Around the Web

The Volokh Conspiracy has a post discussing a new California bill which "would impose a tax on the sale of, or the storage, use, or other consumption of, tangible personal property that is adult material, as defined, in this state at a rate of 25%."  Eugene Volokh thinks that the tax would likely be unconstitutional, as "the law targets not just unprotected and illegal obscenity, but also constitutionally protected pornography."

Tennessee sex offenders will soon be "required to register any e-mail address, user name or instant message screen name, along with their given name, place of residence and any crime for which they’ve been charged."  Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen signed legislation requiring that information after the bill passed unanimously in both the House and Senate.  The new law becomes effective July 1.

The Arizona Daily Star has an article discussing the use of GPS ankle bracelets for tracking registered sex offenders.  According to the article, probation officers are able to download data whenever they want to check where a defendant has been and whether they're keeping to their pre-approved schedules.  Also,  officers can "sit at a computer screen to watch a probationer move from place to place in real-time."

The New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union is "renewing its effort against ordinances that limit where sexual offenders can live."  The NHCLU has filed motions in state district court arguing that a city ordinance which bans registered sex offenders from living within 2,500 feet of a school or day-care center violates the state constitution.

Comments

[Dave]

- Also, officers can "sit at a computer screen to watch a probationer move from place to place in real-time."

Oh boy, sit a computer and watch one dot stay in one place for hours on end? That's more exciting than Pac Man! Sign my ass up, I want to do good for the community by falling asleep at my desk.

[jjoe]

RE: Tennessee email registry.

This law makes it clear what the ultimate intent is regarding email registration (apparently both the House and Senate bills were amended to be the same): http://www.legislature.state.tn.us/bills/currentga/BILL/SB2594.pdf

Forced to update the info electronically. Then, the State "may" send the info to third parties who are mandated to provide any info regarding the RSO use of their system to the State. And the article says "While the TBI will not monitor e-mail addresses and screen names..."

"Within thirty (30) minutes of an offender changing his or her electronic mail
address information, any instant message, chat or other Internet communication name
or identity information that the person uses or intends to use, whether within or without
the state of Tennessee, the offender shall report the change to the offender’s registering
agency, either in person or electronically....

(m) Registry information regarding all registered offender's electronic mail
address information, any instant message, chat or other Internet communication name or identity information may be electronically transmitted by the TBI to a business or organization that offers electronic communication or remote computing services for the purpose of prescreening users or for comparison with information held by the requesting business or organization. In order to obtain the information from the TBI, the requesting business or organization that offers electronic communication or remote computing services shall agree to notify the TBI forthwith when a comparison indicates that any such registered sex offender's electronic mail address information, any instant message, chat or other Internet communication name or identity information is being used on their system."

[disillusion1998]

RE: Tennessee e-mail registry.

It's rare that a piece of legislation makes me laugh aloud. But this part of Tennessee's SB 2594 did:

SECTION 4. This act shall take effect on July 1, 2008, the public welfare requiring it.

I'm still laughing about it. Surely the bill's author(s) don't REALLY believe that!! Too funny.

Does anyone actually think this law will prevent a SINGLE person from using an un-Registered e-mail address if he/she wants to? Anyone? Anyone? ... (sounds of crickets)

Or will it just waste limited resources, provide a false sense of security, direct attention away from what really should be done, uselessly and needlessly harass people who are just living law-abiding lives, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.? Sounds a lot like Registration.