NY seeks to prohibit prisoners convicted of sex crimes against minors from possessing pics of minors in priso

I can see a lot of issues with this bill. If a teen gets locked up on an R&J, he can't have pics even of his siblings because they are minors? A father can't have pics of his kids? What about pics of yourself as a kid?


S T A T E O F N E W Y O R K
________________________________________________________________________
6021
2017-2018 Regular Sessions
I N S E N A T E
May 10, 2017
___________
Introduced by Sen. JACOBS -- read twice and ordered printed, and when printed to be committed to the Committee on Codes

AN ACT to amend the penal law, in relation to prohibiting child sex offenders from possessing a depiction of any minor during their incarceration
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEMBLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

 Section 1. Section 70.80 of the penal law is amended by adding a new subdivision 10 to read as follows:

10. EVERY SENTENCE FOR A FELONY SEX OFFENSE, AS DEFINED IN PARAGRAPH (A) OF SUBDIVISION ONE OF THIS SECTION, IMPOSED PURSUANT TO ANY SECTION OF THIS ARTICLE, WHERE THE VICTIM OF SUCH OFFENSE WAS A MINOR, SHALL INCLUDE AS A PART THEREOF A PROHIBITION AGAINST THE POSSESSION OF PHOTOGRAPHS, VIDEOS OR ANY OTHER DEPICTIONS OF ANY MINOR DURING THE TERM OF SUCH INCARCERATION.

S 2. This act shall take effect on the first of November next succeeding the date on which it shall have become a law.

Nebraska LB 60 would require registrants dating someone with kids to send humiliating letters to baby mammas/ baby daddys to warm them their exes are dating registrants

LB 60 should be reported to the manure hotline

If I'm willing to travel a thousand miles to testify against a bill, it is definitely Shiitake-worthy.

LB 60 is promoted by third-string Huskers QB turned third-string Senator Brat Lindstrom. I find this bill to be full of manure, and as it turns out, Nebraska has a manure spill hotline. So maybe I can get them to clean up this bill.

http://nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/105/PDF/Intro/LB60.pdf

A BILL FOR AN ACT relating to the Parenting Act; to amend section 43-2933, Reissue Revised Statutes of Nebraska; to change provisions relating to limitation or denial of custody or access to a child; and to repeal the original section.

(b) No person shall be granted custody of, or unsupervised parenting time, visitation, or other access with, a child if anyone residing in the person's household is required to register as a sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act as a result of a felony conviction in which the victim was a minor or for an offense that would make it contrary to the best interests of the child for such access unless the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the person seeking such access has overcome the presumption and burdens of production and persuasion in subdivision (1)(c) of this section and that there is no significant risk to the child and states its reasons in writing or on the record. Any person who has been granted custody of, or unsupervised parenting time, visitation, or other access with a child must provide written notice to all other persons who have custody or access rights to the child before such person allows any sex offender described in this subdivision to reside in such person’s household or to have unsupervised access to the child.
(c) The fact that a child is permitted unsupervised contact with a person who is required, as a result of a felony conviction in which the victim was a minor, to be registered as a sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act shall be prima facie evidence that the child is at significant risk and such unsupervised contact shall be presumed to not be in the child’s best interests. The person who is seeking to allow such unsupervised contact shall have the burden of production and the burden of persuasion that such unsupervised contact is in the child’s best interests. 

http://update.legislature.ne.gov/?p=20677

Judge’s ok suggested before sex offender access to children
 February 9, 2017 Sen. Brett Lindstrom, LB60

Members of the Judiciary Committee heard testimony Feb. 9 on a bill that would provide stronger protections for children against registered sex offenders.

Under LB60, introduced by Omaha Sen. Brett Lindstrom, registered sex offenders found guilty of felony child sexual abuse would not be allowed unsupervised parental access to a child unless a judge finds that the adult presents no significant risk to the child.

Lindstrom said a recent Nebraska Supreme Court decision found that a father could not prevent his child from living in the same home as his ex-wife’s new husband, a registered sex offender.

He said LB60 would shift the burden of proof to the person seeking to allow unsupervised contact with a child to show that such contact would be in the child’s best interest.

