Arizona's "Revenge Porn" bill apparently applies to far more than actual revenge porn

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for bans on so-called "revenge porn." I even spared the internet some potentially embarrassing photos I took with my ex-wife after our breakup. (You should all be thankful for that.) But you would think that someone, somewhere in that 90-person legislative body (91 if you count that idiot Jan Brewer), someone would have proofread the bill before they passed it. This is just more proof that when you add three letters to any bill, S, E, and X, in that order, a spell of Enfeeblement is cast over the legislature and bills pass without a single thought. But hey, it stops revenge porn so that's good, right? What could POSSIBLY go wrong with a hastily passed bill passed by emotional appeals? Read on...

https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech-national-security-technology-and-liberty/arizonas-naked-photo-law-makes-free-speech

Arizona’s Naked Photo Law Makes Free Speech a Felony

09/23/2014

Freedom of Expression

By Lee Rowland, Staff Attorney, ACLU Speech, Privacy & Technology Project at 12:24pm

Which of the following could land you a felony conviction in Arizona?

• Showing images of naked prisoners tortured at Abu Ghraib;
• Linking to the iconic Pulitzer Prize-winning photograph of “Napalm Girl,” showing an unclothed Vietnamese girl running from a napalm attack;
• Sharing a close-up photo of a woman’s breast with a breastfeeding support group;
• Waving a friend over to see a cute naked baby pic — like the one you see on this page.

Unfortunately, the answer is all of the above. That’s because Arizona recently passed a law that makes it a felony — and potentially a sex offense — to share any image of nudity or sexuality before you get consent from every person pictured.

Protecting personal privacy is, without doubt, a laudable goal. Indeed, the ACLU works tirelessly to protect your private data. But Arizona’s “nude photo law” is a seriously misguided attempt to achieve that goal. This new crime is broad and confusing. It applies to anyone who shares a nude image, not just to bad actors who intentionally invade another’s privacy. A prosecutor need not demonstrate that a person had an expectation of privacy in an image before charging you with a crime for sharing it. And the law applies equally to a private person’s hacked naked photo and a beautiful nude at a photography exhibit — because the law’s breadth encompasses truly newsworthy, artistic, and historical images.

As a result, the nude photo law creates bizarre and troubling burdens on speech fully protected by the First Amendment.

For proof that this law goes way too far and criminalizes innocent and valuable speech, you need look no further than the august group of bookstores, newspapers, photographers, publishers, and librarians that challenged the law together today (web page on case and complaint). Many of them belong to our stalwart First Amendment allies at the Media Coalition, whose members include the plaintiff associations of publishers, librarians and booksellers. Represented by the ACLU and Dentons US LLP, the plaintiffs just want to be able to offer books, art, news, and history without risking a criminal conviction in Arizona. That doesn’t seem too much to ask.

Proponents of the law indicated that it was intended to address the harms of “revenge porn” — a digital phenomenon typified by a scorned lover who maliciously posts private images of an ex online, often alongside her personal details. The harms of such conduct can be very real, and they predominately impact women. There are true horror stories about women who have suffered extreme humiliation and harassment, had intimate photos sent to relatives and coworkers, and lost job opportunities.

States can address these harms without treading on free speech, if and only if those laws are tailored to addressing malicious invasions of privacy. Arizona’s is not. And we’re not going to blindly trust that the government will apply this broad law responsibly, only against the “bad guys.” The photo above literally illustrates why.

One of the plaintiffs in our lawsuit, the Voice Media Group, publishes the newsweekly Phoenix New Times. The New Times published a series of images from a local art show by Arizona artist and Arizona State University Professor Betsy Schneider. One of the images from that art show is the great image above – documenting a month in Schneider’s infant son’s life.

Maricopa County publicly considered opening a police investigation into the New Times’ publications of these images, after police requested an investigation. A Phoenix city attorney told the press that if the photos were found to be illegal, “Everybody who picked up one those issues [of the New Times] could be prosecuted for possessing child pornography.” That’s what can happen when law enforcement officials wield problematic laws as broadly as they’re written.

The First Amendment just doesn’t permit that kind of carelessness. Laws meant to address real horrors need to do just that – without serving as Trojan Horses that erode our hallowed free speech rights.

