FW: (2) Federal Courts Say 'Child Safety Zones' are BS

[Dianne Tramutola-Lawson]

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: William Dobbs

To: William Dobbs

Sent: Monday, December 05, 2016 12:45 PM

Subject: >>(2) Federal Courts Say 'Child Safety Zones' are BS

 

 

If it’s possible to make a feast of court decisions, Jacob Sullum has done it.  In a just-published essay for Reason.com, Sullum explains and analyzes two very recent federal court rulings, one from Indiana, the other out of North Carolina, and adds another, a ground-breaking decision in a Michigan case.  Voila—insight into how courts are starting to view sex offense laws.  --Bill Dobbs 

 

Reason.com | Dec. 5, 2016

Two Federal Courts Call BS on Banning Sex Offenders From 'Child Safety Zones'

Rulings deem Indiana and North Carolina laws unconstitutionally vague and unjustifiably wide.

 

 

By Jacob Sullum

 

Excerpts:  Last week federal courts overturned both of these laws, deeming them unconstitutionally vague.

 

Like last summer's 6th Circuit decision against Michigan's Sex Offender Registration Act, last week's rulings go beyond the usual hand waving about child protection to ask whether the restrictions imposed by such laws can be justified by their purported public safety benefits. 

 

After years of deferring to pretty much anything legislators did in the name of protecting children from sexual predators, the federal courts are finally beginning to ask whether these laws make sense in light of the goals they are supposed to achieve.

 

MORE:

http://reason.com/blog/2016/12/05/two-federal-courts-call-bs-on-banning-se