“[The bill] reaffirms a strong public policy that we must protect our children and provides more guidance to our judicial branch to protect them,” he said.

Written notice also must be provided to all other persons with custody or access rights before a registered sex offender would be allowed to have unsupervised access or reside in the same home as a child.

Stephanie Huddle, representing the Nebraska Coalition to End Sexual and Domestic Violence, testified in support of the bill. She said 34 percent of sexual abuse is perpetrated by family members and can have long-lasting effects on children.

“Children who are sexually abused may develop phobias, suffer from nightmares and engage in regressive behaviors,” she said. “[LB60] would ensure additional safeguards for Nebraska children and peace of mind for their parents.”

Opposing the bill was Derek Logue, an anti-registry activist and registered sex offender. As a group, he said, sex offenders have low rates of recidivism.

“The written notification requirement seems to be more about humiliation than personal safety,” he said. “Those who share my label are assumed guilty until proven innocent. How can anyone reasonably expect a registered citizen to meet such a burden when society is so quick to believe the worst about such people?”

The committee took no immediate action on the bill.

To combat human trafficking, South Korealina will install ransomware on your computer... unless you pay $20 to remove it

So let me get this straight-- I have to have ransomware installed by law on my computer but I can pay the state $20 to remove it? What is the point of doing this in the first place, except extorting citizens for money?

South Carolina General Assembly
122nd Session, 2017-2018

H. 3003

STATUS INFORMATION

Introduced in the House on January 10, 2017
Currently residing in the House Committee on Judiciary

Summary: Human Trafficking Prevention Act 

A BILL

TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING ARTICLE 5 TO CHAPTER 15, TITLE 16 SO AS TO ENACT THE “HUMAN TRAFFICKING PREVENTION ACT”, TO REQUIRE A BUSINESS, MANUFACTURER, WHOLESALER, OR INDIVIDUAL THAT MANUFACTURES, DISTRIBUTES, OR SELLS A PRODUCT THAT MAKES CONTENT ACCESSIBLE ON THE INTERNET TO INSTALL AND OPERATE A DIGITAL BLOCKING CAPABILITY THAT RENDERS OBSCENITY INACCESSIBLE AND TO SET MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR THE BLOCKING CAPABILITY; TO ESTABLISH A PROCEDURE FOR THE CONSUMER TO DEACTIVATE THE DIGITAL BLOCKING CAPABILITY; TO ALLOW A REPORTING SYSTEM TO UNBLOCK CONTENT THAT IS NOT OBSCENE, SUCH AS SOCIAL MEDIA WEBSITES, AND AUTHORIZE A CONSUMER TO SEEK JUDICIAL RELIEF IF THE FILTERED CONTENT IS NOT UNBLOCKED WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME; TO ESTABLISH CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR A BUSINESS OR INDIVIDUAL THAT VIOLATES THIS ARTICLE; TO AUTHORIZE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO SEEK INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST A BUSINESS, MANUFACTURER, WHOLESALER OR INDIVIDUAL THAT MANUFACTURES, DISTRIBUTES, OR SELLS ANY PRODUCTS IN THIS STATE WITHOUT A DIGITAL BLOCKING CAPABILITY, TO ESTABLISH THAT A CONSUMER OR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL MAY FILE A SUIT AGAINST A PARTY THAT IS UNRESPONSIVE TO A REPORT OF OBSCENE MATERIAL BREACHING THE FILTER AND TO PRESCRIBE DAMAGES FOR EACH VIOLATION.

Whereas, the State of South Carolina has a compelling interest in protecting the public health and protecting minors from being exposed to obscenity; and

Whereas, studies have shown that pornography is a public health hazard, leading to a broad spectrum of well documented individual impacts and societal harms; and 

Whereas, easily accessible pornography on products that are distributed through the Internet is impacting the demand for human trafficking and prostitution; and 

Whereas, the General Assembly has a compelling interest to impose a narrowly tailored, common sense filter system that combats the growing epidemic of  dissemination of pornographic images and the resulting demand for human trafficking while balancing the consumer’s fundamental right to regulate his own mental health. Now, therefore, 

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina: 

SECTION 1. Chapter 15, Title 16 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding: 

“Article 5

Human Trafficking Prevention Act

Section 16 15 500. This article may be cited as the ‘Human Trafficking Prevention Act’. 

