We will not comply with this request to allow convicted sex predators to use social networking sites. I will fight this with everything I have. If these people want to search the Internet for new victims they can do it somewhere else. This lawsuit is a disturbing break from reality, even for the ACLU. As Governor and the father of three young kids, I will fight the ACLU every step of the way and do everything I can to keep our kids safe from the monsters who want to harm them.

US courts have seen numerous constitutional challenges to laws placing restrictions on sex offenders. In May 2010, the US Supreme Court [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] 7-2 in United States v. Comstock [Cornell LII backgrounder] that mentally ill sex offenders may be civilly committed beyond their prison sentences. The New Jersey Supreme Court [official website] ruled [JURIST report] in May 2009 that local ordinances prohibiting convicted sex offenders from living near schools, playgrounds, and other public areas were preempted by the state's Megan's Law [text] and, therefore, invalid. Courts have invalidated similar laws in Indiana, Georgia and California [JURIST reports]. In March 2009, the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] that a South Carolina law [SC Code §§ 23-3-600 et seq. text] requiring convicted first degree sex offenders to submit to a DNA test and pay $250 in processing fees prior to their release does not violate the ex post facto clause [text] of the Constitution. A judge in the US District Court for the Eastern District of California [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] in February 2009 that the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act of 2006 (SORNA) [DOJ materials], which makes it a federal crime for a sex offender to attempt to move to another state while failing to register in a nationwide database, is unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court of the Philippines [official website] unanimously upheld the constitutionality of HSA [JURIST report] in October 2010, ruling the petitioners lacked legal standing to challenge the law because it had not caused them any actual damage. In its decision, the court noted that law enforcement officers' reluctance to enforce the law [JURIST report] means it has had no real effect on the civil liberties of militant groups. Even before the controversial law went into effect [JURIST report], there was substantial opposition to the legislation. In March 2007, UN human rights expert Martin Scheinin recommended that the act be amended or repealed [JURIST report]. Also that year, the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines urged the government to revisit the act [JURIST report], saying that "many voices are apprehensive" about the anti-terror legislation. In response to criticism, Filipino presidential spokesperson Ignacio Bunye said that the law had already undergone "exhaustive debates" in the legislature [JURIST report]. The government also announced plans for a "massive public information and advocacy campaign" to accompany implementation and highlight "the existence of terror cells in the region and throughout the world."

A similar Oklahoma law has recently been challenged in court. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and CAIR in May asked [JURIST report] the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit [official website] to uphold [brief, PDF] a lower court ruling that blocked an Oklahoma constitutional amendment banning courts from considering international or Islamic law. Oklahoma voters overwhelmingly approved the measure [JURIST report], State Question 755 (SQ 755) [text, PDF], last November with 70 percent of the vote. The ACLU and CAIR filed suit on behalf of Oklahoma citizen Muneer Awad, who argued that the ban would invalidate part of his will, which is partially rooted in Islamic Sharia Law, and a judge for the US District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma [official website] issued a temporary injunction [JURIST report]. Haroon Moghul [company profile], Executive Director of The Maydan Institute [official website], described the Oklahoma law as a "preemptive strike" [JURIST comment] against American Muslims.

This unabashed violation of freedom and equality of religions is paired with an open about-face from the separation of religious and political institutions that was achieved in our democratic transition twenty years ago. ... Never before has a Member State of the EU so blatantly dared to go against the principles of freedom of beliefs, equality before the law, and separation of church from state. These are all established fundamental rights in our common Europe.

Several countries have recently enacted measures to both limit and expand religious freedom. A Russian court ruled [statement text, in Russian] in July that the main texts of Scientology, including What Is Scientology?, are "calls to extremist activity" and placed them on the Federal List of Extremist Materials [text, in Russian], effectively banning them in Russia [JURIST report]. The UN Human Rights Council [official website] in March 2010 adopted a resolution [text, PDF] condemning religious defamation [JURIST report]. In 2007, Belgian prosecutor Jean-Claude Van Espen said Scientology should be classified as a criminal organization [JURIST report] after completing a 10-year investigation into the church's activities.

Many states have been embroiled in similar legal challenges to controversial immigration bills in recent months. Last week, the state of Arizona filed a petition for writ of certiorari [text, PDF; JURIST report] with the US Supreme Court [official website] seeking to overturn a lower court decision enjoining four provisions of Arizona's controversial immigration law [SB 1070 materials]. Earlier this month, Alabama lawmakers filed a response [text, PDF; JURIST report] to groups seeking a preliminary injunction against the controversial Alabama immigration law [HB 56 text] that expands restrictions on undocumented immigrants. The ACLU filed a class action suit in May challenging an Indiana immigration law [JURIST report] that requires individuals to provide proof of their legal status at all times and calls for all public meetings, websites and documents to be in English only. Also in May, the ACLU and other groups filed a class action suit against a Utah immigration law [JURIST report] that requires police to check the immigration status of anyone arrested for an alleged felony or serious misdemeanor. Federal judges have enjoined the Indiana, Oklahoma and Utah laws [JURIST reports].