ourt regarding the Sex Offenders Registration Act SORA Litigation, Jane Doe I, et al. v. Thomas Phillips et al. which "contends the act violates substantive due process rights and equal protection rights because it infringes on fundamental liberty rights, imposes a lifetime stigma, has no express purpose and, even if it serves a compelling interest, is not narrowly tailored or rationally related to that interest. They assert that, if the act is deemed to be criminal in nature, it violates the prohibition against ex post facto laws because it imposes an additional punishment, thereby altering the consequences for a crime for which they already have been sentenced." (Arthur A. Benson II, Jane Doe I, et al. v. Thomas Phillips et alCase No. SC86573, May 2006).(http://www.bensonlaw.com/).

The New McCarthyism?

Many feel the blacklisting of sex offenders is reminciscent of the McCarthy era during the nation's anti-communist hysteria. From the moment in a 1950 speech when Senator Joseph McCarthy waved his infamous (and never-identified) "list of 205 communists working in the State Department," the senator exploited the country's Cold War paranoia, relentles

Much controversy exists regarding how persons become labeled a sex offender. (Rebecca Van Drunen, Confederation College,"Outcast Society: A Closer Look at North American Sexual Offenders in the Twenty-First Century", May 5th, 2006). Most Americans believe that the registry lists convicted child molesters when in actuality, many offenders listed on the Registries have been convicted of poor-behavior-choice offenses, which involve no victim and no physical contact. An example of such would include online talk with an undercover police officer posing as an underage minor. Teenagers involved in a consensual sexual relationship, known as "Romeo and Juliet" relationships, with the male or female partner considered underage in the eyes of the law, are also listed as sex offenders on the nation's registries. ("Groups Propose Tier System For Sex Registry" Internet Broadcasting Systems and Local6.com, May2006).

Most charged persons lack adequate funding for a legal defense to fight such charges. The result is a plea bargain, which in some states, is followed by automatic sexual-offender registration regardless of judical discretion, such as decreed by Florida Statute 943.0436. This means the power of a judge to impose a fair and just sentence for first time offenders has been legislatively-and quite effectively-been removed from legal due process. Registration is for life or 20 years, whatever comes first, and permeates every aspect of the registrant's life. Advocates believe politicians have run unchecked with this issue, due to guaranteed press coverage, easy votes and the guarantee of federal funding for law enforcement with the passage of one new sex offender law annually. (Sharon Wilson, "Sex Offenders: The Other Side", Orlando Sentinel, 10/23/2005). An overhaul of the nation's registries through the incorporation of a tier level system is advocated as a method which would allow the public to more accurately determine the true risk of a registered offender living in their neighborhood while allowing law enforcement to better quality supervise those persons considered truly dangerous not only to children but also, to women and the elderly.

Recent Court Rulings

Recently, the 11th Circuit Court unanimously struck down part of a federal law prohibiting the offering or advertising of material presented as child pornography, saying the provisions were too broad and vague. (April 2006). The case U.S. v. Michael Williams 04-15128 challenged the 1996 Child Pornography Prevention Act, which Congress expanded the definition of child pornography again to include "any material or purported material in a manner that reflects the belief, or that is intended to cause another to believe" that the material contains illegal child pornography. The 11th Circuit Court cited that "advances in photographic and computer imaging made it possible to produce and distribute child pornography without employing actual children." Although the Court "recognized that Congress has a compelling interest in protecting children and, to that end, may regulate in interstate commerce settings the distribution or solicitation of the materials. ... However, the pandering provision goes much farther than that. The provision abridges the freedom to engage in a substantial amount of lawful speech ... and the reasons the Government offers in support of such limitations have no justification in the Supreme Court's First Amendment precedents."

