his only out of very rare occasion gone outside the venue of our supreme court building in springfield illinois but we decided to come here and to do page county and we are delighted to be with you offenders the first five of them collect information relating to the real world activities of sex offenders these are they have to disclose their current address their current place of employment their telephone number their employers telephone number and if they attend school they need to disclose the school of a ten the remaining three disclosure requirements which i'll call the virtual disclosure requirements address sex offenders internet activity and these requirements are that they disclose email addresses instant messaging identities chat room identities and other internet communication identities that they use or plan to use u r l s that are registered to or used by them and then finally blogs and other internet sites that they maintain or to which they've uploaded content or posted any messages or information defendant in this case was charged with violating only the last of these disclosure requirements the blogs and internet sites to which he has uploaded content or posted messages information and specifically he was charged with failing to disclose a facebook page to which you'd uploaded photograph of himself the circuit court found that this last disclosure requirements as well as the two virtual disclosure requirements under which defend it was not charged was unconstitutionally overbroad under the first amendment this court should reverse the circuit court's judgment not only because the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to address the two disclosure requirements under which defendant was not charged but also because none of the three virtual disclosure requirements separately or together are unconstitutionally overbroad the question of over breath is a question of fit and so question of fit between the the statute serves and the scope of the statutes application so it's not a statute not overbroad simply because it burdens speech it's overbroad because it burdens substantially more speech than necessary to effect it legitimate purpose here the section three a disclosure requirements don't prohibit any speech sex offenders are free to say whatever they like to whomever they like whenever wherever however they like they do however need to disclose the identities under which they have spoken and the online forums in which they have spoken they don't need to disclose the content of that speech or the audience of the speech so these content neutral disclosure requirements are reviewed under intermediate scrutiny which again requires substantial over breath so the question of whether these disclosure requirements are substantially overbroad as in relation to the purpose that they serve requires that we first identify what that purpose is and second to make sure that we've identified the scope of the application as this court and other courts have recognized the purpose of the sex offender registration act and the disclosure requirements in that act are to protect the public sex offenders and specifically to protect the public from pursuit of a sex offenders by collecting the information necessary to locate and identify those sex offenders which is of course their identities and their locations and identity and location information protects the public from instead of ism in two ways first when law enforcement collects this information under the disclosure requirements that allows law enforcement to investigate receipt of a sex crimes law enforcement cannot effectively investigate recidivist sex crimes if it can't locate identify the nearby potential recidivists that is the sex offenders in the area the other way that sex offenders location and identity information protect the public from  is through the function of the sex offender commuting notification law which takes the information collected by section three days disclosure requirements and makes it available to the public by making this information available to public it serves to alert the public to the risk averse it is imposed by sex offenders in their community again the public can be on guard against the risk of recidivism veges not aware that there are sex offenders and potential recidivists in the  community it's important to note that juvenile sex offenders such as defendant in this case where a juvenile sex offender is a sex offender whose registration obligations arise from a juvenile delinquency adjudication rather than an adult conviction their registry information is not widely made available through the notification law rather it's distributed much more narrowly to the principal or chief administrative officer of their school the guidance counselors of their school and any specific individuals that law enforcement terms their safety would be at risk are they not given this information so now that we've got the legislative purpose of these question about  so the defendant in this case was convicted as a juvenile of a class a misdemeanor that was related to sex and therefore he had this obligation to register and the violation of that statute is a  felony my question is this you've argued that the purpose of the statute is to protect the public and to alert the public that there is someone who has been convicted of a sex crime a sex offender in their community that's that's the how you do describe the purpose when there are ok my question is if in fact he had complied and when he registered he indicated that in the past reporting period which i think was about a year he uploaded a picture to facebook how practically does that information allow the public to protect themselves in other words how were they to do with that information how how they also protect the public by allowing law enforcement to investigate recidivism which is