"Yes Means Yes" California now all but requires a sworn notarized statement before you can have sex

Did these bears get "affirmative consent" first?

I'm not exaggerating by much: The California legislature passed a bill that requires "affirmative consent" before two people can engage in consensual sexual activity. Instead of the old "No Means No," California adopted a "Yes Means Yes" policy. What's the difference?

The Washington Post offers an explanation as to what Yes Means Yes Means:

Under the proposed standard, the fact that a person didn’t say “no” is no defense in a campus sexual assault investigation.

In addition to consenting up front, the bill requires affirmative consent to be “ongoing throughout the sexual activity,” meaning that sexual partners must agree to each step of a sexual encounter as it progresses and consent can be revoked at any time. The standard would apply to all sexual encounters regardless of whether the parties are having a one-night stand or are in a long-term relationship.

One thing the bill doesn’t say is that affirmative consent must be verbal. The bill’s original language warned “relying solely on nonverbal communication can lead to misunderstanding,” but that language was removed as was the requirement that consent be “unambiguous.” Nonetheless, as Slate’s Amanda Hess pointed out, this fact was lost on commentators, some who lamented the standard would redefine most sex as rape and would require students to agree to a verbal or written contract before sex...

While the bill doesn’t spell out what “affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement” looks like in practice, it’s very clear what doesn’t count as consent: lack of protest or resistance, silence, unconsciousness or being asleep or too intoxicated to understand what’s going on...

Sexual assault prevention advocates welcomed the bill, which challenges the idea that victims have to resist an assault in order to have a valid complaint. “The survivors [of sexual assault] are going to be positively affected because they are going to be going into a system that no longer asks them why they didn’t do something,” Denice Labertew, the director of advocacy services at the California Coalition Against Sexual Assault, told Inside Higher Ed in June.


But critics say the proposal unfairly burdens those accused of sexual assault. “How does a person prove they receive consent “shy of having it videotaped,” Joe Cohn, the legislative policy director at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, told Inside Higher Ed. Cohn said the policy reverses the presumption of innocence for the accused, which he called a “dramatic and important shift.”

Here is the actual bill, so you can try to figure it out yourself:

SENATE BILL No. 967

Introduced by Senators De León and Jackson
(Principal coauthor: Assembly Member Lowenthal)
(Coauthors: Senators Beall, Cannella, Evans, Galgiani, Monning, Pavley, Torres, and Wolk)
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Ammiano, Fong, Gonzalez, Quirk-Silva, Skinner, Ting, and Williams)

February 10, 2014

An act to add Section 67386 to the Education Code, relating to student safety.


LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

SB 967, as amended, De León. Student safety: sexual assault.
Existing law requires the governing boards of each community college district, the Trustees of the California State University, the Regents of the University of California, and the governing boards of independent postsecondary institutions to adopt and implement written procedures or protocols to ensure that students, faculty, and staff who are victims of sexual assault on the grounds or facilities of their institutions receive treatment and information, including a description of on-campus and off-campus resources.
This bill would require the governing boards of each community college district, the Trustees of the California State University, the Regents of the University of California, and the governing boards of independent postsecondary institutions, in order to receive state funds for student financial assistance, to adopt policies concerning sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking that include certain elements, including an affirmative consent standard in the determination of whether consent was given by a complainant. The bill would require these governing boards to adopt certain sexual assault policies and protocols, as specified, and would require the governing boards, to the extent feasible, to enter into memoranda of understanding or other agreements or collaborative partnerships with on-campus and community-based organizations to refer students for assistance or make services available to students. The bill would also require the governing boards to implement comprehensive prevention and outreach programs addressing sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking. By requiring community college districts to adopt or modify certain policies and protocols, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.

