Craig Shubert, Mayor of Hudson, Ohio, doesn't understand the meaning of CP

He should be sitting in a corner, alright, but with a dunce cap on. 

I am just going to assume this is a right winger (looks him up online) Yup, called it. What a dipshit. 

https://www.beaconjournal.com/story/news/2021/09/19/writing-prompts-child-porn-illegal-expert-weighs/8362770002/

"During last week's school board meeting, Hudson Mayor Craig Shubert issued an ultimatum: "It has come to my attention that your educators are distributing essentially what is child pornography in the classroom. I've spoken to a judge this evening. She's already confirmed that. So I'm going to give you a simple choice: You either choose to resign from this board of education or you will be charged."

Among the prompts in question: "Write a sex scene you wouldn't show your mom."

The book has been removed from the course by district officials.

The Summit County prosecutor said last week the sexual writing prompts aren't child porn, but the prosecutor's office is continuing to look into whether any other laws were broken."

"These allegations have resulted in threats being made against board members, faculty and administrators in Hudson," Summit County Prosecutor Sherri Bevan Walsh said Friday in a news release. "Those threats must stop. Under Ohio law, a prompt about a fictional writing is not child pornography. We will review this matter and determine if there is a factual basis that any laws were broken either by the writing prompts or the threats that have been made.” ...

Law professor: Writing prompts don't meet legal definition of child porn

A law school professor said he also believes the writing prompts did not constitute child pornography under the legal definition of the offense.

Michael Gentithes, associate professor at the University of Akron School of Law, said there are First Amendment rights that conflict with efforts to restrain publication of pornographic or obscene material.

However, he said, "even though the court looks at laws that restrict pornography with strict scrutiny, child pornography restrictions are often upheld on the grounds that the state has a really strong interest in protecting the children depicted from physical abuse."

After some of the writing prompts were shared with him, Gentithes said the material "doesn't depict any children whatsoever being abused."

He said it would "be difficult for written responses to a prompt like that to constitute child pornography because there's no images or video of someone engaged in a sexual act with a child."

Gentithes observed that "maybe you could — and this is a real stretch — suggest that other children viewing whatever was written in response to that [prompt] would have such a strong psychological or emotional reaction that it would fit the definition, but that's very unlikely."

While noting he could not say definitively whether written material could be considered child pornography, Gentithes said "almost all" criminal prosecutions of child pornography involve either photographic or video images of children engaged in sexual activity.

"The reason is you're worried about the damage [and the] abuse to the children that are depicted and the possible damage if other children see those images," he said.

Obscenity difficult to prove

He also said he strongly doubted the writing prompts would be considered obscene.

In Miller v. California in 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that for material to be considered obscene, it must meet all three prongs of the following criteria: predominately appeal to prurient interests; depict sexual conduct in a patently offensive way; and lack any serious literary or artistic value.

"It's a very difficult test to meet," Gentithes said.

Right Wing nutjob (or spambot) Gary Ruot claims we should not carry vaccine cards because Registered Persons don't need ID cards due to privacy rights

 I'm only nominally sure this is a real live human being and not some Russian spambot, but whatever the case, claiming Registered Persons don't carry special ID cards due to "privacy issues" because you're butthurt over vaccine cards is shiitake-worthy. And you're not just physically blind-- you're also  mentally blind, "Gary." Stop licking the horse paste, dude. 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/09/17/fact-check-sex-offenders-some-states-must-have-special-ids/8334296002/

Fact check: Some states require special IDs for sex offenders

Daniel Funke

USA TODAY

The claim: Sex offenders don't have to carry cards because it 'violates their privacy'

President Joe Biden announced COVID-19 vaccine requirements Sept. 9 for federal workers and companies with more than 100 employees. That means millions of Americans may soon have to prove they've received the shot.

A widespread claim on social media attempts to make a point by comparing that potential requirement to those for sex offenders.

"There are 800,000 registered sex offenders in the U.S. and they don't carry a card because it 'violates their privacy,'" reads text in a Sept. 13 Instagram post. "Keep that in mind."

The post, published by an account called 1776 PRIDE, accumulated 5,400 likes within one day. Similar posts have racked up tens of thousands of interactions on Facebook and Instagram, according to CrowdTangle, a social media insights tool.

"What's that about vaccine passports again?" reads text in a Sept. 10 Facebook post.

Those claims distort the facts on sex offenders, who are subject to a wide array of limitations. Sex offenders are indeed required to carry special identification in some states, and in the states where such laws have been overturned, it's been due to free speech concerns, not privacy. 

