Yes, exactly!

If I haven’t made this point before…Part of what gives FAC it’s credibility is that its members come from across the political spectrum. We put those views aside when it comes to educating (when we can) legislators, educating the public, submitting court filings, etc. If we didn’t do that, then we’d have to write off half the state as unreachable

Many if not most of the problems facing former offenders in Florida are the consequence of the legislature taking action. Over and over and over again. Witness the legislative history in FAC’s recent ex post facto filing.

And for those that are having to serve mandatory minimum sentences, the problem is not legislating from the bench but precisely its opposite— judging from the legislature. A sentencing commission survey of federal district judges found, for example, that 63% of those judges found Congress’ mandatory minimum sentences for pictures to be excessive, even though those judges are completely powerless to impose a more appropriate sentence.

There may be other areas in which inaction by the legislature, or legislating from the bench, are presenting problems. But not when it comes to sex offenses.

Everyone should understand that if this place becomes a sounding board for one political party, the other half will have the unfortunate choice between listening to those beliefs in order to participate in the real purpose for this site and org, or leave and try to find another home to advocate that is more focused. Either way you slice it, not a good outcome.

Me thinks the author was intentionally making a point here by irritating some people who would post their irrelevant beliefs regardless of how offensive it might be to some. For those who don’t understand people have a right not to have views shoved down their throat, one way to show them the problem is to show them how it feels, then explain that the whole purpose of the statement was to upset them in the same way their statements might upset someone else with differing views. It is ironic as much as it is unfortunate that it those who dish it out the most usually can’t handle any sort of rebuttal with any semblance of tempered reason.

In other words, if you were upset about anything in this post, you are the primary target of the rhetoric by someone who is trying to help you gain some understanding of what it’s like to be on the receiving end of someone else’s beliefs.

Everyone who shares this forum should understand that its purpose is not to spread your general beliefs on anything, it is about advancing the cause we all share.

The judiciary has been reduced to legislating as the incumbent legislators do nothing, from both sides of the aisle. Winning the next election is all they give a shit about.

Also from both sides of the aisle they infringe on our rights, democrat like Lauren Book to republican like Scott who has signed off on all of the increases in our requirements for the last 8 years.

There is certainly bi-partisanship happening, unfortunately it is against us.

I disagree with Bea Ware. FAC wasn’t claiming that everything put out by conservatives is fake news. However, when it happens, it’s important to challenge the untruths. Remember, the very term “fake news” was popularized by our President, a Republican, against the perceived “liberal” media. We have to point out the falsehoods wherever they are, whether from the Left or from the Right.

M Roberts, I think you are missing something important. Right now, our only hope for ridding ourselves from the unconstitutionally harsh registry laws is action from the bench. Look at what the politicians actually do, instead of the patriotic rhetoric they throw at us. Every state, whether controlled by Republicans or Democrats, is piling on onerous restrictions as extra punishment for people convicted of sex crimes. No one is standing up for OUR rights. Every American claims to believe in the Constitution. Few transfer that stated belief into action.

Correct – that is the suggestion.
We have a member code of conduct intended keep us on track and avoid saying (or in our case, publishing) things that would violate that code, incite other members, things that are completely false, scandalous or take a position that has no relevance to our organization or our mission.
These are not things that violate the first amendment.