The Sheriff is not saying people should be punished according to the law. He’s not saying people should serve the sentence imposed by a judge. He’s saying an entire class of people should be imprisoned forever, regardless of what the law provides, because he personally believes they “can’t be cured.” That is not law enforcement. That is prejudice!

The reality is that decades of research have shown that people convicted of sex offenses are not a homogeneous group and that already low recidivism rates decline dramatically with time, age, and offense-free behavior. Most never reoffend at all. Yet here we have the chief law enforcement officer of one of Florida’s largest cities publicly declaring that every one of them belongs in prison for life and can’t be cured!

Statements like this should concern everyone — not just registrants and their families. We expect sheriffs to enforce the law fairly and objectively, not to substitute personal bias for facts and evidence. When a sheriff openly declares that an entire group of citizens is beyond redemption, it raises serious questions about whether those individuals can ever expect fair treatment from his agency.

Whether someone is popular or unpopular, sympathetic or unsympathetic, justice requires facts, evidence, and individual assessment. Not blanket assumptions and fear-driven rhetoric. A sheriff who believes an entire class of people should be imprisoned forever despite what the law says has forgotten his role. His job is to enforce the law, not rewrite it based on personal opinion. Someone like this should not be in office because he’s a danger to the community.

SOURCE

The post “Put them all in prison forever.” appeared first on Florida Action Committee (FAC).

The plaintiffs argue that forcing them to display this label every time they present identification (whether at a pharmacy, doctor’s office, airport, bank, or workplace) violates the First Amendment by compelling them to convey a government message they do not wish to express. It also subjects them and their families to stigma, distrust, revulsion, poor treatment.

The State attempted to have the case thrown out before it could move forward. The court rejected those arguments, holding that the proper state official can be sued, that the plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged a constitutional violation, and that the case may proceed. The court also refused to strike the proposed class action allegations, leaving open the possibility that thousands of affected Oklahomans could ultimately benefit from the lawsuit. Importantly, the judge recognized the real-world impact of these branded licenses and accepted as true the plaintiffs’ allegations that the label subjects them to fear, stigma, humiliation, and potential harm whenever they must show identification.

This ruling does not decide whether the law is unconstitutional. But it is an important first step. The case is allowed to proceed, and the plaintiffs will now have the opportunity to prove their case.

Progress is rarely immediate. It happens one case, one ruling, and one courageous plaintiff at a time. This decision is a hopeful reminder that meaningful change remains possible and that the fight for fairness, justice, and equal treatment under the law continues to move forward.

OK Doc 48 Opinion and Order Denying MTD

The post OK: Win in Branded License Case. NARSOL Lawsuit survives Motion to Dismiss. appeared first on Florida Action Committee (FAC).

Contrast this with Estonia, a country that recognizes the harm and potential danger of blasting this information all over the internet.

Earlier this year, an Estonian influencer launched a website that compiled information about people convicted of sex offenses and other crimes. While the information was reportedly gathered from public sources, the country’s Data Protection Inspectorate quickly stepped in and opened an investigation into the site. Estonia’s Justice Minister also criticized the project, emphasizing that criminal record information should be handled through regulated government systems rather than private databases. Authorities expressed concerns about privacy rights, transparency, data processing, potential errors, misuse of information, and the irreversible harm that can result when sensitive criminal history information is republished and amplified online.

In the United States, not only do states maintain public registries, but countless third parties scrape that information, repackage it, monetize it, and spread it across the internet. Real estate websites, neighborhood apps, local media outlets, and countless anonymous websites aggregate registry information. Once the data is copied, it can persist indefinitely, even when the original information changes, a person dies, is removed from the registry, or a conviction is overturned.

Estonia’s response reflects a fundamentally different philosophy. While the country maintains a government criminal records database, it also recognizes privacy as a legitimate concern and treats the dissemination of this information as something that requires oversight and justification. The Estonian Data Protection Inspectorate exists specifically to safeguard individuals’ rights regarding personal information and to ensure that data is not processed or distributed in ways that violate privacy protections and put people and their families at risk of vigilantism, violence and, as we’ve unfortunately seen here recently, death.

Private registries often contain outdated information, lack meaningful mechanisms for correction, create opportunities for harassment and vigilantism, and can expose not only registrants but also their spouses, children, employers, and neighbors to unwanted attention. Even victims’ advocates in Estonia expressed concern that unofficial databases could cause further harm.

