Talk:Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act/Archive 5

About the structure
As someone at AN/I notice page said, we might be able to dodge the whole criticism- section by extending effects- section and creating sections for legal challenges, effectivity and civil right issues, of which the last would cover points of the critics. That sounded good proposal to me. What do you think? I'm contemplating to put up a section covering legal challenges that would include supreme court decision made this far, if it's ok to everyone. BTW, where are the AN/I discussions stored? I can't find it anymore.ViperFace (talk) 19:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes; I don't think there is any need for an independent criticism section. Integrating evaluation studies for each component would work, and an overall evaluation/public-reaction section would also.
 * Apropos, this news item just came out: . (This is on top of the earlier news of the set of laws being scaled back.)
 * — James Cantor (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The most recent AN/I discussion is here--MONGO 20:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok. I wrote a section covering some of the legal challenges and put it on the main page since I assume this is an uncontroversial edit. ViperFace (talk) 01:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Seems like my assumption was wrong. May we try to build consensus? What exactly was problematic Mongo? ViperFace (talk) 12:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This article and website are not to be used for the purposes of advocacy.--MONGO 14:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I totally agree. What was the problem with content of the edit? ViperFace (talk) 15:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Again: What is the problem with the CONTENT of the EDIT?? ViperFace (talk) 20:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks, smells and is advocacy so I reverted it. How many times do we have to go over the same issues. Please cease using this website to promote your agenda.--MONGO 21:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I now see ViperFace has created articles that are purely promotional and have almost no refs to demonstrate notability. One at least is already listed at Afd.--MONGO 21:53, 16 April 2015 (UTCUTC)
 * LOL! You actually went to cry for your friend to revert this. :DD Yes, my edit history is out there and open. My position on this matter is also pretty clear. Still the question remains: What is the problem with the edit under dispute? How come the fact that supreme courst are striking down the law advocacy. Are the Justices also advocates? Take this to A/NI now or I'll do it for you. Like the last time, you'll lack the courage. ViperFace (talk) 22:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ViperFace...I solicited no one to assist me. Feel free to report whatever you wish.--MONGO 01:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly what parts of the edit you find problematic? Do you really think that none of the informaation is relevant? Please, offer me re-worded version to make it non-advocacy. ViperFace (talk) 11:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The unworded is better than anything that could be reworded, SCOTUS striking the 5th's decision ends it and everything else appears to be your wishful thinking.  States can't opt out due to the supremacy clause.  Unless something relevant happens, your edit was a rambling,fringe view.  --DHeyward (talk) 08:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not correct and it's not wishful thinking: AWA is merely set of requirements states have to put on their own legislation, unless they are willing to lose some federal grants. It's up to the states to decide if they want to legislate the requirements into their own statutes and be in compliance with it (only 17 states are). Nevada is considering of doing precisely what you say they can't do. If it wasn't like this, state courts would lack the jurisdiction to rule on constitutionality and wouldn't even hear those cases. The supreme court rulings in Ohio and Pennsylvania mean that state officials have stopped enforcing certain requirements of AWA, which of course means that these states are no more in full compliance and might lose the federal grants. What comes to the relevance, do the math. The example in "Effects"- section comes from Ohio, ex post facto- ruling in Ohio changed it back to the pre-awa state. The five fold increase was reverted. It's not fringe view as it's not even a view. It is a fact about decisions of two state supreme courts. The edit under dispute could be easily reworded to say: AWA has been upheld on federal level, but in Ohio and Pennsylvania some requirements of AWA were ruled unconstitutional, if the underlying rationale for these challenges must be kept out. The quote from the justice was unnecessary and POVish, I give you that. ViperFace (talk) 20:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the states loss funding but no state supreme court has primacy over the federal Supreme Court and the AWA is a federal bill that was passed.