BILL TEXT
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 67386 is added to the Education Code, to read:
67386. (a) In order to receive state funds for student financial assistance, the governing board of each community college district, the Trustees of the California State University, the Regents of the University of California, and the governing boards of independent postsecondary institutions shall adopt a policy concerning sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking, as defined in the federal Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1092(f)) involving a student, both on and off campus. The policy shall include all of the following:
(1) An affirmative consent standard in the determination of whether consent was given by both parties to sexual activity. “Affirmative consent” means affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity. It is the responsibility of each person involved in the sexual activity to ensure that he or she has the affirmative consent of the other or others to engage in the sexual activity. Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time. The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of past sexual relations between them, should never by itself be assumed to be an indicator of consent.
(2) A policy that, in the evaluation of complaints in any disciplinary process, it shall not be a valid excuse to alleged lack of affirmative consent that the accused believed that the complainant consented to the sexual activity under either of the following circumstances:
(A) The accused’s belief in affirmative consent arose from the intoxication or recklessness of the accused.
(B) The accused did not take reasonable steps, in the circumstances known to the accused at the time, to ascertain whether the complainant affirmatively consented.
(3) A policy that the standard used in determining whether the elements of the complaint against the accused have been demonstrated is the preponderance of the evidence.
(4) A policy that, in the evaluation of complaints in the disciplinary process, it shall not be a valid excuse that the accused believed that the complainant affirmatively consented to the sexual activity if the accused knew or reasonably should have known that the complainant was unable to consent to the sexual activity under any of the following circumstances:
(A) The complainant was asleep or unconscious.
(B) The complainant was incapacitated due to the influence of drugs, alcohol, or medication, so that the complainant could not understand the fact, nature, or extent of the sexual activity.
(C) The complainant was unable to communicate due to a mental or physical condition.
(b) In order to receive state funds for student financial assistance, the governing board of each community college district, the Trustees of the California State University, the Regents of the University of California, and the governing boards of independent postsecondary institutions shall adopt detailed and victim-centered policies and protocols regarding sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking involving a student that comport with best practices and current professional standards. At a minimum, the policies and protocols shall cover all of the following:
(1) A policy statement on how the institution will provide appropriate confidentiality for individuals involved in an incident. protections for the privacy of individuals involved, including confidentiality.
(2) Initial response by the institution’s personnel to a report of an incident, including requirements specific to assisting the victim, providing information in writing about the importance of preserving evidence, and the identification and location of witnesses.
(3) Response to stranger and nonstranger sexual assault.
(4) The preliminary victim interview, including the development of a victim interview protocol, and a comprehensive followup victim interview, as appropriate.
(5) Contacting and interviewing the accused.
(6) Seeking the identification and location of witnesses.
(7) Providing written notification to the victim about the availability of, and contact information for, on- and off-campus resources and services, and coordination with law enforcement, as appropriate.
(8) Participation of victim advocates and other supporting people.
(9) Investigating allegations that alcohol or drugs were involved in the incident.
(10) Providing that those an individual who participate participates as a complainant or witness in the an investigation of sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking, either as a complainant or a third-party witness, or stalking will not be subject to disciplinary sanctions for violations a violation of the institution’s student conduct policy at or near the time of the incident if the violations did not place incident, unless the institution determines that the violation was egregious, including, but not limited to, an action that places the health or safety of any other person at risk. risk or involves plagiarism, cheating, or academic dishonesty.
(11) The role of the institutional staff supervision.
(12) A comprehensive, trauma-informed training program for campus officials involved in investigating and adjudicating sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking cases.
(13) Procedures for confidential reporting by victims and third parties.
(c) In order to receive state funds for student financial assistance, the governing board of each community college district, the Trustees of the California State University, the Regents of the University of California, and the governing boards of independent postsecondary institutions shall, to the extent feasible, enter into memoranda of understanding, agreements, or collaborative partnerships with existing on-campus and community-based organizations, including rape crisis centers, to refer students for assistance or make services available to students, including counseling, health, mental health, victim advocacy, student advocacy, and legal assistance, and including resources for the accused.
(d) In order to receive state funds for student financial assistance, the governing board of each community college district, the Trustees of the California State University, the Regents of the University of California, and the governing boards of independent postsecondary institutions shall implement comprehensive prevention and outreach programs addressing sexual violence, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking. A comprehensive prevention program shall include a range of prevention strategies, including, but not limited to, empowerment programming, programming for victim prevention, awareness raising campaigns, primary prevention, bystander intervention, and risk reduction. Outreach programs shall be provided to make students aware of the institution’s policy on sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking. At a minimum, an outreach program shall include a process for contacting and informing the student body, campus organizations, athletic programs, and student groups about the institution’s overall sexual assault policy, the practical implications of an affirmative consent standard, and the rights and responsibilities of students under the policy. Outreach
(e) Outreach programming shall be included as part of new student orientation. every incoming student’s orientation.