separate from dissemination of the registry information so defendant's particular uploading of a picture wouldn't protect the public by alerting the public to his online interactions with the public but it would protect the public by allowing law enforcement to investigate any recidivist sex crimes he might commit involving online so specifically the question of how uploading of a photograph to facebook  could pose a threat to the public or why that sort of activity is relevance to the purpose of the statute there is a significant difference between the kinds of actions that a sex offender  can take on line in the real world before the rise of the internet the only information i was necessary to investigate sex crimes and or recidivist sex crimes and to alert the public to the risk of sex offenders in the community was sex offenders real world identity which is provided by their current photograph which they provide upon registration and by their name which they're barred from law from changing and their home and and work addresses because people live the vast majority of their life within a reasonable commute of those two points so with those two real world locations you can infer the primitive the community within which of sex offenders operating on line sex offenders reach and ability to communicate anonymously are vastly increased so a sex offender has an ability to interact with the public inside the public's homes if you have a twelve year old girl who's sitting at home in her bedroom in her pajamas surfing the internet on her phone or on a laptop she doesn't feel vulnerable or exposed when a message pops up on the screen in the same way that she would if she were sitting alone in a public park o bus and an adult stranger approached her and started talking to her and this feeling of security allows people to often you know in a lot of always interact less cautiously with others online  but it also means that they are less on guard against against risk and the risks are magnified online in some respects in addition if if in fact he had reported that he had posted pictures on facebook then again what is the result of that would it mean that the child that you were just describing her parents would not allow her to be on facebook because one sex offender posted a picture on facebook one time no well again specifically for juvenile sex offenders the parents or children wouldn't access the information just law enforcement what so specifically what identity disclosing that one has a facebook page that one is uploaded content to what that does is it advise is law enforcement that here is an area online where the sex offenders are interacting with the public so it should the sex offender should a sex  that i'm a sex offender and i have a facebook page i'm interacting on facebook right when i went in for registration i would say that i would identify facebook dot com and that would that would cover all of my interactions on  facebook when i'm posting content when i'm posting messages i've apprised law enforcement and if i'm an adult the community in which i i live in interact that that is a place where sex offenders are interacting with the public if i am a parent with a young child who's starting to have independent experiences online i may go and look at my local sex offenders registry information go into the county sheriff's department look at the local information and term and you know what here's the ten sex offenders in the community and they see that they are actively interacting with the public e s p n dot com facebook dot com a baseball chat room and an anti choice chat room but i may decide i am all right i feel comfortable that the risk is adequately low on e s p n and c n n and facebook that my child's interacting in those four are not likely to put them at great risk but i may decide you know what these smaller chat rooms where the interactions are are less common some more conversations where it's a smaller community maybe i'm not comfortable look up are they know they're not registered on line so can go online and juveniles and not register that's correct and that that that's frankly the reason why juvenile sex offenders speech is not chilled by these disclosure requirements the chilling effect that defendant and miki have identified is the public dissemination of this information and the reasoning seems to be that the public generally disapproves of sex offenders as hostile toward sex offenders and so any public document that allows a member of the public to recognize a sex offender in a particular forum will chill the sex offenders and gauge mint in that forum for fear of receiving expressions of that disapproval and hostility but this reasoning would prohibit any public record that allows the public to recognize a sex offender including posting their names their their current photographs and their telephone numbers all of those things would allow the public to identify a sex offender either in person or on the telephone caller id and so on  essentially this is saying that there is no legitimate government interest in identifying sex offenders to the public but courts have repeatedly found that not to be the case the u s supreme court in smith v doe specifically said with respect to the alaskan  sex offender registration act that identifying sex offenders to the public to alert the public to the risk of recidivism posed by those sex offenders in their community it advances public safety here it's not clear what exactly the chilling effect the real chilling effect would be because again for it to be overbroad a statute need to be not only substantially overbroad but they were brought also has to be real here we have a fairly speculative concern that a sex offender would not go on e s p n dot com or facebook because when he comments on something when he then registers at the end of potentially an annual