As a person that myself I can say I start probation tomorrow and my journey of going through hoops and dodges makes no sense to me. I already learned my lesson and I been through it myself when I was younger. No one helped me nor did I know it could’ve happened to me the same until after I was convinced and sentenced. I have no criminal history, no repeat offenses. I have to carry this mistake for 20+ years (and I know others do as well). The registry should be removed period, it does nothing to protect anyone. It’s another way to make money off people’s misfortunes.

Part 2

But if a drug dealer, violent offender or a murderer can roam around without ANY restrictions where they live or work, etc then why are we going through this? To protect kids you say? How is that different from a violent person or a murderer? Drug dealers? Yeah where I’m from everytime I go to work I smell weed (not saying anything wrong) but it’s near a school. Sooo they teach kids it’s ok to smoke or get high without any sense in the laws. And kids learn this from this example that it’s ok to have weed or pills where they go. Isn’t that itself a cause for protection until they get older enough?

Has anyone made this argument?

Yes, several. First, are you speaking generally or in specific to this piece? I don’t believe you will see the term used in the letter or the brief preface to it. Secondly, the only people I hear use the term anymore are people on the registry themselves. NARSOL and all anti-registry advoccates quit using it sometime back except when totally necessary to make a point, and then we put it in quotation marks. Thirdly, the media use it liberally. It is a stock part of a “grabber headline” even when the story isn’t even about that. We can’t control them. And finally, the words “sex offender” do not themselves have tense; they are not verbs, but yes, we agree that using them to describe someone on the registry gives the connotation that they are still actively comitting crimes. That’s why we don’t use it.

Why has not NARSOL sued Federal and State Agencies for Slander and Libel? as it is both written and spoken?

Statutory Language CANNOT be USED that promotes such!

It is a Shameful term denoting such!

Any Comments?

What’s historically been “frightenly high” is the congressional tendency to engage in the use of retrospective language upon crimes. Thus the founders found it absolutely necessary to outright ban the use of ex post laws by congress to crimes already adjudicated.
Roberts (and Theodore Olson, US Solicitor General) knew that to be the case so they flipped the burden of proof of Punitive intent on to the plaintiffs’ to prove. AND in doing so altered the course of human history as it relates to the use of a database.
The preamble of the Act expressed the errant claim that the database driven regime could be used to prevent crime. This is a lie, but it lenders virtue to the machine, so the people would trust it. Nevertheless, the civil designation based upon court opinion alone is not enough to undue the words contained in the 13th Amendment to the constitution which defines historical forms of punishment did not make its way into the discussion n Smith V Doe. How convenient for the purveyors of database driven enterprises.

But no, Roberts made it next to impossible to be revisited by going along with “frightening and high” boogeyman lie.

I’d be more concerned with the NCMEC than S v D. That entity relies HEAVILY upon using the registry to promote their child safety propaganda They would be front and center challenging and appealing any efforts and momentum made in revoking or repealing the registry.