Month: December 2016

A couple of years ago, Brian Valenti, a registered sex offender who lives in Hartford City, Indiana, received a citation for sitting in his brother’s car. The car was parked outside his brother’s house, which happens to be across the street from a school. By sitting in it, Valenti violated a local ordinance prohibiting anyone convicted of a sex offense involving a minor from entering a long list of “child safety zones”—including schools, parks, libraries, swimming pools, athletic complexes, movie theaters, and bowling alleys— or “loitering” within 300 feet of those locations. Because of Hartford City’s ordinance, Valenti, who committed a sex offense 28 years ago in California, was not allowed to visit his daughter’s school, go to the library with her, visit local parks, join the YMCA, enroll his daughter in activities there, go bowling with his family, or vote at his designated polling place.

Under a similar law in North Carolina, registered sex offenders whose crimes involved minors or violence are forbidden to venture within 300 feet of “any place intended primarily for the use, care, or supervision of minors.” They are also required to stay away from “any place where minors gather for regularly scheduled educational, recreational, or social programs.” Five sex offenders who challenged the law said it prevented them from attending church, visiting their children’s schools, participating in adult softball games, going to events at the North Carolina State Fairgrounds, eating at fast food restaurants with play areas, attending town council meetings held near a library, and visiting the state legislature, which meets in a building near a natural history museum that attracts children. The plaintiffs also worried that they were committing felonies by working on construction projects within a 300-foot zone or by going shopping or commuting to work, since they could easily drive by forbidden locations on the way.

Last week federal courts overturned both of these laws, deeming them unconstitutionally vague. The judge who heard Valenti’s challenge to Hartford City’s ordinance also concluded that it imposed retroactive punishment, violating the Indiana Constitution’s ban on ex post facto laws, while the appeals court that ruled against North Carolina’s law found that it unjustifiably interfered with activities protected by the First Amendment. 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.

When Valenti was fined for sitting in his brother’s car, Hartford City’s ordinance defined loitering near a child safety zone as “standing [or] sitting idly, whether or not the person is in a vehicle or remaining in or around an area.” In 2015 the city council changed that definition to “remaining in a place or circulating around a place under circumstances that would warrant a reasonable person to believe that the primary purpose or effect of the behavior is to enable a sex offender to satisfy an unlawful sexual desire, or to locate, lure, or harass a potential victim.” U.S. District Judge Theresa Springmann concluded that both definitions violate the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of due process, since they fail to give people fair notice of when they are violating the law and invite arbitrary enforcement.

Springmann also found that the ordinance’s punitive effect outweighed its regulatory purpose, meaning that even if it were crystal clear it could not constitutionally be applied to sex offenders convicted before it was passed. “Considered as a whole,” she writes, “the Ordinance imposes substantial affirmative restraints on the Plaintiff that he did not have fair warning of when he committed his offense in 1988, or was convicted in 1993.” Those restrictions, she concludes, are excessive in light of the regulatory purpose they are supposed to serve, Springmann notes that “the Ordinance does not provide any means by which the Plaintiff can petition for an exemption,” “does not provide any particularized risk assessment,” and does not make exceptions for situations that pose no plausible threat to public safety, such as parent-teacher conferences.

The North Carolina law does allow such exceptions with special permission, but it is broader than the Hartford City ordinance in that it does not specify all the settings to which it applies, leaving sex offenders and police the challenge of figuring out what is meant by “any place where minors gather for regularly scheduled educational, recreational, or social programs.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit agreed with the plaintiffs that a sex offender or a cop “cannot reasonably determine (1) whether a program for minors is ‘regularly scheduled’ or (2) what places qualify as those ‘where minors gather.'” Hence “that subsection does not meet the standards of due process because it is unconstitutionally vague.”

Like Judge Springmann, the 4th Circuit also highlighted the indiscriminate scope of the law, which in North Carolina’s case seeks to keep sex offenders away from places where minors gather even when their crimes had nothing to do with children. “It applies to all restricted sex offenders, not just those who pose a danger to minors or are likely to pose such a danger,” the court notes. Since the law interferes with activities protected by the First Amendment, such as attending church services and lobbying legislators, the state was required to present evidence of a reasonable fit between the restrictions and the goal of protecting children. Yet “for reasons not apparent from the record,” it conspicuously failed to do so. “Without empirical data or other similar credible evidence,” the 4th Circuit says, “it is not possible to tell” whether the 300-foot rule “responds at all to the State’s legitimate interest in protecting minors from sexual assault.”

That is a pretty strong indictment of the failure to justify the burdens that legislators impose on sex offenders long after they have served their sentences, without regard to the threat they currently pose. The 4th Circuit’s dismay at the state’s lack of proof is reminiscent of what the 6th Circuit said in August about Michigan’s law: that there was “no evidence in the record that the difficulties the statute imposes on registrants are counterbalanced by any positive effects.” To the contrary, it said, “the punitive effects of these blanket restrictions…far exceed even a generous assessment of their salutary effects.” 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.

Yesterday an idiot fired a rifle in a D.C. restaurant because he was trying to investigate “PizzaGate,” the latest, dumbest variation on the decades-old series of rumors that the country is governed by secret pedophile rings. (Fortunately, no injuries have been reported.) Since the gunman was inspired by a false story, his crime was promptly blamed on “fake news.” Then some pundits tried to link his assault to Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, Donald Trump’s pick to be national security adviser, on the grounds that Flynn had promoted the PizzaGate story. But it turned out the general had actually been alluding to a separate conspiracy theory, so naturally the accusation against Flynn was then dubbed “fake news” too.

In the long-gone days of early 2016, fake news mostly meant clickbait sites that publish hoaxes, some with a satiric veneer and some just flatly aimed at tricking people; the stories could involve anything from Willie Nelson dying to a woman trying on tampons in a WalMart aisle. These days “fake news” still means that, but it also gets applied to highly partisan outlets that may be sloppy with their facts; and content factories that just don’t care about their facts; and Russian disinformation campaigns, real or alleged; and pretty much any conspiracy theory that finds a foothold online. (Like PizzaGate.) Even a police sting got the “fake news” label last week because the operation included a deceptive press release. And of course it’s also a phrase that people throw back in the mainstream media’s faces any time the press botches a story.

In other words, “fake news” has become a catchall term for saying something false in public, otherwise known as the human condition.

This does not bode well for people who think they can find a fix to “the fake news problem,” given that clickbait and rumors and disinformation and sloppy reporting and so on are all different things. They overlap, sure, but they’re not the same phenomenon, and you’re not going to find a one-size-fits-all solution to them—not unless your solution is “Introduce a little more skepticism to your media consumption habits.” Of course, that’s a good idea whether or not the news is fake.

We’re nearing the end of our annual webathon, during which we ask readers of Reason.com to support our efforts to produce increasingly influential, principled libertarian journalism to poltiics, culture, and ideas. Our audience continues to grow in leaps and bounds, with 45,000 print subscribers and over 4 million visits to Reason.com each month. Last year alone, Reason TV more than doubled its viewership by pulling 2.2 million watchers monthly at Facebook and YouTube.

Tune in to Reason’s Facebook page tomorrow (Tuesday, December 6) an 12 noon eastern time for a livestream with me, Matt Welch, Katherine Mangu-Ward, and a gaggle of guest stars. We start at noon sharp and will keep going until the cows come home, answering every question, responding to every comment, and turning on each other like high-profile detainees under federal investigation.

As I’m fond of saying, the Libertarian Moment is now. The old parties are dying, losing membership in droves and each incapable of gaining clear victories in the presidential race. That Trump won the Electoral College while handily losing the popular vote to the other least-liked major-party candidate is all you need to know to realize we are in the last days of the 20th century, when a two-party duopoly could force us to pick one of their mediocre, visonless candidates. No more. Trump’s minority win, built on the back of racial and ethnic resentments in a world that is globablizing full speed ahead and on the promise of bringing back manufacturting jobs that peaked as a percentage of employment in 1943, is the surest sign he’s the end of a line, not the creator of a new operating system that will take us boldly, confidently, and prosperously into the 21st century.

