Reply To: Victims’ advocate wants unlimited Facebook access — does that apply to all?

Tim Lawver

Truly why the 03 SCOTUS and Mr Roberts fu%&ed up the DOES rulings.
Those cases demanded “strictest scrutiny” and NOT the ” intermediate scrutiny ” used. The claim that NO LIBERTY INTEREST was implicated by the law on its face and in black and white applied to those already convicted was a broad distortion. Clearly free speech was implicated as the people today utilize the electronic list to ban, bar, or prohibit those who have completed their sentences. Mr. Kennedy expressed that concern in N.C. V. PACKINGHAM

Is there no liberty interest in the right to remain silent? The MOST IMPORTANT SPEECH RIGHT! Registration forms demand speech because it is the same effect as being interviewed by a state agent.

During 2011 trial for SOR violation I asked the agent these questions.

Maam, the SOR demands email addresses etc under threat of felony?
A: Yes

Does SOR….. agents intend to communicate with registered persons by email?

Ma’am can you tell the Jury the purpose of collecting email addresses if not for communication, that is the real purpose and intent. Ma’am what are they going to do with it?

They use it to impose disability and restraint, bar, ban, prohibit, even the right to not speak. Always was the original intent of the electronic list. What’s true is more is coming down the pipe electronically speaking.