period someone will access his registry information determine that he was on new york times  n dot com go through the various articles find his months of stale comment and post a snippy comments in response that is not the sort of chilling effect that courts have typically found protected moreover the end and then maybe that is protected by the first woman is not a broad rights to be anonymous at all times in your speech it's the first time it's right to speak it's not a right to speak anonymously to the extent that it protects anonymity it's an enemy that it acts as a speech catalyst it's where speech is dependent on that anonymity and the supreme court and buckley v american constitutional law foundation  explained how this works and comparing the requirement that petition circulators wear name tags while circulating a petition and that petition circulators file an affidavit tending their name and address which was a public record but that they were not giving to the audience at the point of contact or giving to the state and the court explained that the affidavit was constitutional but the name tag was not and the reason the name tag was not is it was requiring that the speaker identify himself to his audience at the point of contact when emotions were most heated the affidavit although it would allow an audience if they contact if they consulted that record to subsequently if they encountered circulator it was removed in time it's the difference between compelling the speaker to identify themselves to the audience and compelling the speaker to leave a footprint in the world by which one could identify them and sex offenders may not be permitted to brand all of their online speech with with their sex offender status they  preface their statements with i'm so and so i'm a sex offender and here is what i think about the white sox but they don't have a right to compel the state to conceal their sex offender status from the public this is a public record that if consulted would allow them to be identified by someone who had consulted it is not a scarlet letter or a fix on all of their internet communications it's also worth noting that these are retroactive disclosures for the locations the forms in which they have spoken they only need to disclose those informations retroactively which means that the odds of them facing real time discrimination are harassment of that sort of thing is is reduced mr snyder scuse me it's only once a year it's well there are certain triggering events that will require a registration of sex offender changes their address or work place they need to  reregister within three days to apprise the state of those those changes law enforcement can also request additional registration was no more than four times a year so it's a maximum of four times a year but it can be up to annually uploaded content which means to transfer files from your computer or your network to another computer network so we're talking about the transfer of pictures audio files video files documents or a messages or information that you've posted and posted it as as we turn to a number of dictionaries to demonstrate posted a has a public quality it's like posting on a bulletin board so if you post a message your information is to make that message information public in whatever form it is a chat room comment section that sort of thing if you are logging into your banking website or your credit card website you are not posting information because you're not in a public forum of any kind similarly if you if you purchase airline tickets you're not posting information you're engaging in a commercial transaction that isn't public and that in that way so you wouldn't have to disclose that information to snyder how do you respond to defendant's argument that there should be some sort of assessment juvenile offenders if their registration obligations arise from misdemeanor two years after that adjudication they can petition the circuit court for terminations of the registration obligations and whether the obligations are terminated depends on a report from a value in a sex offender evaluator regarding their likelihood of risky consideration of their emotional family social histories various risk factors and if the court finds by preponderance of the evidence that the juvenile sex offender is no longer a danger to society then they'll terminate the reporting period so there is that kind of individual ised weighing for juvenile sex offenders which is appropriate because as courts have recognized juveniles are not are not adults they're still maturation process to go through and they are not encourage a bully necessarily pathological or have a lapse in judgment that they can still grow out of for adult sex offenders that's really  a policy determination that the general assembly has determined that for adult sex offenders they don't have that sort of growth potential that juveniles have  protective measures by the legislature i'm not i can't second guess that decision but there's also a number of studies that suggest that it's significantly higher we know that the vast majority of sex offenses are not reported they're difficult to investigate they're difficult to discover and that's one of the reasons that this sort of disclosure information is so important for public safety is a provide law enforcement with a way to start investigations of online sex offenses which otherwise can be readily hidden through the use of pseudonyms it's just requires tell us your pseudonyms tell us the aliases that you're interacting with the public under and tell us the places where you're using those aliases so if an offense is discovered in one of those areas for example if a piece of child pornography is discovered on line and the police are investigating the exploitation of this child they go to the child they speak to or they find out that she had sent