By Sandy . . . Everyone loves a good protest. Most of us can look back to younger days, college or early job perhaps, and recall the excitement of being part of something we believed in. The right to protest is enshrined not only in our memories but also in the Constitution.

“Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble  . . .” – United States Constitution Amendment I

The wording in the Constitution explicitly requires that any assembling for the purpose of petitioning or protesting must be peaceful. When exercising the right to assemble and protest has the intent of destroying another’s right to assemble, peacefulness is lost. Today’s lightning-fast, mass communication system produces an environment where the intent to harm is weaponized a thousandfold.

NARSOL has recently experienced this.

A known hate-group, using lies, fear, and vigilantism, persuaded a hotel to cancel our June conference space just days before it was set to begin, leaving no options to relocate in time to hold the conference as planned. NARSOL and NARSOL’s Foundation teams planned that conference for more than a year. We lost it in a matter of days. We were, of course, shaken. Temporarily. Our supporters were also shaken, angry, worried.

To be clear – NARSOL did not choose to cancel this conference. The hotel venue called NARSOL staff and informed them they were “cancelling our event booking,” closing access to the hotel venue to our nearly 200 attendees, caving to pressure from an “American far-right, neo-fascist militant organization that promotes and engages in political violence.”

NARSOL has existed for 18 years. Through 2024, we have had 16 consecutive, peaceful conferences. Every day, we receive letters and emails from individuals on the conviction registry thanking us for giving them hope for a better tomorrow. It will take more than an online hate campaign to deter us. There are six months left in the year. There are many thousands of conference venues.

What we do is too important to stop. We fight the lies and myths surrounding registrants with facts and truth. We fight repressive, unconstitutional laws and restrictions with legal action. We publish the Digest, a newsletter for registrants, the incarcerated, their families, and their supporters.

We have conferences, educational, collegial, and enjoyable.

We daily strive toward our vision: NARSOL envisions a society free from public

shaming, dehumanizing registries, discrimination, and unconstitutional laws. We live up to our mission: NARSOL opposes dehumanizing registries by working to eliminate the laws, policies, and practices that propagate them.

We will move forward with greater care and doubled resolve, and we will continue to join together to fight for rational sex offense laws and against criminal registries.

What we do won’t be stopped or deterred. It will survive as long as it is needed.

The post As long as we are needed first appeared on NARSOL.

By Larry . . . The case is Bruce Henry v. the Sheriff of Tuscaloosa County, Alabama, in his official capacity, the District Attorney of Tuscaloosa County, Alabama, in his official capacity, and the Attorney General of the State of Alabama, in his official capacity. Alabama Code § 15-20A-11(d)(4) prohibits adult registrants who have been convicted of a sex offense involving a child from residing or conducting an overnight visit with a minor, including their own children. No exceptions are provided in the statute. An “overnight visit” occurs whenever an offender is in the same place as a minor for any part of the period “between the hours of 10:30 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.” § 15-20A-4(14). According to the court, “Section 15-20A-11(d) prevents Henry from being present in the same home as his son (1) at any time between the hours of 10:30 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.; (2) for more than four hours a day on three consecutive days; (3) for more than four hours a day on ten or more days during a calendar month; or (4) in any other circumstance where he is habitually and systematically present at his son’s home.” Opinion at 8.

In 2013, Bruce Henry pled guilty to one count of possessing images of minors. The decision noted that Henry has completed his term of imprisonment, married, and fathered a son. But Section 15-20A-11(d)(4) doesn’t allow him to live with his son. In 2021 he challenged Section 15-20A-11(d)(4) facially and as applied to him. He claimed that Section 15-20A-11(d)(4) violates his First Amendment right of intimate association and the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection and due process of the law. Henry sought a declaratory judgment that Section 15-20A-11(d)(4) is overbroad and unconstitutional, both facially and as applied, and he requested that the district court enter an injunction against the defendants in order to prevent the law’s enforcement. In particular, he argued that Section 15-20A-11(d)(4) interferes with perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests that the Fourteenth Amendment secures, which is the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children. He cited Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923), a precedent dating back more than 100 years.

According to the court, “Alabama has not narrowly tailored its law to achieve its goal. The law offers no escape hatch whatsoever. So, a person who’s been convicted of a qualifying offense has no chance to avoid the law’s prohibition by proving that they wouldn’t be dangerous to their child. Rather, in every case without fail, Alabama’s law prohibits sex offenders who’ve been convicted of a qualifying offense from residing with their child, even if the individual can prove they present no risk to their child.” Opinion at 3. The court went on to say, “As a result, it deprives some individuals convicted of qualifying offenses of their fundamental right to establish a home and bring up their own children, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. And it deprives some children in Alabama of the presence of a parent who may be fit to lovingly care for and raise them.” Id.