Here in Florida, FAC has long advocated that FDLE should at minimum de-index the registry from search engines and implement safeguards to prevent the indiscriminate harvesting of registry data. People actively looking for information can find it, but it doesn’t need to be broadcast for those who are not searching your name or address for other reasons. Instead, the opposite has occurred. Registry information is now copied, archived, and redistributed by countless third parties with little or no accountability. Estonia — hardly a country known for being soft on crime — recognizes that publishing and republishing sensitive personal information across the internet creates risks that extend far beyond any claimed public safety benefit. Meanwhile, in the United States, an entire cottage industry has emerged around collecting, selling, and exploiting registry information. When a foreign country’s data protection authorities see a privately operated sex offender website and immediately ask whether it violates privacy rights, perhaps it’s time the US asks the same question?

SOURCE

The post Estonia Says “Not So Fast” to Private Sex Offender Registries appeared first on Florida Action Committee (FAC).

The Action Plan for Your Life: Finding Your Potential
Presented by Dr. Deondre Rutues

Wednesdays: July 1, 8, 15, & 29
8:00 PM – 9:30 PM Eastern
Online via Zoom

This four-session course is designed to help participants identify their strengths, talents, and untapped potential. Through guided reflection and practical exercises, attendees will learn strategies for employment, entrepreneurship, personal growth, and creating a realistic plan for achieving their goals. The course culminates in each participant developing a personalized action plan for meaningful progress and long-term success.

The presenter, Dr. Deondre Rutues, is a business psychologist, community leader, and workforce development expert whose work focuses on helping people identify their strengths, overcome barriers, and create pathways to personal and professional success. Trained in Industrial-Organizational Psychology, he has worked across Fortune 500 companies, public institutions, and nonprofit organizations, including Nestlé, Coca-Cola, UPS, the Cook County Sheriff’s Office, and Chicago Public Schools. As Founder and Executive Director of the Rutues Center for Business & People Development, he leads initiatives supporting workforce development, leadership training, justice-impacted individuals, and community engagement. Known for combining behavioral science with practical, real-world strategies, Dr. Rutues has dedicated his career to empowering individuals and communities to achieve meaningful and lasting change.

Whether you’re looking to start a new chapter, explore career opportunities, or simply gain a clearer sense of direction, this program will be worth checking out. For those on probation, program participation shows favorably if you petition for early termination. For those with loved ones still incarcerated or unable to access online classes, this program will give you tools to better help your loved ones.

Enrollment: https://forms.gle/NBK1RDrdGsVEYjC46
Zoom Link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/87168249935
More information: Action Plan for Your Life Course Details

The post FREE ONLINE COURSE: Action Plan for Your Life appeared first on Florida Action Committee (FAC).

The government argued that because Mr. Hemani used marijuana a few times a week, he could automatically be prohibited from possessing a firearm, even though there was no evidence he had ever misused a gun or posed a danger to anyone (famously, Hunter Biden was charged under this law also). The Court rejected that argument, warning against giving the government the “broad power to designate any group as dangerous” and then strip away constitutional rights based solely on that label.

The Court repeatedly emphasized the lack of individualized evidence of dangerousness. As Justice Gorsuch noted, the government wanted to impose severe consequences based on a categorical assumption that members of a particular group are dangerous, without showing that the individual before the court actually posed a threat. That should sound familiar.

For decades, sex offender registry laws have operated on a similar premise — that people convicted of sexual offenses remain dangerous for life. As a result, many individuals are subjected to lifetime registration, residency restrictions, travel restrictions, public shaming, and countless other collateral consequences regardless of their age, health, rehabilitation, or decades of law-abiding behavior.

The problem is that the science does not support the idea that risk remains static forever. In the landmark study High-Risk Sex Offenders May Not Be High Risk Forever, researchers Karl Hanson, Andrew Harris, Leslie Helmus, and David Thornton found that sexual recidivism risk declines significantly the longer a person remains offense-free in the community. Even individuals initially classified as “high risk” saw their risk drop dramatically over time and after 15-20 years, even those originally deemed high risk were no more likely to commit a sex offense than someone who never committed one.

That doesn’t mean Hemani invalidates registry laws. It doesn’t. The case deals with a different constitutional right and a different legal framework. But the Court’s skepticism toward blanket assumptions of permanent dangerousness is noteworthy. When government policies continue to impose lifelong restrictions on entire classes of people based on outdated assumptions rather than individualized evidence, courts may eventually be forced to confront the same question raised in Hemani: At what point does a presumption of dangerousness become disconnected from reality?

United States v. Hemani

The post A Supreme Court Warning About Categorical Dangerousness appeared first on Florida Action Committee (FAC).