a nude photo of herself to someone she unpopular individuals from retaliation and their ideas from suppression at the hands of an intolerant society those words from the supreme court could easily have been written about this case this court should now affirm the trial court and hold that the internet speech disclosure requirements of the sex offender registration act are substantially over broad and therefore unconstitutional under the first amendment for three reasons first the statute eliminates the protected right to anonymous speech on the internet second the statute chills the speech of the statu shells too much speech by implicating all speech a register makes on the internet and third the statute chills the speech of far too many people by failing to  but many people who present little or no threat to society by failing to to have an individualized risk assessment of who needs to be included in the system now mr kimmel what specific language in the statute chills your second point when you said chills all speech what language can you point to that regulate speech as opposed to disclosure only well so it's disclosure of everywhere you've spoken on public on release of the information to find that speech so you're correct you don't have to disclose things you've said but you do have to disclose the all the other details of what of how i've spoken and that's for any speech you've made since the last time we registered so i think i think mark misses case there's a great demonstration of how this can how this can go wrong the system and the chilling effect that it places on sex offenders each time they go to speak on the internet mark had registered his facebook account mark as a juvenile offender he had read register his facebook account at least twice previously and then this time for whatever reason it appear on the registration form the police went online and looked at his facebook account and saw that prior to that registration he had used that account in some ways including uploading a new profile for a picture and for that he's not charged with a class three felony the chilling effect i'm talking about here is in addition to the chilling effect the state argues against those two here one is the the lack of anonymous speech the other  effect that we explore in the brief and the state ignores entirely in its briefs and in arguments today is this each time a sex offender goes to speak on the internet just before that moment of speech you have to think is this instance of speech worth a potential class three felony down the road there's a risk that you might forget to include that when you register you might forget that you went on that one website that one time and posted a comment and that would be a this is a facial challenge around so we're talking about adults and juveniles although mark is a juvenile and so his speech is not necessarily disclosed to the public there is a mechanism by which it can be disclosed to the public and that's if law enforcement and their discretion the too many people and too much speech so that's really a fact i was just talking about as opposed to the loss of a lot of a speech the chilling effect from that there's also a stand alone showing effect on this possible felony conviction hanging over your head every time you speak and you have to your face able eyes that risk is this moment of speech worth a potential felony in my future and a rational person would often probably decide you know i'm going to speak a lot less on the internet so i have less to keep track of and that's a quite minimal or nonexistent in this particular case your defendant is a juvenile offender does not have his registry information subject to journal to the general public you've indicated been i'm not sure how that impacts his ability to speak on line and also the defendant uploads to a national site and viewer would have to go to a local law enforcement office just to review the information when the don't that would seem to have a fairly unlikely impact on free speech even in that context it seems to me that the impact of the disclosures is simply after the fact and goes to the local law enforcement's ability to keep tabs on a sex offender an investor your crimes after they are committed so there's a few things i will own pack in the questions of the one throughout the question was how does anonymity apply to mark and the answers at that argument does not apply to juvenile offenders but this is a facial challenge and so we're talking about adult funders and you know offenders base of federal statistics juvenile offenders make up about twenty five percent of sex offender registries so were juveniles are about a quarter so the facial challenge includes mark all the juveniles and then the seventy five percent that are adult offenders to whom the end of the speech does apply the rest of the question once of this idea of i believe how you know how much does this rusher active disclosure really affect people's amount of a speech rights the state is now making that argument but in their opening brief they make the exact opposite argument in describing their motivation behind the statute which is to allow the public to find and  all speech by sex offenders on the internet now they attempt to argue that well this they won't really find the people it's not really going to affect their right to speak but we're talking about a continuum of state surveillance for at least ten years and possibly a lifetime of a sex offender all of your speech the buckley case the state sites to discusses is talking about a discrete moment of speech and the election and so there the analysis is if the if the if your identity is revealed at the moment of your speaking of that discrete mode of speech in an election you might be less likely to speak and if your information is revealed after that discrete moment of speech it's probably not