As Matt Welch and I detailed in The Declaration of Independents: How Libertarian Politics Can Fix What’s Wrong with America, even during the Great Recession and a slow-growth economy, our personal lives, our cultural lives, our technological, culinary, and work lives are getting better and better. We have more options on how to live than ever before, more freedom to do what we want to do, eat what we want to eat, marry whom we want to marry, and on and on. It’s only in the areas directly controlled or regulated by government—health care, education, retirement, foreign policy—that you see resistance to the sorts of rapid change and individual empowerment and personalization we take for granted everytime we fire up our smartphones.

This is THE value proposotion of Reason in all its iterations and platforms, and why we ask you to support our work with a tax-deductible donation. Uniquely among leading sources of news, commentary, and analysis, we:

• speak to the existing community of self-identified libertarians (of all parties and of no parties), giving you news, comfort, and a place to call to home in an often-cold and uncaring (if not actively hostile) world.
• we help to create the next generation of libertarians, of people who believe in Free Minds and Free Markets, of social tolerance and governmental responsiblity.
• we speak to our peers in the media who often are looking for a coherent and powerful framework through which to understand current events, history, and the direction of the future. Characters as different as John Stossel, Drew Carey, “renegade” historian Thaddeus Russell, and Camille Paglia have spoken of being influenced mightily by Reason.
• we speak to policymakers, people in the nonprofit sector, and in the business world in a similar way, giving them pragmatic solutions to pressing policy questions but also providing an aspirational way of thinking about creating surplus good in a world of scarce resources.
• finally, we are YOUR voice in the world of public opinion and media. Reason publishes a widely read monthly magazine, we post hundreds of thousands of words and images every month at our website, and we create hundreds of original videos and podcasts every year. We’re not rehashing the conventional wisdom in any of this or doing the dreary old “horse-race” game of betting on which old nag of a party will get the glue factory first. No, we’re talking back to right-wingers and left-wingers and we’re winning the broad center that’s tired of treating politics like one more season of Survivor. We’re introducing you to characters such as Cody Wilson, the creator of the 3D printed gun, and Ross Ulbricht, the Eagle Scout imprisoned for life for running the Silk Road website. We’re flying out to Ferguson, Missouri to see what the hell is going on between cops and minorities, and we’re showing how bitcoin is allowing starving Venezuealans to get food off the grid. And we’re talking with cutting-edge entrepreneurs such as Whole Foods’ John Mackey, Overstock.com’s Patrick Byrne, and Iron Chef Geoff Zakarian.

So, if you dig what we do, please consider giving us a tax-deductible donation. We might write the words or take the pictures, but it’s YOU who makes it all happen. For nearly 50 years, Reason has been libertarian voice in the wilderness. Since our start in 1968 as a very humble journal, we’ve all come long and far. A fistful of Nobel economists were hard-core libertarians. The word libertarian is increasingly recognized and popular. Reason articles, videos, people show up everywhere. The old system in politics is crumbling—think of it! The Dems and the Reps have EVERY advantage and all they could nominate were two tired, old, nostalgic, backward-looking meat sacks who want to control more and more of our lives at the very moment we have more freedom than ever!—and the question before us, in 2017 and 2117 and beyond is: What kind of world do you want to live to be 200 in? Hillary’s, Trump’s, or Reason’s? Your donation of $25 or $100 or more might help make the difference.

And do tune in to Reason’s Facebook page tomorrow (Tuesday, December 6) an 12 noon eastern time for a livestream with me, Matt Welch, Katherine Mangu-Ward, and a gaggle of guest stars. We start at noon sharp and will keep going until the cows come home, answering every question, responding to every comment, and turning on each other like high-profile detainees under federal investigation.