<?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: FAC Legislative Committee chips away at SB 212	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://floridaactioncommittee.org/fac-legislative-committee-chips-away-at-sb-212/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://floridaactioncommittee.org/fac-legislative-committee-chips-away-at-sb-212/</link>
	<description>Reforming Florida’s Sex Offender Registry Laws</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Feb 2026 01:31:45 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Anonymous		</title>
		<link>https://floridaactioncommittee.org/fac-legislative-committee-chips-away-at-sb-212/comment-page-2/#comment-71869</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Anonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Feb 2026 23:56:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://floridaactioncommittee.org/?p=26762#comment-71869</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://floridaactioncommittee.org/fac-legislative-committee-chips-away-at-sb-212/comment-page-2/#comment-71849&quot;&gt;KYLE M&lt;/a&gt;.

This may be one of those bills where the author(s) and sponsors were trying to make a name for themselves in an election year so they wouid compromise to get it to pass so they can use its passage in their reelection campaign. In fact I’m pretty sure thats exactly what it is. I’d be willing to bet that these politicians know in their hearts that this is useless legislation that will undoubtedly increase crime and homelessness but they simply do not care as long as it prolongs their political career.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://floridaactioncommittee.org/fac-legislative-committee-chips-away-at-sb-212/comment-page-2/#comment-71849">KYLE M</a>.</p>
<p>This may be one of those bills where the author(s) and sponsors were trying to make a name for themselves in an election year so they wouid compromise to get it to pass so they can use its passage in their reelection campaign. In fact I’m pretty sure thats exactly what it is. I’d be willing to bet that these politicians know in their hearts that this is useless legislation that will undoubtedly increase crime and homelessness but they simply do not care as long as it prolongs their political career.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Will Forced is Violence		</title>
		<link>https://floridaactioncommittee.org/fac-legislative-committee-chips-away-at-sb-212/comment-page-2/#comment-71858</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Will Forced is Violence]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Feb 2026 17:30:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://floridaactioncommittee.org/?p=26762#comment-71858</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://floridaactioncommittee.org/fac-legislative-committee-chips-away-at-sb-212/comment-page-2/#comment-71849&quot;&gt;KYLE M&lt;/a&gt;.

It’s never been about protecting children. Ever.

ChatGPT is a good source for stats. I’ve been talking to this source of intelligence about Florida’s registry. I think everyone will find this quite interesting. I sent it to everyone in Tallahassee this morning. Y’all should all do the same. All of you.

These are facts from a non-emotional, unbiased, unlobbied, source of intelligence that is only able to give the facts. It exposes all the lies and myths about the “sex offender“ registry, specifically in Florida. All the legislators supporting these persecutions have some serious explaining to do as to why they are ignoring the facts, stomping all over the Constitution and the laws of God, by endlessly bullying their neighbors including families. <img src="https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/17.0.2/72x72/1f447-1f3fc.png" alt="👇🏼" class="wp-smiley" style="height: 1em; max-height: 1em;" />

<img src="https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/17.0.2/72x72/2705.png" alt="✅" class="wp-smiley" style="height: 1em; max-height: 1em;" /> 1. “The Florida sex offender registry does not protect anyone.”

There is no solid evidence showing that public sex-offender registries — in Florida or nationally — reduce sexual offenses or improve public safety.

Major research findings:

The Department of Justice has repeatedly found no statistically significant reduction in sexual reoffending after public registries were implemented.

Meta-analyses of multiple states show no deterrent effect from public notification systems.
Most sexual offenses are committed by first-time offenders, not by people on registries.
Registries may help law enforcement locate a person after an accusation, but this is very different from preventing crimes.

<img src="https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/17.0.2/72x72/2705.png" alt="✅" class="wp-smiley" style="height: 1em; max-height: 1em;" /> 2. “Most have never done a physical act to anyone.”

This is largely true in Florida.

Florida registers:

Non-contact offenses (e.g., CP possession, solicitation, online sting operations).

Romeo and Juliet cases.

People who never met, touched, or communicated with a minor.

People whose cases involved only deleted digital fragments (like your son’s situation).

