Best
95 Comments
Post
  • #2
    !
    Give me a break. More rights for sex traffickers and offenders? I wouldn't trust sex offenders to report their internet activities. If they have internet access, let it be monitored remotely.
  • #10
    !
    @1hardcorerepub Convicted felons lose many of their constitutional rights as citizens. Nothing new about that. With rights come responsibilities, and my sympathies favor law-abiding citizens and potential victims over individuals who have proven that they cannot be trusted.
  • #11
    !
    @Dan_Tien now that is not the democrat/socialist way. You guys want equality for all, right? Now quit suppressing their desire for free speech.
  • #14
    !
    @Dan_Tien must agree with you here a very large percentage repeat. Although it doesn't quite sit right with me. Where do we draw the line? A necessary evil. It will be interesting to see what the courts have to say...
  • #19
    !
    @Dan_Tien no, they don't. convicted felons only lose the right to their freedom for the duration of their sentence and nothing more.

    tell me, did you actually read the article? many of those effected would be for minor indiscrepancies which are decades old.
  • R Load more replies

  • #24
    !
    @WilliamWallace crimes such as 'alleged' flashing? ohh... that's horrid. i guess the guy won't accidentally leave his fly open if he can't use the internet, huh?
  • R Load more replies

  • #69
    !
    Is it impossible for us these days to use common sense? Is life now one-size-fits-all because we're either too stupid or too lazy to distinguish one situation from another?

    I,by no means, advocate sexual abuse or child abuse of any kind; however, sex offenses have become the witch hunts of our current era. Anyone who sexual abuses a CHILD, is an offender. A rapist is an offender. An 18 year old who has sex with his 16 year old girlfriend is NOT an offender. A college kid who drunkenly exposes himself in public one time is NOT an offender.They should not suffere consequences for the rest of their lives. In 1959, my then 16 year old sister married her 22 year old boyfriend. In today's world he would be considered a child molester. They went on to have four children and were married for 50 years before he passed away.

    The so-called no tolerance policy of today is nothing more than an excuse not to think. It's a blanket rule that makes it easy for prosecutors and judges to get convictions. They don't have think outside the box or look at an individual situation or circumstance. Bang...you're guilty because we've overhauled the system to make you guilty.

    Again, I DO NOT condone child abusers. But child abuse should be defined as such and not include so many other outlyers that are simply pigeon-holed in the same category to get people convicted.
  • #81
    !
    The ACLU is a private organization, not a governmental one. It protects the constitutional rights of all people. They have every right to challenge unconstitutional laws. It takes courage to ive in a free society; evidently you don't have any.
  • #82
    !
    @cpeter133

    I never stated that I thought the ACLU was a government entity.

    The ACLU was founded as and continues to be a subversive organization. Any actual Constitutional Rights it supports is merely part of its continued mission to work by subterfuge. In other words to deceive people into believing that they are working for the public interest when they are doing just the opposite.

    The ACLU’s Articles of Incorporation should be revoked, its assets seized and sold off and its workers arrested for treason and tried as enemies of the state.

    Discover The Networks:

    The ACLU was established in 1920 by Roger Baldwin who served as its executive director until 1950. Baldwin was a socialist who counseled subterfuge as the preferable means of promoting his political agendas in the United States.

    In the ACLU's early years, Baldwin hailed the Russia of Lenin and Stalin as “a great laboratory of social experimentation of incalculable value to the development of the world.”

    The ACLU asserts that the First Amendment "protects" child pornography, and that consequently there should be no federal or state governmental restriction on its distribution, reproduction, sale, or use by anyone, including pedophiles. http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfi...

    Capital Research Center:

    The American Civil Liberties Union: How It Thwarts Freedom of Religion http://www.capitalresearch.org/pubs/pdf/v1298...
  • #83
    !
    @TheLoneRanger You throw the word "treason" around but clearly have no idea what it means. The whole basis of free speech is that people may hold any political beliefs they choose, no matter how unpopular. You might not like what they do, but they have a valid right to express it.
  • #84
    !
    @cpeter133 - You may not like it but subversion is treason. Subversion is not a free speech issue.