In a unanimous opinion, the justices ruled that an Otero County man was improperly discharged from a 5 to 20-year sex offender parole term. “Indeterminate sex offender parole is in fact imposed at sentencing because the Legislature has stated in Section 31-21-10.1(A) that the district court must include it in the judgment and sentence for certain enumerated sex crimes,” Chief Justice Julie J. Vargas wrote for the Court.

The Court said parole attaches at sentencing along with the basic sentence, even though the parole term does not begin until the initial sentence is completed. The justices said the statute requires sex offender parole when a defendant is sentenced to prison for certain sex crimes, but does not require the defendant to actually serve time in prison before the parole term applies.

SOURCE

The post NM: State Supreme Court says sex offender parole applies even without prison time appeared first on Florida Action Committee (FAC).

April Watson, who was made operations manager by unanimous vote of the Jay Town Council on the same night Seib stepped back from full time duty, is scheduled to become the next town manager, according to Jay Mayor Shon Owens. Committing to the higher profile job opened the door to public scrutiny and the revelation that Watson pleaded no contest in 2010 to three charges of engaging in unlawful sexual activity with minors and is a registered Florida sex offender.

Owens confirmed he was aware of Watson’s status and the crimes committed “a long, long, long time ago.” “I’m not familiar with details of the case against her,” Owens said. “I do know that she’s the right person for the job. There is a great deal of confidence within the community in her ability to do the job.”

SOURCE

The post Registered sex offender in line to be next Jay city manager appeared first on Florida Action Committee (FAC).

Hell NO!

Like many advocacy organizations, FAC represents and fights for a population much larger than its membership. The reality is that many people who could benefit from our work never join — not because they disagree with our mission, but because obstacles stand in the way. The good news is that these obstacles can be overcome, and each of us can help.

1) Many people simply don’t know FAC exists. Every year, people are added to the registry or move to Florida from another state. They may never hear about FAC unless someone tells them. We can’t tell you how many times people tell us, “I wish I had known about FAC sooner!”. You can help by sharing our website, social media posts, newsletters, and weekly updates with others who may benefit from our work. Ask if you can leave FAC brochures in your registration office, treatment group or even post one to the bulletin board in Starbucks. If you need brochures, cards or other information on FAC, contact membership@floridaactioncommittee.org or call and and we will gladly send some to you.

2) Some people fear being identified. They worry that joining an advocacy organization will expose them to scrutiny or unwanted attention. If you know someone who shares this concern, remind them that FAC respects privacy and offers many ways to participate without becoming a public face of the movement. In fact, most of our members, the overwhelming majority, don’t even post anonymously. But their numbers count.

3) Others have lost faith. After years—or even decades—of living under registry restrictions, some have concluded that nothing will ever change. History tells a different story. Laws change. Courts change. Public opinion changes. Progress often comes slowly, but it never comes without people willing to continue pushing forward. Share examples of victories, reforms, and successful legal challenges whenever you can and remind them that we will never stop fighting until the registry is abolished.

4) Financial hardship is another barrier. Many people on the registry struggle to find stable employment or housing. They may assume they cannot afford to join or support FAC so why bother. Let them know that participation matters far more than money. Reading updates, sharing information, volunteering time, and staying engaged are all valuable contributions. The $5 monthly membership dues are voluntary and if anyone can’t afford it, we will never deny their participation or membership in FAC.

5) Family concerns can discourage involvement. Spouses, children, and other loved ones sometimes fear stigma or retaliation. One way to overcome this obstacle is by helping families understand that advocacy is not just about registrants—it is about protecting entire families from the collateral consequences of ineffective policies.

6) Some people prefer to lay low. Perhaps they have found stable housing, employment, and support systems and don’t want to do anything to poke the bear. We encourage those individuals to remember that many others remain trapped by restrictions that limit opportunities and separate families. Those who have successfully rebuilt their lives are often the strongest voices for change and have the most to offer others who are still struggling. Things might be stable now, but you never know when a new ordinance will come to your city.

7) The registry population is constantly changing and more than half of the 90,000 are not in Florida communities anyhow. People move, become homeless, enter treatment programs, relocate to other states, or become disconnected from support networks. That is why we encourage members to continually reach out and welcome newcomers into our community. Thousands are being added to the Florida registry each year, which means there are thousands of people we could be helping.

8) Many people are simply exhausted. They are focused on surviving day-to-day challenges—finding work, complying with registration requirements, supporting their families, and dealing with the stress of life under the registry. Advocacy may feel like one more burden. That’s why FAC offers many ways to participate, from simply staying informed to becoming actively involved. Membership does not require anything more than letting us know you exist and support our mission. There is no financial or time commitment.