--MONGO 22:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know that, but AWA would be only a piece of paper if states didn't amend their own statutes and enforce it accordingly. What will happen to Ohio and Pennsylvania? Because of supreme court rulings, State officials can't enforce certain statutes that are required to be enforced in order to be in compliance with the federal AWA. Will they lose funding or what? It would seem unfair as both states tried to fully comply, but their own supreme courts said that they can't do that. So feds require them to comply, but they can't due to their own courts, so the feds are punishing them?? Or are state officials also required to enforce the federal law? I understand that they are not as Colorado legalized cannabis, but it's still illegal under federal law. State-federal duality is weird concept to me as we have just one law in the country ViperFace (talk) 00:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I mean I get it when its a criminal matter. Conviction can be challenged all the way up to the state supreme court and after that all the way to Federal Supreme Court if they are willing to hear the case, but this is clearly question of administrative law. I guess the FBI could take over state registries and enforce the parts the state courts strike down, but the states would still be non-compliant. What happens when state and federal law conflict in administrative questions?? ViperFace (talk) 00:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * BTW here is article from The Daily beast . If for no other reasons, please read it for "know your enemy" reasons. It describes exactly what I think. You may want to skip to the third part if you don't want to read the "emphatic" intro. Don't know if it has any impact on you (something tells me you are a die hard republican(??) and FOX news get part of the blame in the article), but to see why I think US laws are blown out of proportion and to me resemble something that happened here in the old continent in 1930's. The scapegoats for politicians just happened to be the Jews. And the American public is not even aware of this. I'm not advocating for dangerous deviants, they are the one's the laws should be aimed at. ViperFace (talk) 02:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned before, most laws may have an unnecessary negative impact on a small minority. How this law could be compared to Hitler's and the Nazi Party's dehumanization and extermination of Jews and those they deemed undesirable is bewildering.--MONGO 04:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The "small minority" is not small at all, this is highlighted in the Human Rights Watch report. Large proportion of offenses are on the lower end of the seriousness scale. Eg. 21-15 year old relationship, which I don't condone. It would be crime here (not in all European countries though). Another, large portion are people who committed their crime as juveniles. Restrictions that force people to live under bridges, no matter what they did or when, and the persecution these people and their families face in their communities even decades after paying their dept to society, makes it easy to make a comparison to Nuremberg Laws of 1935 excluding Jews from civil society into Jewish ghettos. The extermination will hopefully never happen. If these measures were applied to child molesters and rapist exclusively, I personally wouldn't care too much. However, every time a new bill "cracking down on sex offenders" is introduced, it's marketed to be for the "worst of the worst" (just like AWA was), yet every time it applies across the board. If the "worst of the worst" were incarcerated for decades as they should, there would be no one to "crack on", no brownie points to be collected. Sex offenders are easy target for politicians as they all are depicted as child molesting monsters, just like Jews were at the time. It's a political suicide to attempt to fix this because of Fox News and their "soft on crime" rhetoric, that's why only few have tried. Crime is a crime, but the consequences must be proportional and honor the basic principles of human rights. Can you see where I'm coming from with the comparison? Where AWA becomes part of the problem is the juvenile statute, retroactivity and that it gives no room for judges to differentiate between myriad of ways of violating a certain statute. These are the core faults the supreme courts have struck down and the academic RS is pointing at. ViperFace (talk) 13:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I cannot see where you're coming from...not at all. The bill was passed unanimously by voice vote and signed into law in 2006. With minor amendments the bill was reaffirmed in 2012 and is not up for further amendments until 2017.--MONGO 13:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * OK? Nothing even remotely similar? I fail to see the relevance of mentioning unanimous voice vote, especially when I and the article above addressed the political suicide aspect of trying to reason on a subject that is emotionally charged. ViperFace (talk) 13:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Lets agree to disagree. Our opinions bare no value on what goes on main page. The original question still remains: What happens to Ohio & Pennsylvania when their courts refuse to uphold essential parts of AWA and why the rulings are not relevant info for the readers? ViperFace (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing happens until it actually happens. If you think there is an article for the Pennsylvania or Ohio rulings on their specific implementation of AWA, then it would belong there. But, if completely struck down as you suggest, the would put them in the same boat as the 33 states which have failed to implement.  Basically, nothing - except the loss of federal monies. ScrapIronIV (talk) 16:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's agree that comparing this law to laws enacted to disenfranchise and ultimately murder six million people is so ridiculous that further communication from you on this matter is a waste of time.--MONGO 18:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@ScrapIronIV: Ohio:| here and | here. Pennsylvania: | here and Maryland: | here. I never suggested their registries to be completely struck down, only certain essential parts, retroactive application and life time juvenile registration, which both are mandated by AWA, making the states at least not fully AWA compliant. All of this was right there in the edit that was chosen to be reverted instead of going by the book per WP:NPOV. To my knoweledge, I have yet to make unsourced claims on articles. POVish they might occasionally be, but not unsourced.