This is the future of sex in California. 

Missouri Compromised! Bill to allow prior accusations without convictions to be used as evidence in criminal cases

Is Missouri trying to have a monopoly of dumb laws this year? (This is Missouri's THIRD appearance in the Dumbbest New Law category). Is law enforcement so desperate to add more names to their registry coffers they need to include the equivalent of Facebook rumors in order to try to get a conviction?

"It would also include evidence of past criminal sexual activity even in cases where the defendant was not convicted or not charged with a crime." This sounds a lot like what is known as "hearsay," and hearsay is generally not allowed in court.

It is far too easy to convict someone on a mere accusation these days. Add a false accusation into the mix and the potential for abuse is even greater. Imagine someone acquitted because of a false allegation being accused later by a paranoid neighbor or vindictive ex who knows this person was accused in the past. Don't think it never happens because it does. This bill would assist in convicting innocent men.

This bill compromises the concept of "innocent until proven guilty."

http://ksmu.org/post/law-enforcement-officials-back-ballot-measure-allow-more-evidence-some-sex-crime-cases

Law Enforcement Officials Back Ballot Measure To Allow More Evidence In Some Sex Crime Cases
By MARSHALL GRIFFIN
Originally published on Wed August 27, 2014 1:50 pm

A group of Missouri law enforcement officials have officially endorsed a proposed constitutional amendment designed to make it easier to prosecute sex crimes against children.

Under current law, juries in Missouri can only hear about a defendant's prior offenses during the sentencing phase of a trial, regardless of the type of crime committed. If passed, Constitutional Amendment Two would allow evidence of prior criminal acts to be admissible in cases where the defendant is accused of a sex crime against someone younger than 18. It would also include evidence of past criminal sexual activity even in cases where the defendant was not convicted or not charged with a crime. Eric Zahnd is prosecuting attorney for Platte County.

The federal government (and) other states specifically allow this information to be provided to juries, but because of a couple of Missouri Supreme Court decisions, Missouri juries hardly ever get to know that a sexual predator may have abused other children in the past … and in my opinion that’s wrong," Zahnd said.

Amendment Two, originally known as House Joint Resolution 16, was initially approved by Missouri lawmakers during the 2013 legislative session. Earlier this year Gov. Jay Nixon ordered it placed on the November ballot.

"It's wrong to make children who have been through some of the most horrific sexual abuse you can imagine go it alone with a jury," Zahnd said. "Juries deserve to know the full story, the full truth, about a sexual offender."

http://www.sedaliademocrat.com/news/news/50214006/Local-authorities-endorse-change-in-sex-crime-evidence#.VACe3MRDuUY

The group says Missouri is more restrictive than any other state, barring prosecutors from telling jurors about prior criminal sex acts in nearly all cases against accused child predators. This came about in a 2007 Missouri Supreme Court decision, which struck down a similar law that was already in place.

Pettis County Prosecuting Attorney-Elect Phillip Sawyer said Amendment 2 is about getting the statute that was ruled unconstitutional by the Missouri Supreme Court, a statute he has used before, back on the books.

“We had a statute in place that provided for it. We have gotten to the point now where we are one of the most restrictive states as it pertains to letting priors in,” Sawyer said. “When you are dealing with a prior in that type of case and you want to implement that in a new trial, you’re talking about somebody who has become a predator.

“I think that justice should always prevail. I certainly was a fan of that statute and I used it before prior to the case law coming out that voided us using it.”...

Listen to the justification by Victim Industry Advocates:

Carolyn Green, Executive Director of Child Safe of Central Missouri Inc., a local child advocacy group, said the organization is behind the amendment “100 percent.” “We have had, more than once, the same perpetrator on several children,” Green said. “If you have a 5-year-old who can’t give a good disclosure, and you can’t bring in the fact that this man has also been accused by four other children of perpetrating on them, you might lose that case on the 5-year-old if you can’t bring in those prior acts.”