9) Technology presents another significant challenge. Not everyone has internet access (it’s one of the conditions many of us face), a computer, a smartphone, or familiarity with social media. Some individuals may have restrictions that limit their online activity entirely. If you know someone who may not be connected, consider printing articles, sharing newsletters, making phone calls, or introducing them to FAC through traditional means. Sometimes a simple conversation with someone waiting next to you at the registration office can connect someone to a community they never knew existed.

10) And finally, many people support FAC without ever becoming members. They read our articles, follow our social media, attend our calls, donate occasionally, or benefit from our legal and legislative efforts. Our reach extends far beyond our membership rolls. It’s important to us that people join so that we can have the numbers, we know where people are so if there’s an issue in your community, the County Coordinator can let you know about it, and so that you get invited to meet and greets and have access to the support services we offer.

It’s great that we have more than 3,300 members. But our question to you is: How many more people can we reach together?

If every FAC member introduced just one new person to our organization, our numbers would double. If every member shared one article, made one phone call, or invited one friend or family member to learn more about our work, our collective voice would become even stronger.

So help our movement grow because that’s how laws change.

The post If There Are 90,000 People on Florida’s Registry, Why Does FAC Have Only 3,300 Members? appeared first on Florida Action Committee (FAC).

Dear Members and Advocates,

One of the realities of living on the sex offender registry is that many registrants and their families exist in a perpetual state of heightened awareness. We know that the public registry does more than publish information. It creates opportunities for unknowing violation, harassment, intimidation, threats, and, in many cases, violence.

These concerns are not hypothetical. Just months ago, Florida witnessed another tragic example of registry-fueled vigilantism when a Central Florida man used information obtained from the public sex offender registry to locate and murder a registrant. Had he not been caught, he had a hit list to follow. The incident served as a stark reminder that public registries do not merely disseminate information, as lawmakers suggest. They function as roadmaps for individuals intent on harassment, intimidation, or violence. That case reinforced what advocates such as FAC, researchers, and even some law enforcement officials have warned for years: public registries can become tools for private citizens seeking to take the law into their own hands.

As troubling as traditional vigilantism is, a new and even more dangerous phenomenon has emerged. As highlighted in a recent investigation by the New Yor Times, across social media platforms, a growing number of self-styled “pedophile hunters” have turned vigilante confrontations into entertainment. These individuals pose as minors online, arrange meetings with targets, and then livestream or post videos of confrontations for audiences numbering in the hundreds of thousands. What makes this trend particularly alarming is that it has evolved from vigilantism into a business model.

The New York Times found that many of these online vigilantes are building substantial followings on social media platforms and monetizing their content through advertising revenue, subscriptions, donations, sponsorships, and platform payouts. The Times documented more than 170 reported violent attacks by self-described “pedophile hunters” since 2023, with some participants openly using increasingly aggressive and sensational tactics to attract viewers and grow their audiences. The investigation found that violence itself has become part of the content strategy, helping videos go viral and generate additional revenue.

This should concern everyone, regardless of their views on the registry. In a society governed by the rule of law, criminal investigations are supposed to be conducted by trained law enforcement officers operating within constitutional boundaries and subject to judicial oversight. Vigilantism bypasses those safeguards. It encourages public accusations, trial by social media, and punishment without due process. It creates incentives for mistakes, false accusations, and escalating violence.

Since when are private citizens allowed to manufacture criminal investigations for public consumption? Imagine applying the same logic to any other offense. We would never tolerate private citizens arranging their own drug buys, livestreaming confrontations with suspected drug dealers, conducting amateur raids on alleged crack houses, or pulling motorists over in their personal vehicles for speeding. We do not allow citizens to impersonate law enforcement, create their own criminal investigations, and then profit from the results. Yet somehow, when the allegation involves a sexual offense, people (and law enforcement officers) are willing to suspend these basic principles. The notion that private citizens should be allowed to manufacture alleged crimes, conduct vigilante investigations, and profit from them would be considered absurd in every other context. It should be no less absurd here.

When money enters the equation, the problem becomes even more severe. A private individual engaging in a law enforcement operation motivated by a belief that they are protecting the public is dangerous enough. A person motivated by clicks, subscribers, advertising revenue, and online fame is operating under an entirely different set of incentives. The more shocking the confrontation, the more views it receives. The more views it receives, the more money it generates. In that environment, the line between public safety and entertainment quickly disappears.

Yet today, social media platforms are allowing an ecosystem to develop in which private citizens can build audiences and generate income by publicly confronting, humiliating, and sometimes physically assaulting other human beings. That is not law enforcement. It is not justice. It is content creation.