@MONGO:I wasn't talking about this law specifically. Neither was I suggesting there would be mass murdering of people. I'm merely pointing out that ostracizing people to a such extent that single place to legally live is under a one bridge in the whole city, and this being done with broad acceptance by the general public, resembles the exclusion of Jews from the civil society, and the social mindset required to allow such exclusion. No civilized country treats its people like that, no matter what they have done. If you wish to keep them away, put them in prison. Should not be a problem for a nation that already holds 25% of worlds prisoners while having only 5% of world population. ViperFace (talk) 20:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * So ScrapIronIV, I understand that you think this information should be included(?) I'd like to hear your and others opinion on this heavily condensed draft below. If there's any problems with proposed edit I'd like to hear them.

''Some provisions of the Adam Walsh Act have been challenged on constitutional grounds. In federal level, courts have upheld the law as a regulatory measure, rather than as a punitive law which can not be applied retroactively. In 2014 Fifth Circuit declared the act unconstitutional in certain cases but the decision was later reversed by U.S. Supreme Court. Contrary to federal court rulings, some state supreme courts have ruled certain AWA requirements to be in violation of their state constitution. In 2011, Supreme Court of Ohio found the Ohio version of Adam Walsh Act to be punitive in nature, barring law's application to those whose crime predate the law's enactment. Maryland Court of Appeals made similar decision in 2014. ''

''In 2012 Ohio Supreme Court ruled lifetime registration for juveniles to be cruel and unusual punishment and in 2014 Supreme Court of Pennsylvania found lifetime registration requirement violating juveniles right to due process. ''

I'll let this sink in for few days and move it on the article, unless content dispute arises. ViperFace (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks like POV pushing to me.--MONGO 23:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you elaborate a little? ViperFace (talk) 00:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As you are avoiding clarity, which seems to be your chosen tactics on these disputes, we are once again in standstill in a situation where there are no paths available for consensus building, since no one else seems to be too interested anymore. I'll post Rfc to find if I really have such a severe bias that it prevents me of seeing some problems of the proposed edit above that are visible and obvious to everyone else but me.ViperFace (talk) 09:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

For Rfc readers: The above post was directed at user MONGO and the edit under dispute is this:

I would greatly appreciate, if uninvolved editors could look into this and tell if there is some other reason than WP:IDONTLIKEIT to continue excluding these information. ViperFace (talk) 11:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Pretty much fed up with ViperFace, a single purpose POV pusher, misusing this website to advocate on behalf of pedophilia. I'm going to start a move for a topic ban on this "editor".--MONGO 12:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I would support you in this, ScrapIronIV (talk) 13:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I respect any decision that is made by uninvolved admins, it's the communitys will. If I'm to be topic banned at least put the latest draft on the article as it is relevant information and no one seems to find any policy based reasons to exclude it. The edit wouldn't be a problem if someone else had written it. What comes to your accusations, I have pretty clearly stated who are the people affected by the law that I'm conserned with. You have also aknoweledged that just few posts above. Stop poisoning the well. To you this has not been for long time about trying to find consensus and improving the article, it's about winning a fight for sake of winning. There is plenty of RS on this very page showing the obvious false parity state of the article to any objective reader, yet I and James abandoned idea of including criticism section. Any in depth review by uninvolved editors on what has been going on this talk page is warmly welcomed from my part. ViperFace (talk) 14:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary break in long thread

 * [aka. 'A fresh start']


 * Statement: Regardless of how much back-n-forth mudslinging, name calling, and POV-pushing (mutual or otherwise) that has preceded, the specific "edit under dispute" appears, to me, to be neutrally phrased and the citations—after an admittedly brief glance—look reasonable. To me at least, it seems to come off as a sparse statement of facts about some legislation rather than any sort of specific criticism or endorsement. The grammar felt a bit rough in spots, perhaps English was not the author's native language. I've taken the liberty of touching up the phrasing a bit as follows:


 * There's obviously a shit-ton of bad-blood and mistrust floating around the preceding discussions on this page and indications that some of it carries over from other articles and previous disputes. Putting such aside for a moment, presuming the statements are actually supported by the—apparently reputable—sources, what reason is there to bar their inclusion? I imagine that for some—at this point—it may feel like a concession in a blood-feud to allow any content whatsoever from the initially authoring editor. Setting aside such 'rah-rah go team' 'holy crusade' 'kill-the-infidel' stuff, how do the statements themselves fall short of inclusion? The stated details appear to have been relevant to the cited sources. Other than feelings/opinions/history surrounding the editor who initially put them forth what specifically are the objections. Is there a concern that these details may dilute the overall stance of the article? Are the sources disputed?


