Menu
 |
 |
|
|
| Log In
|
|
|
|
|
| Search Web Pages
|
|
|
|
|
| Calendar
|
|
|
< September, 2010 >
| S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
| 29 |
30 |
31 |
01 |
02 |
03 |
04 |
| 05 |
06 |
07 |
08 |
09 |
10 |
11 |
| 12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
| 19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
| 26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
01 |
02 |
|
|
|
| white
|
|
|
As the UK lurches forward, the US takes a small step back
As the UK, led by Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, with help from CEOP and the NSPCC, tries to introduce Internet monitoring and banning for sex offenders in the wake of the Ashleigh Hall Facebook murder, a virtually unreported event in the US has just demonstrated a move in the other direction.
On March 3 2010, homeless, registered SO, Terrence White, finally won his case in the United States District (Federal) Court. The case involved the question of whether or not it is a violation of certain constitutional rights (listed below) to require registered sex offenders to tender to law enforcement their e-mail addresses, internet user names, and (especially) their passwords.
A similar ruling was given by a Utah Federal Court in 2008, in the case of Doe v. Shurtleff.
The new ruling agrees with Terrence and his attorneys that this new requirement does in fact violate at least one important constitutional right - namely, the right to free speech on the internet. The Court held (decided) in Terrence's instance that his right to free, private speech on the internet, would in fact be ‘chilled’, were the government to be given the right to require him to tender said addresses, user names, and passwords. By the term ‘chilled’ is meant that Terrence would be likely to self-censor his use of the internet, if he were required to tender all or even some of his ‘internet identifiers’ (as given above).
The Court pretty much dismissed or ignored most of Terrence's other claims of constitutional deprivation (such as violation of privacy, unreasonable search and seizure). Moreover, this ruling, although in Terrence's favour, was extended to apply only to him personally, and not to all 17,000 plus registered sex offenders in Georgia (as had been specifically requested in Terrence's brief). All the same, this new ruling is an important precedent affirming in the United States the rule of law over legislative hysteria and fear-mongering.
Other courts across the land will surely take note of this new ruling, and as more such rulings gradually accrue, this benighted land may yet witness ‘a new birth of freedom’. We now have some small hope of this happening.
(Above report from Terrence’s friends.)
Comment from UK citizen on developments there before seeing the above.
A deeply depressing, if horrifically inevitable, development. One might, of course, expect a spineless, popularity-seeking weasel to cave in to (and aggressively embrace) reactionary, CEOP-style pressure whilst acting as Home Secretary: New Labour has been at it since it shed its working class supporters and adopted the reign of Thatcherite economics in 1997. Bizarre and atypical cases always make for appalling general law, even if they make for exceptionally juicy Murdochite headlines. But, hey, so what, so long as tomorrow's Murdochite headline supports it?
The effect of the proposal 'advocated' by our wondrous, humane and brown-nosed Home Secretary (i.e., written by CEOP) will be to abolish the kind of dissent which appears on forums and blogs. Perhaps that's not accidental - harmless 'RSOs' tend to feel aggrieved and outraged by their mendacious demonisation and scapegoating by unscrupulous journalists and ideologically bankrupt politicians. Clearly, the quicker they learn to shut up and put up with ugly majoritarian prejudices, the better. At least that's how purposeless, rudderless politicians tend to see it (and so much for the LibDems, who seem even more bonkers and 'right on' than NuLab).
P
Created on 03/10/2010 10:58 AM by Editor
Updated on 03/10/2010 11:05 AM by Editor
|
|
|
|
|
