No Pride: Old Dominion University pressures transgendered professor to resign for simply doing research on Minor Attracted Persons

Silencing unpopular research is nothing new. See the Rind study from the 1990s or California's suppression of research proving low reoffense rates among so-called "high risk" offenders. So, simply research those who choose not to sexually offender and refer to themselves as Minor Attracted Persons (MAPs) is offensive? So instead of getting info from the the proverbial horse's mouth, we continue to rely on horses' asses like Lauren Book or Laura Ahearn to feed us myths and other nonsense as they have done for years. We truly live in a society where facts do not matter, instead relying on what simply makes us "feel" safe. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2021/11/24/allyn-walker-odu-professor-resigns/

ODU professor steps down after firestorm over research into ‘minor-attracted people’

Allyn Walker, an assistant professor of sociology, was previously placed on administrative leave.

By Nicole Asbury

November 24, 2021 at 7:28 p.m. EST

Old Dominion University professor Allyn Walker, whose research into adults who are sexually attracted to minors drew protests and threats, has agreed to step down, Walker and the school announced in a joint statement Wednesday.

Walker, an assistant professor of sociology and criminal justice, had been placed on administrative leave Nov. 16. They now will remain on leave until the expiration of their current contract in May.

Walker’s research into “minor-attracted people” and their use of that term had been met with an outcry from students and others online, who claimed that such language destigmatized sex offenders. Walker has maintained that their work was intended to better understand would-be sex offenders and prevent child sexual abuse.

“That research was mischaracterized by some in the media and online, partly on the basis of my trans identity,” Walker said in the statement Wednesday. “As a result, multiple threats were made against me and the campus community generally.”

ODU professor placed on leave amid uproar over research into ‘minor-attracted persons’

Walker’s book “A Long, Dark Shadow: Minor-Attracted People and Their Pursuit of Dignity,” published in June, challenges “widespread assumptions that persons who are preferentially attracted to minors — often referred to as 'pedophiles’ — are necessarily also predators and sex offenders,” according to the University of California Press.

ODU students said they learned about the book earlier this month, and Kayla Foster, a senior studying criminal justice, thereafter started an online petition that called for Walker’s removal. Foster told The Post that Walker’s book gave pedophiles “a pat on the back” for not acting on their attractions.

As of Wednesday, when Walker stepped down, her petition had amassed more than 14,000 signatures.

ODU President Brian O. Hemphill said Walker’s resignation would be “the best way to move forward.”

“The safety and security of individual Monarchs and our collective campus are of the utmost importance,” Hemphill said in the statement. “For ODU, these will always remain top priorities as we pursue our mission in a caring, inclusive, and supportive community, one that respects academic freedom and remains willing to discuss controversial ideas in an atmosphere free of intimidation or violence.”

Other researchers, however, defended Walker’s scholarship and had called on ODU’s administration to do more to support them.

A letter addressed to Hemphill and other administrators Monday, signed by more than 60 professors in sexual abuse prevention, mental health, human sexuality and criminology, said the public backlash “reflects a misunderstanding and mischaracterization of Walker’s research.”

“We are strongly committed to creating a world without child sexual abuse,” they wrote. “In order to accomplish this daunting goal both ethically and effectively, it is essential to have a complete understanding of the issue, and this requires dissemination of research findings even when they contradict popular assumptions.”

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

Smells Like Bovine Excrement: The baby from the cover of Nirvana's "Nevermind" album is suing while claiming cover is "Child Porn" and "Sex Trafficking"

After reading this, it seems to me that that Spencer Elden is suing because he was snubbed by the band when wanting them to promote his art. If he simply sued over name and likeness, that's fine, but he went the extra mile to claim the image is "CP" and is also that, as reported by CNN, "Elden was sexualized because the dollar bill used in the image made the baby resemble 'a sex worker.'"

Claiming the album cover is CP is absurd. In the words of Curt Cobain, “If you’re offended by this, you must be a closet pedophile.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/25/arts/music/spencer-alden-nirvana-nevermind.html

Why the Baby on Nirvana’s ‘Nevermind’ Album Is Suing Now

Spencer Elden, 30, says Nirvana engaged in child pornography when the band used a picture of him naked on the cover of the breakthrough album.

