Comments on: Justice Breyer: You’re going to have everybody convicted . . . not being able . . . to discuss anything

By: Tim

Tim — Mon, 22 Apr 2019 19:39:35 +0000

My reaction to the quoted title.
BOTH
A. NOT being able to ” comment. ”
B. Forced to speak about email addresses & IDs via registration.

Speech impacted on both ends of modality.
Deprivation & suspension right to silence.
That is unfettered and unconstitutional USES OF the machine databases as is continuous searches per GPS tracking. That the Agenda of big data!
But how to convince the people?
EASY.

By: rwvnral

rwvnral — Fri, 14 Apr 2017 00:35:58 +0000

In reply to Anthony Johnson. Thanks for your comment, Anthony. The argument NCRSOL and NARSOL has made in our amicus brief is that there should be no exceptions at all. Once an individual has completed his sentencing obligations, his or her First Amendment rights should be fully restored. Whether or not the prior conviction involved a computer is irrelevant in our estimation. Once an exception is carved out for anyone, it's merely a matter of swinging the door open a little wider, bit by bit.

By: Anthony Johnson

Anthony Johnson — Thu, 13 Apr 2017 14:53:29 +0000

If the person does not have a conviction for online solicitation of a minor or child pornography using a computer there should not be any computer restrictions period. The pending Supreme court ruling should not have any retroactive implications to prior convictions of sex offenders that does not have any convictions to the above mentioned offenses. The first amendment is abridged when applying a chilling effect on freedom of associating or expression by any medium of communication.