    Freedom is not whatever any body wants to do; that is chaos and anarchy. Freedom comes with responsibility.
  • #85
    !
    @TheLoneRanger Sorry, senator mccarthy, but you are wrong. At long last, have you no sense of decency?

    Protecting constitutional rights is subversive? This country was built on what you would call subversion. Whether you like certain people or not, they do have a right to speak.
  • R Load more replies

  • #48
    !
    I'm sorry but f*&$# the ACLU. They just sunk a step lower by standing up for pedophiles and sex offenders everywhere. And you though the republicans didn't care about women's rights, well the ACLU doesn't give a s&*$ about women's or children's safety obviously. Pedophiles and sex offenders are a scourge on this earth. They destroy the fabric of society. And for that I believe that the only rehabiitated sex offender, is either a labotomized or dead sex offender.
  • #22
    !
    The law shouldn't have been passed. The "sex offender" net is too wide already. Any 18 yr-old kid who receives nude pix from a girl just a year or two younger and shows them to someone is now not just a sex offender, but a human trafficker. And could go to prison for several years minimum.
    For heinous offenders, however, their online whereabouts should probably be monitored, at least for some time.
  • #21
    !
    Of course they should have all rights taken away...but one call to ACLU, and they'll be back to business as usual...
  • #6
    !
    Absdamnlutly, free speech, I say all right are gone, throw them in the cage, inmates will take care of the rest. I've seen it, it's ugly, and very effective.
  • #95
    !
    Hi everyone!

    My name is Jennifer Klein and I am a Ph.D. student at the University of Florida, Department of Sociology, Criminology and Law. I am writing to you today to extend an invitation to participate in a study concerning community member perceptions of the sex offender registry.

    To give you a small amount of background concerning this research, the main focus is to see how knowledgeable community members are regarding the sex offender registry, and your concerns regarding the idea that sex offenders are potentially living near you and your family.
    If you choose to participate, please know that your answers will remain anonymous.

    No identifying information will be collected or maintained. None of your personal information will be used for the purposes of this project - " I am only interested in your responses. Please know that your individual answers will not be shared with anyone, will not be linked back to you, and will only be used for research purposes.

    If you are interested in taking part in this survey please click on the following link, which will direct you to the online survey.

    https://ufl.qualtrics.com/SE/...

    There you will find an informed consent and the survey itself. This will require only about a half an hour to an hour of your time. Thank you very much for your consideration of this research study. Do not hesitate to contact me if you need more information or have any questions.

    Jennifer Klein, M.A.
    UFLResearcher@gmail.com
  • #80
    !
    I think so-I know a sex offender has to notify his neighbors-or can not live within so close to a school.I do not see how it could be enforced-the offender could go to a cafe or something with free wi fi. I think perhaps most members of the ACLU would rather their money and time be used elsewhere.
  • #75
    !
    While I hold no brief for sex offenders, I do believe that the 1st and 14th Amendments prohibiting government restriction of speech should be maintained. There are already exceptions with regard to obscene speech or the solicitation of criminal behavior. Better to err on the side of freedom.
  • #67
    !
    One of the constitutional rights is right to safety. To be honest, sex offenders do violate the rights of many people. We give people chances to show themselves, and they end up sexually abusing others. Surely this would be a good idea for sex offenders to be punished like this and perhaps we could deter many others.
  • #64
    !
    I've debated a few registered sex offenders online and every single one has been a hard-core liberal democrat.
  • #60
    !
    Sex offenders should be redefined. A guy who gets drunk and gets caught taking a leak in an alley is NOT a sex offender. An 18 year old having consensual sex with his 16 year old girlfriend/boyfriend is NOT a sex offender. A sex offender is someone who forces himself on another, an adult who touches children inappropriately. Exposing yourself at a drunken frat party or skinny dipping in the town square is not a sexual assault.
  • R Load more comments...
Post