Section 16 15 510. (A) A business, manufacturer, wholesaler, or individual that manufactures, distributes, or sells a product that makes content accessible on the Internet is prohibited from doing business in this State unless the product contains an active and operating digital blocking capability that renders any obscenity, as defined in Section 16 15 305, inaccessible. 
(B) The business, manufacturer, wholesaler, or individual must: 
(1) make reasonable and ongoing efforts to ensure that the digital content blocking capability functions properly, including establishing a reporting mechanism such as a website or call center to allow for a consumer to report unblocked obscene content or report blocked content that is not obscene; 
(2) ensure that all child pornography and revenge pornography is inaccessible on the product; 
(3) prohibit the product from accessing any hub that facilitates prostitution; and
(4) render websites that are known to facilitate any trafficking of persons, as defined in Section 16 3 2010(9), inaccessible.

Section 16 15 520. Any digital blocking capability may be deactivated after the consumer: 
(1) requests in writing that the capability be disabled; 
(2) presents identification to verify that the consumer is eighteen years of age or older;
(3) acknowledges receiving a written warning regarding the potential danger of deactivating the digital blocking capability; and 
(4) pays a one time twenty dollar digital access fee. 

Section 16 15 530. (A) If the digital blocking capability blocks content that is not obscene and the block is reported to a call center or reporting website, the content must be unblocked within a reasonable time but in no event later than five business days after the block is reported. 
(B) The digital blocking capability may not filter social media websites that are primarily used for social interaction if these websites have a reporting center and remain reasonably proactive in removing reported obscene content.
(C) The consumer may seek judicial relief to unblock filtered content. 

Section 16 15 540. (A) A manufacturer or wholesaler that manufactures, distributes, or sells a product that makes content accessible on the Internet may elect to pay a twenty dollar opt out fee for each product that enters this State’s stream of commerce. 
(B) A business, manufacturer, wholesaler, or individual that manufactures, distributes, or sells a product that makes content accessible on the Internet must submit the funds collected as the digital access fee or the opt out fee to the State Treasurer each quarter. The State Treasurer must disburse the funds collected to the Attorney General to help fund the operations of the Human Trafficking Task Force and the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force. 

Section 16 15 550. (A) A business or individual that violates the provisions of this article by manufacturing, distributing, or selling a product that makes content accessible on the Internet without the digital content blocking capability, selling the product to a minor without activated filters, or providing the means to disable the digital content blocking capability is guilty of violating Sections 16 15 250, 16 15 345, and 16 15 385 and, upon conviction, is subject to the penalties provided by those sections. 
(B) A business or individual who complies with the provisions of Section 16 15 520 is not subject to criminal liability for violating the provisions of this article. 

Section 16 15 560. (A) The Office of Attorney General is authorized to seek injunctive relief against any business, manufacturer, wholesaler, or individual that manufactures, distributes, or sells any products in this State that violates the provisions of this article.  
(B) If a business, manufacturer, wholesaler, or individual is unresponsive to a report of obscene material that has breached the filter, the consumer or Attorney General may file a civil suit. The consumer or Attorney General may seek damages of up to five hundred dollars for each piece of content that was reported but not subsequently blocked. 
(C) The prevailing party in the civil action may seek attorneys’ fees.” 

SECTION 2. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor.
    XX    

Mississippi looks to quadruple annual fees because the state needs more pigs to harass registrants

Andy Gipson obviously didn't get the memo registered citizens are far more likely to be unemployed. Imagine having to quadruple that pound of flesh to have MORE tormenters harassing you for that money.

Read the full bill HERE

http://newsms.fm/sex-offenders-could-pay-for-trooper-school-under-new-bill/

Sex offenders could pay for trooper school under new bill 
ByCourtney Carter
Posted on January 17, 2017

JACKSON, MISS– One of the main talking points of this legislative session is the incredible shortage of state troopers. 