going to affect that moment of speech whether you choose to speak or not this is not a discrete moment of speech we're talking about all of your speech on the internet for at least ten years and possibly your entire life the case and cases like that with a discrete moment of speech are in opposite to this case and every single court in the united states that has addressed this issue has agreed with our analysis and no single court has adopted the state position on this case the state of illinois would become not just an extreme outlier on this issue if it's after the state's argument it would stand alone and that's especially noteworthy because the statute the only sex offender registry act is the broadest in the land that i have seen in all these cases in terms of allowing the release of sex offender information the only cases in which courts have upheld statutes sex offender statutes on the anonymous speech argument are where the police are hamstrung had their own high walls built in the statute around their ability to release the information that's the tenth tenth circuit case sheffield pace that's also the pennsylvania supreme court case couple of overseas noonan and that case the pennsylvania case contains a an actual and summary of the case law on this issue all the courts agree the question is do the police have that authority to release this information of the public once they take it or is it going to stay with the police and courts have decided the question of whether they have the constitutional right to take that information based on what happens to it afterwards  there is a unanimous agreement ashleigh only to reject the state's position on this argument don't you think some here arguments might be directed better to the legislature i think the outcome should the state should this court strike down the statute the outcome the legislature's job will be to figure out how to correctly if they still want to attack this problem of how to write a statute that comports with the first amendment the state makes that argument in response to are too many people argument that this is a matter for the legislature it's this court's duty to review the constitutionality of the statute and part of that duty involves passing judgment on whether the people that are involved in the scheme belong there in terms of its over breath yet your argument regarding the risk assessment you suggested exactly are over and that's because if a number of people that present no discussed say that the overwhelming number the overwhelming percentage of those people both juveniles and adults that are included in the scheme are little to no risk to society that makes the burden on their speech substantially overbroad so it is a question for the legislature but as a policy matter but the constitutionality of the statute also has an examination of the state's interest and that means that it's using it to try to achieve that ish wrist and here that means there scooping  on the federal custer said ok and you want to employ a strict scrutiny analysis right we have argued that structure is appropriate we aren't some for purposes of my question just assume for a minute that we reject your argument that scripts troops scrutiny applies and or media scrutiny applies and then we have to determine under in an intermediate standard whether the requirements of the statute are nearly drawn to serve a constitution or substantial government purposes without unnecessarily interfering with first amendment freedoms you agree with that right correct and you probably will tell me that even under the intermediate scrutiny to just that it would be overbroad at the highest yes there and then the state comes back and says those studies are flawed because those studies only consumer convictions and not realizing that many sentences go on reported around detected so they they come at those numbers right that's or so back to we're just as burke was isn't this this court has repeatedly said that those kind of policy questions in determinations and and point counterpoint and whether individuals risk assessment methods that can tell at least on the back end with respect to juveniles whether they should be taken off the registry the same tools can be used on the front end to determine who is likely to commit to who was a high risk to commit any sex crime whatever the recidivism rate is if it's twenty five percent or fifty percent or number of people are are not likely within the security of sex crimes and those people speech should not be burdened by this statute so the legislature has the role of writing the statute but this court needs to find that this this scheme does not is not substantially over broad and burdening a number of people speech who did not present a risk to rescind it so so in some ways the argument over what the roof citizen right is is is irrelevant as long as we agree that there are tools to determine who presents a risk averse evading and the state has conceded that now there are jurisdictions including minnesota who have set up this type of says every gormless of the numbers i mean you know the number you were presenting was ninety percent make a decision asserted that that the number might be as high as eighty percent i believe there was no the source for that again goes to this one individual who has no training or background in those things those types of numbers have been soundly rejected by the best science available including the study that i referenced that talked about at most twenty five percent so we can debate those numbers to some extent the best science seems to tell us that a rate is actually lower than most other offenses burglary assault there are high recidivism rates for a lot of crime sex offenders are no different in that respect but the product point is for including a number of people want to talk about the types of speech that the