An anonymous resident and an advocacy group that represents accused and convicted sex offenders have filed a federal lawsuit seeking to strike down the town’s 10-year-old policy barring people on Connecticut’s sex offender registry from a number of public places. Full Article
Related posts
-
Meta cracks down on teen “sextortion” on Facebook, Instagram
Source: arstechnica.com 11/21/22 Teens will finally have a way to proactively stop the spread of intimate... -
FBI finds sharp rise in online extortion of teens tricked into sending sexually explicit photos
Source: pbs.org 12/19/22 WASHINGTON (AP) — The FBI sounded the alarm Monday about an explosive increase... -
NE: Dodge County sex offenders face challenges in registering
Source: fremonttribune.com 12/20/22 Convicted sex offenders in Fremont and Dodge County are required to register with...

How if this can be legal in IL
IL: Public Parks Ban is Constitutional
https://ww1.all4consolaws.org/2018/04/il-public-parks-ban-is-constitutional
http://www.illinoiscourts.gov/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2018/122034.pdf
Ahh…Connecticut….
Wait…isn’t this the birthplace of the Connecticut DPS V Doe 2003 SCOTUS decision where Connecticut won to put people on a public sex offender list with no hearing or evaluation because it claimed :
*****
[DPS] has not considered or assessed the specific risk of reoffense with regard to any individual prior to his or her inclusion within this registry, and has made no determination that any individual included in the registry is currently dangerous. Individuals included within the registry are included solely by virtue of their conviction record and state law. The main purpose of providing this data on the Internet is to make the information more easily available and accessible, not to warn about any specific individual.
*****
and SCOTUS ruled the list ok because:
*****
due process does not require the opportunity to prove a fact that is not material to the State’s statutory scheme. Injury to reputation in itself, even if defamatory, does not constitute deprivation of liberty
*****
So, how is it that this ruling stands if the list, that doesn’t indicate anyone is dangerous, is suddenly depriving people of their liberty interests?
Color me confused.