Beth Jackman, a forensic interviewer and program manager with Child Safe, said it is statistically proven that sex offenders often have more than one victim. “Even in self-reporting from the alleged offenders the numbers could run easily into the hundreds. I think it could be very beneficial to our cases if someone has been convicted previously that it be important to the case we are working on at that time,” Jackman said....

The proposed amendment overwhelmingly passed the Missouri General Assembly in May and will amend the Missouri Constitution as follows:

“Section 18(c). Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 and 18(a) of this article to the contrary, in prosecutions for crimes of a sexual nature involving a victim under eighteen years of age, relevant evidence of prior criminal acts, whether charged or uncharged, is admissible for the purpose of corroborating the victim’s testimony or demonstrating the defendant’s propensity to commit the crime with which he or she is presently charged. The court may exclude relevant evidence of prior criminal acts if the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.”

It will now go to the voters for consideration in November as a ballot question as follows:

“Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended so that it will be permissible to allow relevant evidence of prior criminal acts to be admissible in prosecutions for crimes of a sexual nature involving a victim under eighteen years of age? If more resources are needed to defend increased prosecutions additional costs to governmental entities could be at least $1.4 million annually, otherwise the fiscal impact is expected to be limited.”

http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/ef3fa1e0f57b4c9e84ca8b41a73ee703/MO--Child-Sex-Abuse-Amendment

If approved by Missouri voters in November, Constitutional Amendment 2 could make it more difficult for defendants to persuade juries and judges of their innocence, said Kim Benjamin, a Belton attorney who is the past president of the Missouri Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

"You're now defending your entire life, your entire reputation, rather than this one act," she said. "It causes a tremendous risk for more people to be wrongly convicted."

One of Benjamin's most prominent clients was Burrell Mohler Sr., the patriarch of a western Missouri family who was accused along with his four sons of sexually abusing young relatives over many years. The charges ultimately were dropped in March 2012, after Mohler had spent more than two years in jail while awaiting trial.

The Missouri ballot measure would essentially undo a December 2007 decision by the Missouri Supreme Court, which struck down a state law allowing evidence of past sexual crimes to be used against people facing new sex-related charges involving victims younger than 14.

The court said in that ruling that "evidence of prior criminal acts is never admissible for the purpose of demonstrating the defendant's propensity to commit the crime with which he is presently charged."

The Legislature voted last year to refer the proposed constitutional amendment to the 2014 ballot.

Prosecutors say it would bring Missouri's evidence standards closer to federal ones. Under a 1994 federal law, courts may allow evidence of other sexual assaults or molestations of children younger than 14 to be used against defendants facing those charges. Those federal evidentiary rules have been upheld in several appellate court decisions.

Prior allegations are allowed to be used as evidence in child sex abuse cases by 11 states, according to a 2012 report by the Missouri Office of Prosecution Services.

Supporters of the Missouri ballot proposal have formed a campaign committee with the hopes or running advertisements for it, though the group had barely $1,300 in its account as of the end of June.

Benjamin said defense attorneys have not organized a campaign against the amendment, because she said they lack the money to do so.

Missouri wants to place limits on the ability of Registered Citizens to lobby against their idiotic laws

So apparently Registered Citizens will have restrictions placed against them while trying to lobby against these kinds of idiotic bills. It seems Missouri lands in this category a lot-- trying to remove sex offenders from the constitutional protections against ex post facto laws, trying to civilly commit out-of-state registrants, and preventing them from being buried in memorial cemeteries. One has to wonder what is in the water in Mizzery.

http://www.columbiatribune.com/import/sex-offender-lobbyist-focus-of-house-billbill-targets-missouri-lobbyist/article_5bd8f6fc-ba88-11e3-86e1-10604b9f6eda.html

Bill targets Missouri lobbyist with sex offender conviction
By RUDI KELLER
Wednesday, April 2, 2014 at 2:00 pm

JEFFERSON CITY — A registered sex offender who works as a lobbyist said Tuesday that, to keep working, he will comply with any new reporting requirements lawmakers might choose to impose.

The House General Laws Committee yesterday held a short hearing on a bill to require lobbyists to disclose whether they are registered sex offenders on forms filed annually with the Missouri Ethics Commission. Rep. Genise Montecillo, D-St. Louis, said she filed the bill in response to a notice from House Chief Clerk Adam Crumbliss about restrictions on the activities of Parker Bena, a lobbyist since 2007.

"Most people view this building as a safe building, and sometimes folks let their guard down," Montecillo said during the hearing. "I think people should at least be aware that there is one in the building."

The committee, chaired by Rep. Caleb Jones, R-Columbia, did not vote on the bill.

In a telephone interview after the hearing, which he did not attend, Bena said he had no objections to the new reporting requirement. "I know it is a matter of procedure, and I am fine with that," he said. "I will do what the law requires of me."

Bena pleaded guilty in 2001 in Virginia to possessing child pornography as part of a plea bargain with federal prosecutors. Before that, he was a prominent Republican and was one of Virginia's presidential electors in 2000.

"It was a one-time mistake and has not and will not happen again," Bena said. "I have paid my debt. I feel like I can live a normal life like anybody else. It happened entirely by accident. When I was questioned about it, I may not have said things the right way and ended up shooting myself in the foot."

Bena was released from federal prison on Jan. 29, 2004, and was on supervised release until Sept. 1, 2006. He registered as a Missouri lobbyist on March 15, 2006. He moved to Missouri, he said, because of his wife's family ties.

Missouri law places numerous restrictions on the residences and activities of registered offenders. Bena has a constitutional right to enter the Capitol, Crumbliss said. "What he does not have the right to do is make members and employees uncomfortable," he said.

Crumbliss said he has had complaints about Bena "getting aggressive" as he questions members about their families. To prevent misunderstandings, Bena has been told to limit his activities to the public space of the building, including the hallways, visitor galleries and hearing rooms, Crumbliss said. "He is not welcome in any non public house space," he said.

Bena's clients include a Chinese freight company; Economic Development Winnipeg of Manitoba, Canada; and a Kansas City freight consulting firm. He said he lobbies on economic development issues.

If he has made anyone uncomfortable, he said, "It was unintentional."

This article was published in the Wednesday, April 2, 2014 edition of the Columbia Daily Tribune with the headline "Sex offender lobbyist focus of House bill."

Here is a summary of the bill:

Missouri HB 1554: This bill requires any registered sexual offender required to file a Lobbyist Registration Statement to disclose to the Missouri Ethics Commission that he or she is required to register as a sexual offender. 
PROPONENTS: Supporters say that this bill increases awareness for those who work in and visit the Capitol building, including those bringing children, that registered sex offenders may be present. Testifying for the bill were Representative Montecillo and Missouri Kids First. 

Missouri House Bill No. 1741 will subject out-of-state registrants to a civil commitment evaluation

Missouri HB 1741 is a weird bill that implies a possible constitutional violation. Below is a summary of the bill.

"This bill specifies that a conviction in this state or any other jurisdiction for a sexually violent offense can be considered when determining if a person is a sexually violent predator for purposes of confinement and treatment." 


The full text of the bill can be found HERE:

http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills141/billpdf/intro/HB1741I.PDF

So, what does this bill mean? Well, if you are convicted of an offense in another state that Missouri considers a sexually violent offense, and if you commit a "recent overt act," and you come to Missouri, you could be detained pending a civil commitment.

What is a "recent overt act"?

5. For the purposes of this section "recent overt act" means any act that creates a reasonable apprehension of harm of a sexually violent nature.

So what is a "sexually violent offense"?

"Sexually violent offense", the felonies of rape in the first degree, forcible rape, rape, statutory rape in the first degree, sodomy in the first degree, forcible sodomy, sodomy, statutory sodomy in the first degree, or an attempt to commit any of the preceding crimes, or child molestation in the first or second degree, sexual abuse, sexual abuse in the first degree, rape in the second degree, sexual assault, sexual assault in the first degree, sodomy in the second degree, deviate sexual assault, deviate sexual assault in the first degree, or the act of abuse of a child involving either sexual contact, a prohibited sexual act, sexual abuse, or sexual exploitation of a minor, or any felony offense that contains elements substantially similar to the offenses listed above...

So the bill is a bit confusing. At first glance, it seems the bill only seems to apply to someone who is currently incarcerated.

But the fact that Missouri is looking to civilly commit ANY registrant, no matter the circumstances, when the conviction is NOT a Missouri conviction is just plain stupid.