Do you know if AWB has any plans to come on this blog (or another) and give us the latest information?

I can't believe they would've taken his site down based upon what you said. I'm not saying they didn't - I would just be surprised...

With it not being available to see, at least in my mind, it is questionable whether that was a statement made by AWB, or was it a comment that someone else said? I stated on my blog, we have no control over what comments are left on our blogs unless of course we just delete them all....but then that just takes away the overall right of everyone for freedom of speech.

It might be easy right now to sit back and point a finger, but we all damn well better realize our freedom of speech is at stake here also.

Couldn't happen to a nicer guy

He has posted one comment on my blog in this matter, I have offered my blog for his forum but I am sure that he will come up with something. Just remember, whatever happens to him happens to all of us, its a matter of freedom of speech.

http://type-that.blogspot.com/2006/11/holy-wow.html (As we all know, I am horrible with links, so as usual, copy and paste.)

Sorry Tim, I deleted your message in error trying to take down a double post of mine.

Here it was:

TIM ZANK SAID:

I was on his site last night shortly before midnight (I remember SNL was on) and there was nothing unusual on his site except three comments about hatespeech and
how badly the offenders were treated. I remember one of the posters was Betty Price with a link to her group and website Roar for Freedom...http://www.roarforfreedom.com Check out their website, it's for offenders/victims/family/etc...I don't know if she got him suspended or if it was about the post just before where the address for the offenders employer was incorrect..

Oh, I forgot...Craig you can be a real schmuck sometimes.

Good. This guy is a racist, ignorant asshole who serves as a reminder of the important differences between journalists and bloggers (little things like editing and fact checking).* He'll be back, of course, still bitter about his divorce and using the shutdown of his blog as an opportunity to play the martyr and rail against anyone who's not exactly like him. In the meantime, we can enjoy the temporary silence.

*And no, I'm neither a journalist nor an editor. But I do care about the standards they set.

Love him or hate him, Danny had every right to post his opinions. I only wish I had thought about posting sex offender profiles first. The only real problem I ever had with Danny had nothing to do wwith his political beliefs, nor his middle school name-calling and child-like tantrums, no, my problem was when he would use terms like "wetbacks" or post offensive stereotypical depictions of blacks. But unless he was directing these seemingly racist comments toward a particular person, I just let it go.

But, no matter how much I disliked many of Dan's comments, I will still back his right to free speech. I still believe in the Constitution, even if AWB doesn't! So, if he needs me to testify on his behalf, I will do it. You don't need to agree with someone or like them to know when they've been wronged.

Push the envelope as he may, I think Dan was in the right here (or at least the "legal"). My wife disagrees, based on the ISOR disclaimer forbidding harassment. I tend to think that since Dan didn't post a "mailto:" link saying "send this guy a threat," that he's probably not guilty of harassment, unless someone can prove that he made contact with, or influenced another person to initiate contact with one of his "Shitbag of the Day" subjects. If THAT is the case, well, that's another story altogether.

"*And no, I'm neither a journalist nor an editor. But I do care about the standards they set.

LOL, kinda like Rich Reynolds then...?

Before any of you go on posting sex offenders pictures and addresses on your blog, keep in mind such actions are NOT free speech issues, but are indeed considered threats to citizens that, had they been made to you or me, would warrant a complaint to law enforcement.

Vile as their actions had been, they were convicted and sentenced by a court of law. Once their sentence was up, they are required by law to register their addresses and workplaces, along with other information, for inclusion on the Internet, as a tool for community members to raise their families.

The problem is that blogs such as Dan's have led to offenders being harassed and their families (yes, many offenders have children!) ostracized. When threats such as "shoot them all" are used, with individuals and addresses and google-earthed satellite photos of their houses are shown with a big bulls-eye target, then the registry has gone BEYOND that of a tool to help families, as an object of vigilante justice.

HOW on earth does that protect kids, I'll NEVER know. But in the meantime, legal action is being considered against the blog owner for threats, REAL threats, not First amendment opinions, including both criminal and civil intent. I sincerely hope that such action is not needed for other blogs.

Yes, having a blog and complaining about sex offenders in the midst is wonderful. Even including names is fair game, after all they are public record. But when threats are made to lives, pictures and addresses are posted, that goes beyond blogging, and is now, in all probability, going to a courtroom. Please understand, this is not a threat, but a reaction that is necessary to maintain our constitutional authority and, ultimately AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, the REAL safety of all our children.