By Maria Cramer

Aug. 25, 2021

Spencer Elden was 4 months old when he was photographed by a family friend in 1991 drifting naked in a pool.

The picture, taken at the Rose Bowl Aquatics Center in Pasadena, Calif., would be used that year for the cover of “Nevermind,” Nirvana’s seminal second album that helped define Generation X and rocketed the Seattle band to international fame.

In the decades that followed, Mr. Elden appeared to celebrate his part in the classic cover, recreating the moment for the album’s 10th, 17th, 20th and 25th anniversaries, though not naked.

“It’s cool but weird to be part of something so important that I don’t even remember,” he said in 2016 in an interview with The New York Post, in which he posed holding the album cover at 25.

Now, however, Mr. Elden, 30, has filed a federal lawsuit against the estate of Kurt Cobain, the musician’s former bandmates, David Grohl and Krist Novoselic, and Mr. Cobain’s widow, Courtney Love, among other parties. He claimed that they, along with Geffen Records, which released “Nevermind,” profited from his naked image. It is one of the best-selling records of all time, with at least 30 million copies sold worldwide.

“Defendants knowingly produced, possessed, and advertised commercial child pornography depicting Spencer, and they knowingly received value in exchange for doing so,” according to the lawsuit, which was filed on Tuesday in federal court in California.

Mr. Elden suffered “permanent harm” because of his association with the album, including emotional distress and a “lifelong loss of income-earning capacity.” The lawsuit did not provide details about the losses and said they would be disclosed at trial.

Mr. Elden, an artist living in Los Angeles County, has gone to therapy for years to work through how the album cover affected him, said Maggie Mabie, one of his lawyers.

“He hasn’t met anyone who hasn’t seen his genitalia,” she said. “It's a constant reminder that he has no privacy. His privacy is worthless to the world.”

The lawsuit said that Mr. Elden is seeking $150,000 from each of the 15 people and companies named in the complaint, including Kurt Weddle, the photographer who took the picture. Mr. Weddle did not respond to messages requesting comment.

The photo of Mr. Elden was picked from among dozens of pictures of babies Mr. Weddle photographed for the album cover, which Mr. Cobain envisioned showing a baby underwater.

Mr. Weddle paid Mr. Elden’s parents $200 for the picture, which was later altered to show the baby chasing a dollar, dangling from a fishhook.

“They were trying to create controversy because controversy sells,” Ms. Mabie said. “The point was not just to create a menacing image but to cross the line and they did so in a way that exposed Spencer so that they could profit off of it.”

She said her client sometimes agreed when the band, media outlets and fans asked him to recreate the photo as an adult, but he eventually realized that this only resulted in the “image of him as a baby being further exploited.”

The representatives for Mr. Cobain’s estate did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment. Representatives for Mr. Grohl, Ms. Love, and Geffen Records, which is now part of Universal Music Group, did not respond to messages.

Mr. Elden, who declined to comment on his suit, said in a short documentary in 2015 that the album cover had “opened doors” for him. For example, he worked with Shepard Fairey, the artist who was sued by The Associated Press for using an image of Barack Obama for his piece “Hope.”

Over the years, he has expressed ambivalence about the cover.

“It’d be nice to have a quarter for every person that has seen my baby penis,” he said in a New York Post interview in 2016.

In a different interview that year, he said he was angry that people still talked about it.

“Recently I’ve been thinking, ‘What if I wasn’t OK with my freaking penis being shown to everybody?’ I didn’t really have a choice,” Mr. Elden said to GQ Australia.

He said that his feelings about the cover began to change “just a few months ago, when I was reaching out to Nirvana to see if they wanted to be part of my art show.”

Mr. Elden said he was referred to managers and lawyers.

“Why am I still on their cover if I’m not that big of a deal?” he said.

Ms. Mabie said that Mr. Elden has long felt discomfort over the images and had expressed it in even earlier interviews when he was teenager.

“Mr. Elden never consented to the use of this image or the display of these images,” she said. “Even though he recreated the images later on in life, he was clothed and he was an adult and these were very different circumstances.”

Ms. Mabie said his parents never authorized consent for how the images would be used.

She noted that Mr. Cobain once suggested putting a sticker over the baby’s genitals after there was pushback to the idea for the cover.

The performer, who died in 1994, said the sticker should read: “If you’re offended by this, you must be a closet pedophile.”