 * That a piece of legislation has been called into question in both federal and state courts (not some random blogs, but in high level court cases) seems like something that may well be of interest to readers of an article about said legislation. Let's look at the proposed text again in a more generic form:


 * If this was a proposed entry for an article about legislation covering most anything other than sex offenders would its inclusion be under question? If so, why? --Kevjonesin (talk) 13:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Replies

 * (to Kevjonesin's statement/inquiries above)


 * Comment ( summoned by LegoBot ) - This is a very poorly formed RfC, and there is a lot of cruft beneath it so I'm not sure where I should be inserting my reply. If another editor sees fit to move this comment wholesale to a more appropriate location in the thread, I will assume it is done in good faith. Using RfC to request opinions in a conduct dispute is an abuse of process, so I am ignoring the mudslinging, and also because of (your choice) WP:TLDR or I just don't give a shit. Regarding the content question embedded in this, I agree 100% with . No reason has been offered for this information's exclusion other than a vague allegation of POV pushing. Ivanvector (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * [Preceding comment by moved into #Replies (from just above) by Kevjonesin 01:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)]


 * Opposed. And there is no vague allegation...it is POV pushing. What state court systems do is immaterial as this is a federal law and it is therefore the law of the land. What individual states object or fail to comply then they simply forfeit various funding. The only reason the law was passed was so various standards already adopted by most states would be implemented nationally.--MONGO 03:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: I wasn't really envisioning this #Replies subsection as a vehicle for some sort of '!vote', but rather as a place for folks to comment on and discuss my preceding statements and inquiries—preferably with emphasis on the inquires. For instance:
 * "'That a piece of legislation has been called into question in both federal and state courts (not some random blogs, but in high level court cases) seems like something that may well be of interest to readers of an article about said legislation. ... If this was a proposed entry for an article about legislation covering most anything other than sex offenders would its inclusion be under question? If so, why?'"
 * To which I'll add,
 * "'If it is felt that this is something of the sort which would generally be acceptable in similar articles, are there specific justifications to make an exception in this instance regarding the AWA article? If so what/why?'"
 * --Kevjonesin (talk) 10:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Response: Mongo in his preceding comment states "What state court systems do is immaterial as this is a federal law and it is therefore the law of the land.". Presuming that by "immaterial" he means immaterial/irrelevant to this (AWA) article I'm inclined to differ. By the same rational the various discussions of state responses in the Fugitive slave laws article would be 'immaterial' to that article. And I think there would be few, if any, who would argue that. And, yes, I'm aware of WP:OTHER. I put the Fugitive slave laws example forth not as a decisive point of 'WikiLaw' but as a point of consideration as to whether the proposed passage might add informative value for readers of the article. I personally think it would, as I as a reader appreciate details which help put information into context. --Kevjonesin (talk) 10:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As to POV, the passage, in the given format,


 * ... appears to make note of a series of facts related to how an act of law has been put into practice. I don't see that it makes any sort of overt attempt to tell the reader what to infer from said facts. Hence I fail to see how it can be taken as pushing any particular point-of-view upon the reader. --Kevjonesin (talk) 18:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Opposed Just more POV pushing. Implying that states can "opt out" ignores the penalties for not complying.  It also ignores things like the fact that Maryland is in compliance with the Act despite the above statement about a Maryland court ruling.  Those are just examples of the problems with this negative POV opinion of the law that has already passed SCOTUS tests for constitutionality and implemented.  There is nothing wrong with making sex offenders register and reporting that information to the federal government.  --DHeyward (talk) 06:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * " There is nothing wrong with making sex offenders register and reporting that information to the federal government." In Ohio, Pennsylvania and Maryland there is when applied ex post facto and/or to juveniles. That's exactly what the supreme courts ruled. ViperFace (talk) 11:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Then that aspect of it is way overweight. Maryland substantially complies with the act according to the DoJ so whatever minor thing they don't do, it's not substantial.  --DHeyward (talk) 03:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's cut some weight then:

Now available as 2/5 lighter version. Any better?ViperFace (talk) 10:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Statement There's nothing wrong with this information's inclusion. The moment facts stop being relevant is the day WP fails.  The paragraph, to me, is relevant and is in a neutral point of view.  Alternatively, I could argue that removal could be served to push one side.  We are still a nation of states and while generally the federal laws supercede state laws it is not always the case. Lucutious (talk) 12:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I re-read this cluster and I absolutely disagree with DHayward. Someone doesn't need to "imply that states can opt out."  They [i]can[/i], so instead of implying he can state it outright.  If we look at Larceny there's no disclaimer that you might have consequences if commit that offense.  I'm sure I can find many other statues that apply to both the personal and corporate sector where no "penalty" is mentioned.  It seems to me instead of restricting what information can be put on the page it would be better for you to allow the change.  If you don't like that it doesn't mention penalties then you can go and add something to that effect.Lucutious (talk) 22:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Enough time has passed for opponents of this edit to reply the questions and comments presented by objective uninvolved editors. Due to total lack of such replies, I consider this matter resolved and add the shorter version to the mainpage ViperFace (talk) 18:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ...and instantly reverted by page owner MONGO with no explanation or addressing the questions presented above, totally against Neutral_point_of_view. If someone else is willing to re-instate the edit, please do. I have a hunch that it might actually stand if someone else does this. ViperFace (talk) 21:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: I have added Template:Systemic_bias on the article because of persistent removal of relevant content without policy based reasons, and refusal of certain editors to discuss the matter even though multiple uninvolved editors have supported inclusion of this edit ViperFace (talk) 22:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Its been removed. This website does not exist for the purpose of your advocacy. Your entire editing history has been geared along a single effort, and that is advocacy and makes you nothing more than a single purpose account.--MONGO 06:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Remainder: Discuss edits, not editors You have yet to reply to Lucutious and Kevjonesin. Why is that? Removing the template seems an attempt to keep eyes of the community out of this talk page. Threatening an editor with a topic ban when he post RfC seems to serve to discourage an editor from soliciting outside views. I wonder why good faith editor would want to minimize community involvement. ViperFace (talk) 12:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no such thing as a "page owner." This unfortunately seems to be an issue that an administrator will need to handle.  Good Luck.Lucutious (talk) 15:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not about page ownership. The trouble with the new information being added to the article is that it does not actually deal with the AWA. The "constitutional challenges" have been challenges to state laws, not to the AWA. The editors compiling this information are not addressing that issue. States pass their own laws to meet the standards imposed by the Act, but the Act itself (the subject of the article) is an entirely separate issue. Every state that has implemented (only 17 so far) has its own legislation, and its own wording, its own separate implementation - and some of those interpretations are being challenged at the state level. This is a rabbit trail that is being followed, and does not belong in this article.  Scr ★ pIron IV 17:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * With that explanation, assuming it is factually correct, I now see why exclusion is likely the proper path. Lucutious (talk) 17:52, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps the information would simply be more apt under a different heading. Such as "State implementation" or some such. It still seems like relevant information which would be useful/informative to readers seeking knowledge from this AWA article. --Kevjonesin (talk) 06:12, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I would agree with this implementation as well. Lucutious (talk) 12:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This misinformation is not going in the article. Viper Face has tried every angle to POV push this crap in one form or another. At the top of the page is where he originally started, a complete rewrite that was a POV laden cesspool. All this is is an attempt to gain a foothold and its not going to happen.--MONGO 13:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Mongo, you aren't necessarily looking very neutral either. It may be wise for you to take a breather from the article.  You don't WP:OWN the article and it really is starting to sound like you have an issue with Viper more than you have an issue with the content. Lucutious (talk) 18:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I would strongly disagree, but would think it may be appropriate for a different article. Bear in mind the complexity of American law, and these are not challenges to the subject of the article.  They are only tangentially linked.  To cite the AWA as the source of the legal challenges is a dubious claim at best.  