The Court further stated, "The protection of our children against sexual abuse and predatory pedophiles is of extraordinary importance. We do not question that strong federal laws are needed, but they must pass constitutional muster. ... Congress may not 'burn the house to roast the pig.'" (Carl Jones "Porn Law Goes Too Far", Daily Business Review, April 10, 2006). Civil rights advocates find this an important ruling regarding free speech but also, the ruling serves as a signal to elected officials that law enforcement cannot be granted carte blanche to overstep the inherent rights granted to American citizens by the U.S. Constitution.

The Civil Rights of Nonoffending Family Members

Advocates indicate that the civil rights of convicted family members and their nonoffending family members is forever effected, long after the punishment has ended. Internet publication of sex offenders home addresses continues to be upheld by the court in the name of public safety, although April 2006 vigilante type murders in Maine have brought new concerns to misue of the registry and to the safety of nonoffending family members. Missouri civil rights attorney Arthur Benson currently waits decision from the Missouri Supreme Court regarding the Sex Offenders Registration Act SORA Litigation, Jane Doe I, et al. v. Thomas Phillips et al. which "contends the act violates substantive due process rights and equal protection rights because it infringes on fundamental liberty rights, imposes a lifetime stigma, has no express purpose and, even if it serves a compelling interest, is not narrowly tailored or rationally related to that interest. They assert that, if the act is deemed to be criminal in nature, it violates the prohibition against ex post facto laws because it imposes an additional punishment, thereby altering the consequences for a crime for which they already have been sentenced." (Arthur A. Benson II, Jane Doe I, et al. v. Thomas Phillips et alCase No. SC86573, May 2006).(http://www.bensonlaw.com/).

The New McCarthyism?

Many feel the blacklisting of sex offenders is reminciscent of the McCarthy era during the nation's anti-communist hysteria. From the moment in a 1950 speech when Senator Joseph McCarthy waved his infamous (and never-identified) "list of 205 communists working in the State Department," the senator exploited the country's Cold War paranoia, relentles

te 943.0436. This means the power of a judge to impose a fair and just sentence for first time offenders has been legislatively-and quite effectively-been removed from legal due process. Registration is for life or 20 years, whatever comes first, and permeates every aspect of the registrant's life. Advocates believe politicians have run unchecked with this issue, due to guaranteed press coverage, easy votes and the guarantee of federal funding for law enforcement with the passage of one new sex offender law annually. (Sharon Wilson, "Sex Offenders: The Other Side", Orlando Sentinel, 10/23/2005). An overhaul of the nation's registries through the incorporation of a tier level system is advocated as a method which would allow the public to more accurately determine the true risk of a registered offender living in their neighborhood while allowing law enforcement to better quality supervise those persons considered truly dangerous not only to children but also, to women and the elderly.

Recent Court Rulings

Recently, the 11th Circuit Court unanimously struck down part of a federal law prohibiting the offering or advertising of material presented as child pornography, saying the provisions were too broad and vague. (April 2006). The case U.S. v. Michael Williams 04-15128 challenged the 1996 Child Pornography Prevention Act, which Congress expanded the definition of child pornography again to include "any material or purported material in a manner that reflects the belief, or that is intended to cause another to believe" that the material contains illegal child pornography. The 11th Circuit Court cited that "advances in photographic and computer imaging made it possible to produce and distribute child pornography without employing actual children." Although the Court "recognized that Congress has a compelling interest in protecting children and, to that end, may regulate in interstate commerce settings the distribution or solicitation of the materials. ... However, the pandering provision goes much farther than that. The provision abridges the freedom to engage in a substantial amount of lawful speech ... and the reasons the Government offers in support of such limitations have no justification in the Supreme Court's First Amendment precedents."

The Court further stated, "The protection of our children against sexual abuse and predatory pedophiles is of extraordinary importance. We do not question that strong federal laws are needed, but they must pass constitutional muster. ... Congress may not 'burn the house to roast the pig.'" (Carl Jones "Porn Law Goes Too Far", Daily Business Review, April 10, 2006). Civil rights advocates find this an important ruling regarding free speech but also, the ruling serves as a signal to elected officials that law enforcement cannot be granted carte blanche to overstep the inherent rights granted to American citizens by the U.S. Constitution.