statute captures because i think that if we for you move to that should we be in a position to be terminated which of these figures is accurate as are do we assume and give deference to the legislature that may have looked at this and said this is the way to solve a problem and they made it as a policy decision to which we w the policy process if it wants to step back from that the anonymous speech argument stands alone without that issue and that's enough to decide this case and also the argument the statute gobbles up too much speech that argument also stands alone so you know if this court decides not to go down that route it has these two other independent arguments rely on those eyes as i've said the fact that the state essentially concedes a number of these people scooped up by the statute especially juveniles have a very low risk over set of them means that there needs to be some analysis on the front end of whether they deserve to be there at all even two years including the juveniles in the scheme for two years before they can possibly petition off is a burden on their speech that's that that's not allowed by the first amendment at least we hope this court will agree with that now god by capturing all speech on the internet by a sex offender this is the statute i think it's important to talk to someone about what what that means that includes all political speech by sex offender if they to they want to be an activist to change laws they have to register all of that political speech any religious speech going to church online the statue captures that and possibly broadcast all that information to the public so a sex offender going to church on line now has to do so with the knowledge that the public will know he's a sex offender while going to church it captures literary speech business speech and these are all types of speech that are on it's true that the statute there had a quick turnaround time and that was one of the problems but but the hairs of course analysis goes well beyond that issue to attack you know on a lot of the speech issue at a number of other problems and  i would highlight here the state has argued that this is only if you know once a year or less register maybe four times a year the police can show up on your doorstep at any time and ask you to register and they can do that up to four additional times a year fast annual registration and any time any of your information changes you get a new cell phone you start a new job you move you have to reregister so a lot of those are no and again the police can show up tomorrow and ask you to register and you have to be ready with your list of every website you've just briefly address three points first the federal case is the different sites with respect to juvenile offenders offenders whose registry information is not made widely available to the public the tenth circuit case certainly financially upheld those disclosure requirements on the basis that it wasn't disclosed the anonymity argument is based not on the section three disclosure requirements but on the dissemination of information collected by those requirements under the notification law defendant has no burden on his speech under that law it's not have standing to challenge that law and it's worth noting that those federal cases also none of those are criminal cases those are and those are not prosecution cases those are cases where sex offenders filed injunctive actions in federal court saying we are subject to these disclosure requirements that information is then made publicly available and thus a chilling effect and so on that's not the case here defense information is not made widely available if the court were to strike down the notification law it would have no effect on the charge against defendant information is still related to the public purpose of protecting against recidivism because it still allows law enforcement to investigate otherwise nonnes sex crimes that intersect with on line interactions those federal cases also fail to notice or to to note and analyze the relation of publicizing sex offender information with alerting the public to the risk posed by sex offenders in the community doesn't come up in that case despite the supreme court having said in smith the row that other that that is a legitimate purpose that advances public safety second point i want to address is the too much speech argument that all speech is must be registered but no speech must be registered only forums and aliases need to be registered that there isn't any speech that's unrelated to the need to investigate recidivist sex offenses if a sex offender is online chat room and is about to solicit a child to send him a nude photo if he sends that solicitation it doesn't just because the chat room is baseball themes doesn't make it unrelated to the state's purpose if a sex offense it can be committed there or into evidence leading to the discovery of a sex offense can be found somewhere it's related to the public safety purpose the argument is made that too much speech argument new address that how again does the  so how does identifying that a sex offender has posted pictures on facebook protect the public the individual members of the public well the disclosure is that they've it advises so for an adult offender who's information be disseminated it would allow the public is now that here is a sex offender up interacting with the public on facebook under this name most of the time or many many instances facebook accounts are under one person's actual name but sometimes they're not and so now someone know us right one of the billion people who use this site every day is a sex offender what what does that number the public supposed to do with that information to protect themselves well it doesn't mean that you don't go to facebook necessarily but it does mean that now you know that if you get a