We are not even talking about the US Supreme court in these cases; rather it is state supreme courts dealing with state constitutions. The only real connection is that the states are trying to meet the guidelines of the AWA, but the challenges are not to the AWA itself. Red herrings and rabbit trails, in order to paint the Act as deeply flawed.  Scr ★ pIron IV 13:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ScrapIron, I respectfully disagree. I certainly don't think anyone is saying that the AWA is the source of any legal challenge but the laws that are the source are/were written due the AWA.  This is why I believe, in s separate section, they would be appropriately mentioned.  This doesn't have to be a fourteen paragraph disseration on why the AWA is the root of all evil, moreso just a brief mention that there have been challenges in some states implementations.  To be fair, that paragraph should also briefly talk about the states where there haven't been challenges. Assuming a different article was created to talk about various states implementation of the AWA do you think it should be linked to from this page? Lucutious (talk) 18:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Like someone with 20 total edits who sets up the AFT just to go troll articles like this is to be taken seriously? What was your last account? Was it a site banned account? --MONGO 19:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what an AFT is, but your accusation that I "troll articles" or that I have other accounts is absolutely incorrect and well beyond where this should be going. The fact is I responsed to a RFC, as you can see from my talk page, the ping is still there.  I used to do a lot of work on wikia, and even more work on a private wiki long before that.  I've always been a fan of the format and now that I have a little time I've decided to pop in and give my 2 cents worth when it is requested.  It appears that I disagree with you, and that is your sole reason for attacking me personally.  If you'd like to continue on this path please bring it to my talk page, I'd prefer to keep this on topic.  Thank you. Lucutious (talk) 19:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I would have no issues with a separate page - per state - dealing with legal challenges, nor would I have an issue with a (very) short section which would include a link to a list of such pages. The trouble starts to come when the data between states is being compiled; what is happening in one state has very little (or nothing at all) to do with any other.  This separation would need to be maintained - even when it may appear that issues in two states may be linked, they may have been challenged in the courts for different reasons.  Such compilation - when it comes to law and comparison of cases - amounts to original research and needs to be avoided. Those organizations which try to make such comparisons are often partisan, and cease to be reliable sources. Long story short, it is very difficult to maintain neutrality under these circumstances. Also, we are not a news organization; cases which are still being argued in the court system give undue weight to the "controversy" claimed by those who wish to add it.   Scr ★ pIron IV 19:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I see your side, ScrapIron, and I can why you are likely right. I believe this gives Viper or Kevjonesin or whomever guidance to get this information in wikipedia, should they choose to do so. Thanks for the discussion. Lucutious (talk) 12:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is enough content for separate pages for every state. The courts have merely ruled on retroactivity and automatic juvenile registration statutes which are both mandated by AWA. What more could be said in those separate pages? IMO it is highly relevant to this article when significant parts of AWA fail to survive under state constitutions. When they fail, they won't be enforced, they are gone in those states. If similar rulings start to pour in, then separate article for state court rulings could be put up. Currently there's only handfull of these rulings and the small section as proposed is not taking too much of the article space. Putting that aside, what bothers me the most is that any "controversy" is categorically rejected for whatever reason, be it court rulings, civil liberty groups or obvious academic consensus. That's why I added the systematic bias tag.
 * Note!:There used to be a criticism section covering some of this. Tagged as unsourced, it stood there for two years and it didn't seem to be a problem to anyone. Initially, Herostratus rolled the article back after Noterie changed the entire tone of the lede and I made admittedly very POVish edits to the criticism section. After this Mongo scrubbed large part of the original criticism section as unsourced  and blocked me adding the same info that was there and some more (with sources, of course). Finally, after the first Great Edit War DHeyward threw out the whole section. To sum it up: what has been lost since the previous stable version is the "controversy" that used to be there and should be there, but now reinstating it in any form is blocked. I suggest we put criticism section as it was in |the previous stable version by MONGO back there and start out again afresh. Sources can be easily found for most of it. We make small improvements step by step and discuss about them here. First thing to do would be deleting the parts that clearly do not relate to this particular law (the rant about Texas), I'll provide the sources to the rest of it. The section could be named as "Reception" and views of the proponents should be put there as well. ViperFace (talk) 14:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

