<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Winners in Florida: First amendment rights, removal of &#8220;Sexual Predator&#8221; from driver&#8217;s licenses	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.narsol.org/2025/01/winners-in-florida-first-amendment-rights-removal-of-sexual-predator-from-drivers-licenses/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.narsol.org/2025/01/winners-in-florida-first-amendment-rights-removal-of-sexual-predator-from-drivers-licenses/</link>
	<description>National Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Jan 2025 17:43:13 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Tim in WI		</title>
		<link>https://www.narsol.org/2025/01/winners-in-florida-first-amendment-rights-removal-of-sexual-predator-from-drivers-licenses/#comment-45420</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Tim in WI]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Jan 2025 17:43:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.narsol.org/?p=97525#comment-45420</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Compelled speech was part of the deal obfuscated in Smith V Doe when reviewing SOR which implications indicates a use of a gov database. It was Congress itself which lent favorable rules to purveyors of the computer database properties. (In all its forms) Like the peoples&#039; intent behind the addition to the drivers license, the clear label, is about the imposing of additional affirmative restraint.
Without question the win here is based on the intent behind the drivers license itself. The purpose of states mandating the qualification &quot; to lawfully operate a motor vehicle&quot; is in no reasonable way tied to the intent behind sex predator notice.
While each is about an effort toward public safety, their individual purposes are mutually exclusive. How a congressman and especially a senator can fail to recognize the fact is beyond me. In my opinion, only a devout Sewer Socialist would approve of such actions. No rancher in his right mind would advertise the worst of his heard on a world wide scale! Well except for the bankrupted rancher.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Compelled speech was part of the deal obfuscated in Smith V Doe when reviewing SOR which implications indicates a use of a gov database. It was Congress itself which lent favorable rules to purveyors of the computer database properties. (In all its forms) Like the peoples&#8217; intent behind the addition to the drivers license, the clear label, is about the imposing of additional affirmative restraint.<br />
Without question the win here is based on the intent behind the drivers license itself. The purpose of states mandating the qualification &#8221; to lawfully operate a motor vehicle&#8221; is in no reasonable way tied to the intent behind sex predator notice.<br />
While each is about an effort toward public safety, their individual purposes are mutually exclusive. How a congressman and especially a senator can fail to recognize the fact is beyond me. In my opinion, only a devout Sewer Socialist would approve of such actions. No rancher in his right mind would advertise the worst of his heard on a world wide scale! Well except for the bankrupted rancher.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: J L		</title>
		<link>https://www.narsol.org/2025/01/winners-in-florida-first-amendment-rights-removal-of-sexual-predator-from-drivers-licenses/#comment-45396</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[J L]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jan 2025 02:41:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.narsol.org/?p=97525#comment-45396</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Definitely a step in the right direction. I am eager to see how this unfolds. Florida is definitely the state that likes to take its Registry laws to the extreme, and if the State didn&#039;t automatically file appeals in cases it loses, I would still expect it to do so in cases pulling back restrictions it places on those forced to register. 

Keep up the good work in Florida, if gains can be made in that state alone, then there is hope for the rest of the country!]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Definitely a step in the right direction. I am eager to see how this unfolds. Florida is definitely the state that likes to take its Registry laws to the extreme, and if the State didn&#8217;t automatically file appeals in cases it loses, I would still expect it to do so in cases pulling back restrictions it places on those forced to register. </p>
<p>Keep up the good work in Florida, if gains can be made in that state alone, then there is hope for the rest of the country!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
