by Mike Masnick
Wed, Nov 7th 2012 4:12pm
Yesterday, we wrote about a questionable ballot measure in California that, in an attempt to create harsher penalties for human trafficking, also included numerous problematic components, including banning anonymous speech for anyone on the sex offenders list -- which you can get on for a very broad list of offenses, many of which the public does not associate with being a "sex offender." As we noted, since the core argument in favor of the proposition is such an emotional item, and is well-intentioned, it was likely that the measure would pass -- and it did, with 80% of the vote. Unfortunately, you can now expect the internet provision to be abused -- and likely challenged in court, leading to a wasteful legal fight spending California taxpayer dollars to defend an almost certainly unconstitutional provision. Wouldn't it be nice if we could focus on actual problems instead of lumping in all sorts of other things?
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- EFF Lawsuit Challenges DMCA's Digital Locks Provision As First Amendment Violation
- Turkey Blocks Wikileaks After It Dumps Nearly 300,000 Turkish Gov't Emails
- California Appeals Court Reaffirms Section 230 Protections In Lawsuit Against Yelp For Third-Party Postings
- Australian Company Files Bogus Defamation/Trademark Infringement Lawsuit Over A Nine-Year-Old Blog Post
- Federal Revenge Porn Bill Not As Bad As It Could Have Been, Still Probably Unconstitutional