Sex offenders in California, like other states, are restricted from living near schoolyards, playgrounds, beaches, libraries and other public places. Now, last month’s approval of California Proposition 35 (the Californians Against Sexual Exploitation Act) could result in sex offenders being restricted on the Internet as well.
The ballot initiative requires that convicted sex offenders submit their email addresses, user names, screen names, and any other online identities that they have to law enforcement. Unlike the names and addresses of offenders, the online identities will not be made public. The initiative also increases prison terms for human traffickers, requires human traffickers to pay for services to help victims, and mandates law enforcement training on human trafficking.
Immediately after the election, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed a class-action lawsuit in federal court to ask that the court stop Proposition 35 from going into effect, claiming the initiative is unconstitutional. A federal judge granted a temporary restraining order until the lawsuit is decided.
The ACLU argued that the requirements of Proposition 35 violate the First Amendment by infringing on the right to free and anonymous speech on the Internet.
Among the bill’s supporters include Chris Kelly, a former chief privacy officer at Facebook, who says the initiative simply closes "the Internet loophole" in the sex offender registry.
"This doesn’t do that [violate First Amendment rights], and it’s deliberately crafted not to do that," Kelly said in an article in the New York Times. "All it says is law enforcement and, in some cases other entities, should have access to that data."
The ACLU lawyer leading the lawsuit, Michael Risher, said that the law is unconstitutional because of its broad application, as people would have to turn over the screen names that they use to comment on news or political websites.
“That’s not activity that can be used to commit a crime in any way," Risher said in the New York Times article. "It’s an area where there is no reason for the government to be requiring people to identify themselves to the police."