Mr. Elden is “asking for Nirvana to do what Nirvana should have done 30 years ago and redact the images of his genitalia from the album cover,” Ms. Mabie said.

This lawsuit is not a typical child pornography case, said Mary Graw Leary, a professor at the Columbus School of Law at the Catholic University of America.

“Nudity of a child alone is not the definition of pornography,” she said. “The typical child pornography that is being seen in law enforcement and pursued in the courts can be violent. The children are young and it is very graphic.”

But there are factors under federal law that allow a judge or a jury to determine whether a photo of a minor “constitutes a lascivious exhibition of the genitals,” including if they were the focal point of a photo, Professor Graw Leary said.

That part of the law “gives a bit more discretion to the court,” she said. “It’s not a case with easy answers.”

Mr. Elden’s past comments about the cover should not undermine his current claim that he was a victim of child pornography, she added. The law does not pick between children who immediately denounce their abusers and children who initially were dismissive about what happened to them, she said.

“We don’t want to be in a position where we’re only going to consider one case criminal because in the other, the child didn’t think it was a big deal at the time,” Professor Graw Leary said. “We don’t only protect certain kids.”

Rittenhouse attorney wants to show victim was a "Sex Offender"

Allow me to correctly dissect the events surrounding this shooting. Then 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse grabbed a gun and joined a group of rabblerousers looking to start a fight, and he did indeed find a fight. When he couldn't handle the fight, he pulled out his gun and started shooting. As it turns out, one of Rittenhouse's victim was a Registered Person, so he thinks that somehow absolves him. 

https://www.dailyunion.com/news/nation_world/rittenhouse-attorney-wants-to-show-victim-was-sex-offender/article_a491ae56-0178-5101-ae40-1057c699e9b5.html

Rittenhouse attorney wants to show victim was sex offender

Kyle Rittenhouse's attorney wants a judge to allow him to argue that one of the men his client killed during a protest in Wisconsin last year was a sex offender, in hopes of showing the man was trying to steal Rittenhouse's gun because he couldn't possess one

By TODD RICHMOND - Associated Press Jul 6, 2021 Updated 2 hrs ago

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Kyle Rittenhouse's attorney wants a judge to allow him to argue that one of the men his client fatally shot during a Wisconsin protest was a sex offender, saying it supports a defense theory that he attacked Rittenhouse and intended to take his gun because he couldn't legally possess one.

Mark Richards maintained in court filings Thursday that Joseph Rosenbaum was convicted of having sex with a minor in Arizona in 2002 and was prohibited from possessing firearms. Rosenbaum started the altercation with Rittenhouse in hopes of making off with his assault-style rifle, which only bolsters Rittenhouse’s self-defense argument, Richards wrote.

Kimberley Motley, an attorney representing Rosenbaum's estate, rejected Richards' theory but declined to comment further since the case against Rittenhouse remains open.

“We believe strongly that Mr. Rittenhouse was the aggressor and his actions were not lawful,” she said in a phone interview Tuesday.

Richards also filed a motion to dismiss a charge that Rittenhouse couldn't possess a gun because he was too young under Wisconsin law, arguing that statutes prohibit minors from possessing short-barreled shotguns and rifles, and Rittenhouse's assault-style rifle doesn't meet that definition.

Rittenhouse, who is white, traveled to Kenosha from his home in Antioch, Illinois, on Aug. 25 to answer a call from local militia to protect businesses from protesters. The demonstrations began after a white Kenosha police officer shot Jacob Blake, who is Black, during a domestic disturbance, leaving Blake paralyzed from the waist down.

The protests turned chaotic that night. According to prosecutors, Rittenhouse opened fire on Rosenbaum, Anthony Huber and Gaige Grosskreutz. He killed Rosenbaum and Huber. Grosskreutz was hit but survived.

Rittenhouse was 17 years old at the time. Now 18, he maintains he fired in self-defense but prosecutors have charged him with a litany of counts, including reckless homicide, recklessly endangering safety, attempted first-degree intentional homicide and being a minor in possession of a dangerous weapon.

Black Lives Matter supports have painted him as a trigger-happy white supremacist. Conservatives have made him into a symbol for gun rights, generating $2 million for his bail. His trial is scheduled to begin Nov. 1.

