The law satets that registered sex offenders that live in the city of orange have to post a sign that says there is no candy or treats at this residence and if it is not clearly displayed the offender can be hit with a 1,000$ fine.
The sex offender that filled the law suit has clamed this it violates the 1st Amendment rights of registered sex offenders and puts them, and anyone living with them, at risk of physical and emotional harm.
I think this law is just. It ensures the safety of the children in the city and keeps them from a potentially harmful situation. The sign seems like a good way to deter people and its not like it says "Hey a sex offender lives here!" it just says "No candy."
this is a tough one for me. i understand both sides. they just want to protect kids from sex offenders with this law but it also is extremely embarrassing to the offenders.
I don't believe we have true freedom of speech. Being that they are "Sex offenders" their freedoms is gone and parents finding out that their child received candy from one will cause the Sex offender to get in trouble and make the situtation go way out of proportion.
I used to live in the city of Orange, and it is not the best place for children to roam the streets late at night a lot of interesting people...
. And on Halloween parents can easily lose their children. I understand why the have the law in that area, to protect children. Being a sex offender does stay with you for the rest of your life, and yes some change. But i would rather be safe then sorry.
I think that it is a violation of the first amendment. I also believe that it is the parents responsibility to make sure that they are aware of their neighborhood and its potential hazards. They have websites dedicated to searching for sex offenders.
If the law is aimed at protecting children, then it should stay that way. I'm sorry to say this, but even though putting up a sign might get the sex offender 'tricked', that's much better than having a sex offender use 'the no-sign law' to his/her advantage. The offender might harm someone because on Halloween that would be real easy to do. On the news you almost always hear about an incident happening on Halloween where someone gets hurt, or something goes wrong. The 'sign' law should stay.
I can see both sides to the debate but I think that the law is a violation of free speech. Just because you're a sex offender doesn't mean you're going to hurt anyone. Someone who is not a sex offender could be just as likely to hurt someone.
both sides are debatable, but i think the law should be kept in place to protect children. specially those who go out on their own.
if parents would go out with their kids and there were less kids going out unsupervised this wouldn't be as big of an issue.
I understand why the signs are a good idea but if you think about it if the parents are sooo worried about their children recieving candy from a sex offender they can look it up online and find who is registered in their trick-or-treat area and just avoid those houses...it's not like these people are able to hide, if they're registered it's public knowledge, I mean i sorta feel bad for these people that they have to be publically humiliated with a sign. Plus I remember being a kid and my parent's knew where the 1 registered man was and he never gave out candy on halloween and he's well into his 70's now but if he still has to have a sign I find that pretty degrading, yes what they did was wrong but they're still people...
Not all sex offenders are dangerous, but this law should remain in place to protect children. Instead of abolishing the law, the crimes that can cause somone to be classified as a sex offender should be revised.