... [ Arizona House Bill 2734 ] ... is a law that is unlawful

The Supreme Court has characterized the Internet as "a vast library including millions of readily available and indexed publications . . . ." (Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (1997) 521 U. S. 844, 853.)

Arizona House Bill 2734

Summary for the courts

Is an illegal law in that it attempts to bypass years of legal rulings brought down by the courts! Let me explain.

1.) It violates, 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d) because it is not reasonably related to legitimate sentencing considerations and overtly burdens a sex offender registrants First Amendment rights.

2.) In its design the legislation is not a narrowly-tailored condition to a sex offender who may be on probation. More importantly it puts at question the regulatory internet of the registry, for a state may restrict a constitutional right, but only when narrowly drawn to serve a compelling state interest.

3.) It enforces an ex post facto penalty on all sex offenders, by using a regulatory statute, to track sex offenders internet usage by being able to identify sex offenders Online Identifiers, by giving this information to companies who expertise lays in doing comparisons of Internet usage, to sex offenders. The only mechanism that will allow this to be possible, is in fact not the Online Identifiers (OI) themselves, but the associated IP addresses that is the cyber space transport.

4.) Due to the tracking of OI IP addresses, of all sex offenders, this law as well tracks all internet usage by citizens who communicate with an IP address shared by the Internet Service Provider.
se Bill 2734, House, Bill, 2734, Arizona, Supreme Court, ACLU, American Civil Liberties Unit, First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Illegal Search and Seizure, Fruit of the poisonous tree, 18 U.S.C. 3583
5.) Due to the tracking of the OI IP addresses all information can be tracked at the Internet Entry Point, thus attributing traffic, all legal and illegal communication. Attributing all traffic to the OI and the sex offender, even when he/she may in fact had incidental contact.

6.) Due to the tracking of the OI IP address all information gathered, will be illegally monitored, and gathered in a way that infringes on the 4th Amendment, right against illegal search and seizures. For all sex offenders, and citizens who communicated with a sex offender at the ISP entry point.

7.) Tracking OI and their associated IP addresses is governmental intrusion of conduct which is not criminal.

8.) Tracking OI and their associated IP addresses is forbidden in that internet usage is not a forbidden activity for sex offenders and is not an activity that could be reasonably reasoned to relate to future criminal acts. For sex offenders. Or for non-sex offenders who information will compared under any analysis.

9.) Logging OI infringes on sex offenders ability to engage in "compensable employment" as an author, an internet entrepreneur, or to work for a company that requires him/her to communicate using OI's.

10.) On parole sex offenders are already restricted from access pornographic web sites and/or to communicate with minors. This logically extends to websites and other social websites that are sex focused or where children congregate in cyber space. The registering of email addresses is an infringement on these sex offender's first amendment rights, by including them into a non-crime related sanction. This extending punishment statutorily.

11.) Sex offenders first amendment rights are infringed upon by extending punishment statutorily to what was once defined as regulatory in intent, to lengthening the extent of the sex registrant level of supervision through tracking their IO IP internet for life.

12.) Although the stature in its intent has no restrictive intent in a sex offenders Internet usage, in its implementation, it prohibits parolees and non parolees whoa re sex offenders, and those who they associate with, to not be free of forensic scrutiny in their used of the Internet.

13.) The tracking of OI is an unreasonable request of non-public domain information, which is not reasonably related to the deterrence of future criminality.

14.) The broad requirement set forth in this legislation, imposes a great restriction of personal privacy than is not reasonably necessary to accomplish in a state's legitimate goal to protect children from online predators, as it focuses on two groups, one already highly scrutinized and regulated due to a conviction, and another never receiving procedural due process, before invasion of their privacy..

15.) This statutes effectuates Internet OI accounts as a parolees tool towards not becoming law-abiding citizens.

Please read the below posting which shows how this legislation does the above.