Prosecutors filed motions last week asking a judge to allow a video from July 2020 which they said shows Rittenhouse striking a teenage girl in the back on Kenosha's waterfront. They also want to argue that Rittenhouse is affiliated with the Proud Boys, a far-right extremist group.

Photos taken in January show Rittenhouse drinking in a Mount Pleasant bar and gesturing with what appeared to be a white power symbol. Prosecutors said in their motions they have learned the people Rittenhouse was with included the leader of the Proud Boys' Wisconsin chapter and several of its high-ranking members.

Richards filed another motion on Thursday arguing evidence related to the altercation between Rittenhouse and the teenage girl is irrelevant.

He also argued that there's no indication Rittenhouse knew any of the Proud Boys before that night in the bar or that he has associated with the group. What's more, nothing supports the argument that race was a factor in the shootings, Richards said.

Huber and Grosskreutz were part of a “mob” that was chasing Rittenhouse, Richards wrote in the motion. Huber hit Rittenhouse with a skateboard and tried to grab his gun, and Grosskreutz pointed a pistol at him, Richards wrote.

Kenosha County Circuit Judge Bruce Schroeder has scheduled a hearing on the motions for Sept. 17.

A Bridge Too Far: Registrant's name physically scratched off a commemorative plaque in Devon, UK

The UK can be just as stupid about sex offense panic as the US can be. At least the BBC didn't misuse the term "paedophile" in this article. The logic behind this move is asinine-- alleged victims and survivors of other offenders would be triggered by seeing this person's name on a commemorative plaque. Seriously, who even looks at these things?

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-devon-57375578

Sex offender councillor's name removed from plaque

Published2 days ago

The name of a former council leader jailed for sexually assaulting three women has been removed from a plaque marking the opening of a bridge he helped campaign for.

Ex-Devon County Council boss Brian Greenslade was jailed for 16 months after being convicted in May.

His name has been scratched off the sign marking the opening of the Western Bypass and Taw Bridge in Barnstaple.

Devon County Council said the work was an "interim measure".

A spokesman for the authority said it was exploring longer term options to commemorate the opening of the bridge.

He added: "Following Brian Greenslade's conviction, we are sensitive to the potential offence likely to be caused to survivors and others affected by his historic actions."

The 72-year-old, from Marwood, near Barnstaple was also a member of the Devon and Cornwall Police Authority.

He denied the assaults, which took place in the 1990s and 2000s, dismissing one allegation as "absolute nonsense" but was found guilty by a jury at Exeter Crown Court.

The Barnstaple Western Bypass and £42m Taw Bridge opened on 23 May 2007.

The project took two years to build and Greenslade said at the time the opening was a wonderful day for him after two years of hoping it would become a reality.

Civilian Virginia State Police SOR employee charged with possessing CP

On the one had, the pics were of someone just shy of her 18th birthday (and she's being charged with making the pics); on the other hand, this guy worked for the agency that adds people to the public registry in VA, so you'd think he would know what happens to those convicted of a sex offense. 

https://swvatoday.com/news/article_0ad662fa-b286-11eb-86e3-d7d9a02eac1c.html

VSP employee charged with possessing child porn in Wythe

By JEFFREY SIMMONS | Staff May 11, 2021

Wythe County man who made sure men and women on Virginia’s sex offender registry were following the rules has been charged with crimes that could ultimately land him on registry

Shane Alan Underwood, 47, of Speedwell was arrested on May 5 and charged with seven counts of possessing child pornography, according to arrest warrants obtained by Virginia State Police Trooper B.R. Edwards.

In a criminal complaint, Edwards said investigators searched Underwood’s cell phone in March and found seven images of possible child porn. Underwood, who’s on unpaid leave, was a civilian employee with the state police’s firearms and sex offender investigate unit, according to a VSP spokesperson.

Police were able to identify the female in the images who confirmed she was 17 during the offense dates – Dec. 4, 2019, to Dec. 4, 2020. Now an adult, the female named in the complaint, 18-year-old Keilee Jude whose birthday is Dec. 4, is facing Bland County charges of possessing child porn.

Jude and 41-year-old William Dean Blankenship were arrested in February after police searched a Bland County residence and reported finding drugs and cell phones containing pornographic images of Jude and two other juveniles – one 17 and one 16.

“Both the phone that Mr. Blankenship identified as his and the phone Ms. Jude identified as hers contain dozens of pictures depicting Ms. Jude nude or performing sexual acts while under the age of 18,” a deputy wrote in court documents.

The search warrant related to Underwood was sealed by a Wythe County judge.

In addition to his state police job where he verified information reported by sex offenders, Underwood also worked for GFS Secure Solutions but is now on a leave of absence, according to court documents.

A Linkedin page under his name said he had 17 years of experience in corrections, law enforcement and security.

“States he will appear in court and has a steady job,” a magistrate wrote when setting Underwood’s bond at $5,000. “Very cooperative and polite.”

Given a court-appointed attorney to represent him, Underwood has a June 24 preliminary hearing set in Wythe County General District Court.

If convicted of possessing child porn, Underwood faces a maximum five-year prison sentence on each count.

The village of Hartland WI has a "saturation" law. Now they're justly getting sued for it

 "Village" is a bit of a misnomer. Hartland, population 9268, is a suburb of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, so it is a bit big for a village. Regardless, in all my years of covering various laws against Registered Persons, I've never seen a law that could be described a "saturation" law. Essentially, the village has placed limits on the number of Registered Persons who can live within the limits of the community. And now they're getting sued for their efforts. Good.

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/local/wisconsin/2021/04/21/lawsuit-challenges-hartlands-limit-sex-offenders/7322327002/

Would-be resident sues Hartland, calls ban on more sex offenders unconstitutional

Bruce Vielmetti

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Karsten Koch, 34, has been living with his parents in Nashotah, but he would like to move out to his own place in Hartland to be closer to his job but not too far from family.

Hartland's police chief has warned Koch he's not welcome, citing the village's moratorium on any more sex offenders living there.

In a federal lawsuit, Koch contends that the village's 2018 ordinance, applied retroactively, amounts to an illegal ex post facto law, in violation of the U.S. Constitution. 

The "designated offenders" banned by the ordinance include anyone on the state's sex offender registry. Koch is listed there because of a 2007 conviction for sexual assault of a child.

According to the suit, Hartland officials decided a few years ago that too many sex offenders — 32 — already lived there, a "saturation level" 6.75 times higher than other Waukesha County communities.

The ordinance thus declared a moratorium on any more offenders moving to Hartland until the saturation level more closely matches that of Waukesha County overall.

Koch's lawsuit seeks to represent the class of any registered sex offenders who want to move to Hartland. It says the ordinance violated the ex post facto clause "because it makes more burdensome the punishment imposed for offenses committed before enactment of the ordinance," because it applies retroactively to people, like Koch, who are designated offenders because of crimes committed before Hartland passed its ordinance.

The suit asks the court to declare the ordinance unconstitutional, stop village officials from enforcing it, and grant unspecified damages to Koch.

Koch's attorneys, Chicago civil rights lawyers Mark Weinberg and Adele Nicholas, have challenged similar restrictions on sex offenders inother Wisconsin municipalities, like Oak Creek and Muskego, and other states.

"So many of these restrictions are so harsh, arbitrary and capricious that they're constitutionally infirm," Weinberg said. 

For years, local communities have struggled with the presence of sex offenders on supervised release. As some areas passed laws prohibiting them from within a certain distance of schools and other places children might gather, state officials had to find homes for them in other towns, which then passed their own limits, and on and on until there are few possibilities left.

Eventually, the state imposed a new rule that put the onus on counties to find suitable residences for the offenders on supervised release.

But that applied only to so-called violent sex offenders, those being released from civil commitment under Wisconsin's Chapter 980. That law allows indefinite confinement and treatment for certain sex offenders after they complete criminal sentences. 

The local restrictions still make it difficult for ordinary sex offenders to live while on supervised release.

Koch served seven years in prison for his conviction but is slated to remain on community supervision until 2034. In December, he found a room for rent in a ranch house on Merton Avenue in Hartland, and a landlord who agreed to rent to someone on the sex offender registry.

But earlier this month, according to his suit, Koch got an email from Hartland's police chief informing him the moratorium was still in effect.

Chief Torin Misko did not immediately return a message seeking the current sex offender count in the village.

Village AttorneyHector de la Mora noted that Koch never approached the village about appealing or being granted an exception, as the ordinance provides.

He also said the very fact Hartland had the highest per-capital population of sex offenders among Waukesha County communities indicated that village officials believed that people have a right to live where they choose, and it was only when the concentration became so great that it adopted the ordinance.

Weinberg said the chance to seek an exception from the village, at officials' discretion, doesn't change the validity of Koch's constitutional challenge.

Small town of Genoa, Nebraska (population 1000) overreacts to Registered Person moving in with "school lock out"

The small town of Genoa overreacts to registrant moving into the community, and it is likely that not only was the overreaction uncalled for, then it may have been against the law. 

Nebraska Statutes 29-4017.

Political subdivision restrictions on sex offender residency; requirements.

(1) A political subdivision may enact an ordinance, resolution, or other legal restriction prescribing where sex offenders may reside only if the restrictions are limited to sexual predators, extend no more than five hundred feet from a school or child care facility, and meet the requirements of subsection (2) of this section.

(2) An ordinance, resolution, or other legal restriction enacted by a political subdivision shall not apply to a sexual predator who:

(a) Resides within a prison or a correctional or treatment facility operated by the state or a political subdivision;

(b) Established a residence before July 1, 2006, and has not moved from that residence; or

(c) Established a residence after July 1, 2006, and the school or child care facility triggering the restriction was established after the initial date of the sexual predator’s residence at that location.

(3) Any ordinance, resolution, or other legal restriction prescribing where sex offenders may reside which does not meet the requirements of this section is void, regardless of whether such ordinance, resolution, or legal restriction was adopted prior to, on, or after July 14, 2006.

There IS no statewide law, only the allowance of local ordinances, and as far as I know, only Omaha has such an ordinance in place. Genoa is not a suburb of Omaha. It isn’t even in the same county. It is a small town of about 1000.

So either the Nebraska State Patrol is flat out lying, ot they are ignorant. I can find no ordinances for Genoa or Nance County that addresses this at all. But even if it was true, the lockdown is the most ridiculous thing I've heard all day. 

ADDENDUM: Yesterday, a rep from Nebraskans Unafraid contacted the town of Genoa to inquire about the ordinance. They told her they’d have the ordinance copied and emailed to her by 10am, then they bcked off and said they can’t do it.

I did a sweep of Nebraska’s local ordinances and so far, I’ve checked 66 municipal codes, including the laegest (Omaha) and the smallest town being of only 400 people. Of the 66 ordinances, all but 18 of them have an ordinance in place.

Nearly all have the same wording, as if someone made a template law and the other downs copy-pasted it. Nearly all start with this:

“The Nebraska Legislature has found that certain sex offenders present a high risk to commit repeat offenses and has enabled municipalities to restrict such persons’ place of residency as provided in the Sexual Predator Residency Restriction Act.

Sex offenders who prey on children and who are high risks to repeat such acts present an extreme threat to public safety. The cost of sex offender victimization to these children and to society at large, while incalculable, is exorbitant.*

It is the intent of this ordinance to serve the Village’s compelling interest to promote, protect and improve the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the Village by creating certain areas around locations where children regularly congregate in concentrated numbers where certain sexual predators cannot reside.”

There are a few things of interest to note:

1. Nearly all the existing ordinances were passed in 2005/2006, leading me to believe these ordinances were a reactionary response to Iowa’s 2005 restrictions, the 2000 foot laws that were so onerous, many fled Iowa to surrounding states (Nebraska borders Iowa to the west; Omaha, NE’s largest city, borders Iowa).

2. These ordinances were made to specifically target “Sexual Violent Predators”, but the state stopped making that determination in 2009.

I’m thinking that either the Genoa ordinance does not exist, or if it does, it may be using language that applies to nobody currently listed on the registry.

https://nebraska.tv/news/local/school-placed-in-lock-out-during-sex-offender-investigation

School placed in "lock out" during sex offender investigation

by KHGIWednesday, March 10th 2021

GENOA, Neb. — Twin River Public Schools was briefly placed in “lock out” Tuesday while the Nance County Sheriff’s Office measured the distance between the residence of a recently-registered sex offender and the school.

In a Facebook post, the sheriff’s office said 27-year-old George Kelly registered at the Nebraska State Patrol office in Norfolk and listed a Genoa address. NSP explained to Kelly that he could not live within 500 feet of a school or childcare facility per Nebraska statute.