FAC has long warned about the dangers created when public registries encourage citizens to take enforcement into their own hands. The rise of monetized vigilantism demonstrates how those dangers are evolving in the digital age. What was once an isolated act of harassment has become an online industry, complete with followers, influencers, revenue streams, and incentives for ever-more-extreme behavior. If public safety is truly the goal, we should be discouraging this behavior, not creating opportunities for people to profit from it.

Last week, we shared that the U.S. Sentencing Commission is seeking public comment on possible amendments to the federal sentencing guidelines. This presents a rare opportunity for members of the public to advocate for greater proportionality and fairness in federal sentencing. One area deserving particular attention is the treatment of online sting cases, which now represent a significant portion of federal sex offense prosecutions. While the law properly punishes those who engage in illegal conduct, the guidelines often fail to distinguish between an individual who was actively seeking out minors online and an individual who never sought contact with a minor but responded to a fictitious persona created by someone else. Whatever one’s views on these offenses, there is a meaningful difference in culpability and dangerousness between a person who is deliberately hunting for children online and a person who becomes involved only after the opportunity is affirmatively (and often aggressively) presented to them on an adult dating app. The sentencing guidelines should recognize that distinction.

Another guideline provision ripe for reconsideration is the ubiquitous two-level enhancement for “use of a computer” that is found in U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(6). When that enhancement was adopted decades ago, internet access was far less common than it is today. today, virtually every communication, transaction, and interaction occurs through a computer, smartphone, or internet-connected device. As a result, the enhancement applies in nearly every case and does little to distinguish between more and less serious conduct. In fact, one could reasonably argue that someone who travels to a secluded location to exchange contraband in person is engaging in conduct that is at least as deliberate and clandestine as someone who accesses material online. Yet the guidelines automatically increase punishment simply because a computer was used. Enhancements are supposed to identify aggravating factors that make an offense more serious than the ordinary case. When an enhancement applies to nearly every case, it ceases to serve that purpose.

As the Sentencing Commission considers reforms, we encourage our members to take this opportunity to encourage the Sentencing Commission to take a closer examination of these provisions and advocate for guidelines that better reflect actual culpability, risk, and proportionality.

And finally, we are still in desperate need to raise funds for our forthcoming challenge to the Florida Registry. We inadvertently omitted the link to donate from our last weekly update, so we are prominently including it here. CLICK HERE TO CONTRIBUTE TO OUR LAWSUIT CHALLENGING THE FLORIDA REGISTRY. This case is being fast-tracked and we absolutely need your help today, so please contribute what you can and let’s win this thing!

Sincerely,

The Florida Action Committee

TAX-DEDUCTIBLE DONATIONS: New for 2026 Tax Return.  You can claim the Standard Deduction PLUS a tax-deductible donation of up to $1,000 for singles and $2,000 for married without itemizing.  For more information on Tax Deductible donations in any amount, contact membership@floridaactioncommittee.org or leave message at 833-273-7325 Option 1.

The post FAC Weekly Update 2026-06-16-When Vigilantism Becomes a Business appeared first on Florida Action Committee (FAC).

The criminal conviction itself is not the surprising part — that question has largely been settled by decades of case law holding that an attempted offense can be prosecuted even when the intended victim never existed. The more interesting question is whether a fictitious victim should continue to carry legal weight years later when determining eligibility for sentencing benefits or exposure to collateral consequences.

Amendment 821 was adopted by the United States Sentencing Commission to provide modest sentence reductions for certain low-risk offenders with no criminal history, reflecting the Commission’s determination that these individuals generally present a lower risk of recidivism. However, the amendment excludes individuals convicted of “sex offenses”.

In United States v. Bryant, the defendant was convicted of attempting to entice a minor after communicating online with someone he believed was the mother of a 10-year-old girl. We all know how that ends up. Of course neither the woman nor the mother existed. They were a law enforcement officer. Years later, Bryant sought a sentence reduction under Amendment 821 to the federal sentencing guidelines. He argued that because there was no real child involved, his offense should not be considered a qualifying “sex offense” that would disqualify him from relief.

The court disagreed, taking the same stance with the requested relief under 821 as it does with the conviction. The court noted that federal courts across the country have consistently rejected the argument that an actual child must be involved for a conviction under the enticement statute. The crime, the courts have said, is the attempt itself.

Whether one agrees with that policy or not, the Bryant decision serves as another reminder that under the law, a person who never existed can still function as a “victim” for purposes of criminal prosecution, sentencing and even post-conviction relief. In the eyes of the court, it seems like the fictional person will be following Mr. Bryant for the rest of his life.

US v Bryant 821

The post A Fake Person Is a Real Victim – At Least Under the Law appeared first on Florida Action Committee (FAC).