CA measure would ban anonymous online speech for sex offenders

If there’s anything everyone can agree about, it’s that sexual exploitation of minors is wrong. Proposition 35, on the ballot in California for Tuesday’s election, would take a number of steps to crack down on sex offenders. It would increase penalties for crimes related to both child and adult prostitution, fund support services for victims of these crimes, and require law enforcement officials to receive additional training on the topic.

A less-noticed provision of the proposal would effectively ban registered sex offenders from engaging in anonymous speech online. If the proposition passes, sex offenders would be required to notify local law enforcement agencies every time they signed up for a new Internet Service Provider or acquired a new “Internet identifier.” That is defined as “an electronic mail address, user name, screen name, or similar identifier used for the purpose of Internet forum discussions, Internet chat room discussions, instant messaging, social networking, or similar Internet communication.”

The provision has raised the ire of civil liberties groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “EFF opposes this proposition because it would create new restrictions on online speech and increased government surveillance of the online accounts for a class of individuals, creating a dangerous legislative model for policing unpopular groups in the future,” wrote staffer Rainey Reitman in a Sunday blog post. “While we share concerns about human trafficking and want to make sure the law is as effective as possible, we believe that censorship and increased surveillance of an entire class of people is not the right legislative fix for this troubling problem.”

Francisco Lobaco, legislative director for the ACLU of California, agrees. Speaking earlier this year, he warned that “a person who is convicted decades ago of a relatively minor sex offense, such as indecent exposure, or a crime that has absolutely nothing to do with either children or the use of the Internet, must now inform the police of any name he or she uses in any sort of online discussion group.” That, he suggested, would infringe on the First Amendment right to freedom of speech.

We asked supporters of Proposition 35 to respond to the EFF and ACLU’s critique, but they have not responded to our e-mail. A “fact sheet” on the pro-35 website states that “the prevalence and anonymity of the internet has fueled the rapid growth of sex trafficking, making the trade of women and children easier than ever before.”

EFF and the ACLU aren’t the measure’s only critics. A scathing editorial by the Los Angeles Times argued California’s legislature has already been working on the human trafficking problem since 2005. The legislature passed a law that “has been fine-tuned more than a dozen times over the last seven years as experience was gained, people were prosecuted and legal holes were discovered and plugged.” Proposition 35 would “subvert that work,” the paper said, calling Prop 35 “poorly drafted.”

Also opposed is the Sacramento Bee, which worries that the online notification rules will “impose a costly and burdensome requirement on local law enforcement agencies” that will be forced to manage information submitted by sex offenders about their online identities.

But the proposal has won the support of the San Francisco Chronicle, which specifically praises the Internet-related provisions. “Once this information reaches the sex-offender registry, it’s only a matter of time until a tech entrepreneur comes up with an app that would allow Californians to automatically block online entreaties from convicted sex offenders,” the paper’s editorial board predicts.

The supporters of Prop. 35 are likely to get their way. A poll taken in October by the California Business Roundtable found that 78 percent of likely voters support the measure.