Due to the proximity of the residence to the school, it was agreed upon to put the school in a "lock out" status, which kept students inside the building and kept outside visitors out of the building.

The Sheriff's Department measured the distance between the two properties and discovered that the distance was 237 feet, well within the 500 feet limit. Kelly agreed to immediately leave the property and register in another county. Kelly left, and the school returned to normal status.

The "Karens" are coming for Poetry Magazine for publishing poem by Registered Person

For the moment, it seems Poetry magazine is not cowtowing to professional victims and outraged Karens who feel Registered Persons should not have a voice at all. 

We still have a little something in this country called freedom of expression, so to all those hating on the having to read a poem by a person convicted of a sex offense, I have a poem for you:

Republicans are Red, 

Democrats are Blue,

The First Amendment gives me the freedom to say "FUCK YOU!"

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/feb/03/us-magazine-poetry-faces-outcry-for-publishing-work-by-sex-offender

US magazine Poetry faces outcry for publishing work by sex offender

New issue, dedicated to work by current and former prisoners, provokes uproar after it emerges one poet has served time for child pornography offences

Alison Flood

Wed 3 Feb 2021 11.08 ESTLast modified on Wed 3 Feb 2021 11.10 EST

The US’s prestigious Poetry magazine has doubled down on its decision to publish a poem by a convicted sex offender as part of a special edition dedicated to incarcerated poets, telling critics that “it is not our role to further judge or punish [people] as a result of their criminal convictions”.

The magazine, which has been running since 1912 and is published by the Poetry Foundation, has just released its new issue focusing on work by “currently and formerly incarcerated people”, their families and prison workers. It includes a poem by Kirk Nesset, a former professor of English literature who was released from prison last year after serving time for possessing, receiving and distributing child sexual abuse images in 2014. The investigation found Nesset in possession of more than half a million images and films of child sexual abuse.

When a reader asked why the issue included Nesset, Poetry magazine said that its guest editors “didn’t have knowledge of contributors’ backgrounds”, because “the editorial principle for this issue was to widen access to publication for writers inside prison and to expand access to poetry, bearing in mind biases against and barriers for incarcerated people”.

“We recognise the life-shattering impact of violence and denounce harm,” the magazine said in a statement on Twitter. “People in prison have been sentenced and are serving/have served those sentences; it is not our role to further judge or punish them as a result of their criminal convictions. As editors, our role is to read poems and facilitate conversations around contemporary poetry.

“We maintain that these poems are an expression of a human experience and that poetry is a force to advance human engagement and critical self-reflection. We hope the poetry in this issue facilitates deep and empathic reading and extends our discourse.”

Tara Betts, one of the guest editors, reiterated that she and her fellow editors had not known the charges against the poets they included.

“I can say that I had no intent to perpetuate further harm,” she wrote on Twitter. “I’m going to be honest about my life. I barely escaped being a survivor myself. I’ve counseled many friends, family members and former students who are survivors, including incarcerated people. I’m heartbroken about hurting anyone or making them revisit their pain. I’m also devastated by policing and prisons and how these are overtly racist and classist systems that protect property over people. What happens when those hurts overlap?”

A petition signed by more than 500 people is calling for Nesset’s work to be removed from the magazine, saying that his “time served does not equate to the lifetime of emotional, physical, and psychological trauma victims of child pornography and sexual assault endure”.

Tiffany Melanson, another poet featured in the issue, expressed her “deep disappointment” in the situation, “and the lack of foresight and sensitivity that led to it”.

Last year, the Poetry Foundation, which publishes the magazine, was criticised in a letter signed by almost 2,000 people over its brief, “watery” response to Black Lives Matter. The foundation and magazine had said that they “stand in solidarity with the black community, and denounce injustice and systemic racism”. But the signatories, who included the award-winning poet Ocean Vuong, said the foundation had been asked for years to redistribute its “enormous resources” to marginalised artists, and had not done enough.

The writers said they would not submit any work to the magazine until their demands were met, which included the resignation of the Poetry Foundation president and board of trustees chair, as well as for the “significantly greater allocation of financial resources toward work which is explicitly anti-racist in nature”.

Both the president and chair subsequently resigned, with former president Henry Bienen telling the board that he had “lost respect for the staff who did not defend themselves or the foundation from attacks they knew to be false”.