Because Florida has no tier system, the registry mixes:

Possession of illegal images
Voyeurism
Adult prostitution charges
Online stings
Hands-on child abuse
Violent sexual assault
all on one undifferentiated public list.

This is why Florida’s registry is considered one of the least accurate and least informative in the country.

<img src="https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/17.0.2/72x72/2705.png" alt="✅" class="wp-smiley" style="height: 1em; max-height: 1em;" /> 3. “Florida ignores the established tier system.”

Correct.

The federal SORNA system uses risk-based tiers.
Florida rejected this and uses a lifetime blanket system, with “Predator” designations applied based on statutory criteria, not actual risk assessment.

This violates the spirit of SORNA and departs from the scientific consensus that risk varies dramatically among individuals.

<img src="https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/17.0.2/72x72/2705.png" alt="✅" class="wp-smiley" style="height: 1em; max-height: 1em;" /> 4. “Florida violates the U.S. Constitution with unconstitutional restrictions.”

Many of Florida’s policies have been challenged, especially:

Residency restrictions
Presence restrictions
Driver license markings
Public notification
Lifetime registration without review
Retroactive application of new laws
Courts in other states have struck down similar laws as:

Ex post facto punishment
Overly broad
Violating substantive due process
Violating the 8th Amendment
Florida courts have been slower to adopt these positions, but challenges are increasing.

<img src="https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/17.0.2/72x72/2705.png" alt="✅" class="wp-smiley" style="height: 1em; max-height: 1em;" /> 5. “95–97% of sex offenses are new offenses not done by people forced to register.”

This aligns with the established research.

Criminological data consistently shows:

More than 90% of sexual offenses are committed by people NOT on the registry.

First-time offenders — not people previously convicted — commit the overwhelming majority of sexual crimes.

People on registries have some of the lowest recidivism rates of any crime category (often 2–5%).

So yes — the registry is not targeting where harm actually comes from.

https://chatgpt.com/s/t_69971ea8ed988191983acf5e4bd398ae

Also from ChatGPT<img src="https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/17.0.2/72x72/1f447-1f3fc.png" alt="👇🏼" class="wp-smiley" style="height: 1em; max-height: 1em;" />

About 200,000 people on the registry committed crimes AS CHILDREN.

A recent report from the Juvenile Law Center estimates that approximately 200,000 individuals nationwide are on the sex offender registry for offenses they committed while they were minors. This includes people who were very young when the offense occurred (in some cases reported as YOUNG AS 8) and are still required to register decades later. 


Great job, legislatures, on protecting all those children!<img src="https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/17.0.2/72x72/1f926-1f3fc-200d-2640-fe0f.png" alt="🤦🏼‍♀️" class="wp-smiley" style="height: 1em; max-height: 1em;" /><img src="https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/17.0.2/72x72/1f92e.png" alt="🤮" class="wp-smiley" style="height: 1em; max-height: 1em;" />]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://floridaactioncommittee.org/fac-legislative-committee-chips-away-at-sb-212/comment-page-2/#comment-71849">KYLE M</a>.</p>
<p>It’s never been about protecting children. Ever.</p>
<p>ChatGPT is a good source for stats. I’ve been talking to this source of intelligence about Florida’s registry. I think everyone will find this quite interesting. I sent it to everyone in Tallahassee this morning. Y’all should all do the same. All of you.</p>
<p>These are facts from a non-emotional, unbiased, unlobbied, source of intelligence that is only able to give the facts. It exposes all the lies and myths about the “sex offender“ registry, specifically in Florida. All the legislators supporting these persecutions have some serious explaining to do as to why they are ignoring the facts, stomping all over the Constitution and the laws of God, by endlessly bullying their neighbors including families. 👇🏼</p>
<p>✅ 1. “The Florida sex offender registry does not protect anyone.”</p>
<p>There is no solid evidence showing that public sex-offender registries — in Florida or nationally — reduce sexual offenses or improve public safety.</p>
<p>Major research findings:</p>
<p>The Department of Justice has repeatedly found no statistically significant reduction in sexual reoffending after public registries were implemented.</p>
<p>Meta-analyses of multiple states show no deterrent effect from public notification systems.<br />
Most sexual offenses are committed by first-time offenders, not by people on registries.<br />
Registries may help law enforcement locate a person after an accusation, but this is very different from preventing crimes.</p>
<p>✅ 2. “Most have never done a physical act to anyone.”</p>
<p>This is largely true in Florida.</p>
<p>Florida registers:</p>
<p>Non-contact offenses (e.g., CP possession, solicitation, online sting operations).</p>
<p>Romeo and Juliet cases.</p>
<p>People who never met, touched, or communicated with a minor.</p>
<p>People whose cases involved only deleted digital fragments (like your son’s situation).</p>
<p>Because Florida has no tier system, the registry mixes:</p>
<p>Possession of illegal images<br />
Voyeurism<br />
Adult prostitution charges<br />
Online stings<br />
Hands-on child abuse<br />
Violent sexual assault<br />
all on one undifferentiated public list.</p>
<p>This is why Florida’s registry is considered one of the least accurate and least informative in the country.</p>
<p>✅ 3. “Florida ignores the established tier system.”</p>
<p>Correct.</p>
<p>The federal SORNA system uses risk-based tiers.<br />
Florida rejected this and uses a lifetime blanket system, with “Predator” designations applied based on statutory criteria, not actual risk assessment.</p>
<p>This violates the spirit of SORNA and departs from the scientific consensus that risk varies dramatically among individuals.</p>
<p>✅ 4. “Florida violates the U.S. Constitution with unconstitutional restrictions.”</p>
<p>Many of Florida’s policies have been challenged, especially:</p>
<p>Residency restrictions<br />
Presence restrictions<br />
Driver license markings<br />
Public notification<br />
Lifetime registration without review<br />
Retroactive application of new laws<br />
Courts in other states have struck down similar laws as:</p>
<p>Ex post facto punishment<br />
Overly broad<br />
Violating substantive due process<br />
Violating the 8th Amendment<br />
Florida courts have been slower to adopt these positions, but challenges are increasing.</p>
<p>✅ 5. “95–97% of sex offenses are new offenses not done by people forced to register.”</p>
<p>This aligns with the established research.</p>
<p>Criminological data consistently shows:</p>
<p>More than 90% of sexual offenses are committed by people NOT on the registry.</p>
<p>First-time offenders — not people previously convicted — commit the overwhelming majority of sexual crimes.</p>
<p>People on registries have some of the lowest recidivism rates of any crime category (often 2–5%).</p>
<p>So yes — the registry is not targeting where harm actually comes from.</p>
<p><a href="https://chatgpt.com/s/t_69971ea8ed988191983acf5e4bd398ae" rel="nofollow ugc">https://chatgpt.com/s/t_69971ea8ed988191983acf5e4bd398ae</a></p>
<p>Also from ChatGPT👇🏼</p>
<p>About 200,000 people on the registry committed crimes AS CHILDREN.</p>
<p>A recent report from the Juvenile Law Center estimates that approximately 200,000 individuals nationwide are on the sex offender registry for offenses they committed while they were minors. This includes people who were very young when the offense occurred (in some cases reported as YOUNG AS 8) and are still required to register decades later. </p>
<p>Great job, legislatures, on protecting all those children!🤦🏼‍♀️🤮</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: tearfuleagle		</title>
		<link>https://floridaactioncommittee.org/fac-legislative-committee-chips-away-at-sb-212/comment-page-2/#comment-71852</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[tearfuleagle]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Feb 2026 15:37:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://floridaactioncommittee.org/?p=26762#comment-71852</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://floridaactioncommittee.org/fac-legislative-committee-chips-away-at-sb-212/comment-page-2/#comment-71851&quot;&gt;Jacob&lt;/a&gt;.

J -  100% correct.  The bill sponsor even used the words if I remember correctly &quot;narrowly tailor&quot;.  They are taking ever step to ensure there are no vague portions as courts do not like this.  However!! They are still violating the US and Florida constitution by passing ex post facto laws even if they are intertwining it with statutes already on the books.  