The AWA is federal; the challenges are lower court challenges to state law and do not affect the federal act. This article is about the federal act. One can not put the cart before the horse. True, some courts have decided that the laws in their individual states have been written in a way that may violate that state's constitution. So, those state laws may need to be rewritten. But it is up to those individual states to deal with their own legislation. There is no impact to the AWA. Each state comprises only 2% of the nation; if you do the math, it becomes a seriously fringe issue. To use your word, "merely" two segments of a significant piece of federal legislation have been rejected by individual state courts, and are subject to review. Actually - that is not exactly right - those states' implementation of those segments have been have been ruled against by those courts. Again, the AWA (the subject of this article) is unaffected by it.

"If similar rulings start to pour in" - please don't try to use that as part of this debate. First, read WP:CRYSTAL, and then read WP:OR. There is no room for such synthesis in this discussion. There is so little actual controversy over this legislation that such a section becomes a moot point. Many laws get challenged in the courts. A court challenge does not make a contoversy. It is a normal part of the Americal legal process.  Scr ★ pIron IV 15:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

We also used to think the world was flat. What used to be is irrelevant. From the way it has been explained there's only a very loose relationship between the AWA and the information you want included. I applaud your efforts and encourage you to go write the appropriate articles detailing the issues with various states implementations of this law. Once those article(s) are written I think it would warrant a very brief mention from this page. (Something in form of "Some states have had challenges with AWA implemetation. See LINK") Good luck. Lucutious (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * @ScrapIronIV Well, it was very uncertain "if" and it probably will not happen any where soon. Anyway, recent trend in court rulings has been scaling these laws downwards, not all of them are related to AWA, of course. Now that I think of it, your proposal of section linking to different court rulings might be the best way of including this information. Do you mean something like this?:

Federal
Doe I v. United States Doe II v. United States

Ohio
Doe v. State of Ohio

Pennsylvania
Doe v. doe v Pennsylvania etc...

If you know how to prevent these example sections from appearing in content box, please feel free to edit this post. ViperFace (talk) 15:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Another Two Cents' Worth
I've been trying to avoid contentious debates, but feel compelled to add my own two cents' worth to this discussion.

I saw a reference to the AWA on another page and clicked the link to find out what it was about. After reading the mainpage article, I clicked on talk expecting to find a little more discussion. Instead I ran into the huge train-wreck that is documented above. Several hours later, after reading all of the stuff above, including many of the off-wiki links, here is my opinion: 1) Upon reading the article, I would have assumed that I understood basically what the AWA is and what it does. The disputed material would have made a huge difference in that understanding, however.  If a law is supposed to do something, one expects that that is what it does.  If it doesn't do what it was supposed to do, one would expect someone -- anyone really -- to speak up about it, and perhaps to try to get it fixed.  2) The act's statement of purpose makes it pretty clear that the AWA is intended to "protect children" from various dangers. 3) It appears that quite a large number of experts in the field have spoken up because the AWA apparently attempts to force some states to take a step backward from a more-effective registration scheme to a less-effective one. 4)In other words, the AWA may actually do the opposite of what its stated purpose is. Ipso facto, that information is relevant and should be included, in a neutral tone, of course.  Etamni &#124;  &#9993;  13:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

For those interested.
I thought some folks might be interest in this NYTimes OpEd piece out today. The information discussed in it is relevant to this and other pages. — James Cantor (talk) 12:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

copyright issue or open-source
This diff is largely copy and pasted from a Criminal Justice Policy Review article. Contributor user:37.219.88.39, is this open-source? With US Govt related issues, it's hard to tell. If not, this entire section needs to be deleted and as is a blatant copyvio.--Lucas559 (talk) 18:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC) (Please ping me if someone can confirm this content is okay.)
 * It is copyvio, and should be removed.  Scr ★ pIron IV 19:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080720151547/http://sexcrimes.typepad.com/sex_crimes/adam-walsh-act.html to http://sexcrimes.typepad.com/sex_crimes/adam-walsh-act.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:29, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Recent, 2017-09-12, New York Times editorial
Here's a link to a NYT op-ed piece, When Junk Science About Sex Offenders Infects the Supreme Court:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/12/opinion/when-junk-science-about-sex-offenders-infects-the-supreme-court.html

--196.251.88.15 (talk) 03:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC)