Quote:
Originally Posted by Rcourt64
Once again state legislature is attempting to make a bad thing look like a good helping one.
New Jersey has spoken:
12/13/2007 Passed by the Assembly (77-0-0)
12/17/2007 Received in the Senate, 2nd Reading on Concurrence
12/17/2007 Passed Senate (Passed Both Houses) (38-0)
12/27/2007 Approved P.L.2007, c.219.
Now don't get me wrong here, I'm not here attempting to defending or standing up to sex offenders. But these tactic are stupid attempts of control.
This is beginning to sound like getting on-line will be a privilege and possibly no longer a free right. (Like Driving) It's amazing people here still fall for the driving is a privilege not a necessity bullshit concept. 
Story by Nate Anderson HERE
|
I agree.....and the basis in law I think you are looking for, is,
Freedom of movement, mobility rights or the right to travel is a human rights concept which is respected in the constitutions of numerous states. It asserts that a citizen of a state, in which that citizen is present, generally has the right to leave that state, travel wherever the citizen is welcome, and, with proper documentation, return to that state at any time; and also (of equal or greater importance) to travel to, reside in, and/or work in, any part of the state the citizen wishes without interference from the state.
Indeed, this is part of the 14th amendment,
The U.S. Supreme Court also dealt with the right to travel in the case of Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999). In that case, Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, held that the United States Constitution protected three separate aspects of the right to travel among the states: the right to enter one state and leave another, the right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than a hostile stranger (protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause in Article IV, § 2), and for those who become permanent residents of a state, the right to be treated equally to native born citizens (this is protected by the 14th Amendment Citizenship Clause).
The right to travel is a part of the 'liberty' of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. If that "liberty" is to be regulated, it must be pursuant to the law-making functions of the Congress. . . . . Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country, . . . may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values.
damnit!