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...
- Zuckerberg Momentarily Curbs 'Hate Speech' Moderation Stupidity At Facebook To Reinstate Posts By Donald Trump
- Actor James Woods Gloats Over Death Of Random Twitter Troll He Sued To Unmask [Updated]
- Arrested Backpage Execs Ask Kamala Harris To Drop Bogus Case She Herself Has Admitted She Has No Authority To Bring
- Pam Geller Doubles Down On Claims That Facebook Removing Her Posts Is Section 230-Enabled 'Government Censorship'
- California DMV Rejects 1NFOS3C Vanity Plate Because Of 'Sexual Connotation'