Michael Reese
man4theages@hotmail.com

Michael,

Who the fuck are you, and why exactly do you seem so keenly interested, nay, intimately knowledgable of this situation? You have been posting and re-posting your drivel across the local blog scene, as if we are

a) supposed to know who the fuck you are
b) supposed to listen to you as if your word were gospel
c) supposed to be even remotely concerned with what registered child molesters think

I've got a copy of Dan's article from my RSS reader. I'm gonna re-post it tomorrow....somewhere. Stay tuned.

Andrew,

Thank you for your interest. Here goes...

1. I am a person who has been contacted by a family member of one of the offenders whose offense has been "highlighted" on Dan's blog. In fact, that family member is a very scared teenager who is NOT the offender, but will have to deal with the very real consequences of such a threat. She is more scared of such threats than she is of the offender himself, as she should be.

2. I really don't give a darn if you think my word is "gospel". However, I do give a darn if people I know are threatened, as you would do the same if YOU were threatened.

3. Frankly, I don't give a dog gone about anyone's crimes, other than the fact they should be punished severely and sentenced accordingly with relation to their crime. But when their sentence is over, they DO have rights. NO more rights than anyone, but no LESS rights (other than registration and other court-imposed punishments) than you or your child get.

Now, I'm a firm believer in one strike your out for violent (not statutory) offenses, and two strikes you're out for ANY two offenses. That makes me a pretty conservative law and order type fella. But when I see nothing done about actually CURBING molestation in the first place, but threats that cause kids to be scared more than what their relative actually DID for their crime, there is a breach that must be corrected.

And, since I am NOT one to hide, I post my name and email.

Michael Reese
man4theages@hotmail.com

So all of this BS that's wasted my precious blogging time today (and space on my fine tabloid) is YOUR doing?

Cute.

I do appreciate your candor.

Dan has NEVER highlighted anyone on his blog that wasn't a child molester or a rapist. He has NEVER highlighted a non-violent offender, and furthermore, he has never called anyone to action (or even implied action) about a specific person.

For the most part, Dan has only cast light on subjects who were either

1) Employed in a particularly unusual profession with respect to their offenses
2) In violation of their registration guidelines

I don't see the problem, but I guess somebody else does. More power to them, I guess...good luck in court!

No one has made any threats directly to any one person. As Andrew has stated, Dan posts the information about registered sex offenders. A person does not become a registered offender by being innocent. Our legal system has determined that all citizens need and have the right to know about these offenders. Mr. Reese you have quoted across the blogosphere several times today the user agreement when using the Sheriff registry. As I have pointed out, there are many other websites across the internet hosting this information also, with no user agreements. Wherever Dan may get his information from, it makes no difference, it is public record.

I can remember the humiliation of my first speeding ticket, it is newspaper policy to publish traffic infractions along with any other infraction of the law. There was nothing I could do to stop the newspaper from publishing my speeding ticket, my marriage license or my divorce. Its all public record. I am not sure how we are to interpret the laws and govern the use of the internet. It is still a rather new "legal area" - but I really don't quite see how it differs as a news source the same as any newspaper, anywhere.

Where am I going with this? Am I just babbling? Well, anyone can start up their own newspaper or radio station or television station, etc... Anyone can walk into any courthouse anywhere and view all public records. These public records can be published in Joe Schmoe's newspaper that he prints from his computer at home and distributes as he sees fit. The National Enquirer can walk into any courthouse and get enough information to write one heck of a headline and story, good enough to sell way too many copies of that trash. Point being, its all freedom of speech.

It just seems to me what might have started as what you perceived as a short one man battle, may very well turn into a battle that will set precedent for years to come.

Thank you for your candor as well. As far as "luck in court", frankly, my primary goal regarding any issue regard for sex offenders is for the implementation of laws and procedures that PREVENT molestation in the first place.

Most people agree that sex offenses against children, at ANY level, is serious. The people that Dan had portrayed are in fact not the tree-pissers or the flashers for the most part, but there WERE some non-violent, non-statutory invididuals in his blog who were nevertheless included in the rants. Again, while there is no argument against including names or anger directed against the convicted offenders, as blogs have every right to profess such views, the only issue was the violation of the Indiana laws that prohibit such unauthorized use of the information to be used in such a way that Dan did. 5 murders have been attributed to murderers acquiring their victims' data through registry information, and hundreds of attacks and property damage has been done because of the listings. Whether or not the offenders "deserved" it is irrevelent. What IS relevent is that such justice, if not meted out in the court, can actually ENDANGER real, proven steps to curb molestation in the first place, by diversion of resources.