The Civil Rights of Nonoffending Family Members

Advocates indicate that the civil rights of convicted family members and their nonoffending family members is forever effected, long after the punishment has ended. Internet publication of sex offenders home addresses continues to be upheld by the court in the name of public safety, although April 2006 vigilante type murders in Maine have brought new concerns to misue of the registry and to the safety of nonoffending family members. Missouri civil rights attorney Arthur Benson currently waits decision from the Missouri Supreme Court regarding the Sex Offenders Registration Act SORA Litigation, Jane Doe I, et al. v. Thomas Phillips et al. which "contends the act violates substantive due process rights and equal protection rights because it infringes on fundamental liberty rights, imposes a lifetime stigma, has no express purpose and, even if it serves a compelling interest, is not narrowly tailored or rationally related to that interest. They assert that, if the act is deemed to be criminal in nature, it violates the prohibition against ex post facto laws because it imposes an additional punishment, thereby altering the consequences for a crime for which they already have been sentenced." (Arthur A. Benson II, Jane Doe I, et al. v. Thomas Phillips et alCase No. SC86573, May 2006).(http://www.bensonlaw.com/).

The New McCarthyism?

Many feel the blacklisting of sex offenders is reminciscent of the McCarthy era during the nation's anti-communist hysteria. From the moment in a 1950 speech when Senator Joseph McCarthy waved his infamous (and never-identified) "list of 205 communists working in the State Department," the senator exploited the country's Cold War paranoia, relentles

ld pornography, saying the provisions were too broad and vague. (April 2006). The case U.S. v. Michael Williams 04-15128 challenged the 1996 Child Pornography Prevention Act, which Congress expanded the definition of child pornography again to include "any material or purported material in a manner that reflects the belief, or that is intended to cause another to believe" that the material contains illegal child pornography. The 11th Circuit Court cited that "advances in photographic and computer imaging made it possible to produce and distribute child pornography without employing actual children." Although the Court "recognized that Congress has a compelling interest in protecting children and, to that end, may regulate in interstate commerce settings the distribution or solicitation of the materials. ... However, the pandering provision goes much farther than that. The provision abridges the freedom to engage in a substantial amount of lawful speech ... and the reasons the Government offers in support of such limitations have no justification in the Supreme Court's First Amendment precedents."

The Court further stated, "The protection of our children against sexual abuse and predatory pedophiles is of extraordinary importance. We do not question that strong federal laws are needed, but they must pass constitutional muster. ... Congress may not 'burn the house to roast the pig.'" (Carl Jones "Porn Law Goes Too Far", Daily Business Review, April 10, 2006). Civil rights advocates find this an important ruling regarding free speech but also, the ruling serves as a signal to elected officials that law enforcement cannot be granted carte blanche to overstep the inherent rights granted to American citizens by the U.S. Constitution.

The Civil Rights of Nonoffending Family Members

Advocates indicate that the civil rights of convicted family members and their nonoffending family members is forever effected, long after the punishment has ended. Internet publication of sex offenders home addresses continues to be upheld by the court in the name of public safety, although April 2006 vigilante type murders in Maine have brought new concerns to misue of the registry and to the safety of nonoffending family members. Missouri civil rights attorney Arthur Benson currently waits decision from the Missouri Supreme Court regarding the Sex Offenders Registration Act SORA Litigation, Jane Doe I, et al. v. Thomas Phillips et al. which "contends the act violates substantive due process rights and equal protection rights because it infringes on fundamental liberty rights, imposes a lifetime stigma, has no express purpose and, even if it serves a compelling interest, is not narrowly tailored or rationally related to that interest. They assert that, if the act is deemed to be criminal in nature, it violates the prohibition against ex post facto laws because it imposes an additional punishment, thereby altering the consequences for a crime for which they already have been sentenced." (Arthur A. Benson II, Jane Doe I, et al. v. Thomas Phillips et alCase No. SC86573, May 2006).(http://www.bensonlaw.com/).

