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...
- Judge Changes Mind, Says James Woods Can Likely Unmask Guy Who Made Fun Of Him On Twitter
- Judge Blocks Release Of Anti-Abortion Videos As The Arbiter Of Journalism
- Appeals Court Tells City It Can't Use Its Terribly-Written Zoning Laws To Censor Speech
- Moral Panics: Twitter Feels Compelled To Tell You It's Deleted Over 125,000 Terrorist Twitter Accounts
- 20 Years Ago Today: The Most Important Law On The Internet Was Signed, Almost By Accident