When offenders violate registration "guidelines", that is indeed a problem as they become fugitives from the law. Normally, it would be no problem with me if the fugitives' (note my correct definition of the offender' status at this point) names are posted, and in fact there would be no problem with posting of such information, IF the information is valid. However, websites are sometimes slow in changing information, or are even incorrect, and sometimes erroneously show that an offender is violating a residency disclosure when, in reality, the offender may not be in violation. At that time, the blogger himself can be liable for defamation if anything occurs as a result of his posting.

As a father of two girls and a boy, of course I would be careful of where they go and whom they associate with. In addition, I applaud many of the laws that are finally realizing the serious nature of child molestation, including harsher sentencing and more accountable treatment programs for when they DO get out. And in my opinion all molestors should go to jail for life if they commit a violent offense, or two offenses of any level. Gradation of the offense, as well as victim retribution, should be the key.

Michael Reese

First off Michael (I doubt your real name), you will not stop me. Second, the data was NOT taken from the Indiana Sheriff's Association web site. Give that up too. Third, as a father you certainly have a hidden agenda. Perhaps you were convicted of a sexual crime and someone fingered you?

You can try all you want with the take-down requests. It won't happen. I've already turned my personal web site around (www.turkette.com) to host this fight and www.fortwaynenews.com will soon be using it's own software so you won't have TypePad to back up you or your bullshit claims.

You'll lose.

www.fortwaynenews.com is back online

I'm still working on getting the pictures of all the child molesters back up, but they'll be there by the days' end; you can count on it Michael.

Mr. Turkette:

Thanks for your public service.

I'll be reading/watching and
on the look out for wanted
(and/or) previous convicted molesters toward woman, children,
and men.

Maybe, I'll research the stats
on just how rehabilitated these
crime offenders are. It seems this
type of crime is more heinous
then the public wants to be educated on.

Nice try Michael, but Mr. Turkette is apparently pouting, and in no mood to discuss issues. In his anger, he can't seem to realize that his actions actually endanger the existence of the registry of sex offenders.

Legally, these registers are relatively new, controversial and not yet the subject of definitive judicial decisions concerning constitutionality. The registry represents a first effort at balancing issues of societal safety against constitutional limits on punishment, imposition of limits on rights of propery ownership, free association, etc. There are MANY lawyers crafting the arguments to challenge the registry (and related) laws. Mr. Turkette gives them extra ammunition to do so.

Posting a couple of pictures of sex offenders per week, and accompanying the pictures with comments and rantings about "shooting," "killing," "kicking ass" and guns, is not a public service but a public diatribe done for the private pleasures of the author. Public officials and private citizens concerned about maintaining and refining the registry so that it will be available for legitimate use by the public will and must actively seek to stop the abuse of the information by people like Mr. Turkette. The failure to take such action (at least by public officials tasked to do so) could, itself, be used as evidence to challege the propriety of the registry, judicially and legislatively.

For all of those who have threatened to emulate Mr. Turkette as a show of support for him, please reconsider. If you care about the issue then, by all means, provide links to the registry on your blogs, encourage people to check it often and to consult with law enforcement authorities if they have questions. Link to SCAN and other appropriate sites. But "joking" about shooting and killing people because their name appears upon a list endangers the existence of that list.

Sarcasm on anonymous:

This reminds me of the Carroll high school student that was
expelled for printing a satorical
writting about the H.S. adminstration during his senior
year with disclaimers.

It's amazing how information
is miscontrued.

I believe if the Fort Wayne area
is really concerned about a threat to the community; it ought
to take a hard look at "real crime" and "real Issues".

Sarcasm off...

Don't know why I bother, but....

Would one of you who care about AWB please tell him to check his facts. As part of his current crusade, he has identified one of his antagonists as a "Betsy Price" and has posted various factual assertions about her based upon his internet snooping." In particular, he is claiming that she has asserted on the internet that she obtained a court order permitting the man who molested her children to continue to live in the same home with them. The problem, as pointed out to him by a poster claiming to be Betsy Price's husband, is that AWB has his facts WRONG. AWB's own link is to a post by somebody named "Linda", to whom a Betsy Price did respond with a very different story (assuming that is even the same "Betsy Price")

Not surprisingly, AWB is too ----- to read his own link and admit he is WRONG. Who knows, maybe he wants to just admit actual malice for his possibly defamatory statements.

Pleae, somebody who cares, try to stop the train before the crash.

What the fuck are you talking about and why would anybody here care?

AWB's a big boy and perfectly capable of handling himself.