"There are some states that have those laws, and some of those laws have been struck down for violating people's free speech rights," Tamara Rice Lave, a law professor at the University of Miami, told USA TODAY.

USA TODAY reached out to 1776 PRIDE for comment.

Some states mandate special IDs for sex offenders

Federal law requires sex offenders to be listed in a national registry. Some states also require registered sex offenders to get special driver's licenses or IDs that identify them as such.

"The claim refers to 'registered sex offenders,'" Michael O'Hear, a law professor at Marquette University, said in an email. "If registered, a sex offender’s personal identifying information is normally made available online to the general public."

That personal information includes a sex offender's address, their physical characteristics, what car they drive and the nature of their crime. Offenders are "required to update their registration in each jurisdiction they reside, are employed, or attend school," according to the Justice Department.

In addition to federal registration and notification requirements, some states also mandate a special designation on sex offenders' IDs. Kansas, for example, requires convicted sex offenders to get an ID that says "registered offender."

At least eight other states have similar laws on the books.

Oklahoma and Mississippi both require variations of the term "sex offender" on IDs, while Delaware simply puts a "Y" on them. Meanwhile, Florida requires those convicted of certain felony sex crimes to have "sexual predator" spelled out on their IDs. Others must have an ID that includes “943.0435, F.S.” – the state statute dealing with sex offender registration.

"So if you hand your driver's license or state ID over to a police officer, they would be able to tell immediately whether you're a registered sex offender," Charles Ewing, a law professor at the University of Buffalo, told USA TODAY.

Some state laws face First Amendment challenges

Courts have challenged some state laws requiring registered sex offenders to have special IDs. Those rulings have hinged on First Amendment issues.

"There is only limited case law on the issue, which has been framed not as 'privacy' but as an instance of the government compelling speech by a citizen," Wayne Logan, a law professor at Florida State University, said in an email.

In 2019, a federal judge in Alabama invalidated a law requiring those convicted of certain sex crimes to carry licenses emblazoned with "criminal sex offender" in red, bold letters. The state argued the law protected the public, but U.S. District Judge Keith Watkins wrote in his opinion that the law "unnecessarily compels speech" and was not "the least restrictive means of advancing a compelling state interest."

"The court held that a less intrusive method could be used to achieve the governmental goal of informing police of a registrant status," Logan said. "It could, for instance, as (Delaware) does, use a single letter – 'Y' – that police would recognize as denoting status. So, the court did not condemn the policy of identification in principle."

In October, the Louisiana Supreme Court issued a similar ruling, striking down a law that mandated IDs with "sex offender" printed in orange, capital letters. Similar to the Alabama case, the court wrote in its opinion that the requirement was "compelled speech" that violated the First Amendment.

"While the state certainly has a compelling interest in protecting the public and enabling law enforcement to identify a person as a sex offender, Louisiana has not adopted the least restrictive means of doing so," Associate Justice James Genovese wrote for the majority.

Louisiana officials have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear that case. Other judges around the country have rejected challenges to similar restrictions, such as notations on passports and putting signs in front of the homes of registered sex offenders on Halloween.

Still, experts told USA TODAY it's misleading to say those kinds of ID requirements have been challenged for violating privacy. Lave said registered sex offenders don't usually make that argument, and much of their personal information is already publicly available.

"Basically, registered sex offenders have no privacy," Ewing said.

Our rating: False

Based on our research, we rate FALSE the claim that sex offenders don't have to carry cards because it "violates their privacy." Some states do require those convicted of certain sex crimes to carry special driver's licenses or state-issued IDs. Courts have challenged a couple of those laws, but the rulings were based on First Amendment violations – not privacy concerns. Sex offenders surrender their privacy on a wide range of fronts as their names, pictures, address are other information are posted on public registries

Victim industry advocate Carrie Nettles teaches churches "assume all sex offenders are lying"

That is not a very Christian thing to say. But this is exactly why I say these idiotic victi advocates have NO place in discussions like this. The rest of the article was also full of bad advice, too, but this was the worst of it. 

https://baptistnews.com/article/what-should-you-do-if-a-sex-offender-wants-to-attend-your-church/#.YTTfNo5KjIU

“With this population of people, start by assuming they are lying,” said Nettles, who works with rape victims.

Even if they try to explain that a past situation wasn’t really as bad as others reported it to be, church leaders should beware, she explained. “That is the MO of most perpetrators, to use a known truth to come across as genuine. There’s usually a drastic difference in what really happened.”

This is an urgent issue for church leaders to think about in advance, Nettles said, because sex offenders like to come to church. She reported that 93% of sex offenders identify as “very religious,” and, “the ones who are more religious have more offenses and more victims.”.