Looks like the ACLU was successful in its move to block parts of the California sex trafficking law that passed Tuesday with 81 percent support.
The organization was unhappy with provisions that required even minor sex deviants (folks convicted of having sex in view of the public, say) to give up their user names and email addresses to law enforcement.
A judge this week appeared to share the ACLU's view:
The judge temporarily blocked those provisions of Proposition 35 that require offenders to divulge their online info.
The ACLU, which was joined by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, argued that these facets of the initiative violate the free speech rights of even sex convicts.
EFF staff attorney Hanni Fakhoury said this earlier this week:
Requiring people to give up their right to speak freely and anonymously about civic matters is unconstitutional, and restrictions like this damage robust discussion and debate on important and controversial topics. When the government starts gathering online profiles for one class of people, we all need to worry about the precedent it sets.
If you like this story, consider signing up for our email newsletters.
SHOW ME HOW
You have successfully signed up for your selected newsletter(s) - please keep an eye on your mailbox, we're movin' in!
Supporters of the law defended the provisions in a statement emailed to the Weekly and other outlets yesterday. Chris Kelly, former chief privacy officer at Facebook said:
On-line registration for sex offenders is legal. Plain and simple. It's already been ruled constitutional and is a valuable tool for prosecutors, law enforcement and advocates for justice. This law is narrow, specific and focuses on keeping sex offenders from preying upon women and children on-line.
The federal judge, saying the ACLU's suit had raised "serious questions" about the constitutionality of the online provisions, blocked them until at least Nov. 20, when there would be a full hearing in court.