.
Feedback

Legal Challenge to Prop 35, New Sex Trafficking Law

Proposition 35, the Californians Against Sexual Exploitation Act, was approved by 81 percent of voters in Tuesday's election.


A day after California voters approved Proposition 35, a federal judge Wednesday temporarily blocked the new law's requirement that the state's 73,000 registered sex offenders must immediately give police a list of their online screen names and Internet service providers.
  
U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson issued the temporary restraining order in San Francisco in a federal civil rights lawsuit filed Wednesday morning by two registered offenders and a nonprofit group.

  
The temporary order will remain in effect until a Nov. 20 hearing on whether Henderson should grant a longer-term preliminary injunction against the disclosure requirement.
  
Henderson wrote in a four-page order, "The court finds the plaintiffs have raised serious questions about whether the challenged sections of (the law) violate their First Amendment right to free speech and other constitutional rights."
  
Proposition 35, the Californians Against Sexual Exploitation Act, was approved by 81 percent of voters in Tuesday's election, according to the
secretary of state's office.
  
In addition to mandating that registered offenders must report their Internet information, it increases prison sentences and fines for people convicted of sex trafficking.
  
The plaintiffs are challenging only the disclosure requirement, which they claim infringes on their free-speech right to express their views on law reform and other topics anonymously.
  
The registered offenders who filed the lawsuit used the pseudonyms of John Doe, described as a 75-year-old Alameda man, and Jack Roe, described as a former California resident who wants to return to the state.

They were joined in the lawsuit by a group called California Reform Sex Offender Laws, which says it believes that no sexual abuse is ever acceptable, but that laws should be based on sound research and common sense. 

The plaintiffs are represented by lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

— Bay City News

 

Follow us on Twitter here | Like Half Moon Bay Patch here | Sign up for our daily newsletter | Blog for Half Moon Bay Patch here

 

 

 

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Half Moon Bay Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Loading comments ...
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Jon DeLong May 18, 2013 at 06:45 pm
With so many good Mexican restaurants in the area, why bother?
Cid May 17, 2013 at 06:14 pm
I enjoy an occasional Taco Bell, but in the same shopping center as Happy Taco with far better,Read More authentic LOCAL Mexican food! Nah! I do enjoy the Combo locations that have KFC & TACO BELL. (Face it, Americans like to have choices!). With no drive-through, perhaps it will be better than the average suburban stores along the El Camino. As for another chain restaurant in Half Moon Bay...What did you expect? Demographics will continue to dictate that we can still expect to keep our "Fast-Food-Free-Zone" between Linda Mar and HMB while "City Councils or Planning Departments in the Cities will attract them....for their tax base.
Dee May 15, 2013 at 08:07 pm
Seriously? Taco Bell? Next to New Leaf? How did this happen? Not happy about this addition and notRead More looking forward to seeing Taco Bell trash all over the place. Not sure about KFC ... we already have a fast food chicken place at Popeyes so we certainly don't need another. The high school students will probably frequent Taco Bell the most and keep it in business but I will not be going there that's for sure.
Carol Wexler May 18, 2013 at 02:42 pm
I would consider volunteering at the California State Parks but dogs are not allowed and I wouldRead More need to bring my dog.
pae May 18, 2013 at 11:22 pm
Misha, I understand where you're coming from, but that's what we don't want to do. One reason thatRead More all dog owners are being discriminated against is those few who don't follow the rules. It doesn't matter that there are bicyclists and horseback riders who don't follow rules, they're "OK," it's the dog owners who pay the price. We want an area where our dogs can exercise freely and legally, where we won't be bothered by people who are afraid of dogs or dislike them, and where they're not at risk from horses who spook. For those of us who live surrounded by Rancho land especially, we don't want to have to drive miles to a small, fenced lot with crowds of others seeking to exercise their dogs in the same small area. We're paying for this open space with our tax dollars, and we want to have access to it. There's plenty of room for everyone.
Misha Flores May 17, 2013 at 09:35 am
To be honest I would probably just let my dog run around without a leash anyway, except there's soRead More much darned poison oak around these hills. I don't want her to get contaminated and then I hug her and trouble ensues.
Anne Martin May 16, 2013 at 04:29 pm
I don't own a dog now but empathize with the dog owners who have been deprived of the right toRead More allow their dogs to run free in the national recreation area that we as taxpayers own. As a taxpayer, I want to know the rationale for this policy. If it is to protect horses from being frightened by dogs what is the basis for that? How many horses use the open space? It appears that dozens of people who have been able to enjoy walking with their dogs in the open space adjoining their neighborhood are now being grossly inconvenienced because some faceless bureaucrats are creating rules that may have no basis in reality.
Chris Vance March 23, 2013 at 03:00 pm
What are you doing with the excess Undaria pinnatifida that is found? Can we get some of it for ourRead More compost piles at the Pacifica Sanchez Library Garden?