Member Submission: Let’s not go there. Please.
FAC, its members, and the registered citizen community are best served by complete solidarity. We do each other a disservice when we engage in partisan preaching. There are enough sources out there for divisive views, we need not introduce them here. We have limited resources and a very clear mission. Let’s stick to that.
If an open and fact-based debate about partisan views is of particular relevance to us, such as which candidate or party has a better track records of criminal justice reform, and so on, then it is legitimate. Anything else only serves to divide us.
Although I completely respect, have admiration for, and sympathize with the author of the submission just submitted earlier today (Oct 14, 2018), the introduction does the rest of what otherwise was a remarkable post a great disservice. It immediately dives into trendy fake-news [REDACTED] rhetoric. This sort of discourse is immediately divisive and without any good reason. It does not advance our community or the FAC mission.
So please, when you’re in the company of your FAC community, remember that we come from very diverse backgrounds with very diverse opinions, politics included. If saying something good or bad, or pushing or opposing a political party, idea, or anything, does not serve the common goals we have, whether or not to even say it should be considered carefully. Additionally, if FAC is to continue to post member-submissions, divisive language can and arguably should be censored in favor of a succinct story that advances our ideals.
I totally agree Fac needs to stay neutral.This is our safe space against a world that hates us but they do the same and /or worst behavior than we been convicted of. That was a very strong point of view I like to see it get published or air too.”Where is my Voice.” Very touching and hits home too!! However we need to support each other and encourage one another. Remember “a Divided house will not stand”
I am somewhat confused about this post as FAC stated, “the introduction does the rest of what otherwise was a remarkable post a great disservice. It immediately dives into trendy fake-news Republican [fake] conservatism rhetoric. ” To me, that also seems partisan and divisive, maybe even more so than the writer you are discussing.
I do agree that to avoid seeming biased at all, the author of the earlier piece, which I found very compelling, could easily have been more neutral by not using the term liberal”. We need all voices as you stated, but I was taken back by your words as well.
I disagree with Bea Ware. FAC wasn’t claiming that everything put out by conservatives is fake news. However, when it happens, it’s important to challenge the untruths. Remember, the very term “fake news” was popularized by our President, a Republican, against the perceived “liberal” media. We have to point out the falsehoods wherever they are, whether from the Left or from the Right.
“Additionally, if FAC is to continue to post member-submissions, divisive language can and arguably should be censored in favor of a succinct story that advances our ideals.”
Are you suggesting that FAC censor and edit free speech and the rights we all enjoy under the 1st Amendment?
Tell me that you are not suggesting that FAC should do that……….
Correct – that is the suggestion.
We have a member code of conduct intended keep us on track and avoid saying (or in our case, publishing) things that would violate that code, incite other members, things that are completely false, scandalous or take a position that has no relevance to our organization or our mission.
These are not things that violate the first amendment.
Let’s not go there? Please re-read this post and let’s not go there with the comment about Republican (fake) conservatism rhetoric. At least Republicans believe in the constitution (our rights) as opposed to legislating from the bench.
I think we need to keep political opinions out of what we do. We have enough problems. Legislators from both sides of the isle need to be replaced.
M Roberts, I think you are missing something important. Right now, our only hope for ridding ourselves from the unconstitutionally harsh registry laws is action from the bench. Look at what the politicians actually do, instead of the patriotic rhetoric they throw at us. Every state, whether controlled by Republicans or Democrats, is piling on onerous restrictions as extra punishment for people convicted of sex crimes. No one is standing up for OUR rights. Every American claims to believe in the Constitution. Few transfer that stated belief into action.
The judiciary has been reduced to legislating as the incumbent legislators do nothing, from both sides of the aisle. Winning the next election is all they give a shit about.
Also from both sides of the aisle they infringe on our rights, democrat like Lauren Book to republican like Scott who has signed off on all of the increases in our requirements for the last 8 years.
There is certainly bi-partisanship happening, unfortunately it is against us.
Many if not most of the problems facing former offenders in Florida are the consequence of the legislature taking action. Over and over and over again. Witness the legislative history in FAC’s recent ex post facto filing.
And for those that are having to serve mandatory minimum sentences, the problem is not legislating from the bench but precisely its opposite— judging from the legislature. A sentencing commission survey of federal district judges found, for example, that 63% of those judges found Congress’ mandatory minimum sentences for pictures to be excessive, even though those judges are completely powerless to impose a more appropriate sentence.
There may be other areas in which inaction by the legislature, or legislating from the bench, are presenting problems. But not when it comes to sex offenses.
I agree. The problem with trendy fake-news is that it is thrown at us and accepted as fact in the guise of a news show. It is the same attitude that demonizes all of us who have ever been convicted of a sex offense. No real evidence is required. It all serves to divide us with hate and disdain for others. Those attitudes will not help resolve the problem of an unjust registry system. It will only make solving the problem harder.
Whole country in Hell in a Handbag
It immediately dives into trendy fake-news [REDACTED] rhetoric. This sort of discourse is immediately divisive and without any good reason.
Me thinks the author was intentionally making a point here by irritating some people who would post their irrelevant beliefs regardless of how offensive it might be to some. For those who don’t understand people have a right not to have views shoved down their throat, one way to show them the problem is to show them how it feels, then explain that the whole purpose of the statement was to upset them in the same way their statements might upset someone else with differing views. It is ironic as much as it is unfortunate that it those who dish it out the most usually can’t handle any sort of rebuttal with any semblance of tempered reason.
In other words, if you were upset about anything in this post, you are the primary target of the rhetoric by someone who is trying to help you gain some understanding of what it’s like to be on the receiving end of someone else’s beliefs.
Everyone who shares this forum should understand that its purpose is not to spread your general beliefs on anything, it is about advancing the cause we all share.
Everyone should understand that if this place becomes a sounding board for one political party, the other half will have the unfortunate choice between listening to those beliefs in order to participate in the real purpose for this site and org, or leave and try to find another home to advocate that is more focused. Either way you slice it, not a good outcome.
If I haven’t made this point before…Part of what gives FAC it’s credibility is that its members come from across the political spectrum. We put those views aside when it comes to educating (when we can) legislators, educating the public, submitting court filings, etc. If we didn’t do that, then we’d have to write off half the state as unreachable
Yes, exactly!