Representative Tom Miles told News Mississippi just how critical the shortage is Monday, outlining that only 489 highway patrolmen are on the roadways, and 189 of those are ready to retire.

The state needs an ongoing school for state troopers, and the idea has pitched to the state legislature before. The problem has always been how to fund it.

Representative Andy Gipson has a solution, at least a long term one.

Tuesday, House Bill 505 was filed to increase sex offender registration fees and put the difference toward funding a trooper school.

“Right now, sex offenders are paying $25 (annually),” said Rep. Gipson. “We could up that to $100 dollars, which frankly, is a lot lower than surrounding states.”

Rep. Gipson said that amount of money would fund a small trooper school, but the option serves as more of a “down-the-road” solution. Immediate action is still necessary, and many bills are expected to be drawn up this session to increase the funding for more officers.

The representative has also stated that there are many bills surrounding the protection of law enforcement officers in the state. These “Blue Lives Matter” bills could increase the penalties of harming a police officer.

“I plan to take the best of these pieces of legislation,” said Rep. Gipson. “And draft a bill from that.”

There are four “Blue Lives Matter” pieces of legislation:

HB 640 would create “Blue Lives Matter” legislation and define those protected as police officers, state troopers, firefighters, and paramedics.
HB 647 could double the normal penalty for a misdemeanor or felony charge if a crime is committed against an officer.
HB 747 would allow the judge to refer to the jury as to whether or not the fine or penalty for a misdemeanor or felony charge should be enhanced because the victim was an officer.
HB 754 would allow for the crime against an officer to be treated as a hate crime.
News Mississippi will continue to follow the “Blue Lives Matter” legislation through the legislative session.

TexASS HB 821 will prevent inmates convicted of sex offenses from seeking prison penpals

I can't imagine why this law is even necessary, other than to win a Shiitake Award for Texas.

http://www.chron.com/news/politics/texas/article/No-pen-pals-Texas-seeks-to-restrict-letters-to-10847341.php

Texas legislator aims to block sex offenders from getting pen pals
Brett Barrouquere Published 12:05 pm, Tuesday, January 10, 2017

It's a common refrain online: An inmate posts a want ad seeking a pen pal while describing themselves in the most flattering terms someone behind bars can come up with. The inmates often described the loneliness of being incarcerated. But, few, if any, ever disclose why they are behind bars on sites like WriteAPrisoner.com or Prisoninmatepenpal.com. Someone choosing to correspond with them could end up writing to a person convicted of most any crime.

But, that may be a bit more limited under House Bill 821 as lawmakers return to Austin on Tuesday to begin the next legislative session. The measure, sponsored by state Rep. Matt Shaheen, R-Plano, would require the Texas Department of Criminal Justice to impose rules barring anyone required to register as a sex offender from advertising for a pen pal. The legislation doesn't impose a penalty on any inmate who violates the proposed rule. It appears that would be left up to the prison system. So, the lonely existence of an imprisoned sex offender may soon become even more solitary.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/Search/DocViewer.aspx?ID=85RHB008211B&QueryText=%22821%22&DocType=B

By: Shaheen H.B. 821

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
 
AN ACT relating to the solicitation of pen pals by certain inmates of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

SECTION 1.  Chapter 500, Government Code, is amended by adding Section 500.009 to read as follows:
     
Sec. 500.009.  PEN PAL SOLICITATION PROHIBITED. (a) This section applies only to an inmate confined in a facility operated by or under contract with the department who is serving a sentence for an offense for which registration as a sex offender is required under Chapter 62, Code of Criminal Procedure.
(b)  The department shall adopt a policy that prohibits an inmate described by Subsection (a) from placing an advertisement soliciting a pen pal on an Internet website operated for that purpose, regardless of whether another person submits or pays for the advertisement for the inmate.

SECTION 2.  Not later than December 1, 2017, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice shall adopt the policy required by Section 500.009, Government Code, as added by this Act.

SECTION 3.  This Act takes effect September 1, 2017.