While progressive blogging communities were congratulating themselves for the FISA stalemate, Indiana passed a law forcing citizens to consent to warrantless searches and monitoring of their computers.
While liberal bloggers were polishing their Indiana primary predictions, Indiana passed a law denying their citizens full access to the Internet.
While liberal pundits were extolling the courage and conviction of Martin Luther King, the Missouri Senate approved a Constitutional amendment denying citizens the protection of ex post facto.
While liberal leaders were condemning China for human rights violations, the Missouri Senate approved a bill forcing house arrest on citizens--who had not been arrested.
And where was the media? Where was your candidate? Where the f**k were the so called liberals?
INDIANA
While Hillary and Obama were kicking up dirt in Indiana, its Governor signed into law S.258, a comprehensive package addressing crimes and punishment, of which two provisions stand out. To comply with the notorious Adam Walsh Act, the state mandated an email/online ID registry for certain offenders. Under threat of a new criminal charge (failure to register), said offender must comply with Section 6 of the bill, which states:
(b) If the sex or violent offender registers any information under
subsection (a)(7), the offender shall sign a consent form authorizing
the:
(1) search of the sex or violent offender's personal computer
or device with Internet capability, at any time; and
(2) installation on the sex or violent offender's personal
computer or device with Internet capability, at the sex or
violent offender's expense, of hardware or software to
monitor the sex or violent offender's Internet usage.
Other designated offenders are subject to a new criminal charge if they access certain locations of the Internet, defined in section 18 of the bill:
(e) A person described in subsection (b) who knowingly or
intentionally uses:
(1) a social networking web site; or
(2) an instant messaging or chat room program;that the offender knows allows a person who is less than eighteen
(18) years of age to access or use the web site or program commits
a sex offender Internet offense, a Class A misdemeanor. However,
the offense is a Class D felony if the person has a prior unrelated
conviction under this section.
(f) It is a defense to a prosecution under this section that the
person:
(1) did not know that the web site or program allowed a
person who is less than eighteen (18) years of age to access or
use the web site or program; and
(2) upon discovering that the web site or program allows a
person who is less than eighteen (18) years of age to access or
use the web site or program, immediately ceased further use
or access of the web site or program.
The above provisions are specific to those no longer on conditional release, no longer subject to restrictions imposed by a judge as punishment for committing a crime. They are also retroactive to all designated offenders, based on a Chenyesque interpretation of retroactivity.
In short, Indiana has proudly and unanimously proclaimed that First and Fourth Amendment rights do not apply to all its citizens. The ACLU has filed a suit against the one provision, so now would be the time to corner lawmakers about their fitness for public office.
MISSOURI
Not to be outdone, the spineless Missouri Senate approved SJR 34, a ballot proposal to amend its Constitution in response to several Missouri Supreme Court decisions upholding ex post facto protections:
Section 13. That no ex post facto law, nor law impairing the obligation of
2 contracts, or retrospective in its operation, or making any irrevocable grant of
3 special privileges or immunities, can be enacted; however, a law may be
4 retrospective in its operation with respect to requiring sexual offenders
5 to register with law enforcement, restricting sexual offenders from
6 residing within a certain distance of a school or child-care facility, as
7 required by law, or requiring every individual who pleads guilty or
8 nolo contendere to or is found guilty or convicted of a felony to have
9 a biological sample collected for purposes of DNA analysis.
One courageous lawmaker voted no.
The Missouri Senate also approved SB 714, another packaged bill designed to limit opposition to the more extreme provisions, including:
589.426. 1. Any person required to register as a sexual offender
2 under sections 589.400 to 589.425 shall be required on October thirty-
3 first of each year to:
4 (1) Avoid all Halloween-related contact with children;
5 (2) Remain inside his or her residence between the hours of 5
6 p.m. and 10:30 p.m. unless required to be elsewhere for just cause,
7 including but not limited to, employment or medical emergencies;....
(snip)
12 2. Any person required to register as a sexual offender under
13 sections 589.400 to 589.425 who violates the provisions of subsection 1
14 of this section shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor.
This is not a judge or P.O. placing conditions on a citizen who by definition is "in custody." It's fear-mongering politicians making it illegal for law-abiding citizens to leave their residence.
Another provision of the same bill, section 43.651, mandates the Murdoch inspired email/online ID registry; non-public privacy information which will be sold to "entities" defined as:
(2) "Entity", a business or organization that provides Internet
9 service, electronic communications service, remote computing service,
10 online service, electronic mail service, or electronic instant message or
11 chat services whether the business or organization is within or outside
12 this state;
Said entities may legally deny Internet access to Missouri citizens, not for real or perceived misconduct, but for being a registered sex offender:
(3) Any entity complying with this subsection in good faith shall
56 be immune from any civil or criminal liability resulting from:
57 (a) The entity's refusal to provide system service to a person on
58 the basis that the entity believed that the person was required to
59 register under sections 589.400 to 589.425, RSMo;
Again, these provisions are not limited to those on conditional release, and the vote was unanimous.
It's no longer about particular websites. It's about using third parties to deny citizens access to the Internet, to free speech, to the courts.
There are hundreds of these laws being passed, making legal conduct illegal for targeted citizens.
These are the type of statutory shackles that for centuries have fueled riots and revolutions. And where is the outrage from the media, the candidates, this community?
Are you waiting for this to happen to you or your family, orthis, or this, or this, or this? Or maybe this bill to gain support?
Wake up liberals, they're just warming up.