOL website:
http://floridapolitics.com/archives/264952-keys-2-drive-duval
Yet another Floriduh program offering some relief to other classes of criminals where “sex offenders” are singled out and excluded.
Sex offenders are ineligible for the program, as are non-Florida residents and those with licenses suspended in major criminal traffic offenses.
I can understand major criminal traffic offenses, but how are sex offenders relevant to this ? Goes to show they attach registered citizens to everything of ineligibility.
“Sex offenders are ineligible for the program, as are non-Florida residents and those with licenses suspended in major criminal traffic offenses.”
Wow… really. So sad its funny. Let’s just exclude sex offenders. Why? Just because. I mean what the actual !@#$
Non-punitive? Laughable.
Basically, ALL sex offender laws WILL CONTINUE to be upheld UNTIL and Only Until a lawsuit/case tackles the 100% crux of the matter: that this modern day slavery scheme was created based on FALSE information/myths.
There is no other way around it. You can chip around the sides all you want, but eventually this needs to be tackled.
Agreed.
First, remove all possible routes for enrichment by one person through the incarceration of another.
Second, provide for the incarcerated. A rational person who ponders it enough will see that very long sentences of incarceration as a tool for punishment is almost only a drag on society, all for primal vengeful gratification. There are many ways to punish without incarcerating, ways that benefit every party more (defendant, victim, and public). It is, however, a good tool to keep dangerous people away from the public at large when there is clear reason to believe they have broken the law and have a propensity to do so within the next couple of years, maximum. While incarcerated, inmates should be afforded every opportunity to enrich themselves in mind, health, spirit, etc., and no opportunity to enrich another individual. Their enrichment will inherently enrich society if/when they are released, particularly if they are given continued rehabilitative support for a transition period. If they break the law again, THEN and only THEN do you deprive them of their rights.
Nobody wants to be a victim to a crime, but when people understand they can be a victim to society when forced into an unforgiving, unfair, subjective legal system, they will be more inclined to reason. The legal system can be torturous, and anyone who has themselves been or had a loved one who has been through it can attest to it being extreme and unforgiving in its outcomes.
We live in a society where the victim has become a role, one so deformed and disturbed that it does nothing but shove the victim into mental grave. Being victimized once by an offense is bad enough, but we force victims to perpetuate the role far longer than is healthy.
To all affected: Please follow this link and story as it shows that deep pockets are needed to fight the registries and “Scarlet letter” of sex offender and sex predator designations.
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/09/22/cosby-to-fight-sexually-violent-predator-tag-at-sentencing.html
A. The Constitutional Prohibition Against Ex Post Facto Laws
Article I of the United States Constitution prohibits the states
from passing “any… ex post facto Law.” The Ex Post Facto Clause
proscribes the enactment of any law that “imposes punishment for an
act that was not punishable at the time it was committed or imposes
additional punishment to that then prescribed. A law is considered ex post facto if it satisfies two criteria:
First, the law must be retrospective, that is, “it must apply to events occurring before its enactment.
Second, the law must disadvantage the affected offender.
Additionally, a civil law may violate the Ex Post Facto Clause if a court finds that the law’s effect is punitive. [ This is key to John Doe #4 V Miami Dade County].
B. Punishment or Civil Penalty-the Deciding Factor.
The Court has found that non punitive civil regulations do
not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause even if they impose a hardship.
Consequently, the Court has drawn a distinction between laws that are
punitive and laws that are civil, even though they may be burden-some.
So although the prohibition against creating new “punishments for past acts is stitched into our constitutional fabric, the struggle is to answer the threshold question of what amounts to punishment under the Ex Post Facto clause and that turns on whether a punishment is “criminal” or “civil” in nature.
C. The Two Pronged test:
Under the first prong, courts initially consider whether the legislature clearly intended the statute to be punitive. If so, then the statute is deemed punitive and cannot be applied retroactively.
Under the second prong if the court determines that the legislature
intended the statute to be civil and non-punitive, then the court must
determine whether the effect of the statute is nonetheless punitive only the clearest proof’ will suffice to override legislative intent and transform what has been denominated a civil remedy into a criminal penalty.
Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez
Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez was not an Ex Post Facto case. The
question at issue was whether a federal statute stripping United States
citizenship from persons who left or remained outside of the country
to avoid military service imposed punishment for the purpose of
triggering the procedural safeguards guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth
Amendments.
The Court held that the “punitive nature of the sanction here is evident under the tests traditionally applied to determine whether an Act of Congress is penal or regulatory in character. It then articulated seven factors it had considered in previous cases to determine the existence of punishment:
(1) whether the statute imposes an affirmative disability or restraint;
(2) whether the resulting sanction or burden has historically been regarded as punishment;
(3)whether the statute “comes into play only on a finding of scienter;”
(4)whether the statute promotes retribution and deterrence, traditional
aims of punishment;
(5) “whether the behavior to which it applies is already a crime;”
(6) whether the statute is rationally connected to an alternative purpose other than punishment;
(7) whether the statutory sanction or burden appears excessive in relation to the alternative purpose.
Scholars and jurists have criticized Mendoza-Martinez on a number
of grounds. First, given the Ex Post Facto Clause’s role in safeguarding
liberty, critics of the Mendoza-Martinez approach contend that the
framework is too deferential to the legislature. The Ex Post Facto Clause serves two important purposes:
(1)The Framers considered ex post facto laws to be “especially unfair because they deprive citizens of notice of the wrongfulness of behavior, and thus result in unjust deprivations.”
(2) the Framers feared arbitrary and vindictive lawmaking that could target unpopular people.
Considering that the Mendoza-Martinez factors are highly subjective the potential exists that results-oriented judges will manipulate the test to achieve a desired result. As one state court judge eloquently explained:
It should come as little surprise then, in the politically charged and passionate atmosphere surrounding [residency restrictions], that negative findings on these factors are afforded great weight by reviewing courts while affirmative findings are often glossed over and discounted as insignificant in route to upholding the measure’s
constitutionality. It is often a process that can be fairly criticized as little more than judicial sleight of hand.
So the bottom line my friends is the line between what is a non punitive regulatory sanction and what is punishment has been severely blurred by Judicial bias towards legislative intent.
Make no mistake about this, by targeting the Sex offender first sets up precedent to permanently confine through a regulatory Statute called “CIVIL COMMITMENT” any felon the legislator, who in their sole discretion, deems a threat to the public safety.
Without a doubt the lack of clarity between what is punishment and what is remedial is by far the gravest threat to our Civil Liberties as Freeman/women.
Personal liberty has historically been defined as the “Power of locomotion, of changing situation or removing one’s person to whatsoever place one’s own inclination may direct [ Rather than a claim to a “Right to Live where you want ] without imprisonment, restraint or restriction, unless by due process of the law.
So it is unconstitutional to publicly release EMAIL ADDRESSES, but NOT unconstitutional to provide the public with ACTUAL HOME ADDRESSES, cars, WORK ADDRESSES, etc. This is absurd! I’d that’s the constitutional stance, then I think the attorneys should go for the addresses being publicly released as unconstitutional.
The physical address tells people where the registrant is physically located. There’s a difference.
@Married to the Registry has a point, still. Besides, if registrants are such smooth manipulators, are they not just as dangerous communicating freely on the Internet as they are being in proximity to a school, park, etc., or any child living anywhere? Both arguments as we know are nonsensical and both have the same slippery slope feel. But yes, technically speaking, there’s a difference.
Does that mean that if I go on Lowes website that I have to register that url and user name because they have a chat help button that you can chat with an individual ? “identifier to communicate over the internet directly with another user”. So any site that has a pop up chat help ??? or is that not a user?
No – its a commercial transaction. You are buying hardware.
A majority of Internet users feel that the medium’s most valuable asset is anonymity – the ability to conceal one’s identity while communicating. This anonymity allows the persecuted, the underserved, and the simply embarrassed to seek information — and disseminate it — while maintaining their privacy and reputations in both cyberspace and the material world.
Anonymous communications have an important place in our political and social discourse. The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the right to anonymous free speech is protected by the First Amendment. A frequently cited 1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:
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.
One would be hard pressed to overstate the importance of anonymous speech. Three and a half decades before the McIntyre decision, the Supreme Court observed that “[p]ersecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all.” Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60, 64 (1960). And “[t]he loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976).
In ACLU v. Miller, the American Civil Liberties Union got an injunction against the enforcement of a Georgia statute that prohibited a person from falsely identifying herself while sending e-mail, posting on the Internet, and more (one of the problems with the statute was that it was too vague). The court ruled it was appropriate to give an injunction, among other reasons, when there was the potential for chilling free expression. The court agreed with the state that its purpose in enacting the statute–preventing fraud–was a compelling state interest, but decided against the state because the statute was not narrowly-enough tailored to its purpose.
I’d like to thank Mark Mason for the information and case law you posted. Very informative. Thanks again.
All these arguments are excellent, however in Florida the internet identifier statute, unlike other challenged statutes is so narrowly tailored to real time User to User platforms, it passes muster under the second prong of the Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez test.
A social internet communication is “any communication through a commercial social networking website . . . or application software,” with three exceptions:
(1) “communication for which the primary purpose is the facilitation of commercial transactions involving goods or services”;
(2) “communication on an Internet website [whose] primary purpose . . . is the dissemination of news”; and
(3) “communication with a governmental entity.” Id. § 775.21(2)(m)
It does not violate anonymous speech, your allowed to post on any political bulletin board, News media site and blogs such as this anonymously. Your are prohibited from creating and maintaining an anonymous user identity on commercial sites such as Twitter and Face Book which by the way prohibit such activity regardless if your a RSO or not.
The goal of the legislation is to prevent the deviant from entering the digital playing field of minors using the anonymity of the internet. A legitimate governmental concern.
@A Horse With No Name, any number of prior criminals (or deviants, as you put it) could be an online danger to minors. Yet, we, and apparently our government, through action, appear wholly unconcerned about them. We have merely been trained to think of registrants specifically as recidivists, when the data points 180 degrees.
If we and the gov’t were truly concerned about minors, we would pull our heads out and implement any of the hundreds of other logical, rational, and data-backed precautions we could try. We associate with sex both pleasure and same at the same time, and the results are our sex-driven culture where sexual activity is also severely judged, regulated, and scrutinized.
This is our western dichotomy. Half coming primarily from conservatism and religious dogmatism, the other from libertarianism and the sexual revolution.
It should also be pointed out that nothing in the statute or this order limits registration to real time user-to-user communication. The order’s scope is only to “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”. I say this not to be pedantic, but to protect anyone who might inadvertently think they now no longer need to register something unless there is real-time direct communication involved. Dealing in these issues unfortunately requires an almost overly pedantic analysis, due the the potential for huge risks involved with even minor confusions.
[https://www.dictionary.com/browse/real-time](Real-time | Define Real-time at Dictionary.com)
noun
Computers.
1. the actual time elapsed in the performance of a computation by a computer, the result of the computation being required for the continuation of a physical process.
2. the actual time during which a process takes place or an event occurs.
Idioms
3. in real time, Informal. at once; instantaneously.
The order’s scope is only to “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”
We are communicating directly with each other over the internet, anonymously and its perfectly legal. Why? Because this is a politically action blog.
Not to worry I too find myself being very pedantic so lets try and keep it simple:
A social internet communication is “any communication through a commercial social networking website . . . or application software,” with three exceptions:
(1) “communication for which the primary purpose is the facilitation of commercial transactions involving goods or services”;
(2) “communication on an Internet website [whose] primary purpose . . . is the dissemination of news”; and
(3) “communication with a governmental entity.” Id. § 775.21(2)(m)
So by chance if I actively engage in a political blog using an unregistered and anonymous “Username” and get arrested for it, I would argue that the “dissemination of news” is vague and misleading.
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.
Disappointing it is, and appealed it should be, but there are definitely silver linings. I can think of a few off hand, but there’s probably more.
The opinion was not completely unfavorable. We lost some, but… WE WON SOME
We have the option to appeal. This could end up having a positive impact on a much wider audience if it reaches circuit (or even USSC). And in such a hypothetical case, whether we win or lose in the 11th, at least it creates some case law which could eventually help a similar case but different outcome and district court get pushed to the USSC
When we filed the lawsuit, the legislature responded with what some would argue is a slightly less punitive measure, or at the very least a little less vague. Hey, I know we didn’t topple the registry, but these little chips are what lead to eventual restoration of our liberties and adherence to the constitution
The mere fact that the legislature had to respond might have had an invisible impact. Maybe a few more legislators will take a moment to ponder these laws before blindly supporting them. Maybe they will get less vague which is helpful for everyone (despite it removing one of the avenues for legal challenge {though there are many, and I’d rather us have clearer laws than have one more argument in a legal challenge})
The court not only made much clearer, but also reduced the scope of what “Internet Identifiers” can be collected. Specifically that they are “defined to apply only when a registrant actually uses an identifier to communicate over the internet directly with another user”. Combined with the other scope limitations in the statute, this is getting a little less hopelessly vague. There are many cases I can think of where I would question whether I needed to register something previously but now know with more certainty.
We (our community, FAC, our advocate attorneys and researchers) have more experience with lawsuits now. We know we can pull out at least a partial win, EVEN IN FLORIDA. I mean, come on, this is significant and positive.
So, instead of despair and mourning, we could just as easily feel uplifted. Then, do something if you aren’t already. Donate to the legal fund or in-person challenge. Comment on public stories. Donate. Prepare yourself to better spread the truth about our issues by becoming better educated. Donate. Participate in advocacy group (FAC/NARSOL/…) calls and post comments. Donate… Volunteer time with an advocacy group. For the love of god, do SOMETHING. ANYTHING. If you have not contributed to these efforts, you should realize that there is still a shortage of people out there are fighting for you and we need help. You can’t just sit back and do diddly yet complain and spread misery and expect others to fix everything for you. There are advocates out there giving every spare minute and dime they have to slow the negative momentum against us and get it going in the other direction.
This.
I almost forgot the part about how FAC early initiative on this, forced a clarification from the legislature. It was a county employee that first explained the change to me, as well as the lawsuit, characterizing the original statute as “a joke.”
This and the rest I think puts things in perspective. So i agree with FAC’s decision to revise the heading in this post.
There will be victories, even if they are smaller and slower than we would wish.
Now if FAC would only build in a “like” button for posts!
They can take this law, and go shove it up their a**es. Let them TRY to find people’s identifiers. Disgusting waste of taxpayer funds.
There is NO Reason to require people that are NOT incarcerated to provide this information anymore than any other human being with any legal conviction on their record.
This all goes back to the simple fact:
It’s easy to look ‘Tough on Crime’ when you have a whole task force of law enforcement just scouring sources to catch a person who didn’t reveal his Amazon account name, instead of SOLVING MURDERS AND HOME INVASIONS/ARMED ROBBERIES.
Floriduh politicians talk out the side of their neck about “justice” reform, but continue to craft and pass constitutionally illegal laws aimed at the narrowest segment of the criminal population…..US!
This just shows that “Florida” isn’t ever going to do away with the “Registery and it’s Laws” !! The only way for anyone to “Get Relief” is to “MOVE AWAY TO ANOTHER STATE OR COUNTRY” !!. Florida is a “Lost Cause” and we’re NOT going to win against them !!. I’m starting to pack NOW !!!
Could someone please identify exactly what an internet identifier is.
It seems that various courts have defined it very differently. If we can communicate with the receiver, either by e-mail or ‘chat’ even if it is a ‘business’ (thinking of bank, Amazon, etc.) is that to be included.
I have also noted that per the FDLE those on papers who have been given permission to use the internet MUST give those ‘identifiers’ to their P/O for input to the FDLE. Whereas persons off papers can go directly with the FDLE to communicate any updates. Question, given the time frame of the requirement to advise the FDLE, can we fax the updates t the P/O (if on papers) or do we have to appear in person?
Totally unclear on procedure.
An internet identifier is “any designation, moniker, screen name, username, or other name used for self-identification to send or receive social Internet communication.”
For convenience, this order sometimes uses the single word “username” to mean the same thing as “designation, moniker, screen name, username, or other name used for self-identification.”
The statute’s use of the longer list is apparently intended to be comprehensive, but “username,” standing alone, would probably achieve the same result.
A social internet communication is “any communication through a commercial social networking website . . . or application software,” with three exceptions:
(1) “communication for which the primary purpose is the facilitation of commercial transactions involving goods or services”;
(2) “communication on an Internet website [whose] primary purpose . . . is the dissemination of news”; and
(3) “communication with a governmental entity.” Id. § 775.21(2)(m)
In other words any “Username” you use to log into commercial accounts such as , Banks, Brokerage, Amazon, Netflix, Walmart or that is used in the comment section say of the Miami Herald or here, does not have to be registered with law enforcement.
Usernames used access social media accounts like Twitter and Facebook must be registered. Not that it matters because these companies prohibit the use of their sites to RSO anyway.
Could someone please summarize this. What has changed??
I’m with Sarah………layman’s translation please!
I figured it wouldn’t be a positive outcome. While other states are sort of making headway, Florida continues to fall deeper into the black area, leaving the grey area behind… and continuing to get away with it. My charge I plead to 13 years ago, which supposedly happened 21 years ago, had nothing to do with the internet. There’s been no recidivism unless you count a FTR 10 years ago over an internet identifier I didnt even use anymore. As someone who has a business that is 100% online sales and services, and plays numerous online games, I have over 140 internet identifiers registered. I am not one of the few whom caused the media frenzies nor the laws named for the victims. Yet I, like many others, will continue to be punished for the rest of my life for what others have done. My sentence was served, I’ve successfully reintegrated back into society as much as society has let me… but my friends (which I don’t have)… my family (which some still judge me just on the label without knowing the facts)… and my relationships (gee, wish I could have a normal one)… all cause daily suffering. Yes it is cruel what happens to victims of an SO’s crimes, but when, if ever, will those in power recognize that we become victims ourselves after we’ve already paid our debts? Again, until someone in power finds themselves in our situation, I do not see things changing in Florida any time soon. When it does, if it does, it will be too late. My life has already been past the breaking point where I could have recovered. While I do not believe it will happen, Kavanaugh being convicted of what he is being accused of and ending up on the registry may be the only thing to help us on a Federal level… but again, I don’t think it will happen with the connections he has.
I agree with you fully. The powers to be in Florida have decided to play GOD with a select few for reasons that I believe are sick and sadistic. I truly believe that they are mentally ill as that is the only explanation for their sociopath lack of empathy.
The punishment is more psychological than being locked up in a physical prison. It is basically lifetime solitary confinement forced to exist on the fringe of society and ridiculed and used as an example of the power the government has over its citizens (us).
They have no interest in saving children and are even more sickening evil because they typically hide their hate behind the face of a dead child.
” The punishment is more psychological than being locked up in a physical prison ”
That is exactly how I say it when people ask me about it.