Alabama argued that Section 15-20A-11(d)(4) is constitutional as applied to Henry because individuals convicted of a sex offense do not have a fundamental right to reside with their child. And the state asserted that even if Henry does have such a right, the law survives strict scrutiny because it is narrowly tailored to advance Alabama’s compelling interest in protecting children. The court stated, “We reject Alabama’s first claim and hold that Section 15-20A-11(d)(4) is unconstitutional as applied to Henry. The Constitution guarantees parents the right to live with their children. Henry did not necessarily forfeit that right when he committed a sexual offense, yet Section 15-20A-11(d)(4) automatically deprives him of that right…” Opinion at 16-17. The 111-page opinion illuminates additional arguments that the court did not find compelling.

NARSOL is elated that the Eleventh Circuit has protected one of the most cherished rights one has. Attorney Paul Dubbeling from North Carolina handled the initial case as well as the appeal. At this time, we do not know if Alabama plans to file a petition for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court.

Larry  is on the NARSOL board and the Legal Committee.

The post Victory in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit first appeared on NARSOL.

Published first at little red dots

Reprinted in full with permission from the author.

By Guy . . . In bringing a First Amendment lawsuit challenging Kentucky’s newly-passed law prohibiting anonymous speech on social media platforms by some people with past sex-related convictions, I anticipated that the media would likely want to focus on my own story, and my own past.

I’ve written before about my own arrest in 2006, and my gratitude for it. The freest I ever felt was in an interrogation room in handcuffs. My experiences with the legal system gave me a vision of a criminal justice system that could bring all parties to a crime together – the person who caused harm, the person who was harmed, and the community – and leave everyone better for it. I was extremely fortunate, but many are not. It was those experiences that inspired me to apply to law school, and eventually, to become an attorney.

In 2017, the United States Supreme Court decided a case called Packingham v. North Carolina, which considered a North Carolina ban on social media use for people with past sex convictions. The Court struck it down, with then-Justice Kennedy writing that:

Even convicted criminals–and in some instances especially convicted criminals–might receive legitimate benefits from these means for access to the world of ideas, in particular if they seek to reform and to pursue lawful and rewarding lives. 

Justice Kennedy described my path, and the impact that “access to the world of ideas” has had on my life. I am “especially convicted criminals.”

A few years before Packingham, my best friend in law school and I cooked up an idea to challenge Kentucky’s similar law. The plan was not only to win, but to then use social media as a means of advocacy, public education, and networking. That case was John Doe v. Commonwealth ex. rel. Tilley. I was John Doe.

We won, striking down–amongst other things–Kentucky’s ban. I joined social media under my name, did an AMA, networked, and wrote. One of the things that I wrote was a law review article about the importance of social media access, and my own experiences. The article itself was an opportunity that was presented to me by way of an acquaintance I met on Twitter. In the article, I wrote that:

[Mine and my friend’s plan] has taken an enormous amount of work and planning that has spanned several years now. Unnumbered days and nights of research, writing, talking, rewriting. Recruiting expert witnesses willing to serve pro bono. Waiting. Heartbreak. Yet more waiting. In fact, the work is still underway. Tilley was just the first phase of the plan. You, by reading what I have written, have helped with the second.

What good is being given a voice only to persist in silence? Of what value does speaking hold if one is forced to do so only amongst the trees, or to the choir? 

It may be that you find what I have written to be detestable, nonsensical, and even dangerous. If so, you will undoubtedly find me up for a robust debate. Whatever your reaction, you will surely agree with the fact that I was even afforded the opportunity to write the words you find so objectionable, and thus for you to be aggrieved by them, is in itself, nothing short of a small miracle. 

And with that, God is good indeed, Mr. Packingham. 

The lawsuit led to social media, which led to writing, which led to a job, which led to connections, which led to my being a JLUSA fellow, which led me to apply to take the bar exam in D.C., which led me to the life I have today. Packingham and Tilley, and the values that they protect, led me to becoming an attorney.

Tilley has, in some ways, come full circle. Back to another federal courtroom in Kentucky, to fight another social media law. This time, as counsel. To be sure, Kentucky’s new law does not outright ban speech on social media, nor could it. But for many people, including my client, it is a ban by any other name.

Social media certainly has ills, too, that highlight the importance of anonymity. I understand all too well the burdens that come with being public, and being either unpopular, or controversial. I have lost count of the number of times that I have been harassed, or had my life threatened on social media. I am numb to it. My decision to be public was not, initially, by choice. But for many including my client, a requirement to self-identify is too steep a price to pay to avail themselves of the First Amendment rights that Packingham says they have.

The district court granted my motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that the law likely violates the Constitution. The Attorney General of Kentucky has appealed that ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, and the fight will continue there. The path that’s brought me here is why it’s a fight I believe in. My conviction isn’t the whole story. It’s the beginning of it.

The post A Voice, If You Can Keep it first appeared on NARSOL.