The New McCarthyism?

Many feel the blacklisting of sex offenders is reminciscent of the McCarthy era during the nation's anti-communist hysteria. From the moment in a 1950 speech when Senator Joseph McCarthy waved his infamous (and never-identified) "list of 205 communists working in the State Department," the senator exploited the country's Cold War paranoia, relentles

gainst sexual abuse and predatory pedophiles is of extraordinary importance. We do not question that strong federal laws are needed, but they must pass constitutional muster. ... Congress may not 'burn the house to roast the pig.'" (Carl Jones "Porn Law Goes Too Far", Daily Business Review, April 10, 2006). Civil rights advocates find this an important ruling regarding free speech but also, the ruling serves as a signal to elected officials that law enforcement cannot be granted carte blanche to overstep the inherent rights granted to American citizens by the U.S. Constitution.

The Civil Rights of Nonoffending Family Members

Advocates indicate that the civil rights of convicted family members and their nonoffending family members is forever effected, long after the punishment has ended. Internet publication of sex offenders home addresses continues to be upheld by the court in the name of public safety, although April 2006 vigilante type murders in Maine have brought new concerns to misue of the registry and to the safety of nonoffending family members. Missouri civil rights attorney Arthur Benson currently waits decision from the Missouri Supreme Court regarding the Sex Offenders Registration Act SORA Litigation, Jane Doe I, et al. v. Thomas Phillips et al. which "contends the act violates substantive due process rights and equal protection rights because it infringes on fundamental liberty rights, imposes a lifetime stigma, has no express purpose and, even if it serves a compelling interest, is not narrowly tailored or rationally related to that interest. They assert that, if the act is deemed to be criminal in nature, it violates the prohibition against ex post facto laws because it imposes an additional punishment, thereby altering the consequences for a crime for which they already have been sentenced." (Arthur A. Benson II, Jane Doe I, et al. v. Thomas Phillips et alCase No. SC86573, May 2006).(http://www.bensonlaw.com/).

The New McCarthyism?

Many feel the blacklisting of sex offenders is reminciscent of the McCarthy era during the nation's anti-communist hysteria. From the moment in a 1950 speech when Senator Joseph McCarthy waved his infamous (and never-identified) "list of 205 communists working in the State Department," the senator exploited the country's Cold War paranoia, relentles

ourt regarding the Sex Offenders Registration Act SORA Litigation, Jane Doe I, et al. v. Thomas Phillips et al. which "contends the act violates substantive due process rights and equal protection rights because it infringes on fundamental liberty rights, imposes a lifetime stigma, has no express purpose and, even if it serves a compelling interest, is not narrowly tailored or rationally related to that interest. They assert that, if the act is deemed to be criminal in nature, it violates the prohibition against ex post facto laws because it imposes an additional punishment, thereby altering the consequences for a crime for which they already have been sentenced." (Arthur A. Benson II, Jane Doe I, et al. v. Thomas Phillips et alCase No. SC86573, May 2006).(http://www.bensonlaw.com/).

The New McCarthyism?

Many feel the blacklisting of sex offenders is reminciscent of the McCarthy era during the nation's anti-communist hysteria. From the moment in a 1950 speech when Senator Joseph McCarthy waved his infamous (and never-identified) "list of 205 communists working in the State Department," the senator exploited the country's Cold War paranoia, relentlessly pursuing those he deemed communist sympathizers.

Edward R. Murrow, American journalist, took on McCarthy through a series of television news broadcasts which eventually led to the censure of the Senator. Murrow indicated in his famous October 15, 1958, "Wires and Lights" speech, "There is a great and perhaps decisive battle to be fought against ignorance, intolerance and indifference."

It is our duty to question authority, because without scrutiny, authority remains unchecked and corrupt.