message on facebook from that account that it that account is a sex offenders account so you may you may not respond you may decide that if you're going to respond you're going to limit the kind of information that you disclose again going back to the chat room a baseball chat room is not something that we associate with right hoppin of criminal sexuality but that doesn't mean that people can't use that that venue to lay the ground for subsequent sex offenses or that evidence that leads to sex offenses can't be discovered in those in those forms so knowing that a sex offender is active on a certain facebook or on some other website allows the public to make an informed decision as to whether they want to expose themselves to the risk of interacting with that person either at that particular account as in facebook or by visiting that forum it may be that if they go to that forum they'll limit the kinds of sense of information they'll discuss if i'm on  baseball forum i know that it's frequented by sex offenders in my neighborhood maybe i don't talk about how my own my kids are huge fans of the cubs you know we can't wait to go to the game this weekend or you know we went to a local baseball autograph at you know such and such a location maybe i don't want to give that kind of information out on that forum knowing that it may be available to a sex offender who's known to frequent that form finally that the chilling effect  simply having to disclose information it's true that having to disclose the list of forms in which you've spoken and the pseudonyms under which you have spoken is a burden but the mere fact of there being a burden doesn't make it  unconstitutional burden and has to be a burden that is not justified by the legitimate government sole purpose that that motivates it there's no question that the protection of the public from recidivism is a legitimate public year you can capture all of that activity by writing e s p n dot com on your registration form that's you've taken all of those interactions and you're now you're now free of potential sanction for those interactions because you disclosed them  the other thing is it's important member that people's telephones and laptops and i pads and all these things now have browser histories you can go back and look at all the websites that you visit in such and such  period and refresh your memory if you happen to go to a public library where it's not your particular device or not logged into an account of yours that tracks your information is true if you go to a public library and you speak under and do pseudonym that you come up with there or that you never use again you'll have to make a note somewhere that is a burden but that's not an unreasonable burden to put on sex offenders who pose as the general just general somebody has determined a substantial risk of and for those reasons and the reasons and i would prefer we ask the court reverse the circuit court's judgment mr snyder before you sit down how does that a member of the public specifically know that this individual who posts on facebook has that classification has a person that's registered they've done it legally you go to read this post how do you know who that person is and in the context of being an offender well you know how a member of the public would know that particular facebook profile belongs to a sex  they would have well so if for example i am i move into a new neighborhood i want to know who the sex offenders the neighborhood are and go to the local law enforcement office and request to see the registry information of sex offenders that tells me who they are and it also tells me they're if they're on facebook and they're following their disclosure obligations it'll tell me these are the facebook profiles of your local sex offenders and then the individual has to take the extra step to cross check it with the registry that's right it's a tool it's available to the public they they need not avail themselves of it depending on how they see the risk in their particular circumstances what's to have the government makes available as legitimate tool let me ask you another question about the cubs of the fact that you gave parity there between the two teams but the individual goes in and does the registration everything is legal decides to put a political rant on facebook about the governor and all four legislative leaders that there's no budget right the individual including the attorney general's office but there's no problem with that what is the burden of the registration right i mean isn't in the political rant completely legal oh he can he can say whatever he wants there's no restriction on what he says all that the disclosure requirements do is make it possible for someone to recognize him but if he came into this room and ranted about there not being a budget if someone had seen him on the  online registry saw his face they're able to recognize him from that public document that doesn't constitutionally violate his right to anonymity because he's not being required to himself identify himself to his audience that the world's a big place we recognize people from all kinds of different cont particularly restrictive that the way that it would be an outlier is if you only look at the statutes that were addressed by these federal cases and i believe by the pennsylvania case those cases struck those down but of course they as we point out they didn't consider the same policy the same purpose of alerting the public and they were a different vehicle they were brought as a injunctive actions rather than challenging a criminal charge thank you thank you thank you counsel case one who are nine five six three people of the state all i burst is mark minister will be taken under advisement as agenda number seven mr snyder and mr kendall thank you for your arguments this morning you're excused at this time