This week, the Supreme Court of the United States issued an opinion in Sessions v. Dimaya that could prove helpful in our Internet Identifier case. Although the case had nothing to do with the sex offender registry, the issue centered around a vague statute. Specifically; what constitutes a “crime of violence”.

As is one of the issues in our internet identifier case, the requirements for registration are “hopelessly vague” (that’s in quotes because it is what our Judge found in granting the Preliminary Injunction). Even in the latest rendition of the Florida Internet Identifier registration requirements; there are three exemptions to what one might interpret as “Social Internet Communication” (as defined in 775.21);

1.    Communication for which the primary purpose is the facilitation of commercial transactions involving goods or services;
2. Communication on an Internet website for which the primary purpose of the website is the dissemination of news; or
3. Communication with a governmental entity.
But what is supposed to be exempted can be interpreted differently by different people. For example, if you buy and sell products on Craigslist, you would consider that site’s primary purpose to be the facilitation of commercial transactions involving goods or services. Sheriff Grady Judd, who uses Craigslist for internet stings, might argue that Craigslist’s primary purpose is sex trafficking.
66 percent of Facebook users get news there. 62 percent of American adults access news on social media, according to a 2016 report from the Pew Research Center and the Knight Foundation. So Facebook would fall under the second exemption, right? Not according to FDLE. How about twitter? Do we go by President Trump’s interpretation or a prosecutor’s opinion as to whether it’s used for government communication.
And those are just the glaring examples. There are millions of sites that are not so obvious. If you post a comment to this article, does your username at floridaactioncommittee.org require registration? We know our site’s primary purpose is dissemination of news, such as the news of this Supreme Court Decision. Law enforcement’s opinion might be that floridaactioncommittee.org is a site for sex offenders to socialize and unquestionably does require registration.
At the risk of a third degree felony, now with a mandatory minimum 6 months on a GPS ankle monitor, do you really want to guess incorrectly?

SCOTUS newcomer, Justice Gorsuch, gave the most meaningful and insightful input in this week’s opinion. He wrote, that “vague laws invite arbitrary power…by leaving the people in the dark about what the law demands and allowing prosecutors and courts to make it up.” Applied to our case, if which sites require registration and which don’t are not expressly listed and is left to the decision of police and prosecutors, we are giving them arbitrary power.

void for vagueness doctrine, at least properly conceived, serves as a faithful expression of ancient due process and separation of powers principles the Framers recognized as vital to ordered liberty under the Constitution. In the criminal context, the law generally must afford “ordinary people . . . fair notice of the conduct it punishes,”” (relying on Johnson v. United States) Significantly, Judge Hinkle relied heavily on the Johnson case in issuing our Preliminary Injunction, which makes it all the more relevant.

 

 

 

 

Share This

Let's Spread Truth

Share this post!