July is coming and hopefully the courts will take Ellingburg into consideration and find FLSORNA in violation of the Ex Post Facto and reset the stage.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://floridaactioncommittee.org/fac-legislative-committee-chips-away-at-sb-212/comment-page-2/#comment-71851">Jacob</a>.</p>
<p>J &#8211;  100% correct.  The bill sponsor even used the words if I remember correctly &#8220;narrowly tailor&#8221;.  They are taking ever step to ensure there are no vague portions as courts do not like this.  However!! They are still violating the US and Florida constitution by passing ex post facto laws even if they are intertwining it with statutes already on the books.  </p>
<p>July is coming and hopefully the courts will take Ellingburg into consideration and find FLSORNA in violation of the Ex Post Facto and reset the stage.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Jacob		</title>
		<link>https://floridaactioncommittee.org/fac-legislative-committee-chips-away-at-sb-212/comment-page-2/#comment-71851</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jacob]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Feb 2026 14:37:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://floridaactioncommittee.org/?p=26762#comment-71851</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://floridaactioncommittee.org/fac-legislative-committee-chips-away-at-sb-212/comment-page-2/#comment-71849&quot;&gt;KYLE M&lt;/a&gt;.

I think the reason lawmakers backed off is that FAC members and volunteers helped educate them on the issue and understand it more clearly.  ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://floridaactioncommittee.org/fac-legislative-committee-chips-away-at-sb-212/comment-page-2/#comment-71849">KYLE M</a>.</p>
<p>I think the reason lawmakers backed off is that FAC members and volunteers helped educate them on the issue and understand it more clearly.  </p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: esther toby ritchie		</title>
		<link>https://floridaactioncommittee.org/fac-legislative-committee-chips-away-at-sb-212/comment-page-2/#comment-71850</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[esther toby ritchie]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Feb 2026 13:34:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://floridaactioncommittee.org/?p=26762#comment-71850</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Thank you and kudos to you. Never give up!!]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you and kudos to you. Never give up!!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: KYLE M		</title>
		<link>https://floridaactioncommittee.org/fac-legislative-committee-chips-away-at-sb-212/comment-page-2/#comment-71849</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[KYLE M]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Feb 2026 13:04:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://floridaactioncommittee.org/?p=26762#comment-71849</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[So, with the sponsors of this bill backing off, how can they defend their hardline position of child safety from their previous version?  Apparently, they are not as concerned about PFR&#039;s as they say they are when pounding their chests.  Also, the newly amended version begs the question as the original bill did.  How does the bill protect our children from PFR&#039;s with its residency restrictions when PFR&#039;s are still permitted to be present in the same locations that they cannot live within 1000 feet from?  Finally, with the newly amended bill backing off its &quot;bathing areas&quot; definition, it is abundantly clear that this bill is solely about the Seminole County officer who is upset that a PFR lives in his community where there is nearby splash pad.   While I am extremely grateful that the sponsors and legislators are backing off - thanks to FAC - I almost would respect their absurd position about their purported genuine concern for child safety more if they refused to amend the previously amended version.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So, with the sponsors of this bill backing off, how can they defend their hardline position of child safety from their previous version?  Apparently, they are not as concerned about PFR&#8217;s as they say they are when pounding their chests.  Also, the newly amended version begs the question as the original bill did.  How does the bill protect our children from PFR&#8217;s with its residency restrictions when PFR&#8217;s are still permitted to be present in the same locations that they cannot live within 1000 feet from?  Finally, with the newly amended bill backing off its &#8220;bathing areas&#8221; definition, it is abundantly clear that this bill is solely about the Seminole County officer who is upset that a PFR lives in his community where there is nearby splash pad.   While I am extremely grateful that the sponsors and legislators are backing off &#8211; thanks to FAC &#8211; I almost would respect their absurd position about their purported genuine concern for child safety more if they refused to amend the previously amended version.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: obvious answers		</title>
		<link>https://floridaactioncommittee.org/fac-legislative-committee-chips-away-at-sb-212/comment-page-1/#comment-71848</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[obvious answers]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Feb 2026 12:32:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://floridaactioncommittee.org/?p=26762#comment-71848</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://floridaactioncommittee.org/fac-legislative-committee-chips-away-at-sb-212/comment-page-1/#comment-71822&quot;&gt;Reformed&lt;/a&gt;.

Consider this my Warning to Registered Sex Offenders (RSOs): The Impossible Dilemma in a Child&#039;s Life-or-Death Emergency
If a child is drowning and you&#039;re an RSO who cannot legally approach or be in proximity to children, you&#039;re caught in a brutal catch-22: damned if you do, damned if you don&#039;t.

If you intervene to save the child — A bystander (often labeled a &quot;Karen&quot;) could accuse you of inappropriate contact or violation of your restrictions, leading to charges. As an RSO, conviction is highly likely in such cases—expect jail time. Even with deep pockets for top-tier lawyers, your odds of beating the charges might be as low as 30%. At best, you&#039;ll drain your finances on legal fees, and even if you win, the judge may impose additional punitive restrictions to &quot;satisfy&quot; public outrage before you walk free.
If you choose not to help (to avoid violating your restrictions) — Some states have duty to rescue or duty to assist laws that could still put you in legal jeopardy for failing to act when you reasonably could. Even if criminal charges don&#039;t stick, the court of public opinion will destroy you—along with potential civil lawsuits that could ruin you financially and socially.

This is the harsh reality RSOs face in emergencies involving children: no truly safe option exists. The legal system and public perception often leave you trapped between risking prison for helping or facing condemnation (and possible penalties) for standing by.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://floridaactioncommittee.org/fac-legislative-committee-chips-away-at-sb-212/comment-page-1/#comment-71822">Reformed</a>.</p>
<p>Consider this my Warning to Registered Sex Offenders (RSOs): The Impossible Dilemma in a Child&#8217;s Life-or-Death Emergency<br />
If a child is drowning and you&#8217;re an RSO who cannot legally approach or be in proximity to children, you&#8217;re caught in a brutal catch-22: damned if you do, damned if you don&#8217;t.</p>
<p>If you intervene to save the child — A bystander (often labeled a &#8220;Karen&#8221;) could accuse you of inappropriate contact or violation of your restrictions, leading to charges. As an RSO, conviction is highly likely in such cases—expect jail time. Even with deep pockets for top-tier lawyers, your odds of beating the charges might be as low as 30%. At best, you&#8217;ll drain your finances on legal fees, and even if you win, the judge may impose additional punitive restrictions to &#8220;satisfy&#8221; public outrage before you walk free.<br />
If you choose not to help (to avoid violating your restrictions) — Some states have duty to rescue or duty to assist laws that could still put you in legal jeopardy for failing to act when you reasonably could. Even if criminal charges don&#8217;t stick, the court of public opinion will destroy you—along with potential civil lawsuits that could ruin you financially and socially.</p>
<p>This is the harsh reality RSOs face in emergencies involving children: no truly safe option exists. The legal system and public perception often leave you trapped between risking prison for helping or facing condemnation (and possible penalties) for standing by.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: obvious answers		</title>
		<link>https://floridaactioncommittee.org/fac-legislative-committee-chips-away-at-sb-212/comment-page-1/#comment-71847</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[obvious answers]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Feb 2026 12:19:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://floridaactioncommittee.org/?p=26762#comment-71847</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://floridaactioncommittee.org/fac-legislative-committee-chips-away-at-sb-212/comment-page-1/#comment-71821&quot;&gt;FAC-3&lt;/a&gt;.

I have been through a divorce, and while my ex-wife made many serious accusations against me, none of them resulted in a life sentence or permanent imprisonment. Divorce situations as in most everything EXCEPT RSO scenario&#039;s there is a benefit of the doubt presumption. 
In contrast, the current situation involving registered sex offenders (RSOs)—where mere proximity to certain individuals  in locations can serve as the key triggering factor—has the potential to lead to exactly that outcome: a lifetime prison sentence, and it can escalate very quickly.
I truly appreciate your hard work and diligent efforts in this fight. Please do not mistake my previous comment for a lack of gratitude—it is not. Without people actively fighting these issues, there would be no chance of meaningful change.
My only point, consistent with prior Florida Action Committee (FAC) posts, is that the &quot;new normal&quot; involves the average Joe and Jane initiating entrapment scams and schemes. FAC has posted many of these, so you are aware I am speaking truth. This particular bill appears to be a surefire entrapment mechanism, and the sponsor knows it. That is why it was crafted in this specific way, deliberately. The sponsor is likely hoping no one notices the implications until the bill is signed into law, the trap is sprung, and it is too late to challenge it effectively. He didn&#039;t do any favors here.
You can be certain that the moment this bill receives a signature, RSOs will face a wave of court accusations based on fabricated or exaggerated scenarios—cooked up by individuals acting as self-appointed &quot;Karens&quot; fulfilling their perceived &quot;civic duty&quot; to protect society from so-called monsters. You can also be sure 99.99% of the time the RSO will loose in court. 
This risk needs to be spoken out loud now, so that when these predictable consequences unfold, there is at least one voice of reason highlighting the foreseeable entrapment and overreach.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://floridaactioncommittee.org/fac-legislative-committee-chips-away-at-sb-212/comment-page-1/#comment-71821">FAC-3</a>.</p>
<p>I have been through a divorce, and while my ex-wife made many serious accusations against me, none of them resulted in a life sentence or permanent imprisonment. Divorce situations as in most everything EXCEPT RSO scenario&#8217;s there is a benefit of the doubt presumption.<br />
In contrast, the current situation involving registered sex offenders (RSOs)—where mere proximity to certain individuals  in locations can serve as the key triggering factor—has the potential to lead to exactly that outcome: a lifetime prison sentence, and it can escalate very quickly.<br />
I truly appreciate your hard work and diligent efforts in this fight. Please do not mistake my previous comment for a lack of gratitude—it is not. Without people actively fighting these issues, there would be no chance of meaningful change.<br />
My only point, consistent with prior Florida Action Committee (FAC) posts, is that the &#8220;new normal&#8221; involves the average Joe and Jane initiating entrapment scams and schemes. FAC has posted many of these, so you are aware I am speaking truth. This particular bill appears to be a surefire entrapment mechanism, and the sponsor knows it. That is why it was crafted in this specific way, deliberately. The sponsor is likely hoping no one notices the implications until the bill is signed into law, the trap is sprung, and it is too late to challenge it effectively. He didn&#8217;t do any favors here.<br />
You can be certain that the moment this bill receives a signature, RSOs will face a wave of court accusations based on fabricated or exaggerated scenarios—cooked up by individuals acting as self-appointed &#8220;Karens&#8221; fulfilling their perceived &#8220;civic duty&#8221; to protect society from so-called monsters. You can also be sure 99.99% of the time the RSO will loose in court.<br />
This risk needs to be spoken out loud now, so that when these predictable consequences unfold, there is at least one voice of reason highlighting the foreseeable entrapment and overreach.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Crazy88		</title>
		<link>https://floridaactioncommittee.org/fac-legislative-committee-chips-away-at-sb-212/comment-page-1/#comment-71846</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Crazy88]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Feb 2026 04:37:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://floridaactioncommittee.org/?p=26762#comment-71846</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://floridaactioncommittee.org/fac-legislative-committee-chips-away-at-sb-212/comment-page-1/#comment-71830&quot;&gt;Machiavelli&lt;/a&gt;.

With this its hard to stay in state with kids for sure even without kids.  Like I said before once I am back in colorado would love help others get out of florida.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://floridaactioncommittee.org/fac-legislative-committee-chips-away-at-sb-212/comment-page-1/#comment-71830">Machiavelli</a>.</p>
<p>With this its hard to stay in state with kids for sure even without kids.  Like I said before once I am back in colorado would love help others get out of florida.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: tearfuleagle		</title>
		<link>https://floridaactioncommittee.org/fac-legislative-committee-chips-away-at-sb-212/comment-page-1/#comment-71843</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[tearfuleagle]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Feb 2026 21:29:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://floridaactioncommittee.org/?p=26762#comment-71843</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://floridaactioncommittee.org/fac-legislative-committee-chips-away-at-sb-212/comment-page-1/#comment-71822&quot;&gt;Reformed&lt;/a&gt;.

I am not sure I could stand by and watch some kid die.  IDK  That&#039;s rough.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://floridaactioncommittee.org/fac-legislative-committee-chips-away-at-sb-212/comment-page-1/#comment-71822">Reformed</a>.</p>
<p>I am not sure I could stand by and watch some kid die.  IDK  That&#8217;s rough.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
